Age of sigmar

[Blutsauger]

@Blutsauger Mostly because of eventual awesome models with less silly warscrolls, and actually liking the setting I am not impressed by either ruleset tbh.

Yet to read Warthrone, but I heard it had some pretty unique mechanics like a chain of command affecting gameplay, formations etc. (Too bad everything AoW does is slow apparently)

Well, you can always play you GW models with Kings of War. That's what I plan to do, until they re-release all the Vampire Counts models to look stupid.

Also, I absolutely detest the new AoS setting.

 

[Draykorinee]

I dont see that, he fields a completely legal list according to the rules, sportsmanship has nothing to do with choosing weaker units. Thats ridiculous.

I didn't say he had to take weaker units to be a sportmsan, but to have no balance and to just take as much as cheese as you can is showing a lack of sportmanship. If you read the youtube comments the guy he played said he was 'being a d**k, 110%' so I don't know what else to say to you.
Imo the video makes the game look like the rules were cobbled together by a bunch of drunks.

 

[Dragonet]

I was suggesting that players shouldn't simply go looking for a new system when something they love is broken. Perhaps investing the love and care of their gaming hobby into making something they believe in, would potentially benefit everyone if it becomes a system to be marketed on it's own. Like Pathfinder is to older-edition D&D which Wizards of the Coast walked away from... it could certainly serve as a very niche living rule system maintained by a devoted group of players as a community project, which is more than likely going to happen, since the internet enables such things so easily.

I couldn't agree more! Neither Age Of $igmar nor Kings Of War can do exactly the same job as Warhammer, they're different games. I've personally never been a big rules gamer, I tend to play slower than my opponents cause I struggle to remember all the modifiers and special rules, but I wouldn't change it for the world, those mitigating factors represented in the game make it more real for me.

I'm following the "Fixing 8th Edition" thread with great interest, I think there could be a huge market for Warhammer: Ultimate Edition. With the forums alone there's an international readership of tens of thousands which would certainly qualify as a niche market, although I don't think there's any profit to be had as long as GW hold the copyrights.

I'd be happy to see the various forum owners and moderators join together and form a Warhammer Classic Union of some kind, with the primary goal of keeping the old Warhammer World alive: providing a community for the diehards into each edition; maybe advertising clubs and tournaments supporting Warhammer; working out homebrew rules and mods; posting stories and maybe PDFs with GW's permission? Even creating new rules entries for the Age Of $igmar releases so we're not stuck entirely in the past; who knows, we might even get support from GW, especially now they aren't looking to make bank on the rules and there's obvious crossover between the two systems.

 

[The Sun King]

@Blutsauger To each his own.

 

[Emicrania]

I didn't say he had to take weaker units to be a sportmsan, but to have no balance and to just take as much as cheese as you can is showing a lack of sportmanship. If you read the youtube comments the guy he played said he was 'being a d**k, 110%' so I don't know what else to say to you.
Imo the video makes the game look like the rules were cobbled together by a bunch of drunks.

I couldn't agree more! Neither Age Of $igmar nor Kings Of War can do exactly the same job as Warhammer, they're different games. I've personally never been a big rules gamer, I tend to play slower than my opponents cause I struggle to remember all the modifiers and special rules, but I wouldn't change it for the world, those mitigating factors represented in the game make it more real for me.

I'm following the "Fixing 8th Edition" thread with great interest, I think there could be a huge market for Warhammer: Ultimate Edition. With the forums alone there's an international readership of tens of thousands which would certainly qualify as a niche market, although I don't think there's any profit to be had as long as GW hold the copyrights.

I'd be happy to see the various forum owners and moderators join together and form a Warhammer Classic Union of some kind, with the primary goal of keeping the old Warhammer World alive: providing a community for the diehards into each edition; maybe advertising clubs and tournaments supporting Warhammer; working out homebrew rules and mods; posting stories and maybe PDFs with GW's permission? Even creating new rules entries for the Age Of $igmar releases so we're not stuck entirely in the past; who knows, we might even get support from GW, especially now they aren't looking to make bank on the rules and there's obvious crossover between the two systems.

What post are you talking about?

 

[Menkeroth]

@Blutsauger To each his own.

Totally agree. And, besides, don't all forget that without real changes any system will die? WHFB was always some sort of an easy and non-difficult game system, and it certainly is exhausted now. One should not revive but change and remake it in order for the system to live again.

 

[Blutsauger]

Totally agree. And, besides, don't all forget that without real changes any system will die? WHFB was always some sort of an easy and non-difficult game system, and it certainly is exhausted now. One should not revive but change and remake it in order for the system to live again.

I strongly disagree with that statement. A good rule system should be able to stand the test of time. Any game system can be improved upon, and that's generally what new editions of any game are for, but no game system should need a complete re-write and update of every rule every 4-6 years like clockwork. That's just crazy.

 

[Seneschal]

From BoLS;




Retailers all over the world are reporting a curious item on their order sheets this week for the new Age of Sigmar. Check THIS out!


Here’s the write-up of the new release list based off the new release sales sheet that’s going around to retailers. Let’s take a closer look at the lineup;



Via multiple retailers:

WDW077-60 WHITE DWARF WEEKLY 77 (ENGLISH) White Dwarf 4
80-02-60 WARHAMMER: AGE OF SIGMAR BOOK (ENGLISH) Other Book74
80-02-01 WARHAMMER: AGE OF SIGMAR BOOK (FRENCH) Other Book 74
96-10 STORMCAST ETERNALS LIBERATORS Plastic Box 50
96-15 STORMCAST ETERNALS LORD-CELESTANT Plastic Clam 33
65-10 AGE OF SIGMAR COMBAT GAUGE Hobby Product 33
65-12 STORMCAST ETERNALS DICE SHAKER Hobby Product 40
65-13 KHORNE BLOODBOUND DICE SHAKER Hobby Product 40
– WARHAMMER: AGE OF SIGMAR BOOK LIMITED ED Other Book 130

That last number in bold is the price, in US dollars.



Now here’s some very big things that you may want to take into consideration folks;

First off the GW product code 80-02 is the old Warhammer Fantasy Rule book SKU that has been in place for years. Interesting parallel there.

Second is that Game Workshop has only told retailers thus far that this item will be moving from ‘new release’ status to ‘best /core sellers’ for next week so they will be REQUIRED to carry it. There is also a ‘limited edition’ version of this item as well, which strongly indicates an item of strong interest I feel like.

Now all this information could change as early as Tuesday morning here in the US, as European retailers begin talking with Games Workshop, and likewise their American shopkeeper counterparts with GW as well later in the day.

However as of right now this looks to be some sort of rulebook for Age of Sigmar, whether it’s just a ‘hardcopy’ of all the new datascrolls now available via free download remains to be seen.

 

[Dragonet]

Hello Emicrania, I was adding to Tawg's earlier response to Lord Tobiothan regarding which style of game is better, and whether we're better off fixing what we have rather than moving on to a new game.

I've been quite clear on my stance: I resent GW squatting their original game for the sake of sales; it seems to me so shortsighted and unnecessary when Ao$ isn't even in competition for anything except consumer attention; one could use the same models for either game, and the Ao$ rules don't even make money for GW directly.

I probably won't bother with Ao$, but I won't refuse to play out of 'principle'; more likely I won't have time to because aside from the demands of the real world, I'll be too busy playing 8th Edition, maybe trying some rules tweaks or some earlier editions, and definitely playing other games which I also enjoy.

 

[Sception]

There's descriptions of the book leaked already. Its a fluff book about the setting that has some warscrolls for sigmarites, khorne chaos, and 'sylvans' or something like that (dryads? elves?), plus some narrative oriented scenarios featuring the same. It is not a big rulebook for a more advanced game, and it is not the 'missing link' for competitive list building.

 

[Menkeroth]

I strongly disagree with that statement. A good rule system should be able to stand the test of time. Any game system can be improved upon, and that's generally what new editions of any game are for, but no game system should need a complete re-write and update of every rule every 4-6 years like clockwork. That's just crazy.

Well, it's been unchanged for 30 years and where it's now? WHFB and WH40k were always quite non-tactics games to be sure (pointcosts of models and boxes of models on the field can't be named tactics in any way). First and foremost it's about your collection put in and great models against one another. This was predicted long ago and should have been done earlier.

There's descriptions of the book leaked already. Its a fluff book about the setting that has some warscrolls for sigmarites, khorne chaos, and 'sylvans' or something like that (dryads? elves?), plus some narrative oriented scenarios featuring the same. It is not a big rulebook for a more advanced game, and it is not the 'missing link' for competitive list building.

Aye, it will be about Chaos Nurgle invasion into the lands of the elves and sylvan folk (sylvaneth are dryads, trees and the like).

 

[Tawg]

@Seneschal, yeah I am fairly sure @Malisteen is right. I don't think GW would double-double cross their consumer base to sneakily release a "new" core system that is more advance.

Honestly, if a more advance version of the game is released, or if things are changed drastically not on the grounds of campaign play/storytelling battles, then it will be due to AoS flopping so hard GW has to scramble to draw the players they had before back in. But I doubt that will happen. I can't say for certain how well AoS will do, but in stark contrast to the forums, I have not heard a single negative thing about it from anyone I've talked to at my FLGSs. Granted a number of those people work for the FLGSs, so I can't be certain if they are merely in support because they have no choice but to attempt to sell the product, or if they are actually interested (I believe it is the latter however, not simply wanting sales).

I still don't think the game is that broken just because they haven't included points cost. To be honest, just look at every edition we've ever had, and how the points cost effect the game: Entire units viability changed because the points cost made them too pricey, or rule-sets removed their good tricks or what have you. We have always had units that are "not worth", and if you consider the fact that with points cost systems the only thing we end up doing is trying to maximize our ability to win within those limits, how is that different than AoS presents?

Just instead of them telling you made up values for the units, you only have to compare how well the units themselves function, and then you can develop a sense of how well they will fair against other armies/units. Granted the whole issue with Summoning seems rather large, with how much it can potentially tip the scales of a battle in favor of one side (Usually the summoner), and how difficult it is to dispel magic (Mostly due to range/LoS restrictions, which are questionable at best). So there may end up being issues with valuations of units, but I don't think it's too drastic to say the lack of points cost is not holding us back nearly as much as we are holding ourselves back.

I strongly disagree with that statement. A good rule system should be able to stand the test of time. Any game system can be improved upon, and that's generally what new editions of any game are for, but no game system should need a complete re-write and update of every rule every 4-6 years like clockwork. That's just crazy.

That's a yes and no kind of thing. The premise of such games is as a product in a nation of capitalism. Obviously Chess or Go proves your point, that games don't need to change or be altered so drastically to entail a truly fantastic game. But the issue is that Chess isn't being used as a product to turn profits as best they can by a corporation. So while I agree games could last longer, or be designed to last, I don't think that's what the goal here is. That being a great game in the end. The goal is money, and that's the real game between us and GW.

There's descriptions of the book leaked already. Its a fluff book about the setting that has some warscrolls for sigmarites, khorne chaos, and 'sylvans' or something like that (dryads? elves?), plus some narrative oriented scenarios featuring the same. It is not a big rulebook for a more advanced game, and it is not the 'missing link' for competitive list building.

That said, I am curious about the new books they may release. I like lore/art and the scenarios seem like they could be interesting to me. So I am slightly interested in what might come of the new releases of books they will bring to the table.

 

[Sception]

I'd like to read more of the AoS fluff - I love goofy high-fantasy planes hopping adventures like spelljammer or planescape or Marve's Thor stuff. I'm currently waffling on whether to pick up the starter box mostly for the fluff book (trading the sigmarines for a second set of chaos and dumping them in my chaos marine army's bits box) or just waiting for this book.

I'm also considering picking up a vamp counts battalion. Mostly for the corpse cart, but it would give me enough extra ghouls and skeletons to run either of our formations, along with some dire wolves basically for free.

On the other hand, I've already got just a butt load of yet-to-paint undead legion stuff already, so I don't know.

 

[Tawg]

Yeah, I think I am picking up one of the starter sets, and splitting it with a friend. Although I guess I need to see how into AoS he is, because if he thinks it's massively less interesting, then this idea is a little bunk!

But I am most interested in the book that comes with the starter kit, and hopefully with any luck, the FLGS will have a copy of the box set already opened by a member of the store (Or demo copy maybe?) so I can glance at it. Because the scenarios are something I really want to happen, and I think that will be the best way to convince my friend that AoS is worth a go. And of course those freaking models.. HOLY COW. I guess I understand that Chaos is a big deal and all, but man I wish it was undead in there. I am looking forward to seeing new kits they are planning, although I don't think they'll stray from the Sigmarites and Chaos at first which is a shame.

 

[Oppenheimer]

Yeah, Nagash can pretty much raise an army on his first turn, unhindered unless the opponent manages to get a wizard within 18" and even then, Nagash has +3 to his casting. What's that? Summon a balewind vortex and get ANOTHER +1 to casting AS WELL as double the range of spells? 36" summoning? Summon 20 Black Knights right onto the opponents flank? Sure!

1. Summon balewind vortex/fulcrum,
2. Summon Morghasts (+1 to all summoning spells, now you're summoning with +5 to your cast)
3. summon zombies (roll a 6 on two dice to summon 40),
4. summon skeletons (again roll a 6 for 40),
5. summon 20 Black Knights,
6. Summon 10 Blood Knights,
7. Summon 10 Spirit hosts,
8. Gaze of Nagash his most powerful unit.

And that's just your FIRST magic turn of the game.

In fact, the only NON douchebag way of fielding Nagash, what with all this talk of balance, is just to field him on his own. Because by the end of his turn he definitely won't be on his own.

@picture: Probably not Sigmar, more like a Lord Celestant on foot or something?

It is of course not clear but since the summon spells are under the individual units I like to think you can't summon something you haven't actually fielded one of. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist unless its unit is present at the beginning of the game to provide the summoning spell to casters.

 

[LordTobiothan]

It is of course not clear but since the summon spells are under the individual units I like to think you can't summon something you haven't actually fielded one of. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist unless its unit is present at the beginning of the game to provide the summoning spell to casters.

Except that makes certain character summoning spells unusable.

 

[Tawg]

Except that makes certain character summoning spells unusable.

Well you could look at it two ways. The summon spell vs Special character issue, if it works how Oppenheimer suggested, could represent more of a "resurrection" spell.

But I am inclined to think that the summon spells work no matter if you fielded the unit or not. What "matters" is that you own the unit in question to place on the table when you actually summon them.

 

[Oppenheimer]

Resurrection is kinda the feel i got too, that all these summon spells are our new IoN. We are resurrecting units that are getting wiped out by replacing them.

Oh course it's ambiguous because the AoS is rules light so I respect the other way. I just think it's less fun to not have to think about army composition because you can just summon whatever anytime.

 

[Sception]

There are plenty of effects in AoS that specify when they're returning fallen models or restoring lost wounds. Enough to state pretty confidently that summoning spells weren't intended to be restricted to replacing lost units.

That said, it's probably a reasonable house rule.

 

[The Flaming Hand]

It is of course not clear but since the summon spells are under the individual units I like to think you can't summon something you haven't actually fielded one of. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist unless its unit is present at the beginning of the game to provide the summoning spell to casters.

I did speak to some GW employes about this issue and the rules the they are gonna use in this store at least is that you cannot summon a unit you did not actually field. So in order to summon skeletons for example you must actually have a unit of skeletons on the board.

That being said, Nagash seems extremly broken, which should come as no suprise considering he is Nagash and currently has the status of a god in the new background.

 

[Banat]

I did speak to some GW employes about this issue and the rules the they are gonna use in this store at least is that you cannot summon a unit you did not actually field. So in order to summon skeletons for example you must actually have a unit of skeletons on the board.

That being said, Nagash seems extremly broken, which should come as no suprise considering he is Nagash and currently has the status of a god in the new background.

I firmly disagree with that stance regardless of what some store employees say. The reason the spells are on the scrolls is because there's no where else to collect them. Its either on the scroll or the four page rules and clearly there wouldn't be space to collect ALL the spells from every army on the central rulesheet. Quite frankly Id think you'd be taking the mickey if you turned up with a unit each of skeletons, zombies, grave guard, black knights, terrorgeist et et, basically an entire army AND Nagash.

The precedent is set with the character summons from lizardmen. The summon for balewind vortex also only states that you must have the model, not that there must already be one on the table in order to be summoned.

 

[Sception]

Since special characters are not limited to 1 per game, the lizardmen summon doesn't really set any precedent. As for the vortex - you say yourself that it states what you need in order to use it. The death summons do not, so it is not at all clear whether the spells added by those datascrolls are in play if the datascrolls themselves are not yet.

I agree with your interpretation of intent, I just don't think the answer is overt enough to claim a definitive judgment. Unfortunately, FAQs, especially of the outdated factions, are the drop dead last thing I expect to come out of GW for age of sigmar, so I think this one will come down to individual table interpretations.

Regardless, however, summoning very much can be game breaking in AoS, and needs to be treated carefully regardless.

 

[najo]

As a 25 year veteran of Warhammer and a student of historical warfare, I can honestly say all of you wargame fanatics should give AoS a shot before you write it off. Its a simple set of rules with a lot of potential complexity in its tactics. No offense intended to the battle reports so far, but many are playing the game wrong just like new WFB players played WFB wrong. You don't just slam units into each other and do your pile-ins and roll dice. You maneuver, control match ups and use the 3" control zone and the loose formations to use real tactics in this game.

I'm telling you, I went in skeptical but with an open mind. There was no kool-aid. I just brought my wargame experience with me. Right now, with the handful of games under my belt and studying the rules and units and discussing the tactics the rules allow, AoS offers WAY more tactical options than WFB. Right now, I'm torn between WFB regiments and AoS open formations. Mostly just because of the ease of using movement trays and magnets and the LOS arc. But the AoS formations are much more varied, simple rule-wise, complex tactically and may end up being the more advanced for actual strategies and tactics.

I think most of this is beyond many of the Warhammer players. Anyone who is still all about deathstars and running straight at their opponent with little thought in deployment or moving, is not going to see the value in AoS.

 

[LordTobiothan]

I think most of this is beyond many of the Warhammer players. Anyone who is still all about deathstars and running straight at their opponent with little thought in deployment or moving, is not going to see the value in AoS.

Idk if I'd go so far a to say this bit right here. As far a a skirmish game goes, AoS is one of the simplest out there and not very appealing to the skirmish gaming crowd. When given to people who want to play a battlescale game, that "complexity" just seems silly for a block of troops. The romans never won battles by circling their opponents regiment, they let the other regiment break formation to thin themselves and circle them, and never make it past their formed wall of soldiers. Its why the agile losely formed barbarians never won even when in the rare circumstance that they outnumbered the romans.

This happens the opposite way with only a couple dozen combatants, but if your looking for small scale, this is not the best one out there, if your looking for big scale AoS formations just seems silly. I think you'd really like some of the already established skirmish games najo, seems weird that this is your first taste of them as you seem blown away by simple skirmish tactics.

 

[Draykorinee]

As someone who puts a lot of thought in deployment and movement, even as a newbie, I don't see the value in AoS, that just sems like a fairly patronising statement even if it wasn't meant to be.

Tbh its sounding like a lot of air at the moment, you're not offering any kind of substance to your opinion that would convince me, I've seen battle reports from other people, I've watched a game, sure its early days but I don't like what I see, once I get a game in then I can judge properly, but even then, people will just say you can't base it on one game.