PDA

View Full Version : AoS in the Old World - would you play it?



Teurastaja
27-04-2016, 20:21
It bothers me and I'd like to get some opinions on this matter. Would you guys play AoS if it was set in the Old World? I mean, with full GW's support - books, mugs, campaigns, posters, all that stuff.

Ben
27-04-2016, 20:27
If the rules were significantly improved to put them on a par in terms of quality with KoW, Osprey, Infinity, X wing or other good games, yes.

Otherwise why not just play Frostgrave or KoW in the Old World instead?

Folomo
27-04-2016, 21:08
Even in that situation, I think it would be difficult. As a skirmish game AoS competes with Frostgrave and Warmachine/Hordes. I doubt it could be on the level of either of those as a wargame, within the old world or not.

Holier Than Thou
27-04-2016, 21:17
It bothers me and I'd like to get some opinions on this matter. Would you guys play AoS if it was set in the Old World? I mean, with full GW's support - books, mugs, campaigns, posters, all that stuff.

If the rules are of their current standard, definitely not.

StygianBeach
27-04-2016, 21:21
Even in that situation, I think it would be difficult. As a skirmish game AoS competes with Frostgrave and Warmachine/Hordes. I doubt it could be on the level of either of those as a wargame, within the old world or not.

Frostgrave is very rules light. Playing both AoS and Frostgrave are not a problem, you can even use the same models. 2 games as rules heavy as Warmahordes would be hard work though.

AoS in the Old World would be fine with a good bit of story writing.

Ben
27-04-2016, 21:27
Frostgrave is very rules light. Playing both AoS and Frostgrave are not a problem, you can even use the same models. 2 games as rules heavy as Warmahordes would be hard work though.

AoS in the Old World would be fine with a good bit of story writing.

But in situations like that why not just use a better set of rules? It is significantly less effort.

Most players aren't game designers, so why use a game where you need to put significant effort into having a fun and balanced game instead of just using a rules set (like LotR for instance) that does that heavy lifting for you?

theunwantedbeing
27-04-2016, 21:34
It bothers me and I'd like to get some opinions on this matter. Would you guys play AoS if it was set in the Old World? I mean, with full GW's support - books, mugs, campaigns, posters, all that stuff.

If the rules are the same as the current ones, no.
I don't want to play an overly simplified game for little children no matter the setting.

StygianBeach
27-04-2016, 21:38
But in situations like that why not just use a better set of rules? It is significantly less effort.

Most players aren't game designers, so why use a game where you need to put significant effort into having a fun and balanced game instead of just using a rules set (like LotR for instance) that does that heavy lifting for you?

For a different experience? I would not say thinking up AoS scenarios would require a significant effort (unless you were using big armies).

Frostgrave is not balanced, it is a tonne of fun though, Bone Dart is insane.

Lars Porsenna
27-04-2016, 21:45
Destruction of the Old World is but ONE aspect of AoS that turns me off. Simply playing games in the world-that-was isn't enough for me (I could already be doing it anyway locally). It's also the lack of points values at launch (now being corrected), the fact that it is a skirmish game that replaces a mass battle game (the two are not even the same in occupying my gaming ecology!), the fact that as a skirmish game it has a lot of rules that break versimilitude (ranged combat while in melee, battleshock, to name two), the fact that you cannot customize characters at all, etc. So sure, if they were to revamp the rules and address all the issued I mentioned, sure I would play. It would be a totally new game by then though...

Damon.

Zywus
27-04-2016, 21:50
No.

Since the only change (I assume) would be that the setting would be the old world, I assume that means the rules are still the same.

I barely have any interest in playing skirmish games with good rules, let alone playing a skirmish game with possibly the worst rule-set that's ever been provided by a professional company.

theredknight
27-04-2016, 21:54
as much as i like the old world, with AoS over simplified rules, no.

stroller
27-04-2016, 21:56
I suppose you could... but, fluffwise, we're in to time travel, and ebay Games Workshop tardis models are hard to find ....

Drakkar du Chaos
27-04-2016, 22:00
It bothers me and I'd like to get some opinions on this matter. Would you guys play AoS if it was set in the Old World? I mean, with full GW's support - books, mugs, campaigns, posters, all that stuff.

When AoS was released the deal-breaker was not the new Sigmarine army, it was not the new Khorne models, it was not the round bases, it was not the new lore, it was reading that piece of trash that AoS rules and these battlescrolls are.

Ben
27-04-2016, 22:18
For a different experience? I would not say thinking up AoS scenarios would require a significant effort (unless you were using big armies).

Frostgrave is not balanced, it is a tonne of fun though, Bone Dart is insane.

Frostgrave is a lot more balanced than AoS.

You can always experience playing a bad game. However gaming time is limited, so why do that? Just add the background you love to a rules system that works, is enjoyable and has had effort put into it by the writers.

GreyhawkGuardian
27-04-2016, 22:49
I would.

I care a little more about the setting than the rules, and would at least be more interested in giving Age of Sigmar a try if it was still in the Old World.

.....The Sigmarines can **** right off though.

Pojko
27-04-2016, 23:46
No. Because while the destruction of the lore is my primary gripe with AoS, even bringing it back doesn't change the fact that AoS still has terrible rules and isn't a rank & file battle game.

Lexington
28-04-2016, 01:18
AoS now? Probably not. There's some nice ideas in there, but the whole thing feels like an alpha version of Saga. Shave off the rough edges and nonsense? Well, Saga is one hell of a game.

Dosiere
28-04-2016, 01:23
I would be interested but not without some changes to the core rules as well. I'm a huge fan of campaigns and scenarios (I'm that crazy guy who actually plays the x wing scenarios), but some of the rules in AoS really throw any immersion into the game out the window.

I'm actually ok with skirmish, although I'd prefer a scaled down ranked game.

Harosyn
28-04-2016, 02:07
No, the game is just not that interesting or challenging , its so poorly designed that buying and painting minis is just a waste of money and time, the models sux too. Just play 40K its a better game with much better minis.

Kakapo42
28-04-2016, 02:14
No. If they re-released the old early 2000s-era models for it then I'd buy them for Warhammer Fantasy though, and I'd imagine that would be just as much of a win for GW.

Smooth Boy
28-04-2016, 02:36
Nah that doesn't interest me very much. I think there is a way for both to co-exist but I'm not sure how without annoying both fan bases.

Asmodios
28-04-2016, 02:46
It bothers me and I'd like to get some opinions on this matter. Would you guys play AoS if it was set in the Old World? I mean, with full GW's support - books, mugs, campaigns, posters, all that stuff.
Nope... While the background is terrible, the rules are even worse.

dalezzz
28-04-2016, 08:26
Probably ,mid still think the rules looked terrible after a read through , but likely give it a whirl

samael
28-04-2016, 09:02
No. Not with the rules as they are now. If I want to play a fantasy skirmish game I'll play Frostgrave or Mordheim. But I prefer playing with block of troops so I'm not in the market for a third ( and in ths case VERY subpar) skirmish game anyway.

Herzlos
28-04-2016, 09:04
Nope... While the background is terrible, the rules are even worse.

Pretty much this. If I want my Old World fix, I'd use WHFB 8th Ed, or one of the dozens of good skirmish games, or just homebrew it. If I had any interest in the new world I'd probably do the same, to be honest.

It'd probably be easier to port Hordes Of Things, Dragon Rampant or Frostgrave to the Old World, than to start from AoS. But then, we mostly used mundane units anyway (knights, archers, spearmen, warmachines).

ik0ner
28-04-2016, 09:12
Maybe not play the game (unaltered or not) per se, but if it meant that GW produced miniatures in the "old world aesthetic" I would definitely buy those. And that's what matters right?

Horace35
28-04-2016, 09:26
No because my problems with Aos are four-fold

1.) I do not like the rules, they would need to be drastically altered back towards 8e.
2.) The background (ok so this one is fixed depending how badly they crowbar AoS into it)
3.) The aesthetics. I would not be buying any of the new models unless these changed significantly. I guess I could use my existing stuff in this scenario as long as the other points were addressed
4.) Pricing insanity. See point 3.)

infamousme
29-04-2016, 13:53
I have said from the beginning that it wasnt the new models, prices, lack of points or the fisher price rules set that turned me off of AOS.... It was the setting change. Had they made the new setting as the old world dealing with the devastation caused by both the storm of chaos and the return of Nagash. With the inhabitants trying to rebuild their empires or just plain survive. I totally would have bought into it.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

infamousme
29-04-2016, 14:02
No. If they re-released the old early 2000s-era models for it then I'd buy them for Warhammer Fantasy though, and I'd imagine that would be just as much of a win for GW.
Ive been pleasantly surprised lately to find that a lot of people besides myself do enjoy the 6th edition era models more. There are a few recent things that i went crazy for (the new eternal guard spring to mind),but i absolutely love the models from the early '00s.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

Immortus
29-04-2016, 14:19
Nope I'd rather Nurgles rot than bother with those rules.

Its not just the lack of points and/or decent army comp guidelines. There are a lot of aspects regarding the game design that don't wash with me. And there are alternatives unlike 10 years ago. Sucks to be GW :p

Tokamak
29-04-2016, 14:25
No and nothing stops anyone from taking the AoS game and pretend it's in the Old World setting. AoS simply is not a game. It barely is a hobby.

Axel
30-04-2016, 08:40
Would you guys play AoS if it was set in the Old World? I mean, with full GW's support - books, mugs, campaigns, posters, all that stuff.

I would at least bother trying to read the rules in detail. No such incense when the Old World died, as warring magical bubbles o super heroics hold as much interest to me as - well - I even can't think of any environment that I am less interested in.

I have been asked to introduce new players into tabletop wargaming, and a skirmish game based on the Old World would have been perfect. As it stands, I'll use Dragon Rampart and a Saga variant - perhaps swapping to Freebooter later. I will not bring anybody in contact with AoS.

Vazalaar
30-04-2016, 09:06
Maybe not play the game (unaltered or not) per se, but if it meant that GW produced miniatures in the "old world aesthetic" I would definitely buy those. And that's what matters right?

I 100% agree!

Niall78
30-04-2016, 10:05
I would at least bother trying to read the rules in detail. No such incense when the Old World died, as warring magical bubbles o super heroics hold as much interest to me as - well - I even can't think of any environment that I am less interested in.

I have been asked to introduce new players into tabletop wargaming, and a skirmish game based on the Old World would have been perfect. As it stands, I'll use Dragon Rampart and a Saga variant - perhaps swapping to Freebooter later. I will not bring anybody in contact with AoS.

That is a major but entirely predictable problem associated with GW dumping many of their veterans.

These guys were the main recruiters for new blood into the "GW hobby". Now they effectively work for other companies.

Niall78
30-04-2016, 10:58
No and nothing stops anyone from taking the AoS game and pretend it's in the Old World setting. AoS simply is not a game. It barely is a hobby.

If a gamer is going to tack a setting onto a new rule-set why not just pick the best rule-set available? Why use a completely substandard rule-set?

Spiney Norman
30-04-2016, 11:16
It bothers me and I'd like to get some opinions on this matter. Would you guys play AoS if it was set in the Old World? I mean, with full GW's support - books, mugs, campaigns, posters, all that stuff.

Definitely, actually there is no reason at all why you can't do this already, any maps or campaign storylines produced for wfb would work perfectly for AoS, scenarios would be easy to tweak and almost every wfb model has an AoS warscroll representing it somewhere.

Actually someone was posting a while back about how they were running the end times story arc using the AoS rules.

To be frank, with the numbers of models that we use for wfb/AoS a skirmish-unit based system is far more appropriate than a ranked combat one. Historically speaking a ranked infantry unit would have contained many more than 50-100 men which is about the upper limit of even the very largest units deployed for wfb. Not that realism particularly matters in a tabletop game I suppose, we at least not to everyone, some people play KoW after all.

Cybtroll
30-04-2016, 11:35
There are already plenty of historical wargame if you want realism. Try one of those sometimes if you want realism.

Niall78
30-04-2016, 11:42
To be frank, with the numbers of models that we use for wfb/AoS a skirmish-unit based system is far more appropriate than a ranked combat one. Historically speaking a ranked infantry unit would have contained many more than 50-100 men which is about the upper limit of even the very largest units deployed for wfb. Not that realism particularly matters in a tabletop game I suppose, we at least not to everyone, some people play KoW after all.

That is if you are arguing that the miniatures in KoW or WFB in a unit represent individual men. As mass battle games such an interpretation would be strange. You are contrasting mass battle scale games with a skirmish scale game.

If anything AoS is laughably out of scale trying to represent mass scale battles with a 1:1 scale skirmish system.

Niall78
30-04-2016, 11:45
There are already plenty of historical wargame if you want realism. Try one of those sometimes if you want realism.

Historical wargames come in all type of scales and sizes. For instance I can play divisional, regimental, company or section level World War Two games using the same one hundred miniatures.

Zywus
30-04-2016, 12:48
That is if you are arguing that the miniatures in KoW or WFB in a unit represent individual men.
And they don't.
The rules for movement only make sense if we assume each model represent somewhere around 10-20 men.

I believe this was even stated in the older WHFB rulebooks. (something about the alternative being to play your battles in a car-park).

Both KoW and WHFB is abstracted in many ways to give the feel of a large scale battle while still using 28mm scale models. If one likes to imagine that models scale 1:1 and the distances scale exactly to the models then one needs to imagine that a model can cover only a few hundred feet during a whole battle presumably taking place over several hours and that anyone firing a bow has some serious trouble drawing a string.

Gorbad Ironclaw
30-04-2016, 12:55
I wouldn't. But then I didn't wanted to play with the previous edition either. I'm probably out of the market for mass combat games. Just too much work to get up and running. Pretty much just skirmish level games for me these days, but I do want good rules to go with that so that pretty much excludes GW.

Tokamak
30-04-2016, 12:58
If a gamer is going to tack a setting onto a new rule-set why not just pick the best rule-set available? Why use a completely substandard rule-set?

Beats me. But it underlines that although the setting of AoS is far worse, it's not the main reason why people aren't playing it.

smaxx
30-04-2016, 13:36
I might. Age of Sigmar is not a bad game, many of the warscrolls are OK, and the basic rules are usable, if played casually. All it needs are the points and Old world as a setting and it's ok as a small game. Nothing wrong with games that are fast to play. I don't like the look of the new minis and the destruction of the Old world is just awfull. The only good thing with AoS is that there's now much more time to play non-GW games.

Rogue Star
30-04-2016, 15:56
Well I can play Age of Sigmar fine, it is a bit basic but I suppose I turn to 40K for complexity, but that's a whole other topic.

I think the Old World is the better setting, than the "Mortal Realms", so it would have that in it's favor.

scruffyryan
30-04-2016, 18:49
No, its not a very well designed game, i like ranked models, and i like the high model count battles which take far too long under AoS rules.

smaxx
30-04-2016, 21:05
No, its not a very well designed game, i like ranked models, and i like the high model count battles which take far too long under AoS rules.
It's not that special, that's true. But as an additional way of playing with WHFB units, it might be fun. I mean, there are skirmish games that are more innovative, better, more interesting, but You cannot play any of them with Durthu or Korhil, or waywatchers, etc. So, as an occational alternatice to WHFB, with a shorter play time, it might be OK.

Spiney Norman
30-04-2016, 21:28
If anything AoS is laughably out of scale trying to represent mass scale battles with a 1:1 scale skirmish system.

Sorry but I have to ask, what makes you think AoS is supposed to represent 'mass scale battles'? It seems to me like a game of AoS with 50-100 models per side is probably supposed to represent a small skirmish between two groups of 50-100 men, it does away without mumbling rubbish about how each one wound model is supposed to 'represent' an unspecified number of men (which hasn't been hinted at in any official GW publications in at least the last 3 editions of the game).

I mean, are we talking about 20 champions in each unit, 20 guys carrying 20 banners (or 20 guys all trying to carry the same banner?) and a group of 20 musicians? How does that even work with characters? Do you assume there are 20 different warbosses occupying the same base as your one warboss model? How does that work out when using special characters (or is that just one bloke that inexplicably occupies the same physical space as 20 regular men?)

Personally a 1 model:1 warrior scale game is vastly more to my liking, I spend hours painting each of my models individually, I even name a lot of them.

Axel
30-04-2016, 21:41
If one likes to imagine that models scale 1:1 and the distances scale exactly to the models then one needs to imagine ....

People already do this. Its called 3mm, or 6mm for the smaller battles :-)

Zywus
30-04-2016, 21:45
-Doublepost-

Zywus
30-04-2016, 21:50
I mean, are we talking about 20 champions in each unit, 20 guys carrying 20 banners (or 20 guys all trying to carry the same banner?) and a group of 20 musicians? How does that even work with characters? Do you assume there are 20 different warbosses occupying the same base as your one warboss model? How does that work out when using special characters (or is that just one bloke that inexplicably occupies the same physical space as 20 regular men?)
The way I find makes most sense to imagine things:
The banner bearer represent one banner bearer and a bunch of regular dudes. A musician represent one or a few musicians and a bunch of regular dudes etc.

The Warboss represent one warboss (and perhaps his hard-ass hangarounds), as well as his immense presence and psychological impact upon the enemy. When the warboss model slay 3 enemy models, it doesn't necessarily mean he slew 30-60 or even 300 men by himself. It means he (and perhaps some of his henchmen) slew a bunch of dudes and inflicted enough causalities and psychological trauma on the enemies to have them facing an extra 3 combat resolution against them.

If you prefer to imagine that two empire spearmen standing side by side represent two men standing shoulder-to-shoulder unable to turn their head enough to charge someone outside a 45 degree arc and that a bowman cannot shoot further than about 30 meters / 100 feet then that's fair enough I guess. Personally I would have a hard time getting immersed in a battle if I were to think about the game that way though.

The fact that there were no mention of WHFB being a rather abstract game in the rulebooks of the later editions don't change the fact that the rules make a lot more sense if you imagine that's what the game represent. (and is another reasone for why so-called "true line of sight" is BS)

People already do this. Its called 3mm, or 6mm for the smaller battles :-)
Indeed. A smaller scales give a better representation of larger battles.

We play 28mm scale if we want the possibility to have more detailed models. That's why regimented 28mm scale wargames demand some abstraction to make sense.

Whirlwind
30-04-2016, 21:52
In a nutshell.. no, I wouldn't play AoS in the old world. I find the game flat and too boring to play consistently. It all comes down to the same thing of rolling 3's and 4's in one or more huddles across the board. With the lack of choice constraints I find that every army becomes the same in principle idea and it feels like I'm just pushing plastic around rather than commanding an army's with unique strategic decisions for that army (which isn't to say there aren't tactics for AoS it's just they are pretty much the same for whatever models you care to put on the table). I never got this with WFB. The game is just not for me i suppose. On the other hand if they had kept the old world I would have probably continued to buy the background and models for WFB so in some ways GW did my wallet a favour!

theunwantedbeing
30-04-2016, 22:06
Personally a 1 model:1 warrior scale game is vastly more to my liking, I spend hours painting each of my models individually, I even name a lot of them.

Same here.
Each model is exactly what its model shows and nothing more.

I'm already abstracting the board, the way things move and using dice to abstract what happens.
In my opinion it would defeat the point of using actual models and painting them if you are just going to abstract what it is.

I also have a strong dislike of facing unpainted/only primed armies for much the same reason.

Tupinamba
30-04-2016, 22:50
No, I wouldn´t. The rules are simply too bad from a tactical wargame point of view.

When it came out, I actually thought about trying it out, as nothing hinders you from taking the old minis and say that the skirmish is happening in the old warhammer world. But the game is just too bland. I´ve moved to Wrath of Kings for a very interesting fantasy skirmish game, with excellent and rather cheap plastic miniatures. And keep using my Dark Elves in 8th and now 9th age.

Commodus Leitdorf
30-04-2016, 23:08
yes, as a skirmish game before a game of WHFB 8th that can give additional benefits to your army. Say you manage to capture the watchtower in a game of AoS. Now you start with a unit in the building for a 2000pt 8th edition battle. As part of a bigger campaign system I would do that.

Ayin
01-05-2016, 01:35
I have no interest in supporting GW as a business entity currently, as I don't support companies out of pure loyalty unless their brand is deserving of it, so no, I wouldn't play AoS in any setting, nor do I have any interest in playing any of their games or supporting any of their product lines. It's unfortunate, but it is what their current group of directors and employees has created.

Geep
01-05-2016, 05:04
Bringing back the Old World would be a step in the right direction, but not enough. The next steps would be: improve the rules- vastly. Ideally go back to a ranked game. Also, return to the older aesthetics- I am sick of 'extreme' stuff, all oversized (and, by extension, over priced). I would buy redone common goblins (more in line with the current night goblins) in a heartbeat.

Axel
01-05-2016, 08:29
The sad thing is that in a way GW was right - they DO define the hobby. Many people ceased to play because the actual rules and setting define what is played, and dislike it. If we would be independent minded and not dependent on GW we simply had ignored AoS and continued - there would be no real dip in actual WFB gaming. As it stands, SOME stout fellows continue in 6-8th edition, or creating the 9th, but the WFB scene as a whole fractured and went largely under. For a worldwide community a common understanding of where we play, what units mean and what they fight for is really helpfull. That is lacking now. In their power to define the hobby, GW destroyed it. Well made - to whoever made that decision: I hope your boni is dependend on sales.

What makes me really sad is that there was no need to abandon the Old World - magical bubbles leading to the immortal realms could have coexisted with the Old World in general and the Averland in detail without any problems for the latter (well, unless a bubble popped up there, but why should it). The Black Library could have continued to spin its yarn, and even the history could have walked forward - perhaps to a new Emperor, newly resettled Dwarven mines, whatever... but NO, GW had to send down Marienburg into its Frosty Grave :-/

I will still play on occasion, but no longer with random strangers sharing the same game mythology.

smaxx
01-05-2016, 09:46
The sad thing is that in a way GW was right - they DO define the hobby. Many people ceased to play because the actual rules and setting define what is played, and dislike it. If we would be independent minded and not dependent on GW we simply had ignored AoS and continued - there would be no real dip in actual WFB gaming. As it stands, SOME stout fellows continue in 6-8th edition, or creating the 9th, but the WFB scene as a whole fractured and went largely under. For a worldwide community a common understanding of where we play, what units mean and what they fight for is really helpfull. That is lacking now. In their power to define the hobby, GW destroyed it. Well made - to whoever made that decision: I hope your boni is dependend on sales.

What makes me really sad is that there was no need to abandon the Old World - magical bubbles leading to the immortal realms could have coexisted with the Old World in general and the Averland in detail without any problems for the latter (well, unless a bubble popped up there, but why should it). The Black Library could have continued to spin its yarn, and even the history could have walked forward - perhaps to a new Emperor, newly resettled Dwarven mines, whatever... but NO, GW had to send down Marienburg into its Frosty Grave :-/

I will still play on occasion, but no longer with random strangers sharing the same game mythology.
Fine words :)

Kyriakin
01-05-2016, 11:40
I would, as the Old World's destruction was my deal breaker.

That said, I'm not sure I'd be enjoying the game much...

Rogue Star
01-05-2016, 15:39
Seem to me by this thread, that AoS has created two groups fans; one that wants large scale battle of ranked combat in roughly 32mm, and another that wants individually based, skirmish sized combat with the slighter larger scale AoS is using... So, it seems the ideal solution would be to give fans a rank-and-file combat system, possibly set in a grim world of perilous adventure... and a smaller scale game, possibly set in some kind of city... of the Damned... if only GW had something like that... oh.

*Rolls up newspaper* Bad GW. Bad. :mad:

infamousme
01-05-2016, 16:55
Well I can play Age of Sigmar fine, it is a bit basic but I suppose I turn to 40K for complexity, but that's a whole other topic.

I think the Old World is the better setting, than the "Mortal Realms", so it would have that in it's favor.
Funny, I used to turn to 40k for simplicity after a stint of fantasy gaming.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

Leogun_91
03-05-2016, 23:17
No but perhaps I would still have bought some armybooks for the read if they remained part of the Old World.

Buddy Bear
04-05-2016, 03:56
Age of Sigmar is a perfect storm of incompetence, which is why I don't play it. Not only is it based around a lazy, half-baked mediocrity of a setting with no redeeming qualities to it, but the game rules are the poorest I've ever seen in any game on nearly every level. Setting it in the Old World wouldn't redeem those rules, just as using 8th edition rules wouldn't make the Mortal Realms interesting.

Dosiere
04-05-2016, 05:00
No but perhaps I would still have bought some armybooks for the read if they remained part of the Old World.

I used to waste so much money back in the day when the army books were cheap buying ones just to read. I even bought 40k ones sometimes and I didn't even play the game back then.

Tokamak
04-05-2016, 06:47
And they don't.
The rules for movement only make sense if we assume each model represent somewhere around 10-20 men.

I believe this was even stated in the older WHFB rulebooks. (something about the alternative being to play your battles in a car-park).

Both KoW and WHFB is abstracted in many ways to give the feel of a large scale battle while still using 28mm scale models. If one likes to imagine that models scale 1:1 and the distances scale exactly to the models then one needs to imagine that a model can cover only a few hundred feet during a whole battle presumably taking place over several hours and that anyone firing a bow has some serious trouble drawing a string.

WFB 6th edition discusses this and quite explicitly states that in Warhammer, one single miniature represents one individual soldier. If you know a book or any other source that contradicts it you ought to provide it.

ik0ner
04-05-2016, 07:03
WFB 6th edition discusses this and quite explicitly states that in Warhammer, one single miniature represents one individual soldier. If you know a book or any other source that contradicts it you ought to provide it.

p. 279 BRB 6th edition WHFB: "The ten or twenty models in a game unit stand for a regiment of several hundred troops, and for this reason regiments manoeuvre and react as if they were larger formations "

The same exact phrase is used in the 5th ed softback rulebook at page 111

Edit: Which is a bit weird when you read the opening paragraph about one model representing one soldier etc. But when taken as a whole I find it hard to argue that whfb didn't abstract units and measurements.

Drakkar du Chaos
04-05-2016, 07:17
p. 279 BRB 6th edition WHFB: "The ten or twenty models in a game unit stand for a regiment of several hundred troops, and for this reason regiments manoeuvre and react as if they were larger formations "

The same exact phrase is used in the 5th ed softback rulebook at page 111

Edit: Which is a bit weird when you read the opening paragraph about one model representing one soldier etc. But when taken as a whole I find it hard to argue that whfb didn't abstract units and measurements.

Warhammer use 1/20 scale : 1 infantry model = 20 soldiers in the fluff.

Zywus
04-05-2016, 07:19
Thank you ik0ner.

In any case, it doesn't really matter whether GW states in the preambles in their rulebook that a model represent more than one individual or not.

The rules are written in a way that formations behave as if they represent at least 10-20 times their number of models. As long as the rules make the units maneuver and react as if they're around 10-20 times as many, I find that it's a lot more immersive to imagine it to be that way.

Tokamak
04-05-2016, 08:55
Great, now I have to dig up that old book again which isn't even at my own place right now. I'm absolutely positive it says that one miniature is one individual person in there.

Give me a few days.

Griefbringer
04-05-2016, 10:11
There is also a statement in 3rd edition WHFB rulebook that the ranges are based on assumption of 1:360 scale (i.e. 1" on tabletop is equivalent to 10 yards on the actual tabletop).

Thus your 25x25 mm base represents 9x9 meters area of the actual battlefield - an area that should well be able to accommodate 20+ orcs, gors or chaos marauders.

Buddy Bear
04-05-2016, 14:02
The one thing that bothered me about it not being a 1:1 ratio is how to explain characters on the battlefield. Particularly when they're super killy. Are we really to believe that a Vampire Lord single-handedly killed 150 guys in one go?

Lars Porsenna
04-05-2016, 14:53
The one thing that bothered me about it not being a 1:1 ratio is how to explain characters on the battlefield. Particularly when they're super killy. Are we really to believe that a Vampire Lord single-handedly killed 150 guys in one go?

Like everything else, that Vampire lord is not just one figure: it is the lord along with his retenue of elite fighters, etc. And those 150 casualties are not all dead troops, but rather an abstraction that represents dead, wounded or "combat ineffective" troops.

Damon.

Drakkar du Chaos
04-05-2016, 14:59
We already had this discussion 6 months ago so here's the link :

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?414716-What-would-you-consider-to-be-an-appropriate-size-for-an-army-in-a-major-battle

Zywus
04-05-2016, 18:24
Like everything else, that Vampire lord is not just one figure: it is the lord along with his retenue of elite fighters, etc. And those 150 casualties are not all dead troops, but rather an abstraction that represents dead, wounded or "combat ineffective" troops.

Damon.
And also the psychological effect of being faced by such a horrifying presence, sweeping through men like a scythe through wheat.

Captain Marius
06-05-2016, 16:32
I always played wfb seeing the scale as 1:1, part of what i liked about 8th ed was the bigger units made the armies look more realistic, to me at least!

As for playing AoS in the Old World, my group are sloooowly working our way thru the End Times games, which ive found work better with AoS as you can field all the super characters without needing a million core troops to support them.

I dont know about anyone else but i have found using ranked units works fine in AoS - if the models are in a block formation they are more resilient as fewer enemy models can attack them. No need for arbitrary rank bonuses or whatever. Flanking works well too as it means more attacks so more casualties and a bigger danger from battleshock tests!

Teurastaja
07-05-2016, 08:34
I always played wfb seeing the scale as 1:1, part of what i liked about 8th ed was the bigger units made the armies look more realistic, to me at least!

As for playing AoS in the Old World, my group are sloooowly working our way thru the End Times games, which ive found work better with AoS as you can field all the super characters without needing a million core troops to support them.

I dont know about anyone else but i have found using ranked units works fine in AoS - if the models are in a block formation they are more resilient as fewer enemy models can attack them. No need for arbitrary rank bonuses or whatever. Flanking works well too as it means more attacks so more casualties and a bigger danger from battleshock tests!

I really don't get it. AoS wasn't designed as a rank&file game like WFB and KoW were. Why play it as such?

Captain Marius
07-05-2016, 08:54
Because you can! I like using big units and they look better if they're arranged in ordered ranks. Once combat hits then the unit can choose to either hold its formation to minimise incoming casualties, or lap round the enemy unit to maximise attacks and cause more damage, but likely receive more damage too. To me this is quite reminiscent of how regiments act in total war warhammer, which I think is a good simulation of a fantasy battle!

Immortus
07-05-2016, 11:18
Yeah if old world was still alive id still be buying, I can skip rule sets I don't like. But settings and lore that sucks is hard to deal with

CountUlrich
07-05-2016, 11:28
Nope. I have tried AoS, and I wouldn't and won't play it regardless of anything else. If it was the only fantasy gaming near me, I'd just stick with historicals.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

vlad78
07-05-2016, 12:08
I really don't get it. AoS wasn't designed as a rank&file game like WFB and KoW were. Why play it as such?

Because forgoing ranks and files in a pseudo medieval setting depicting battles with more than a dozen people is as absurd as using ranks and files in a technologically advanced setting.