• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more here.

Age of sigmar

najo

Mortarch of the Dark Soul
True Blood
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
2,047
You can't balance a tournament that way. "Don't be a Rick" is a way to balance garage gaming, not tournament play. What do you do...ban the guy who brings 20 Bloodthirsters? What about the guy who brings 19? 18? 17? At what point is it acceptable?

What about the guy who brings 20 black coaches. Or nothing but chaos knights. Or nothing but vampire lords?

At what point does "efficiency" become "being a Rick"? At what point does it matter that armies don't look like armies, but just a collection of monsters and characters?




Just to be absolutely clear, Age of Sigmar as released by GW is not a complete game. It's just rules for pushing miniatures at each other. It's like if Casinos just supplied a card dealer and dealt everyone as many cards as they asked for. That's not a game. You can MAKE that a game, but it's not a game.

People aren't trying to "Comp" Age of Sigmar. This isn't just writing the next Swedish pack. This is taking rules for grinding models together, and turning that into some kind of competitive tabletop game.
The only difference between AoS and 8th is there is no points limits, army percentages or unit rarity. Everything else is there and its streamlined and simpler. So to say a game isn't complete without those things is false. I'd say tournament play is incomplete without those things. That said, most venues have their own complex comp rules that supersede GW's , so how is this any different?
 

najo

Mortarch of the Dark Soul
True Blood
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
2,047
That's true, and false. It's certainly true that the current rules released by GW does not promote, or perhaps even allow, tournament play. And while there are a fair number of ways to generally come to agreeable matches with opponents (Which by the way, @Archamedius 's statement said for pick-up-games, he did not declare Tournaments entirely viable), there is not the system in place that many people believe needed to "play fair".

So you're right. The game is not made "complete" if you believe that "You must be able to play in tournaments to have a game that is viable and complete." BUT, and I believe this, there is a game and it is entirely playable. To call it "incompletely" because it does not support tournaments is not true. It's a complete game in the respect that plenty of fully functional and rational humans have been able to play Age of Sigmar. And they didn't even have to make up rules to do so. The game is Complete.

What it is not, is what you want. And whether or not it is GW's job to deliver on your desires is debatable. Certainly WHFB was a game in the vein that you are looking for, where as AoS is no where near, but I don't remember signing a contract with GW that demanded they continue to support my every whim. And I won't pretend to know the reasons behind the drastic shift, but it doesn't matter. That the game changed is all that is relevant, and it is not nearly so clear cut as you say that it is about it being a change for the worse. Because worse is a matter of opinion, and for all players who were not into GW solely based on their already faulty and poor game design? Well we're along for the ride, and some of us might actually enjoy it. But to decry GW as a villainous monster for supplanting their already faulty design choices, that supported strict adherence to rules and systems, with an arguably more faulty system that supports a freedom that many players may enjoy or find encouraging is viewing the world though rose tinted glasses.

And yes, I also believe that any system designed to reign in control of players choices to create an "equal" playing field is basically the same, as the Swedish Comp for 8th or any new "comp" that comes out for AoS that may enjoy success. Comp is short for Composition after all, and they were just as "artificial" and "user labored" as anything for AoS. You act like the people who made Swedish Comp did not have to put in any effort because GW simply laid ground work? No, they had nearly just as much to go by then as they do now. Units relative strengths and weaknesses, and valuations of their abilities. Just because there is no points cost does not mean you have lost the ability to evaluate units, it simply removed the defaulted to assessment (Which I will note can just as often be flawed). Any of the comp systems presented thus far for AoS are fair for people to say they could work; Heck, while I personally dislike the freedom offered by @najo 's comp he presented, I believe that is almost entirely in line with the mentality of building a functional tournament system. I think it's a poor system in that it creates restrictions that needn't be placed (Like denying you the ability to out number your opponent by more than "1 Warscroll" at most) but I don't think his idea is meant for extremely casual play.

But I do believe there is strength to this system, in offering people more of a choice than they every had before. The freedom of not being burdened by a flawed rule set (That GW surely has always known they design flawed, because they sure aren't very good at it), and allowing players to take a step back and try to find what they are actually looking for themselves. And some players, like you, may be extremely off put by this, let's call it introspection, that each player is now being given the chance to take. But being able to reflect on the game and why we play games, and what makes it worth our time, is a worthwhile reflection. And it's entirely worthwhile to allow everyone the chance to see possibilities beyond such "tournament standards", players who may be into the game but only exposed to such scenes, because they tend to dominate and stifle the creativity of more free play.

Because they say "If you don't have a list, we can't play because there is no way to know we're even playing Fair".

Because they think that given the chance, players will field only monsters and characters.

Because they think that other players aren't out there to have fun, only to win.

And sure, it doesn't support the exact style of a tournament, but it could, with work. But the problem anyone who demands a tournament is going to have is they think first and foremost winning needs to be rewarded. And when winning is the only fun you think you're having, then you're probably not having much fun at all.

Consider this:

It's entirely possible that a player may not feel that they are being unfair, or the shame, from fielding 30 Bloodthirsters, but when put to a crowd where everyone can see what they are doing? What defense would they have if people could simply nominate them as non-viable for winning an event? Or if event coordinators had to check list before they were admitted to play (Because gods know no tournament ever required that before), and they would be allowed to simply reject non-compliant or radically unfair list.

Let me be clear when I say that Point Costs are simply a crutch. And while some people need crutches, they aren't there to make things right, and even when you're using them, you can tell when things are wrong. No amount of points would ever make Nagash OK to play. And tournaments previous disallowed certain Special Characters for similar reasons. The points could never be justified when trying to make the game balanced. And just because most other units were generally accepted as cost, it didn't make it correct or fair, it simply made it what we agreed, which was handed down to us by GW. If anything, shouldn't we be overjoyed by having the freedom to determine what is fair, and set the scene as we want it (Which will most likely be a bent mishap of min-maxing, like tournaments typically end up).

I will say however it is a great bit more complicated that simply the removal of point costs, with magic (Summoning in particular) seeming rather off currently. But in previous iterations of WHFB did we not see full units swallowed to Pit of Shades, Purple Sun, Dwellers? So it's not like WHFB was without flaw, and again, comp systems tried to reign in things that are considered more dangerous to the "fairness" of the game, just like they potentially will with AoS.

All I'm saying is, you make fair points. But you are trying to assert that your points apply to every aspect of the game because you choose to believe that the points you are highlighting are the only points that matter. And that simply is not the case. Your points are true, but they are a lot more limited in scope than you make it sound like. And I can't force you to have fun playing AoS, by any means, but if you truly see no worth in any aspect of the game because a few of the points you enjoyed (Perhaps even most, although you have "admitted" to enjoying other aspects) were shifted dramatically? Then you're just making a mountain of a mound.
I'd like to see the comp I presented simplified and open up to allow more than 1 warscroll difference in deployment.
 

najo

Mortarch of the Dark Soul
True Blood
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
2,047
I will flame all I want they killed the greatest fantasy setting ever, for shitty Spess morons, and if people keep supporting this shit GW will never bring Back Warhammer fantasy
You won't flame all you want. That leads to us having to ban you, which we would prefer not to have to do, so please respect Sunny's request.

I'm a 25 year vet of Warhammer and I understand the passion and anger you have at losing the old world and the Warhammer system. With that said, AoS has some real tactics within it and a lot of hidden depth. Explore it. It's free. Think of it like Chess or Go. Simple rules to learn, but very difficult strategies and tactics to master.
 

Seneschal

Liche
True Blood
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
5,524
People are free to react to AoS in this particular thread however they wish, be it positive or negative. If this place is just "Everything is super!" than it isn't very inclusive. Other forums allow posters to share their reactions and so should CN. I don't agree with "flaming" however. Each post should be constructive.
Now, I say "this particular thread" as it's for general discussion of AoS. I don't advocate people venting in AoS tactics threads and the like and by the same token, I don't appreciate anyone going into a KoW thread and telling those involved to "give AoS a chance" as it's not relevant to the discussion.

Something that has been said a lot on this forum is the following, "People can't make judgments on a game they haven't even played." This is a false statement. Anyone with experience can analyze a set of rules and then make an informed judgment, it's as simple as that. My group and I have played a number of systems over the years and we've also read through a handful of others so we, like the majority of the gaming community on the net, don't need to take part in a game of AoS to make our decisions on the matter.

I also don't appreciate people on this forum calling me "hard headed" for not trying out the system or a "hater" for disliking it. The latter term can be such an exaggerated statement and is sadly used with great frequency in our society. Because I don't like something that means I hate it? It's overused and some consider it insulting.


I'm a 25 year vet of Warhammer
We know, mate, you've said it about a dozen times in this thread. Check out other forums and see how many vets that have been around that long that aren't fans of AoS, they are in the majority and they dislike the system for the same reasons most people have stated here on CN.
 

Mr. West

Lahmian Tomb Guard
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
243
Hats off to Seneschal for best post ever regarding that matter. :bowdown:


And yes, I'm a 25 year 'vet' as well ... for 'vet-ever' that's worth these days ...


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding the new system, the fluff or whatever, really.
But the constant fanboyism for AoS makes people who prefer to stick to traditional WHFB recoil from their henceforth beloved forums even more (and I'm not exclusively referring to CN by that).
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2013
Messages
927
The only difference between AoS and 8th is there is no points limits, army percentages or unit rarity. Everything else is there and its streamlined and simpler. So to say a game isn't complete without those things is false. I'd say tournament play is incomplete without those things. That said, most venues have their own complex comp rules that supersede GW's , so how is this any different?
You can play 8th edition out-of-the-box just fine, with no additional restrictions. You might *want* additional restrictions, but they are not necessary.

You cannot play Age of Sigmar out of the box. It's a broken shambles of a game. It *NEEDS* some kind of army composition system, whether formal or implied, before it is playable as a head-to-head tabletop game.

Period. Full stop.

Age of Sigmar is "Warhammer: Mega Battles." Show up, throw stuff down on the table, and here are some silly and whacky rules for resolving those combats. Those were fun when I was 12, but it's not enough to keep me going now that I've been in this hobby for 17 years.

I want a system where I can hone an armylist, and match that list against other like-minded players in a battle of wits (and dice). I don't care about victory so much as the PURSUIT of victory. And that pursuit is completely and utterly fruitless without even the vaguest semblance of a system for balancing each opponent's forces.

You can win Age of Sigmar simply by having a better and bigger collection of figures. It is pay to win.
 

Ghouly

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
5,517
cause Bloodbowl was it's own little pocket verse that was almost exactly like Warhammer except they had football, Age of Sigmar is about the same level
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
49
There are several things AoS can be disliked for that dont need playing or even rules analysis as well.

Setting/fluff, no ranked combat, individual skirmishing movement, aesthetics, model to model measurement, base overlapping, summoning, lack of tactical movement (no bonus for flanks/rear), lack of balance, shooting into combat/out of combat, no points system or other army choice method, joke rules gw placed on existing armies to scorn their playerbase (wether used or not that scorn is still shown), price £30 for 5 figures! so much for lowering entry price for anything but the starter box

Then added to that the fact there are games that DONT have these issues (if thats why you dislike it)

Ive gotten into KoW since AoS launched and its everything AoS should have been.

Balanced in all ways with good army selection rules, very tactical (with flank/rear attacks giving double/tripple attacks) and streamlined rules that are fun and fast to play (my first game was 2k with another new player, and even with some rules stumbling was still done inc setup in under 3 hours)

Oh and it keeps the ranked army look and lets you officially use any models so aesthetics etc arent an issue. Finally if you do go with their own models they are a fraction of GW prices with most way under £1 per figure and starter kits that take it under £0.50 per figure
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
187
You can play 8th edition out-of-the-box just fine, with no additional restrictions. You might *want* additional restrictions, but they are not necessary.

You cannot play Age of Sigmar out of the box. It's a broken shambles of a game. It *NEEDS* some kind of army composition system, whether formal or implied, before it is playable as a head-to-head tabletop game.

Period. Full stop.

Age of Sigmar is "Warhammer: Mega Battles." Show up, throw stuff down on the table, and here are some silly and whacky rules for resolving those combats. Those were fun when I was 12, but it's not enough to keep me going now that I've been in this hobby for 17 years.

I want a system where I can hone an armylist, and match that list against other like-minded players in a battle of wits (and dice). I don't care about victory so much as the PURSUIT of victory. And that pursuit is completely and utterly fruitless without even the vaguest semblance of a system for balancing each opponent's forces.

You can win Age of Sigmar simply by having a better and bigger collection of figures. It is pay to win.
I disagree Age of sigmar works out of the box, it may not work the way you want it to but it does indeed work out of the box. GW traded list building prior to a game to list building during the deployment, you can drop counters for units they play, you can set up synergies and counterstrikes they may not be aware of, or may overlook, there is still the ability to hone your ability to play opponents, but it is a more dynamic honing, you have to truly understand how your units match against what the opponent drops.

The 8th edition point system wasn't well balanced either, and was arguablly pay to win as well, oh dark elves are the new op faction, well pick them up and smash face, witch elves were 50 for 10, and if you can afford to buy a large unit you can easily overwhelm your opponent, who may not have 200 to drop on a single unit. I have been playing Tomb Kings in 8th and I can tell you from experience, bringing the same point value of tomb kings as warriors of chaos, does gaurauntee an even or balanced game, GW simply is now hanging the threay of a sudden death objective over your opponents heads. It's not perfect but as already stated, neither was 8th edition, as the 2 seperate comp systems that arose testify to.

no ranked combat, individual skirmishing movement, aesthetics, model to model measurement, base overlapping, summoning, lack of tactical movement (no bonus for flanks/rear), lack of balanc
You can still use ranked combat, and in most cases, it will bring more models into range than random mosh pits, you can move the entire unit as a unit and not as individual skirmishing, so again just like 8th. Summoning wasn't super balanced even in 8th, they ability to summon non VP generating units was pretty broken in 8th, at least in AOS summoning units can be deterimental to you winning the game, you either need to summon enough to table your opponent, or risk being unable to achieve a minor victory, and barring special characters, most of the summoning is rather mild.

The lack of flank/rear is the worst argument to make, in 8th edition a flank or rear rarely made a difference, +1/+2 CR with stubborn/steadfast units rerolling high leadership rarely had an impact on the game.

KOW may be a better straight up replacement for 8th edition, I don't know no one in my area plays it, but GW flat out said AoS wasn't 9th edition, and yet most of the things you claim aren't in the game can not only still be done but in many cases are more beneficial, square bases can fit into the same space better and more compact than circles can, and base overlapping is the stupidest thing in the world, go ahead you try and put your bases on my scenic bases and see how many models you have left in one piece, there isn't a rule anywhere in the book that says I can't pick up your model and hurl it across the room, I checked. Model to model measuring honestly isn't that much different than measuring B2B, yes you will have people who will try to model for advantage, but again, people would do that in 8th edition too, so again it's not a new issue.
 
Last edited:

Zephyr

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
2,523
My greatest dislike of AoS is that it is, in essence, a skirmish game and not mass fantasy combat. It's precisely that latter that drew me to to WHF in the first place all those years ago. I can deal with the fluff given enough time, I can deal with a hell of a lot more and have already accepted that my beloved WHF died when 8th came out BUT why on earth would I play an in my eyes half-finished skirmish game whilst there are so many more (and much better and cheaper) of those out there already?
I've got Bushido, Malifaux and Infinity! Oh and Mordheim. Still fun!

And yes for the record I have tried to play AoS two times but it feels incomplete. It's like somebody at the studios cried 'just release it already!' and didn't think to include what makes a game an actual game. And the release schedule...man oh man so snooze-worthy. It's way too slow for a new product they want to let thrive.

Now if GW wants to solely focus on miniature models fine, but be honest about it and quit making rules. Stop calling yourselves Games Workshop. I'm more than okay with that. I'm only playing FW 30K right now anyway. Much more fun.

And hey if people genuinely like AoS more power to them. I feel though that the price is much too steep for a beer and pretzels type of game. For a lot less money I'm getting just as wonderful models (Bushido's new Tengu yummy or the plastic Malifaux Neverborn...roar!) with much bettre thought out rules.

Now to continue my quest for a cool mass-ranked fantasy battle system. KoW II is good for now but some things are a bit meh IMO.

edit- and for what it's worth I've been playing since I was 15 so that's *gasps* 21 yrs of WHF. Vet enough? :tongue:
 
Last edited:

najo

Mortarch of the Dark Soul
True Blood
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
2,047
People are free to react to AoS in this particular thread however they wish, be it positive or negative. If this place is just "Everything is super!" than it isn't very inclusive. Other forums allow posters to share their reactions and so should CN. I don't agree with "flaming" however. Each post should be constructive.
Now, I say "this particular thread" as it's for general discussion of AoS. I don't advocate people venting in AoS tactics threads and the like and by the same token, I don't appreciate anyone going into a KoW thread and telling those involved to "give AoS a chance" as it's not relevant to the discussion.

Something that has been said a lot on this forum is the following, "People can't make judgments on a game they haven't even played." This is a false statement. Anyone with experience can analyze a set of rules and then make an informed judgment, it's as simple as that. My group and I have played a number of systems over the years and we've also read through a handful of others so we, like the majority of the gaming community on the net, don't need to take part in a game of AoS to make our decisions on the matter.

I also don't appreciate people on this forum calling me "hard headed" for not trying out the system or a "hater" for disliking it. The latter term can be such an exaggerated statement and is sadly used with great frequency in our society. Because I don't like something that means I hate it? It's overused and some consider it insulting.




We know, mate, you've said it about a dozen times in this thread. Check out other forums and see how many vets that have been around that long that aren't fans of AoS, they are in the majority and they dislike the system for the same reasons most people have stated here on CN.
Only reason I bring up my time playing is to provide comfort. My point isn't too hang my experience over anyone, is that if someone like me who has been playing WFB the same way for 25 years can give AoS a chance than most can. Also, just reading the rules can't give you the hands on moments where you start setting the subtle interactions at work. When I saw it and read the rules I felt like Warhammer was dead. The more I play it the more complex tactics are surfacing. As the weeks go by I can tell who is trying it and who isn't by their deciding it an empty skirmish game, because it's not. The game rewards regimental tactics and is balanced through deployment instead of points. I'm actually surprised some of the people who are on here that live tactical games aren't giving AoS a shot yet, especially since there is such positive statements about it surfacing more and more.

And, it hasn't been AoS posts attacking KoW posts, is been the other way around. Just for the record.

But to each their own. Personally, let's all keep playing 8th as our common game. We can ignore Archeon comp and end times magic, keep using the battlescribe files I lovingly put countless hours into and then there are those beautiful handbooks Sunny and I wrote with the support of the entire community here. That's the vampire counts forum comraderie I want to see.
 

Tawg

Vampire Count
True Blood
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
1,132
And yes for the record I have tried to play AoS two times but it feels incomplete. It's like somebody at the studios cried 'just release it already!' and didn't think to include what makes a game an actual game. And the release schedule...man oh man so snooze-worthy. It's way too slow for a new product they want to let thrive.

Now if GW wants to solely focus on miniature models fine, but be honest about it and quit making rules. Stop calling yourselves Games Workshop. I'm more than okay with that. I'm only playing FW 30K right now anyway. Much more fun.
Ohman, they definitely could be doing better with the release schedule. I mean I know it's fitting the bill of what they've been doing as a company, from what I've seen with the 40k stuff when I recently got back into the game, but for something new that "Wow factor" isn't as there when it's one model at a time. They really should be releasing a least a bit more meat at once, and not just the starter set. Or at the very least they shouldn't be releasing only Stormcast. I really want to see what they're doing with the other armies/model lines!

Also it's funny because, GW definitely says they have the stance of being a model company, but I never even thought of the fact that "games" is in the name of the company. That's actually a really funny point. PS Malifaux is too freakin' good.


And @no-one-in-particular, I don't quite understand the mentality that it is a skirmish game. I mean sure, you could play with few models, and there is no longer rank and file, but is that the definition of skirmish? I mean at the same time, I could play literal heaps of undead and have a battle on the scale of Apox. 40k, and I would say I am "playing a skirmish game on a grand scale!" It's just.. the game is the scale you make it. And the lack of rank and file is not the definition of skirmish as far as I know, it's the scale of the fights. So yeah, you can play with a few models when you're starting out. Or you can play with as large of armies as we've collected over the years, but the game isn't one or the other. It's just a simple system that works in either.

Although, IMO, it works better the more models you play. And I say that from the respect that, given more dice to roll, you will experience the sting of bad-dice far less due to averages; Which is important, because when people are already questionably invested in liking AoS any other bad experience while playing it is just like.. they Scapegoat AoS into the reason. Like when people claim that AoS is incapable of having tactics or skill because they choose to slam all the armies into a giant mess of a combat in the center. That's a bad experience, and it's easy to say it's AoS's fault if you already think poorly of it.

I actually just played with my good friend whom I have gamed with all my life for about the first time yesterday. A game of AoS. And we started and it wasn't anything bad, but during the course of the game we ended up discussing much of what has been discussed here about why to not like it, and he didn't see any of the values of tactics and was rather turned off to it all together. And I feel like a big part of that is getting bad rolls on 1-attack abilities that could be devastating or interesting, but then we played a 5 turn game and he never got one off the whole time, and it felt so hallow to him. Like the cool monsters he was using were just worthless because they.. can never even hit? And he echoed that concern that the dice would only further betray him once he got a chance To Wound when he simply failed that. The "Barrier" to fun mechanics, I can certainly see as an issue, and it made him feel like some of his models were not.. Epic enough, not devastating or .. it just didn't feel fantasy to him. The game had always been HIGH Fantasy, epic battles and such. And I can totally see that issue with how the game is reduced to so little in rules there is very little variation to be had, and with a ton of abilities that rely on To Hit and To Wound rolls (Often 3+ at best, with far fewer getting 2+ for anything) it can feel very.. hit or miss. And then you feel cheated, and it's a sour feeling when you're huge model isn't doing everything it can to make your opponents army ground to dust.

But I still slightly feel like he was looking at it through shades of negativity, even though he said he wanted to like it. And I can understand his complaints. And I really feel like a larger battle would mean more dice so less focusing on the poor rolls, when you can see the good ones hitting as well. I don't know.

I mean we did the first scenario from the starter box, the extreme "intro" one with only 3 models duking it out. About as simple as the game can get. And between both of us, we landing not a single hit and wound the first round. So after round one, we both looked at the table and were like.. "Errm, this is looking shitty already.." But I really feel like it's just impressing the feeling of things we associate with negative (Bad dice) onto something that is the fault of it.

But at the same time, with static To Hits and To Wounds, and the reliance on D6 still (Gods only know why GW stuck with D6 when they were ENTIRELY changing the system anyways!) means that there is still very "Swingy" effects, like that Hit or Miss mentality with a lot of cool abilities on monsters. It feels bad when they just whiff. And it feels bad when you cast magic missile on your caster and it's just "Oh yeah I cast the only attack spell, take D3 Mortal Wounds." And I can see how that steals from the.. complex nature of The-Game-That-Was, and I can see how that's EXTREMELY non-immersive, if you aren't really throwing in your imagination to design the "Why is this attack cool, what is happening" mentality into it. Because if someone wants to be TOLD a story, The-Game-That-Was did it so much better, but if someone wants a framework for telling their own story? Then AoS can happen, and you can use it's loose framework to your advantage.

And as a miniatures battle game, I think AoS does at least a decent job, if you want to look at the WHOLE battle, but the more people look at the tiny, the specifics, or individual dice rolls. Yeah the game breaks so much, and is so half-hearted feeling. And I really don't know if @najo and I, or any of the ones who are more into AoS are trying too hard to like it, or if we perhaps weren't as interested in many of the details that were stolen away that make many players feel spurned by GW or even just less interested. Because I can understand list building was important, and it's gone. And characters being "built" is.. gone in the same sense that list building is gone. But it's there if you play the game like it's D&D, or any other game of the imagination. If you just agree on rules with your friends, or make up your own special rules, items, and abilities. And I really like that, but it's impossible for me to get someone else to see the good when they only seem to think those things are bad.

It's frustrating, because I want to have fun with my friend. And he said more than once "This game just doesn't have that feeling... I'm not going to walk away from this battle thinking 'man I can't wait for the next!' it just doesn't have that." and I see the things he was focusing on and questioning.. but I can't for the life of me tell if it's the difference between a glass half-full/glass half-empty mentality or if he is being more reasonable, and I am the one grasping at straws to embrace something that is rightfully lacking.

And it's frustrating because I don't want to force him to play a game he doesn't like, but I want so badly to explore the game like @najo has gotten to with his friends, and I want to see what happens when you play more. Because I believe that many of the bad experiences come from inexperience or negative-association with bad dice or such, but I can't tell if I am just turning away from the bad that is really there.

And I respect my friend and his opinion, but if he doesn't see the game as.. an open system that allows us the creative control to design and play out battles.. but rather a game of mechanics stifled by simplicity and devoid of the epic level of fun he was looking for..

I can't reconcile things that are simply opinions.
 

Banat

Varghulf
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
791
Of course AoS can be played straight "out of the box". You only think it can't because you are imposing your own need for "balancing".

Which, from a fluff wise perspective, and most definitely not a competition perspective, is a load of drong anyway.

The idea that armies in the Old World, or even the new setting, actually turned up to the battle equally balanced up against each other is farcical.

The greatest battles throughout history have been the imbalanced ones. THEY'RE the ones that demonstrate the courage of the warriors or the tactical genius of the commanders.
 

Menkeroth

A Knight of Blood
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
934
Definitely. Especially it's normal and logical for the so-called "high or heroic fantasy". Sigmarite warriors are super armored and equipped and it's logical that they can survive a couple of rounds deflecting the enemy blows, and it's also true of the khornates who are also able to withstand the enemy assault. It's what's called "narrative battles" after all.
 

Ghouly

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
5,517
Warhammer isn't high Fantasy it's Dark Fantasy where the Bad guys are winning and the good guys can barely survive which is why it's beautiful
 

Banat

Varghulf
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
791
I'd like to see more grey morality like in 40K... where even the "good guys" are bad guys, or have very negative aspects of them.

I mean arguably Sigmar, the embodiment of all that is good, even shut himself off inside his castle/realm for aeons whilst Chaos raped and perverted the mortal realms to their hearts content... so even he's not morally perfect. This sets up some great grudges.

Nagash unfortunately is a little bit two dimensional at the moment, I'd like to see some further character development beyond "Super psychotic megalomaniac that wants to rule everything."

As for the rebasing... I'm not over the moon.... whilst it's NOT atm... it will become a case of "there is no choice", because they're going to start phasing out all of the square bases. I need to do some planning ahead about the forces I want to take...

My nurgle warband I'm not so bothered about because it won't comply with 8th ed army structure rules, so it can just be on round bases.

My Helves are already all based up with the exception of the griffon and eagles with can be on round flying bases anyway although given enough time I'll eventually do sqaure scenic bases for them.

My skaven and lizardmen will require the most planning ahead. Can't have them on ROUND bases. I also blew like £50 on resin aztec scenic bases for my lizardmen some time ago and half of them are painted up and all.

And as a further which I'm sure has been mentioned at some point... At least one thing that AoS does ten times better than 8th is SYNERGY. And it was one of the things I did/do love about 8th, but its just so much better and more fun tying up combos. Then having to tone them down because you don't want to be THAT guy lol. =P
 
Last edited:

najo

Mortarch of the Dark Soul
True Blood
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
2,047
Warhammer isn't high Fantasy it's Dark Fantasy where the Bad guys are winning and the good guys can barely survive which is why it's beautiful
I absolutely loved the old world and its gritty dark fantasy. So I do understand. Sorry for any misunderstanding before.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2015
Messages
7
New here and new vampire count player, but I have played against VC alot and lost every single battle. Might just be I suck against Undead or my opponents are really good, but is my experience that all armies feel underrated on the forums.

AoS is a good game for selling models, I think GW realized their market is saturated and to continue to grow they need to make new armies with new looks, they needed AoS game system to let new players in (as you can make a battle with only 2 or more models), make it easier to play for teenagers while still retaining potential tactical depth for old players and veterans to make it interesting. The GW player base has most of the current existing units and just rereleasing them with new look will not make old players buy them since they already have the old models. Now the old players that want to buy GW stuff has a reason to buy whole new armies with copy righted names and look.

Personally I'm happy this happened now before too many people had left WHFB, I don't like AoS but rather this is an opportunity to take the rules away from GW. WHFB was going to be discontinued at some point, 25+ years is a good run, and I think there will be enough 8th edition veterans to make 8,5th edition and make competitive 8,5th edition rules for the new models and armies GW will release in the coming years. Hoping AoS will become the introduction game to 8,5th edition when gamers have built up their army.
 

Menkeroth

A Knight of Blood
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
934
Warhammer isn't high Fantasy it's Dark Fantasy where the Bad guys are winning and the good guys can barely survive which is why it's beautiful
No, it's not and there's no such thing as "dark fantasy". WH is (or was, rather) quite a standard high fantasy style world with all the fantasy cliches used. It was neither grim nor dark, it's not 40k. AoS just follows in its footsteps.
 
Top