PDA

View Full Version : AoS should never have attempted to incorporate the existing models?



NatBrannigan
14-07-2015, 10:43
Morning all,

I've played AoS myself with my old Lizardmen, talked to people face to face and on here and read various threads and it's pretty clear that AoS just isn't compatiable with the old models. I won't go into detail here because it's well covered everywhere else. If you use old models (and i think most people would try this game first with old models and free rules before spending money on it) the game is pretty poor.

If you play with the models out the starter set though... it's actually not a bad game. No where near the tactical depth of other wargames but i'm not comparing it to another game here. I tried a game in the shop and had fun.

Anyone else had this experiance? And if this is the case wouldn't it have made more sense to just continue 8th (unsupported, let the stock dwindle down until it's gone etc) and start AoS from scratch with just the new models? The rage'o'meter (patent peding) would be at about the same levels as now but GW would have a game that people might actually enjoy the first time they played it.

Sephillion
14-07-2015, 14:49
I think they should have made a good game to begin with.

If they really think AoS is a game worth our time, they could have continued WHFB, even if it meant even less support, I think the uproar would have been lesser.

But since they decided to stop supporting WHFB, I think giving the warscrolls was good idea badly executed.

Pacman
14-07-2015, 14:56
Tbh they probably have ceased production on any miniatures that they know are going to be discontinued already. Their production and planning people will be working months in advance of what's announced publicly.

MiyamatoMusashi
14-07-2015, 15:09
Isn't the problem not what models you use, but whether you use a balance mechanism?

You're suggesting that using the contents of the boxed set provides a satisfactory game*. Let's assume that that's true - but isn't it because the Sigmarines and Khorne guys from the box are similarly powerful?

To put it another way - take the Sigmarines out of five boxed sets, and put them against the Khorne guys from one boxed set. Still think it will provide a satisfactory game? Still think the problems only arise with the old models?

The fundamental concern is that balanced games make for satisfying games*, and the contents of the boxed set appear to be more or less balanced, roughly speaking. If AoS had some way of making sure both sides were roughly balanced - let's say, just picking an idea out of the air, a points system - then the old models could be used in games that are just as satisfying*.

There is no such mechanism. That's not a fault with the old models - it's a fault of the game. As and when new models are introduced, if there is no other way of deciding how many to use and against what, they'll suffer the same problem.

* The game has other problems IMO, but I've limited this post to discussing only your proposal, not any other problems that may or may not arise once you've arranged a balanced game.

NatBrannigan
14-07-2015, 15:18
Making the decision to just end 8th edition even more strange... Why not just let people buy up the old models to play their old game until all the stock is gone? Dosen't cost anything for GW, keeps people sweet until the game disappears and anyone that fancies trying AoS will try it with the models the game was designed for, not models that make the game seem (even) worse than it is.

Agreed that GW needed to do something major with fantasy, suprised it was such a massive change and utter baffaled at how they've gone about it.

NatBrannigan
14-07-2015, 15:23
Isn't the problem not what models you use, but whether you use a balance mechanism?

You're suggesting that using the contents of the boxed set provides a satisfactory game*. Let's assume that that's true - but isn't it because the Sigmarines and Khorne guys from the box are similarly powerful?

To put it another way - take the Sigmarines out of five boxed sets, and put them against the Khorne guys from one boxed set. Still think it will provide a satisfactory game? Still think the problems only arise with the old models?

The fundamental concern is that balanced games make for satisfying games*, and the contents of the boxed set appear to be more or less balanced, roughly speaking. If AoS had some way of making sure both sides were roughly balanced - let's say, just picking an idea out of the air, a points system - then the old models could be used in games that are just as satisfying*.

There is no such mechanism. That's not a fault with the old models - it's a fault of the game. As and when new models are introduced, if there is no other way of deciding how many to use and against what, they'll suffer the same problem.

* The game has other problems IMO, but I've limited this post to discussing only your proposal, not any other problems that may or may not arise once you've arranged a balanced game.

Myamoto, agreed, with everything you say. The starter set does make for a balanced game bt how fun will it be the second time with the same models? Or the fifth? Chess has survived for thousands of years using the same pieces, AoS will not.

I'm really just wondering why GW have released AoS in the way they have... Bored trying to find positives with the game really, but don't just want to moan about how I don't like it. I'm also kind of hoping someone will write a post that reveals the perfection of the game and makes me wonder how I could have been so blind to it's obvious brilliance :)

Kingrick
14-07-2015, 15:32
Myamoto, agreed, with everything you say. The starter set does make for a balanced game bt how fun will it be the second time with the same models? Or the fifth? Chess has survived for thousands of years using the same pieces, AoS will not.

I'm really just wondering why GW have released AoS in the way they have... Bored trying to find positives with the game really, but don't just want to moan about how I don't like it. I'm also kind of hoping someone will write a post that reveals the perfection of the game and makes me wonder how I could have been so blind to it's obvious brilliance :)

not to burst your bubble......


anyone else think AoS may have gift wrapped mass fantasy wargaming to KoW? It almost looks like what AoS should have been. A more simple game, but has a lot more depth than AoS. Not sure why people consider AoS over KoW TBH.

Attilla
14-07-2015, 15:35
I can understand how the new rules are great to use with special scenarios and campaigns, where GW literally tells you what to use. But for free play, no way :)

Kingrick
14-07-2015, 15:35
Myamoto, agreed, with everything you say. The starter set does make for a balanced game bt how fun will it be the second time with the same models? Or the fifth? Chess has survived for thousands of years using the same pieces, AoS will not.

I'm really just wondering why GW have released AoS in the way they have... Bored trying to find positives with the game really, but don't just want to moan about how I don't like it. I'm also kind of hoping someone will write a post that reveals the perfection of the game and makes me wonder how I could have been so blind to it's obvious brilliance :)

not to burst your bubble......


anyone else think AoS may have gift wrapped mass fantasy wargaming to KoW? It almost looks like what AoS should have been. A more simple game, but has a lot more depth than AoS. Not sure why people consider AoS over KoW TBH.

NatBrannigan
14-07-2015, 15:41
not to burst your bubble......


anyone else think AoS may have gift wrapped mass fantasy wargaming to KoW? It almost looks like what AoS should have been. A more simple game, but has a lot more depth than AoS. Not sure why people consider AoS over KoW TBH.

I... may... have recently brought a certain hardback rulebook for version two of a mass battle game. You're spot on. Anyone who wants a mass battle game will be off to KoW and reading through the book it looks great. Not perfect but really good indeed.

Now this actually brings me on to another direction that GW could have gone in. Why not advertise KoW in store as a possible use for their models? They claim to be a model company now who don't really care about making games. So advertise other rule sets. Use KoW's nice accessible rules to sell their fantasy models (which are much better than Mantics at the moment).

ScruffMan
14-07-2015, 15:52
The sad thing is that I really think that GW were trying to do something nice, you know like the old days. Which it was but it's never going to be good enough after such a massive shake up. It would have been nice had they made the old BRB and army books available as PDF's, perhaps hidden away somewhere where n00bs won't see it for all the AoS stuff. That was probably never realistically going to happen though, they want to push this and if anyone doesn't like it, tough, there's the door. I can understand where they are coming from to be honest but it is very harsh.

Wishing
14-07-2015, 16:21
It's an interesting experiment to think what would have happened if GW had released AoS as a side-game without discontinuing WHFB.

The reason why they didn't seems clear enough though: GW don't want to release models for WHFB anymore. They want a new setting where the model ranges have less generic names. AoS exists because it is a way for GW to keep releasing fantasy models without having to release them for the WHFB setting. The AoS models they will be releasing will be the exact same types of models that they would have released for WHFB - unit of fantasy troops, big monsters, etc. Business-wise it makes no sense to have WHFB and AoS overlap, because there is nothing distinguishing them business-wise, other than AoS being more distinct from other fantasy settings, which is a plus.

Denny
14-07-2015, 16:25
Now this actually brings me on to another direction that GW could have gone in. Why not advertise KoW in store as a possible use for their models? They claim to be a model company now who don't really care about making games. So advertise other rule sets. Use KoW's nice accessible rules to sell their fantasy models (which are much better than Mantics at the moment).

Because Mantic sells models. ;)
Plus GW tends to act as though other gaming companies don't exist . . .

T10
14-07-2015, 16:35
Morning all,

I've played AoS myself with my old Lizardmen, talked to people face to face and on here and read various threads and it's pretty clear that AoS just isn't compatiable with the old models. I won't go into detail here because it's well covered everywhere else. If you use old models (and i think most people would try this game first with old models and free rules before spending money on it) the game is pretty poor.

If you play with the models out the starter set though... it's actually not a bad game. No where near the tactical depth of other wargames but i'm not comparing it to another game here. I tried a game in the shop and had fun.

Anyone else had this experiance? And if this is the case wouldn't it have made more sense to just continue 8th (unsupported, let the stock dwindle down until it's gone etc) and start AoS from scratch with just the new models? The rage'o'meter (patent peding) would be at about the same levels as now but GW would have a game that people might actually enjoy the first time they played it.


What is the OP going on about? He claims old models don't work with the game, and actively makes a point of refusing to back that claim up with anything, not even a "in my experience". Instead, this is apparently well documented "everywhere else", you cannot open a jar of marmelade without finding evidence of this... this thing. So he asks "Was it a mistake to do this thing that is so obviously wrong?"

What's the problem, bro? Afraid that you'll buy, assemble and paint a AoS army with the kewl new models, and then your mate shows up with his blockfisted Morley clanrats of yester-year and kill the buzz?

Bloodknight
14-07-2015, 16:36
They want a new setting where the model ranges have less generic names.

For whatever reason. The basic principles behind those dudes are still fantasy tropes and none of the name changes will prevent 3rd parties from making compatible miniatures.

Charistoph
14-07-2015, 16:37
The one problem they would have if they didn't include the Fantasy Battles models is the lack of initial diversity. In other words, the customer would be facing Dreadfleet 2.0. A game with great miniatures and a good internal system, but then what?

No, they had to include the existing models in order to have any momentum with this system. But could they have done better with it? Yes, they could have.

Honestly, I am almost afraid that half the problems with AoS were community-created. On one end, Fantasy Battles was never meant to be taken as seriously as it has been. Heck, it isn't even a competitive game without some major house-ruling going on. Look at how many different Tournament Rule variations exists for WHFB, and even they don't quite get it right. And AoS is GW's way to have a pallet-cleansing before revitalizing the game itself, and allow time for the more toxic competitive players drive themselves out of the market.

But that's just the cynical side of me talking that likes X-Files too much.

Bede19025
14-07-2015, 16:38
Morning all,

I've played AoS myself with my old Lizardmen, talked to people face to face and on here and read various threads and it's pretty clear that AoS just isn't compatiable with the old models. I won't go into detail here because it's well covered everywhere else. If you use old models (and i think most people would try this game first with old models and free rules before spending money on it) the game is pretty poor.

If you play with the models out the starter set though... it's actually not a bad game. No where near the tactical depth of other wargames but i'm not comparing it to another game here. I tried a game in the shop and had fun.

Anyone else had this experiance? And if this is the case wouldn't it have made more sense to just continue 8th (unsupported, let the stock dwindle down until it's gone etc) and start AoS from scratch with just the new models? The rage'o'meter (patent peding) would be at about the same levels as now but GW would have a game that people might actually enjoy the first time they played it.

We played it with Orcs v. Brettonians. It played fine.

What difference does it make whether you play it with old models or using the new ones?

NatBrannigan
14-07-2015, 16:49
What is the OP going on about? He claims old models don't work with the game, and actively makes a point of refusing to back that claim up with anything, not even a "in my experience". Instead, this is apparently well documented "everywhere else", you cannot open a jar of marmelade without finding evidence of this... this thing. So he asks "Was it a mistake to do this thing that is so obviously wrong?"

What's the problem, bro? Afraid that you'll buy, assemble and paint a AoS army with the kewl new models, and then your mate shows up with his blockfisted Morley clanrats of yester-year and kill the buzz?

Sigh... Yes that's exactly my problem. Clanrats... Very well then. Let me make it clear that I don't expect to find AoS models in marmalade. I also don't think they'll spring out at me in a dark alley or that my girlfriend is actually hundreds of AoS models in a woman costume. I suspect there may be one lodged uncomfortably inside your person making you irate?

"makes a point of refusing to back that claim up with anything, not even a "in my experience"". Well apart from when i talk about m experience that has led to me making that claim, which is my opinion? I'll tell ou what though, next time I want to voice an opinion I'll go through all the threads here and get lots of quotes just for you.

I'll reiterate that I tried the game with old models, as have many others (once again making it clear I don't mean everyone in the world, or their various condiments) and it dosen't seem designed with them in mind.

To answer your last question "bro" I don't have a problem, will not be buying an AoS army because I don't like the game or new "Kewl" new models and would rather play 8th or Kings of War against my mates clanrats, the very same clanrats that I clearly indicated in my opening post were causing me sleepless nights!

Mr_Foulscumm
14-07-2015, 16:52
Tbh they probably have ceased production on any miniatures that they know are going to be discontinued already. Their production and planning people will be working months in advance of what's announced publicly.

Wait, they started announcing things publicly? This is great news if it's true! :D :p

Denny
14-07-2015, 16:52
Let me make it clear that I don't expect to find AoS models in marmalade.

. . . Tempted to sig . . .

Kegslayer
14-07-2015, 17:00
We played it with Orcs v. Brettonians. It played fine.

What difference does it make whether you play it with old models or using the new ones?


You know what difference it makes? None, none at all. Infact the game plays very well no matter what models you use. Some people cant look past those four pages of rules that seem to perplex them.

The game has tactics, strategy and is one of those easy to play difficult to master. People are just ******** old fantasy is dead. They are toys get over it and yourself

NatBrannigan
14-07-2015, 17:00
Wait, they started announcing things publicly? This is great news if it's true! :D :p

Good lord no it isn't! Everyone knows the four horseman of the Apocalypse are Death, War, Famine and a GW employee making public announcements!

Mr_Foulscumm
14-07-2015, 17:01
I'll reiterate that I tried the game with old models, as have many others (once again making it clear I don't mean everyone in the world, or their various condiments) and it dosen't seem designed with them in mind.

Well first the obvious thing. No, the game wasn't designed with the old models in mind. Hence the death of WFB and the new esthetics (and lets not forget the internet rage! Grrrrrr! etc)

Secondly, what are you trying to say? Do you mean that they profiles are so poorly written that they don't make for a fun game? Because surely the models themselves won't have an impact on how the game plays. I mean I tried it with bottle caps and salt shakers and it played pretty much as it does with the minis.

Kegslayer
14-07-2015, 17:01
Phone screwing up

Kegslayer
14-07-2015, 17:02
We played it with Orcs v. Brettonians. It played fine.

What difference does it make whether you play it with old models or using the new ones?


You know what difference it makes? None, none at all. Infact the game plays very well no matter what models you use. Some people cant look past those four pages of rules that seem to perplex them.

The game has tactics, strategy and is one of those easy to play difficult to master. People are just ******** old fantasy is dead. They are toys get over it and yourself. Stop clogging up forums on how it supposedly doesn't work when folks are clearly making it work and having fun. Just cos you apparently cant

Mr_Foulscumm
14-07-2015, 17:03
*Deleted double post*

NatBrannigan
14-07-2015, 17:12
Well first the obvious thing. No, the game wasn't designed with the old models in mind. Hence the death of WFB and the new esthetics (and lets not forget the internet rage! Grrrrrr! etc)

Secondly, what are you trying to say? Do you mean that they profiles are so poorly written that they don't make for a fun game? Because surely the models themselves won't have an impact on how the game plays. I mean I tried it with bottle caps and salt shakers and it played pretty much as it does with the minis.

Fair enough, badly worded. It's nothing to do with the actual models of course, I meant the warscrolls. And again this is just my opinion Kegslayer... I think it's not a great game when using the old armies but it's slightly better when using the balanced forces from the starter set. You seem to think it is a good game even when using old armies.

And you know what? That's ok! People can have different opinions. I think it's great you're enjoying the game, i really do.

I seem to have given the impression that i'm angry at the world for taking away my game? Apologies if that's the case. I think I've been pretty neutral (excepting my response to the bizarre marmalade comment...) and am enjoying hearing about people's positive experiences with the game. Maybe i'm just not used to it? Maybe i'm playing it wrong? Enlighten me but don't say i'm bitter about a new game because that's patently not the case!

Mr_Foulscumm
14-07-2015, 17:24
Fair enough, badly worded. It's nothing to do with the actual models of course, I meant the warscrolls. And again this is just my opinion Kegslayer... I think it's not a great game when using the old armies but it's slightly better when using the balanced forces from the starter set. You seem to think it is a good game even when using old armies.

And you know what? That's ok! People can have different opinions. I think it's great you're enjoying the game, i really do.

I seem to have given the impression that i'm angry at the world for taking away my game? Apologies if that's the case. I think I've been pretty neutral (excepting my response to the bizarre marmalade comment...) and am enjoying hearing about people's positive experiences with the game. Maybe i'm just not used to it? Maybe i'm playing it wrong? Enlighten me but don't say i'm bitter about a new game because that's patently not the case!

You don't come across as angry, not what I've read so far anyway.

And well, no, I don't consider AoS my kind of game at all really. I tried it a couple of times and didn't find it a huge difference depending on the Warscrolls I took (Sigmar or Old). But then I haven't tried them all (or have in intention in doing so). Are you sure your experience of WFB hasn't coloured your view of what the models should be, and now they juts don't match that image any more? Just a thought.

Although, some of the Warscrolls seem a iffy.

I was upset for a couple of days about the AoS thing, but now I'm actually fine with it. It's not for me, but who am I to say what others will like? So we're in the same boat I guess! :D

NatBrannigan
14-07-2015, 18:34
Same boat indeed, maybe we should have a game of AoS to pass the time! You might very well be right about still being in the 8th edition mindset while playing. I think my point of view is slightly warped by having only played with the contents of the starter set which will be perfectly balanced against each other. Hardly a fair comparison between that and a fairly random amount of Lizardmen and Deamons.

I'm happy that people are enjoying the game because it means it might be successful and could then evolve, perhaps enough for me to look at it. I'd like a little Skaven army for instance, but don't want to paint 200 rats to start an 8th army. Just getting a bit tired of being shot down by one side or another every time i make an observation or voice an opinion. So much anger on here!

Voss
14-07-2015, 18:39
not to burst your bubble......


anyone else think AoS may have gift wrapped mass fantasy wargaming to KoW? It almost looks like what AoS should have been. A more simple game, but has a lot more depth than AoS. Not sure why people consider AoS over KoW TBH.
Nope. I think they abandoned the design space to anyone who can make a good fantasy mass battles game, and make it available on a large scale.

Horus38
14-07-2015, 18:44
Not sure why people consider AoS over KoW TBH.

Well I don't play KoW because the models are downright *****. If you're referring to the rules system itself I may have to give it a look.

NatBrannigan
14-07-2015, 19:05
The rules are good i think, and they've designed the army lists so your existing armies, especially Warhammer armies, can slot straight in. Free rules online so may as well give it a go :)

The newest Mantic models are ok so they are getting better!

Charistoph
14-07-2015, 19:12
In a way, part of me looks at this the same way I looked at Warcraft 3. The transition was rough for a lot of players to go from Warcraft 2 and Starcraft's huge armies down to a more intimate war party or two of a Hero and his close associates. And I think keeping AoS to that level of scale will help.

Part of the problem currently is that it is a case of downsizing. On one hand, the smaller scale will be easier for those of us who have been intimidated by 8th Edition's Block Parties to put our toes in. On the other hand, those whose armies have point tallies closer to a 3rd World Nation's budget are feeling left out. Their armies are too large to play in this environment comfortably, but they still want to use as much of them as they can.

Ix't
14-07-2015, 19:12
I play Lizardmen. I've been having no trouble playing, OP. Neither have my friends. Actually, this game scales up extremely well. It is incredibly tactical. I played what would have been about a 3.5k point game the other day.

The field was gratifying -- there were actual formations on it rather than a bunch of stupid looking blocks that make no militaristic sense. Wedges, cannaes, flanks, perimeters, melee units walled around shooting units... sweet stuff.

Voss
14-07-2015, 19:24
In a way, part of me looks at this the same way I looked at Warcraft 3. The transition was rough for a lot of players to go from Warcraft 2 and Starcraft's huge armies down to a more intimate war party or two of a Hero and his close associates. And I think keeping AoS to that level of scale will help.

Part of the problem currently is that it is a case of downsizing. On one hand, the smaller scale will be easier for those of us who have been intimidated by 8th Edition's Block Parties to put our toes in. On the other hand, those whose armies have point tallies closer to a 3rd World Nation's budget are feeling left out. Their armies are too large to play in this environment comfortably, but they still want to use as much of them as they can.

I don't find it to be a case of downsizing at all. The rules AND warscrolls actively encourage large piles being pushed about on the battlefield. Its just poor rules, combined with a bizarre and flighty background (written in what is apparently an entirely serious attempt to mimic the worst of high fantasy post tolkien AND 'epic' MMOs) and nothing else. The four page rules emphasize fielding as much as you like and the idea that 'more models = more enjoyable.' The warscrolls devolve into autohitting and a slew of bonus attacks, attack bonuses and/or rerolls with large units. Taking a couple small units is a deliberately poor choice on the part of the player, whereas a 25+ unit of crossbowmen will systematically obliterate threats with 50+ attacks.

Ix't
14-07-2015, 19:31
I don't find it to be a case of downsizing at all. The rules AND warscrolls actively encourage large piles being pushed about on the battlefield. Its just poor rules, combined with a bizarre and flighty background (written in what is apparently an entirely serious attempt to mimic the worst of high fantasy post tolkien AND 'epic' MMOs) and nothing else. The four page rules emphasize fielding as much as you like and the idea that 'more models = more enjoyable.' The warscrolls devolve into autohitting and a slew of bonus attacks, attack bonuses and/or rerolls with large units. Taking a couple small units is a deliberately poor choice on the part of the player, whereas a 25+ unit of crossbowmen will systematically obliterate threats with 50+ attacks.
This hasn't been my experience, and I have been playing for an unhealthy amount of hours. They get shots in, yeah, but I think 'obliterate' is a hefty exaggeration... 50 attacks with 20+ would be 4+, so 25 hits, then 25 4+ wounds is 12.5 wounds, so 12... assuming a decent unit is headed toward them, no rend means probably a 4+ or 5+ save... so 6 or 8 kills. That's not much for 25 models...

then, when they get charged (to get all of those shots, they'll be well within 16") they are probably beyond dead against any dedicated melee unit. I assume you mean Darkshards? Bravery 6 is gonna see a lot of that unit fleeing off the board.

Small units, btw, are wonderful for setting up tarpits.

Charistoph
14-07-2015, 19:36
I don't find it to be a case of downsizing at all. The rules AND warscrolls actively encourage large piles being pushed about on the battlefield. Its just poor rules, combined with a bizarre and flighty background (written in what is apparently an entirely serious attempt to mimic the worst of high fantasy post tolkien AND 'epic' MMOs) and nothing else. The four page rules emphasize fielding as much as you like and the idea that 'more models = more enjoyable.' The warscrolls devolve into autohitting and a slew of bonus attacks, attack bonuses and/or rerolls with large units. Taking a couple small units is a deliberately poor choice on the part of the player, whereas a 25+ unit of crossbowmen will systematically obliterate threats with 50+ attacks.

The Warscrolls do indeed encourage large piles of models. The Base Rules do not. Fantasy Battles allowed for large piles of models and organized them in such a way as to speed up the process, 8th Edition especially. But when everything is practically on a model by model basis when it comes to interactions in AoS, it can bog down pretty quickly. At least, that is one of the complaints from people who have tried to use their old 2250 armies have presented.

The biggest problem with AoS, is that it relies on the players to decide how much "value" a model has instead of handing it to you. How much complaining about how GW has valued a model has there been on this board and others? How much of comp systems is about changing the "value" of an army or at least coordinating it differently than the game developers initially stated? Well, we now have the chance to do it ourselves, and people are still complaining.

Whitesun
14-07-2015, 19:39
In a way, part of me looks at this the same way I looked at Warcraft 3. The transition was rough for a lot of players to go from Warcraft 2 and Starcraft's huge armies down to a more intimate war party or two of a Hero and his close associates. And I think keeping AoS to that level of scale will help.

Part of the problem currently is that it is a case of downsizing. On one hand, the smaller scale will be easier for those of us who have been intimidated by 8th Edition's Block Parties to put our toes in. On the other hand, those whose armies have point tallies closer to a 3rd World Nation's budget are feeling left out. Their armies are too large to play in this environment comfortably, but they still want to use as much of them as they can.

Oh, I'm pretty sure GW have plans to expand the game, and consequently, the army sizes needed to play. This is merely the beach head, keep barriers of entry relatively low for now, but the GW we know and love will show up again sometime down the road.

In addition to setting the IP for the new products, GW essentially wanted to reboot the entire product cycle again, and try to replicate their growth from the mid-80s to early 2000s. Army sizes will increase, as will the budget needed to play AoS.

Kisanis
14-07-2015, 19:44
Lets all be clear, anyone who followed the chapterhouse legal headache knows AoS and the renaming of 40k armies is purely a result of that legal proceeding.

AoS was GW needing to make the game more copyrightable. And the new units to follow will go with that logic.

It was legal first, game second.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

ScruffMan
14-07-2015, 20:13
Lets all be clear, anyone who followed the chapterhouse legal headache knows AoS and the renaming of 40k armies is purely a result of that legal proceeding.

AoS was GW needing to make the game more copyrightable. And the new units to follow will go with that logic.

It was legal first, game second.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk


Surely they could have done that without massively changing the game itself? There must be more to it than that.

SuperHappyTime
14-07-2015, 20:13
Nat,

First off I think GW did the right thing and playtested the hell out of the starter box to get even sides. It isn't like IoB where the High Elves easily outplay the Skaven.

Second, people's trial games have had really ****** bad balancing. I saw a big model army massacre a 1600 point High Elf Army. Shocking, until you realize the eight models were 4400 points. Bring whatever you want doesn't work.

Ironically, balancing based on 8th edition point values gets a fairly balanced game. Heroes are a lot better than before and it pays to bring bigger units.

SuperHappyTime

Shandor
14-07-2015, 22:50
The game has tactics, strategy and is one of those easy to play difficult to master.


Lol. This post made my day. Purest Comedy :) Ill post this on facebook if you dont mind :)

Spiney Norman
14-07-2015, 23:02
not to burst your bubble......


anyone else think AoS may have gift wrapped mass fantasy wargaming to KoW? It almost looks like what AoS should have been. A more simple game, but has a lot more depth than AoS. Not sure why people consider AoS over KoW TBH.

Because with relatively few exceptions (zombies being the only one really), Mantic's models suck balls. Also I have five opponents who have picked up AoS (one of which is my wife), I know literally no-one who plays KoW.

I'd be more inclined to look into Hail caesar if I could get someone to try it with me, I know it's not 'fantasy' but the general look and feel is more like wfb than AoS.

Bloodknight
15-07-2015, 01:10
Because with relatively few exceptions (zombies being the only one really), Mantic's models suck balls.

Not that you'd need to buy them if you already have a fantasy army. I was hoping that people in the fantasy sector would learn from the historical players: play the system, not the minis.


I know literally no-one who plays KoW.

The rules are free, try it out then :).

Commodus Leitdorf
15-07-2015, 01:21
GW was never just going to rip the band-aid off, they never do that. Oh sure you can use Chaos Dwarfs!...Until we won't let you any more...oh sure, yeah Dogs of War you can play those! Until you can't anymore.

GW, by allowing you to use your previous models, is just doing it to try and pick off those few who thing AoS is enjoyable. Which is fine, but lets not kid ourselves this whole "Oh use your old models no problem!" Until about 4 years from now when they have enough new models out and a second edition around and, all of a sudden, "rounds bases! Everything else is illegal" then it's all over and done with.

Honestly, I don't blame GW for making a Hail Mary pass and doing AoS...it's just that I know how this song and dance ends. I played 4th Edition D&D through it's whole run, it ends with them going "oops" and swapping back.

Maybe I'll give it a go, start a Warband as a project to try out with an Army I don't really play all that much. Maybe Demons so, if this fails, I can use them for 40k or something. For now though I have an Empire Army that fits very nicely with Kings of War and a few other armies I can keep playing 8th with.

Voss
15-07-2015, 03:31
Honestly, I don't blame GW for making a Hail Mary pass and doing AoS...it's just that I know how this song and dance ends. I played 4th Edition D&D through it's whole run, it ends with them going "oops" and swapping back.

Problem is, that doesn't work. Even after the 'oops' and abandoning almost every design decision that went into 4e (almost), D&D is now second fiddle (by a big stretch) to the somewhat nutty 3.5 houserules of their former magazine publisher, which offers both massively discounted pdf versions and full free rules online... Luckily for WotC, their Hasbro overlords consider D&D to be a joke project next to the income of Magic the Gathering, and as long as they aren't losing money on the property, they'll be allowed to keep playing in the inconsequential (in terms of dollars) sandbox. Which leads directly into a 5e release schedule that barely exists, while Paizo is still releasing book after book of mostly recycled material that some old D&D designers are still toying with. Next up at the end of the month? Complete Psionics Handbook. Er, I mean 'Occult Adventures,' which is an entirely different thing, I assure you. Yeah, some other stuff is added in and tacked on top, but at the end of the day you've got a 'mind-bending psychic' tossing out 'tower of iron will' just like in the old days.


For GW, this is another Specialist Games moment. Someone gets to fill the void, the way dropzone commander did for epic scale, or how Spartan moved in to the BFG/ManoWar space with firestorm armada & Uncharted seas (until they got kicked over by FFG with X-Wing), and several dozen companies went after the skirmish space, with PP and Malifaux in the lead. Somebody with the production capacity and decent rules has free reign to take over the mass battles space, and GW won't ever get that back. They're spawning direct competitors with abysmally poor decisions and deliberate neglect.

Okuto
15-07-2015, 03:55
What they should of done is spend more time developing the rules......the current rules are grossly vague and require patches that shouldn't have to done in the first place.....

But they had to incorporate the old models....cause there was no way I was going to invest in a brand new untried system

I would of never even lifted a finger to play AoS otherwise

Kingrick
15-07-2015, 04:54
Well I don't play KoW because the models are downright *****. If you're referring to the rules system itself I may have to give it a look.

I did mean rules. If I find people to try it with I will be using my warhammer armies. However, I do like the abysal dwarf models.

Satan
15-07-2015, 06:58
Surely they could have done that without massively changing the game itself? There must be more to it than that.

Yes, there was also an immense amount of stupidity, incompetence, a complete and utterly nonfunctional ability to focus and prioritize corporate resources.

Wesser
15-07-2015, 07:16
For GW, this is another Specialist Games moment. Someone gets to fill the void, the way dropzone commander did for epic scale, or how Spartan moved in to the BFG/ManoWar space with firestorm armada & Uncharted seas (until they got kicked over by FFG with X-Wing), and several dozen companies went after the skirmish space, with PP and Malifaux in the lead. Somebody with the production capacity and decent rules has free reign to take over the mass battles space, and GW won't ever get that back. They're spawning direct competitors with abysmally poor decisions and deliberate neglect.

I agree

I don't think KoW is going to be the ones, but someone will be picking up the slack in about a year.

GW won't die out... but in a few years they won't be "The Company", but just one company in the market

Chilled out Charlie
15-07-2015, 08:31
IMO they shouldn't have bothered with existing models as moving a unit of 20 one by one is simply tedious. It's clearly a game designed for squads of 5 or max 10.

I think it is also the reason for this measuring to/from the model nonsense as they wanted to say using square bases was still cool. Everything should be on rounds for AOS and you measure to/from the base. That doesn't mean to say I think everyone should rebase to play this monstrosity of a game, because I don't, because then you won't be able to play 8th.

I think they tried to please everyone and instead, failed and the result was a set of core "rules" which were even worse than they would have been otherwise.

Just my opinion mind and I'm sure a transition to all round bases will be made in the next edition (so next year?).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Herzlos
15-07-2015, 09:11
Because with relatively few exceptions (zombies being the only one really), Mantic's models suck balls. Also I have five opponents who have picked up AoS (one of which is my wife), I know literally no-one who plays KoW.

I'd be more inclined to look into Hail caesar if I could get someone to try it with me, I know it's not 'fantasy' but the general look and feel is more like wfb than AoS.

They are working on a fantasy version of Hail Caesar, and I expect it to be great because it's based on a good system that's actually designed for beer & pretzels.


Also; you can play Mantic rules without any Mantic figures, just like you can play AoS without any GW figures. KoW is the better game, give it a go. Or Frostgrave (North Star) if you want a small scale fantasy game.

NatBrannigan
15-07-2015, 09:40
IMO they shouldn't have bothered with existing models as moving a unit of 20 one by one is simply tedious. It's clearly a game designed for squads of 5 or max 10.

I think it is also the reason for this measuring to/from the model nonsense as they wanted to say using square bases was still cool. Everything should be on rounds for AOS and you measure to/from the base. That doesn't mean to say I think everyone should rebase to play this monstrosity of a game, because I don't, because then you won't be able to play 8th.

I think they tried to please everyone and instead, failed and the result was a set of core "rules" which were even worse than they would have been otherwise.

Just my opinion mind and I'm sure a transition to all round bases will be made in the next edition (so next year?).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is exactly what i mean when i say they never should have tried to include the old armies. I'm not saying they are ruining AoS by not being Sigmarines, I mean that they tried to please everyone and managed to ruin any chance of AoS being a good game.

Holier Than Thou
15-07-2015, 09:58
Do the new factions get bonuses for being in progressively larger and more difficult to manoeuvre units?

Yamabushi
15-07-2015, 10:34
+1 for Frostgrave - Like Mordheim, but better!

EagleWarrior
15-07-2015, 11:50
I'm inclined to agree. AoS has some merits as a game and miniature line in it's own right but trying to shoehorn Warhammer Fantasy stuff into it doesn't really work. The miniatures have too much culture and detail that just doesn't fit the AoS setting. AoS isn't really a Warhammer reboot, it's a totally new game with a small amount of overlap.

GrandmasterWang
15-07-2015, 14:37
They absolutely needed to include the legacy units so as to not invidate any armies.

I absolutely am glad GW gave us all these free Warscrolls. There is definitely some good stuff in them

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Sephillion
15-07-2015, 15:08
Well, we now have the chance to do it ourselves, and people are still complaining.

Thatís because itís dumb. It has several flaws. Players will not necessarily agree Ė either because they have different perception and different experiences, or because one is downright dishonest. The points system wasnít perfect, because GW did not always gauge models appropriately Ė in fact, sometimes we wonder what they were smoking. Iím sure some people on this site could do a better job than GW, but I wouldnít go so far to say that itís the majority, rather probably a minority. And here weíre talking about the geeks who spend time on forums discussing rules, strategies, army builds, the average player will not necessarily have the same view.

Drawing from my 40K experience Ė some people have been destroyed by Dark Angels, I know some people who thought the Ravewings were OP. Not good, downright OP. Iíve read complaints about units like Possessed or Raptors or Deathwing Termies Ė claiming they were too strong.

And each time weíll play someone new, the process might need to be done again. Iím sure as long as you meet unregarding players, it wonít be a problem. They just want to place models on the table and play. But itís certainly NOT better than giving us an approximate value of the modelís worth.

Voss
15-07-2015, 15:08
GW won't die out... but in a few years they won't be "The Company", but just one company in the market
That's been true for years now. What they're heading for now is being 'those guys that make that one space fantasy game' (that no one plays any more)

NatBrannigan
15-07-2015, 16:03
So this is very off topic but I was due to play a bit of AoS this weekend (persistent, optimistic or masochistic? You decide!) which has now turned into a Triumph and Treachery game.

I’ve never played this before, so what are the basic differences between this and normal 8th? Do I need to keep some points aside to buy Triumph and Treachery points or gold or something similar? Seem to remember that’s a thing?

GrandmasterWang
15-07-2015, 16:16
So this is very off topic but I was due to play a bit of AoS this weekend (persistent, optimistic or masochistic? You decide!) which has now turned into a Triumph and Treachery game.

Iíve never played this before, so what are the basic differences between this and normal 8th? Do I need to keep some points aside to buy Triumph and Treachery points or gold or something similar? Seem to remember thatís a thing?

T & T plays very different from standard 8th.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer is all I will say.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Urgat
15-07-2015, 16:18
Instead of starting another topic, I'm asking my question here:
did anybody do the opposite? Make rules for the sigmarines and the new chaos dudes for 8th ed?

logan054
15-07-2015, 16:24
I think someone is for the sigmarine. The chaos dude don't really need new rules. The marauders just need additional hand weapons. I'm going to use the blood warriors as skullreapers, I'm sure they will work fine as chaos warriors of chosen with MoK and additional hand weapons. The monster could be a count as Scyla or one of the bigger spawn from storm of magic. Hell, I could see that making a pretty cool daemon prince! I'd be tempted to use the chaos lord as Skarr Bloodwrath and get myself a nice little plastic flesh hound. I plan on using the BSB as a skullreaper standard bearer. I might use the banner top on my BSB model :)

NatBrannigan
16-07-2015, 16:14
The new Space Marine codex would seem like a good starting point!? Free Drop Sigmapods perhaps?

This is at least a positive aspect of AoS that everyone can look foward too. There's no doubt in my mind that the new models being released by GW wil be fantastic. Maybe not to everyones taste but technically they'll look exceptional as always (The End Time Khorne stuff a horrible exception...)

Since plenty of people are still playing 8th it'll be nice to see some brand new fantasy models coming out of Nottingham, which could be used for AoS AND old fashioned fantasy. Some (Like the Sigmarines) would need new rules but i'm sure lots like the AoS Khone models will slot nicely into existing 8th army books.

Daniel36
16-07-2015, 16:45
I think it plays fine with our old armies. Better in fact than 8th, but I am a narrative gamer who finds the social contract far more important than playing by the book, and am happy houseruling if it makes for a more interesting game, which seems to be what AoS tries to be.

It's not the rules or the stats that's the issue, but the fact that it is an entirely different game. Much more loose rules, intended for a very relaxed type of game, far removed from tournament style play. You can't expect to play the same style you always did with this.

Voss
16-07-2015, 16:57
It's not the rules or the stats that's the issue, but the fact that it is an entirely different game. Much more loose rules, intended for a very relaxed type of game, far removed from tournament style play. You can't expect to play the same style you always did with this.
I have no idea what you mean with this. I haven't even tried to play tournament style in years, but the 'loose' rules of AoS seem to be a barrier and frustration for the style of game I do play: casual pickup games. The incoherence, inconsistencies (there are 20+ types of shields why?) and absolutely lacking areas of the ruleset seem designed to produce the very opposite of a relaxed game. The rules are precisely the issue, because they're trash.

Daniel36
16-07-2015, 17:53
Well, it ultimately depends on the combination of who your opponents are and your personal preferences.

I guess I was unlucky in the preferences and playstyles of my opponents in 8th not matching mine. They in turn are probably less happy with AoS. I quite like it and have in the meantime got a friend interested in WH who more or less shares my preferences.

AngryAngel
16-07-2015, 18:25
not to burst your bubble......


anyone else think AoS may have gift wrapped mass fantasy wargaming to KoW? It almost looks like what AoS should have been. A more simple game, but has a lot more depth than AoS. Not sure why people consider AoS over KoW TBH.

Simple name recognition that is it. People already have their foot in the door with GW games, even those who have derided the companies direction time and again. fawn and swoon each time a new model drops, rules, system, you name it. AoS is not different, until it gets truly boring, we'll have this debate. It isn't and most likely won't be whfb, ever. I actually think one of the appealing things to me for whfb was the battles looked awesome, all the block formations and movement, charging, looked like a set piece battle of old, rather stirred the heart.

Now, it looks like a wonky mess. Not a huge issues, but visuals are important in a model game. The core mechanics I don't see without any merit however, but for large armies like they will want you to play ? No thank you. When I want giant scrums in the center of the board I'll just play my horde guard list in 40k, whfb used to be something different, have a different feel. If all AoS will be is like a dumber form of 40k, I can't see that keeping peoples attention. I mean even the positive comments of a good deal view it as a complete casual experience and less a competitive game.

Though I digress, name of company is all this is riding on, if another company had done this, it would already have failed.


For whatever reason. The basic principles behind those dudes are still fantasy tropes and none of the name changes will prevent 3rd parties from making compatible miniatures.

True


You know what difference it makes? None, none at all. Infact the game plays very well no matter what models you use. Some people cant look past those four pages of rules that seem to perplex them.

The game has tactics, strategy and is one of those easy to play difficult to master. People are just ******** old fantasy is dead. They are toys get over it and yourself

Yeah, No.


Well I don't play KoW because the models are downright *****. If you're referring to the rules system itself I may have to give it a look.

The system can grow to be worlds better and not all the models are terribad.


Nat,

First off I think GW did the right thing and playtested the hell out of the starter box to get even sides. It isn't like IoB where the High Elves easily outplay the Skaven.

Second, people's trial games have had really ****** bad balancing. I saw a big model army massacre a 1600 point High Elf Army. Shocking, until you realize the eight models were 4400 points. Bring whatever you want doesn't work.

Ironically, balancing based on 8th edition point values gets a fairly balanced game. Heroes are a lot better than before and it pays to bring bigger units.

SuperHappyTime

If only they gave a fig about balance. You know half the issue is their lack of point costs or in fact any kind of balancing factor at all for their own game. They would have taken some flakk for killing off whfb anyways, but the other part with the army selection, was entirely in their hands to fix and even the games supporters agree it needs some mechanism to balance it.


I'm inclined to agree. AoS has some merits as a game and miniature line in it's own right but trying to shoehorn Warhammer Fantasy stuff into it doesn't really work. The miniatures have too much culture and detail that just doesn't fit the AoS setting. AoS isn't really a Warhammer reboot, it's a totally new game with a small amount of overlap.

Which is about the truest thing, with just a couple models ( large ) or some small units I could see the game being enjoyable, I could even see the game work. However large games are what I wanted and for that the system is disorganized grab assery.

GrandmasterWang
17-07-2015, 06:54
Instead of starting another topic, I'm asking my question here:
did anybody do the opposite? Make rules for the sigmarines and the new chaos dudes for 8th ed?

8th/Chillhammer my game of choice and I am working on it while I dabble in AOS.

Sigmarines are an easy fit. Basically an army of Movement 5 Empire Captains. I'm a bit unsure of what to do with the flying shooting guys atm with AOS allowing them to shoot in combat. Currently undecided if I will give them a special snowflake rule which lets them do this in 8th..... then of course how to balance this points wise. As the Sigmarine army is very limited in its options (all infantry except the Dracoth rider) ill probably give it to them.

Wip rules for the Dracoth rider are losely based on a Chaos Lord/ the maggoth lords.

If I can bring the likes of Angron and the Toxicrene into 8th/Chillhammer and have them accepted then the Sigmarines can't be too hard.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Tailessine
18-07-2015, 17:14
Personally i'd have thrown money at the sigmarines if they had been more like empire warrior priests in style and background- they were perhaps the coolest concept in whfb. Not these pseudo-marine/angels crosses

Scribe of Khorne
18-07-2015, 18:47
All they needed to do was provide a bit more of a polished game experience. To do so, they SHOULD have dropped all existing models. Just rip off the band aid and call it a day on WHFB/8th.

Chainaxeisback
18-07-2015, 22:46
So much bubble bursting, ha ha ha. No, I could not disagree more with the original poster. Current models should be incorporated: just look at the pictures of battles in the book that came out today: without older models, you would not have that. No, current models are needed and, despite my skepticism, I have to admit they have done a half decent job, fluffwise, to keep most of those "current". But, heeeey, rules...if you do not want a points system, think about something else.

Philhelm
19-07-2015, 04:24
Personally i'd have thrown money at the sigmarines if they had been more like empire warrior priests in style and background- they were perhaps the coolest concept in whfb. Not these pseudo-marine/angels crosses

That's what I was hoping for too, back when there were rumors of a faction of "Chaos Warriors" of Sigmar. I knew they were going to be heavily armored, but I thought they would be more knight-like. Oh well.