Oppenheimer
Varghulf
Frankly I disagreed with some of the point values before anyway so it'll be nice if the community comes up with better ones.
Old Jervis Johnson Article and Age of Sigmar design philosophy
- Thread starter Sception
- Start date
-
The masquerade of murder returns! A new game of Vampires Amongst Us has begun. Unmask the killers, trust no one, and try to survive the night. Find out more and sign up now!
Draykorinee
Grave Guard
This is why, and I'm going back to kow however there are many companies who do it, engaging the community is such a positive and gw still haven't understood this.
Pirate Robot Ninja of Death
Vampire Thrall
There's a big difference between an imperfect system and no system at all. ETC and Swedish took some of the rougher edges off GW's flawed game design, but building a system up from scratch is a very different beast.
More importantly...the "Community" is not a contiguous hivemind. It's thousands of players all over the world, with different ideas of what is "fair" or "balanced." Look now and you'll see that every damned forum, podcast, TO, etc. is "working on their own point system for AoS." And they're all over the map.
In the end, I don't even see any of those really catching hold. They'll lag too far behind, be too hard to keep track of, and it will make the system even more clunky and unusable than it already is. If GW wants to keep at it then fine...but me and mine are heading for greener pastures. Like a game company that doesn't jack up their prices at the same time as they decide they're just not going to do half their bloody job.
Kings of War is bare bones, absolutely. Few people are going to argue with you there...it's not WHFB. But it's a start. And it's growing. I want people to support that, over this clusterfuck mess that is Age of Sigmar.
Oppenheimer
Varghulf
ETC took hold with their rules in a way that seems consistent in the community. I would hope that something like that could happen again if GW does not come up with something down the road. One can hope anyway.
Pirate Robot Ninja of Death
Vampire Thrall
It's an undertaking on an entirely different scale, though. ETC made a few tweaks to elements of WHFB 8E that they found obnoxious, and limited the number of objectively undercosted units/combinations that you could take.
Swedish was a similar thing, but on a more granular scale. They basically took a flawed point system and shaved off all the peaks and valleys, making things more balanced across the board.
Balancing Age of Sigmar means starting from scratch, balancing a system that was not built with balance in mind. It's - and I keep saying this - a truly herculean undertaking. I honestly don't think it's even possible, and if it is it'll be 6+ months before a system is in place that's actually even remotely amenable for tournament play.
Thus my question to the community is WHY BOTHER? Why put all of this effort into turning shit into gold, when there are plenty of other systems out there (like Kings of War) that could be polished up instead?
Kings of War is basic...but the fundamentals are solid. You could add stuff like a WHFB 8E-style magic system, or random charges, or a more robust magic item system. It's easier to make a fair system more interesting (at the expense of some of its fairness) than to take a system built exclusively for "fun games" and turn it into something even remotely fair.
I would argue that, as annoying as it is to be doing from scratch, imposing a comp system to balance age of sigmar is at least a possible task, while re-writing the Kings of War faction rules to not be yawn inducing is just outright impossible.
I may not like the spirit behind its construction, or the attitude they've taking towards the player base, but that doesn't stop me from feeling the underlying game is better. The experience more engaging. I wanted to like kings of war. I really did. But just... ugh. No offense intended to those who enjoy it, different gamers like different games, and I certainly like the attitude of the people who made it better than the disdainful silver tower attitude of Games Workshop, but it's just... Look, I've enjoyed every game I've played of Age of Sigmar despite this, its, imo, one great flaw. I can't even look at the undead faction spreadsheet in Kings of War long enough an army list without falling asleep. You couldn't pay me to play that game. Goofy? Simplistic? Even downright insulting I can handle, if grudgingly, from a game, if it's fun. And Age of Sigmar is fun, if players come to it trying to create a balanced game instead of trying to win the game with unit selection before the game even starts. Which is what army building in warhammer and every points based game is, and what deck building is in Magic, an attempt to win the game, or at least accrue a significant leg up, before even showing up to the table. And I don't think that's a bad thing, I like that part of the game.
But if the game itself bores me, and Kings of War just flat out bores me, every aspect of it, the core rules, the faction rules especially, then I can't get into it. Again, that's not to knock on the people who like it. I find Baulder's Gate II boring as hell, and it's considered by many to be a sterling gem of game design. Me not enjoying it doesn't make them wrong, but them being right doesn't make me enjoy it either.
I honestly kind of hope Kings of War catches on, that it picks up a lot of the gamers Age of Sigmar seems deliberately designed to drive away, because the positive, community minded attitude of its makers deserves to be rewarded, but the game they've made is just not one I personally can get behind, while the game GW has made is, with admittedly one or two really painfully glaring exceptions, the minis game I always wanted to play.
I may not like the spirit behind its construction, or the attitude they've taking towards the player base, but that doesn't stop me from feeling the underlying game is better. The experience more engaging. I wanted to like kings of war. I really did. But just... ugh. No offense intended to those who enjoy it, different gamers like different games, and I certainly like the attitude of the people who made it better than the disdainful silver tower attitude of Games Workshop, but it's just... Look, I've enjoyed every game I've played of Age of Sigmar despite this, its, imo, one great flaw. I can't even look at the undead faction spreadsheet in Kings of War long enough an army list without falling asleep. You couldn't pay me to play that game. Goofy? Simplistic? Even downright insulting I can handle, if grudgingly, from a game, if it's fun. And Age of Sigmar is fun, if players come to it trying to create a balanced game instead of trying to win the game with unit selection before the game even starts. Which is what army building in warhammer and every points based game is, and what deck building is in Magic, an attempt to win the game, or at least accrue a significant leg up, before even showing up to the table. And I don't think that's a bad thing, I like that part of the game.
But if the game itself bores me, and Kings of War just flat out bores me, every aspect of it, the core rules, the faction rules especially, then I can't get into it. Again, that's not to knock on the people who like it. I find Baulder's Gate II boring as hell, and it's considered by many to be a sterling gem of game design. Me not enjoying it doesn't make them wrong, but them being right doesn't make me enjoy it either.
I honestly kind of hope Kings of War catches on, that it picks up a lot of the gamers Age of Sigmar seems deliberately designed to drive away, because the positive, community minded attitude of its makers deserves to be rewarded, but the game they've made is just not one I personally can get behind, while the game GW has made is, with admittedly one or two really painfully glaring exceptions, the minis game I always wanted to play.
Last edited:
Draykorinee
Grave Guard
Yup, people should play what they enjoy. One of the reasons kow plays so well is because it's simple it looks but how deep it can play (like what people say about aos), I can understand why some look at the lists and ask where the fun is in them, I look at the war scrolls and kinda want to vomit at the stupidity of some of the rules and how simplistic the stats are. Ruling 3+4+3+4+3+4+ ad nauseam was also not interesting.
I'd rather silly rules like who has the biggest beard to my kids guess who game.
I'd rather silly rules like who has the biggest beard to my kids guess who game.
Infernal Skull
Wight King
I get where Jervis is going with the article. He's not "anti-tournament" but he feels that tournaments are becoming the norm for the community.
I kind of feel the same way about Warmachine:
Warmachine has devolved into a mostly timed tournament format where assassination-run caster kills is the go-to strategy. PP's "Hardcore" format used to be unique because it used a strictly timed turn, and rewarded things like quickest caster kill.
Now, however, pretty much EVERY WM/H tournament is a chess clock "death clock" format. A "win as fast as you can" affair. And while that's fine for some games, most pickup games and store games tend to be treated as "tournament training," using a similar system that tournaments do. And it's more than just playing the "tournament-sized" point games, it's also using the same tactics that will get you the quick win.
And doing so puts artificial limitations on the type of things you can put in your army. Any units that have Area of Effect weapons are a detriment because you don't have enough time to resolve all of those AOEs in your turn. Having lots of troops is also a detriment because in later turns you need to not activate stuff because you're at risk of running out of time. Both of those things are actually counter to how the rules of the game are written.
I had a lot of ideas for games where maybe one side would have a Warcaster, and a battle group, and the other side had NO warcaster and was mostly units of troops, led by a solo character. Games that didn't involve a 12" circle in the center of the table, and exactly symmetrical (ie: boring) terrain. Games where the objective could still be won even if the warcaster was killed.
But nope. It's all assassination lists, and mosh pit scenarios that are still won if you can pull off a quick combo kill. Sure, some people play weird and different scenario games, but it's hardly the norm.
I think Jervis was saying that the weird scenario games, while not necessarily being the norm, should at least not be so heavily outweighed by straight up pitched battle, 2000 point tournament games. That tournament mentality is also what contributes to people not wanting to play smaller games. The game mechanics work just fine at 500 points. But people can't wrap their head around using smaller units or fewer units and not having a blender lord as their general.
The idea that everything need to be "tournament legal" in order to be sold can just fuck right off. You don't want to play a game against Nagash because he's too powerful? That's the point. He's supposed to be too powerful, your army is in a desperate fight for the fate of its realm! If you think you can't win with balanced points then fine, I'll spot you 500 points that can come in as reinforcements. Now lets do something fun and different!
So now we come to Age of Sigmar. GW does away with points, but STILL make the mistake of presenting a competitive mechanic to determine who "wins." I think AoS would have been better served if they had not included anything about Major Victories, Minor Victories, or Sudden Death. Just rules on how to play with the models, and let players set up their own victory conditions for the games.
By doing it the way they did, they've created a game with no limitations, no balance, and no guidelines, that both players are still expected to try and "win."
I kind of feel the same way about Warmachine:
Warmachine has devolved into a mostly timed tournament format where assassination-run caster kills is the go-to strategy. PP's "Hardcore" format used to be unique because it used a strictly timed turn, and rewarded things like quickest caster kill.
Now, however, pretty much EVERY WM/H tournament is a chess clock "death clock" format. A "win as fast as you can" affair. And while that's fine for some games, most pickup games and store games tend to be treated as "tournament training," using a similar system that tournaments do. And it's more than just playing the "tournament-sized" point games, it's also using the same tactics that will get you the quick win.
And doing so puts artificial limitations on the type of things you can put in your army. Any units that have Area of Effect weapons are a detriment because you don't have enough time to resolve all of those AOEs in your turn. Having lots of troops is also a detriment because in later turns you need to not activate stuff because you're at risk of running out of time. Both of those things are actually counter to how the rules of the game are written.
I had a lot of ideas for games where maybe one side would have a Warcaster, and a battle group, and the other side had NO warcaster and was mostly units of troops, led by a solo character. Games that didn't involve a 12" circle in the center of the table, and exactly symmetrical (ie: boring) terrain. Games where the objective could still be won even if the warcaster was killed.
But nope. It's all assassination lists, and mosh pit scenarios that are still won if you can pull off a quick combo kill. Sure, some people play weird and different scenario games, but it's hardly the norm.
I think Jervis was saying that the weird scenario games, while not necessarily being the norm, should at least not be so heavily outweighed by straight up pitched battle, 2000 point tournament games. That tournament mentality is also what contributes to people not wanting to play smaller games. The game mechanics work just fine at 500 points. But people can't wrap their head around using smaller units or fewer units and not having a blender lord as their general.
The idea that everything need to be "tournament legal" in order to be sold can just fuck right off. You don't want to play a game against Nagash because he's too powerful? That's the point. He's supposed to be too powerful, your army is in a desperate fight for the fate of its realm! If you think you can't win with balanced points then fine, I'll spot you 500 points that can come in as reinforcements. Now lets do something fun and different!
So now we come to Age of Sigmar. GW does away with points, but STILL make the mistake of presenting a competitive mechanic to determine who "wins." I think AoS would have been better served if they had not included anything about Major Victories, Minor Victories, or Sudden Death. Just rules on how to play with the models, and let players set up their own victory conditions for the games.
By doing it the way they did, they've created a game with no limitations, no balance, and no guidelines, that both players are still expected to try and "win."
Pirate Robot Ninja of Death
Vampire Thrall
For the record, the spreadsheet is the beta rules. I have a PDF of the final rulebook and the presentation is more along the lines of what you'd expect with WHFB (though understandably lower production value).
Age of Sigmar does indeed look fun to play. I've even said that myself. But there's no army building there. It's just jamming a bunch of units together and throwing them on the table. At least Kings of War has that. I'm *excited* building KoW lists. Age of Sigmar is just a big collection of silly rules, with no context of any sort.
Perhaps someone will fix that gaping hole. But I doubt it will happen for 6-12 months. I'll be interested to see it once it's there, but I suspect that by the time they fix the game for the "legacy" factions the game will have moved on to embrace the new AoS factions.
Honestly...what has me really stoked up isn't Kings of War, but Darklands. The minis look amazing, the system looks compelling (if over complex), and I'm super jazzed to paint and play games of it. However it's not really in the vein of "Vampire Counts," so I don't feel like there's a good place for it on these forums.
Kings of War really only has me excited because it's something I can use my WHFB armies for, that isn't a dead game or one without the fundamental component I like the most (army building).
Age of Sigmar's tactical level isn't in its funny rules (which I have yet to see in play) or its 3+/4+ stats (which there are 3+,4+,5+,6+ and -). It's in moving units into position, building formations that will take advantage of charging or being charge, playing cautiously enough that your safe if you lose initiative, but bold enough that when you win initiative or get two turns in a row you casn take advantage of it. Then a huge key to success is timing charges, pile-in and fight priority so can get the key first strikes in. Units in Age of Sigmar can often delete the unit they are fighting if they strike first, which is confusing players right now. It's about controlling how many engagements and pile-ins are occurring so you can have your unit kill before its killed.
I had a game last night where Imrik charged a block of my grave guard. I choose to activate a unit of archai first, which was a mistake, as Imrik wiped out the grave guard with his charge. If I had activated the grave guard first, they would have killed him and survived.
So, Sigmar puts importance on the position, movement, pile-in then fight order over any stats. I has more in common with Chess or Go for that reason.
I had a game last night where Imrik charged a block of my grave guard. I choose to activate a unit of archai first, which was a mistake, as Imrik wiped out the grave guard with his charge. If I had activated the grave guard first, they would have killed him and survived.
So, Sigmar puts importance on the position, movement, pile-in then fight order over any stats. I has more in common with Chess or Go for that reason.
Draykorinee
Grave Guard
I simply don't agree with this statement. Mantic's business model is very different from GW's and they are much more open with their customers. And of course KoW is trying to woo GW customers they are a business.
Have you played KoW? I thought the same things as you just reading the rules then played the game and found it was amazing, possibly even better than 8th edition.
Again I'm going to ask you what you asked a lot of people about AoS. Have you tried the game? I heard you say once in an age of sigmar post that you wanted theses tactics just with regiments. I truly believe that although KoW doesn't offer everything it offers many tactics available to AoS players.
I seriously suggest you try the game. Again these were my thoughts when I was reading the rules but when I tried them my opinion completely changed.
Pirate Robot Ninja of Death
Vampire Thrall
Age of Sigmar has lots of flare but is lacking in the functionality department. Kings of War is a well-oiled machine, but is very perfunctory in exectution.
I think given time, Kings of War will turn out to be the gold standard for fantasy mass battles. Yeah its not perfect now, but the company has the right philosophy to make it work. Games Workshop is too lost in their hubris, and can no longer see the forest for the trees.
QFT.
Besides, as much as @Pirate Robot Ninja of Death seems to think the game has no balance, there is certainly a pecking order to the units, and you can clearly see strengths in different units. To say that they are all a hodge podge of nonsense is.. well perhaps right.. but you can't deny that units have strengths over others, and weaknesses. And honestly, I don't think that the balance is as big of an issue as playing the game in a more correct manner right now. Because I make horrid tactical errors, like @najo said with striking with the wrong unit first, or as in my last game, I charged and piled in too far, and got a 2nd unit of my opponents within range of my own, which subsequently crushed my unit. Terrible move.
But I would also like to add that some people enjoy building rules, perhaps even the ones who enjoy narrative, which is usually how creative and interesting scenarios are born. Making rules is not however strictly an exertion that punishes us, rather for some players it can be rather fun to try and make such balancing acts that can be enjoyed with friends.
I personally look forward to brewing up scenarios myself, perhaps even for campaign play.
That is a really great point I haven't seen come up yet. I had hardly considered it myself. But I feel like players would be even further lost if they were simply told to "Hey, do what ever you want!", and rather the "basic kill" scenario is there as a place holder in the core rules that will be expanded upon by the new release books they are going to offer. Like this first one coming out this week, which has what, 8 new scenarios in it? Each hopefully offering a new way to play the game, and bringing new rules or ideas on play to the fore. I wish I could buy the new book this weekend, but it'll have to wait until Wednesday following when I get my paycheck. I really hope I can find a player with a copy that would be willing to allow me to look through it though :ghost:
It's a drastic departure from what we're use to, that is for certain. It is a new school of hard knocks, and we're all enrolled, because we're all only going to get use to this by playing (I guess possibly by watching BatReps). It's worse though, because without leadership to guide us in the direction of how to play correctly it becomes so very difficult to uncover the subtle rules interactions. I have a hard time with it even, knowing that they are there, just trying to put them in place, because I am still struggling to find out how hard or easy units die (Which is very much hard and extremely easily in almost all cases). Then you have to learn to "use" the combat phase and charges to your advantage.. it's a bit of a struggle for anyone even trying, I can't imagine for people who are not trying to see the game in a positive light, or who are simply making mistakes without realizing it and have no one to correct them.
Pirate Robot Ninja of Death
Vampire Thrall
That there is quite obviously a pecking order between units is the very crux of the problem: there is absolutely no reason to take something like a unit of skeletons, because the game is entirely based on "models" and a unit of 50 skeletons is objectively worse than 50 individual bloodthirsters.
People are quick to say "oh, well nobody is ACTUALLY going to field 50 bloodthirsters," but is that really the basis that we're expecting to balance this game on? That people "probably" won't take it to that extreme?
And yeah...narrative scenarios are cool. I've played loads of them. Run whole narrative campaigns. They were some of the best warhammer I've ever played.
However there is nothing in these rules that actually encourages that sort of play. All it does is FORCE you to ONLY do that sort of play, since there isn't a fucking alternative anymore. You can't just play a fun or balanced pickup game, because there is no basic mechanism for determining what a fair matchup will be.
There was no reason to take this entire aspect out of the game, save that GW either doesn't want the sort of players who require that aspect for their enjoyment, or that GW was too lazy to do it themselves.
I have messed around with the rules but not played a full game from start to finish. My main issue with the game is it is trying to be a slimmed down Warhammer 6th or 7th and some of the humor in it actually bothers me more than the fluff rules in AoS. You can tell Allesio went from working on 7th to making KoW. I am picking up 2nd ed KoW and will play some games of it. Like I said, I admire Alessio's work.
But my main issue with KoW and Mantic is lack of innovation. They play things cheap and safe. Only reason KoW 2nd is as pretty as is going to be is because of the kickstarter's success. This is not me hating BTW, I am speaking as a fan of Alessio and from a designers perspective. Essentially Mantic has clones of bloodbowl, 40k and Warhammer. The fantasy world is called Mantic. The races and art look exactly like Warhammer. The two main races they have for warpath are forge fathers (squats) and vyr-men (skaven in space). It feels desperate and silly to me. They even mock GW's statue unveiling. Then with their miniatures being subpar (though getting better), it's just a company that seems to lower the bar and behave tacky. Many praise Mantic for their great ideas and talent, but really it's Alessio's game design and the rest of the company doing lack luster world building and miniature design.
Mantic's most innovative product is Kora, Alessio's chess game. I haven't played it, but I hear good stuff. I would of grabbed it by now, but everytime I go to buy it, it's sold out.
And I absolutely mean no disrespect to the KoW guys, but I just want to see Mantic do something original or at least at a higher standard and without the mocking and copying.
GW has done incredible work over the last 30 years. Look at how much they've inspired us and how much innovation comes out of that company. They keep surprising me every year.
Just so you know im not GW exckusdive, I think Malifaux and Warmahordes deserve praise. As does Darklands (so far). Confrontation was amazing at one point to. Avatars of War and Raging Heroes deserve some props to. KoW just hasn't impressed me yet. So far, Age of Sigmar has more in common with the previous games and miniatures than that last one. It's innovative and bold and risky. KoW's whole business plan is to grab angry GW players who want Warhammer 9th to be a revised 8th or back to 7th, and even those players say KoW games ate balanced, quick to learn and play, but so far they all have said it's lacking things (army customization, interesting special rules, player interaction, cool characters and setting) they loved in Warhammer. Which I totally see that.
The real irony, if 9th came out and square bases, regiments and points remained, no one would be talking about KoW. What i see are many people are going to it out of frustration and spite. To me that doesn't earn my time or energy, I rather be where the creativity, innovation and the edge of game design is. I want to be challenged and see wargames in a new way. So far Age of Sigmar is delivering there.
Food for thought. Why is it the two active tactics moderators who wrote your vampire tactics handbooks and you guys ask our advice on tactics, rules and army building fairly frequently, why are we both playing Age of Sigmar if it's a shallow game with no tactics or depth?
Any rate, this isn't a soap box or anti-mantic post. Just explaining myself personally so you know my personal opinion. I'm can't speak for @The Sun King and I'm not trying to get anyone riled up. I respect you guys and feel you deserve the truth from me.
I want KoW to have a place here if you guys do, I just want Mantic to deliver more than where I've already been for the last 25 years. I would expect the same of Warhammer 9th edition too.
Games are actually really easy to eye ball and throw together. Balance isn't the same as before because AoS balance isn't as much the units used as the way they get used. Smart charges and activation is more important than the stats over all. The units don't really remain engaged in age of Sigmar and grinding isn't the same we are finding.
I know your angry about AoS and hate GW. You've stated this clearly. I want you to know we understand, aren't telling you you're wrong for feeling the way you do and are here for you. I know you're working through that anger. But unless you actually play AoS, you are going to not be up on its tactics or the game or be able to speak with any authority about it. You don't have to play AoS, but if you really gave it a fair shot, you and the chop guys might be surprised that it's way more chess than gijoe.
I guess it all comes down to what sort of game people want to play. I want to play massed battle games. Huge regiments and monsters on large battlefields. My other favourite game is Hail Caesar, and while even the base rules directly accommodate large regiments, I play it in 1:72 scale to get even MORE figures on the table.
So for my Fantasy outlet, there are only a handful of options. WHFB (now out of production), Kings of War, Warthrone, and maybe one or two others that haven't really 'made it' yet.
So, I don't think it's a case that Mantic are directly copying WHFB. I think they simply looked at what WHFB was, and decided they could do it better. And IMO, they have done it better. I think at the end of the day, many people played WHFB despite it's rules, not because of it. Because GW had a large community of players, very high production values in terms of books and models, and a long history. So it made sense for people to pick up warhammer, and to stay with it. Not because it was the best game, but because it was easy and certain.
Let me reply with a counter-question: If Age of Sigmar was instead called Age of the Gods (or some other title) and was put out by a different company, and had no ties to GW or WHFB at all, would you be advocating for it like you are now? I mean, there's literally hundreds of games out there that are just as good as, if not better than AoS.
Age of Sigmar isn't just a skirmish game, it has regimental tactics in it too. There is no game on the market that I know of that does:
1) Brand new players can pick it up in 10 minutes
2) No barrier between picking up a model and playing with it (other than assembly)
3) Simple to learn basics but difficult to master
4) Supports both skirmish and regimental tactics
5) Involves all of the fantasy tropes
6) Is tied to a large company with professional quality
7) Scales from a handful of models up to games of 100 or 200 models easily.
All the players who tried AoS once or refused to play it and didn't got looking for its tactics, well they are there and sticking with it you will find them. Even flanking and shock/counter shock tactics are surfacing now (which I will show in a video soon). We are getting more and more positive depth of play reports now that we are past the initial reports of players playing it and just charging, piling in and then ending up in a scrum in the middle of the board. All but my second game have had strong tactics occur during play and further surfaced in discussions after games or between game nights when chatting with friends.
Plus Age of Sigmar has all of the Warhammer characters, lore, mythology and story progression is a plus. I do like the grittier Old World setting better personally. Its more dark fantasy and has that John Blanche painted it feel. So I understand when you talk about liking the original game's look and feel. With that said, I am excited to see where AoS's armies and new minis go. But I am not counting that since you asked me not too. To me, the game system is as important as the fluff and miniatures attached to it. The tactician in me cares about the system more, but the hobbyist wants to be excited by building and painting of the army. If the game's fluff is lame, the game isn't going to keep my attention as well.
Ignoring the colorful speech that I understand is not directed at me, but none the less not entirely suited to a discussion:
Ok? So they made the rules very loose, and perhaps tried to implement a sort of balance that is by most players consideration rather foolish. That is entirely a fair statement to make.
What if they gave us points? What if they simply said skeletons were worth 1 and Bloodthirsters were worth 1 too? Yeah, everyone would be just as outraged.
What if skeletons were worth 5 and Bloodthirsters were worth 200? Maybe 40 skeletons are worth a Bloodthirster, you'd only know by the stats, and after comparing them perhaps you'd find that zombies are better (So why take skeletons?) and that Tzeench's ability to cast and dispel far outweighed the similar priced Bloodthirster, so why bother with that either?
What if skeletons were worth 1 and Bloodthirsters were worth 150, but there is no way a skeleton would ever even wound a Bloodthrister? Is that a better system, to force units to be entirely worthless against another? "Oh," you say, "But Bloodthristers are LORDS and you can only have so many, but skeletons you can have as much as you want, and if they hold a Bloodthrister in combat they are making their points by wasting his time!" What if I don't want to play a game where I am wasting someone's time? What if I think skeletons are just as cool as you think Bloodthirsters are? Why must I be punished to a domain of worthlessness?
I understand your points. And I understand that these are real concerns, but giving strict rules does not create balance. It creates a structure in which players must adhere to function. That's fine, everyone can agree that function is sometimes needed. But when you want to function as a lean mean machine with no unnecessary bulk to weigh you down, and do so within the rules, and I want to play a game with which ever unit/model/monster I happen to think is the coolest, but I am punished because it is arguably the worst unit in the game?
But is it true that balance and fun are always defined as you have? If you enjoy playing the game, and can simply say "Hey I want to use X/Y/Z models, can you match that?" with an opponent, and even if they aren't entirely "Equal" (Which they never were just because points said they were mind you) you can still have a go of it. Of course if someone decides to bring those 30 Bloodthristers as you have threatened is an entirely real possibility, then.. you say "Oh I forgot you're an imbecile" and pick up your models. It's the same thing I would do if I offered to play a person with a "fun" list that I told them was inferior before hand and they brought only things to crush me. So yeah, you might not want to play with every person, but did you want to in the first place? No one wants to play with that kid who just whines his army is too weak, or he can never beat that unit. Now you just really don't want to, at all.
Now to say there was no reason to take it out of the game is a short-sighted angel from your perspective. There have been numerous "Boons" by this system:
1) It's infinitely easier for players to start playing, and especially coupled with point 2..
2) The rules are light enough to not make anyone fret about it, which means they can literally buy one box and say "OK let's try this!" (While that doesn't suit you, it is a good thing especially from the point of getting people to try something to allow them to try and get into the game)
3) It removes the "formalize" devaluation of units by flawed points systems, enabling every player to potentially try to play with what they want
And while it's true they didn't offer an alternative, I would argue that anyone who "requires" rules to be stated for them or can not play without are perhaps the type of player that is negative to the overall game. But think of any point system prior. Models all have stat lines, and point costs, and you as a play interpret from that to the values that units are. But I feel that it's simply an opinion between it being "essential" and it being a "crutch" form only by our perspectives. Either way it's a drastic departure from the way things were, and you have to at least understand their perspective and not just look at it as harm on you or others.
And while I understand that you are upset, trying to tear down down something, even just in spirit, like you have stated you wish on GW, is unfortunately juvenile. I don't support or like any form of drinking or drugs, in fact I actively avoid them and often people who do it too heavily for my tastes, but I don't need to wish them ill.
I really think it would benefit you to take some time to breath deep and think about it all. And I'm not saying your points are invalid, but by your charged language it's clear there is passion to your opinion, and passion often implies reactionary or a less thought out response. But it might be good to step back and think about the game and yourself, as for what you do or don't like (About gaming in general perhaps), rather than just decrying GW for forcing your hand.
To be fair, much of what is being tossed around is less advocating for AoS, and more defending it against claims that it is worthless. I personally think AoS is a fine game, and if my friends brought this game to me while WHFB was still a thing in our group, your right, perhaps I would not jump into it. Although personally I find it's rules more attractive than WHFB was (Albeit there are a good number of flaws to be worked out), but yes, I like the looser system. But then again if you came at me with AoS made by a different company who produced miniatures that were of the quality of the new Reaper Bones range, then I would certainly turn it away regardless, because I am after models first and foremost. But that is me personally.
But all the same if I learned about that supposed AoS with sh!tty models, and someone came around and simply cried about how terrible the game was, I would be just as likely to point out defense in favor of the game if they were not giving it a fair shake.
But liking a game that is not main-stream is much more difficult due to the restriction on player base, and with GW and AoS, the base is there, and the brand is there, and saying that the game is not worth while or that other games are just as well, well that's absolutely possible. Perhaps there are a number of games better than AoS (Malifaux is pretty fun, and far more "bound" by rules), but perhaps there are not games you want of the same scale, like you with large "scale" games that is the draw point for you. And that's fine too. But I would certainly say AoS has it's own draws, and the fact that it's backed by GW just means I know it's already going to be reaching far in the community, since they are already a known entity. Doesn't guarantee anything, and if my FLGS has no support from players, I'll have to drop it as well, because there will be no way to play it.
The first thing we all need to remember is all of us play for differnt reasons. That said let me throw a differnt shadow out there ( I'd say light but that's not gothic lol)
While not stated here so much, I've typed several times on other boards like warseer my thoughts at this change, only for many of the older players to get told we were whacked. 9th was coming all was well. Now we know.
Me personal opinion still stands, and as AOS is released, still feels right. The original game of WHF was a unbalanced, honor, skirmish type game. Don't belive me, look it up in the orig. hard back book of the 80's. The armies book allowed for larger battles to be fought. You started with your hero/ commander and build a group of followers to fight with him. As you played, you might loose characters, causing some to raise up the ranks, or if the path has gone the wrong direction, you could restart your warband, still using your cool minis, and try a differnt way., it was a narrative type game For those of us in the U.S. And other countries, we need to remember this game was and is a Brit. Game. The orig. players of huge table top war games. It's there background and thinking that built this game.
Tourney games HAVE taken over in the past years, and GW has helped do this in the past. But as of what, 2 years now when the new board took over a failing company, we've seen a old school mentality take over. New figures harken back to the 80's 40k has seen most of this with the mech. Armies and the Knights, both of which the old GW swore would never happen. Games that kept the small battle feeling, mordhiem, necromunda & battlefleet, have gone to the wayside except by small game groups. (My locals still play battlefleet all the time.) the games at the shop level were/are 2000+ points, or apoc. Size games. Each tooled to the best rule bending death to be given. I slowly dropped out of playing much because of some of this. It wasn't a game to be played over pints where you laugh at dice rolls. I was slowly turning into a collector more than a player. White that said, I still build each of my armies with the background fluff and them to them.
I See AOS as a way of GW cleaning house. Yeah there only 4pages, but we now know there is a big rule book coming, and I'm willing to bet it will have, or coming soon on its own, will be a army size game rule, separate from the basic game. Why? Because it's been done in the past. If you look to the late 80 and early 90's GW was making money, still the reason a business is in buisness, and was top of the gaming community. I can easily see the new board of directors saying, we need to go back to when thing were golden. And look, that's kinda what I see happening.
SO what's this mean really? Not as much as we would like it to. I'm always shocked at the players who get mad and sell off there stuff just to " show them" why, you already bought it. Now don't get me wrong. I'm sad to see the fluff I love go away. I play Von carlstein because it's the classic vampire myth. But I also remember where the was only a entry for vampire. You played a undead army, no theme but for story line. Right now I'm also grumpy over the political correct loss of slaanesh, but we will see how that plays out. For now we are kinda in limbo. The new system is going to ignore us for awhile as it builds up the orig. good guys vs bad guys army list. Undead got Los of new toys during the end times, so I don't really see much loving coming our way, but the new stuff we did get was awsome modeling wise! The spirit host is still one of my favorite new pieces, and I can't wait to see what will come of this new line when the armies of death start getting stuff.
Yeah it sucks, but will it stop warhammer players. No. It will still be played using the books available. If players are still playing Gork a Morka, and I know some, they will still play WHFB.
While not stated here so much, I've typed several times on other boards like warseer my thoughts at this change, only for many of the older players to get told we were whacked. 9th was coming all was well. Now we know.
Me personal opinion still stands, and as AOS is released, still feels right. The original game of WHF was a unbalanced, honor, skirmish type game. Don't belive me, look it up in the orig. hard back book of the 80's. The armies book allowed for larger battles to be fought. You started with your hero/ commander and build a group of followers to fight with him. As you played, you might loose characters, causing some to raise up the ranks, or if the path has gone the wrong direction, you could restart your warband, still using your cool minis, and try a differnt way., it was a narrative type game For those of us in the U.S. And other countries, we need to remember this game was and is a Brit. Game. The orig. players of huge table top war games. It's there background and thinking that built this game.
Tourney games HAVE taken over in the past years, and GW has helped do this in the past. But as of what, 2 years now when the new board took over a failing company, we've seen a old school mentality take over. New figures harken back to the 80's 40k has seen most of this with the mech. Armies and the Knights, both of which the old GW swore would never happen. Games that kept the small battle feeling, mordhiem, necromunda & battlefleet, have gone to the wayside except by small game groups. (My locals still play battlefleet all the time.) the games at the shop level were/are 2000+ points, or apoc. Size games. Each tooled to the best rule bending death to be given. I slowly dropped out of playing much because of some of this. It wasn't a game to be played over pints where you laugh at dice rolls. I was slowly turning into a collector more than a player. White that said, I still build each of my armies with the background fluff and them to them.
I See AOS as a way of GW cleaning house. Yeah there only 4pages, but we now know there is a big rule book coming, and I'm willing to bet it will have, or coming soon on its own, will be a army size game rule, separate from the basic game. Why? Because it's been done in the past. If you look to the late 80 and early 90's GW was making money, still the reason a business is in buisness, and was top of the gaming community. I can easily see the new board of directors saying, we need to go back to when thing were golden. And look, that's kinda what I see happening.
SO what's this mean really? Not as much as we would like it to. I'm always shocked at the players who get mad and sell off there stuff just to " show them" why, you already bought it. Now don't get me wrong. I'm sad to see the fluff I love go away. I play Von carlstein because it's the classic vampire myth. But I also remember where the was only a entry for vampire. You played a undead army, no theme but for story line. Right now I'm also grumpy over the political correct loss of slaanesh, but we will see how that plays out. For now we are kinda in limbo. The new system is going to ignore us for awhile as it builds up the orig. good guys vs bad guys army list. Undead got Los of new toys during the end times, so I don't really see much loving coming our way, but the new stuff we did get was awsome modeling wise! The spirit host is still one of my favorite new pieces, and I can't wait to see what will come of this new line when the armies of death start getting stuff.
Yeah it sucks, but will it stop warhammer players. No. It will still be played using the books available. If players are still playing Gork a Morka, and I know some, they will still play WHFB.
I would like to say thanks to everyone for offering an enlightened and insightful duscussion on this new game and its exciting departure from the established structure, a discussion which has wandered into other territories such as the comparative value of other games, and the anger surrounding 8th Edition's demise.
I would also like to apologise to those who were offended by my 'AO$' jibe, I meant no offence to the game itself, its developers or those who are enjoying it or trying to make it work. AoS looks like a very innovative and challenging new take on wargaming; I'm playing my first game on Friday.
I agonised over how to put across my disappointments with this 'Age Of Dollar', in which GW have left hobbyists all over the world disenfranchised for the sake of profit; milking us as hard as possible during End Times then scrapping our game for no better reason than to focus the consumers on AoS. Frankly, this is the most delicate way I could put it.
I reckon Malisteen and Ol'Timer have both got it right; I believe both the designers and the shareholders decided to try and turn back the clock, to re-create the winning formula that saw GW become a market leader in the first place, but I honestly don't see why they had to throw out WHFB to achieve that, Age Of Sigmar's a very different game with crossover potential with WHFB, although that hasn't saved Quest or Mordheim...
By moving the story forward they had a new range to start pushing, perhaps at the expense of allowing 8th to stagnate, but tonnes of people bought into the old lore; people would've shelled out for Bretonnia, Skaven and Beastmen books, many just to complete their collections; isn't print supposed to be easy money for GW? If game balance was an issue, why not issue an official, printed FAQ for 8th; similar format to the current White Dwarf, sell it for £6 and stick a free copy in with Island Of Blood and the Big Rulebook. They could've had a summer holiday in Barbados on that ticket. There's also the opportunity for people who enjoy one style over the other to try both games using the same models. And they could've quietly announced a last run for 8th products maybe six months or a year after the event if sales were really that unsustainable and if the community moved over to AoS; given that they already spent the money on developing Warhammer, what harm could it have done to make it mail order only, or even a 'specialist game'?
Ultimately I'm gutted that Warhammer had to end, but that's not why I'm angry at GW. My problem is that the game I love, the game that got GW and all of us here, got deleted weeks after the last penny had been squeezed out of its supporters, the people that funded GW's careers. They led us on and deceived us; many of us paid over £300 for the privelige to give GWHQ a big pat on the back and feed their hubris while they had a farewell celebration of their signature game without inviting us to do the same. This is bad practice, and all the free rules in the world won't patch this up for me.
I would also like to apologise to those who were offended by my 'AO$' jibe, I meant no offence to the game itself, its developers or those who are enjoying it or trying to make it work. AoS looks like a very innovative and challenging new take on wargaming; I'm playing my first game on Friday.
I agonised over how to put across my disappointments with this 'Age Of Dollar', in which GW have left hobbyists all over the world disenfranchised for the sake of profit; milking us as hard as possible during End Times then scrapping our game for no better reason than to focus the consumers on AoS. Frankly, this is the most delicate way I could put it.
I reckon Malisteen and Ol'Timer have both got it right; I believe both the designers and the shareholders decided to try and turn back the clock, to re-create the winning formula that saw GW become a market leader in the first place, but I honestly don't see why they had to throw out WHFB to achieve that, Age Of Sigmar's a very different game with crossover potential with WHFB, although that hasn't saved Quest or Mordheim...
By moving the story forward they had a new range to start pushing, perhaps at the expense of allowing 8th to stagnate, but tonnes of people bought into the old lore; people would've shelled out for Bretonnia, Skaven and Beastmen books, many just to complete their collections; isn't print supposed to be easy money for GW? If game balance was an issue, why not issue an official, printed FAQ for 8th; similar format to the current White Dwarf, sell it for £6 and stick a free copy in with Island Of Blood and the Big Rulebook. They could've had a summer holiday in Barbados on that ticket. There's also the opportunity for people who enjoy one style over the other to try both games using the same models. And they could've quietly announced a last run for 8th products maybe six months or a year after the event if sales were really that unsustainable and if the community moved over to AoS; given that they already spent the money on developing Warhammer, what harm could it have done to make it mail order only, or even a 'specialist game'?
Ultimately I'm gutted that Warhammer had to end, but that's not why I'm angry at GW. My problem is that the game I love, the game that got GW and all of us here, got deleted weeks after the last penny had been squeezed out of its supporters, the people that funded GW's careers. They led us on and deceived us; many of us paid over £300 for the privelige to give GWHQ a big pat on the back and feed their hubris while they had a farewell celebration of their signature game without inviting us to do the same. This is bad practice, and all the free rules in the world won't patch this up for me.
Dragonet, no problems, and I think that you worded your orig. statement quite well. You put words to what many of us do feel. What I get tired of is some who feel it was a personal vendetta against them. Look at the guy who burned his army... Really? I have played this game when I started with citadel games and miniatures. I still have some of my orig. undead packed away( I'd get them out but pait jobs 30+ years ago..,eek!) it is frustrating and a royal bummer that they shut down WHFB. Being a fluff guy, I always wonder about the charactors that they left out, Bruner being one of my favorites, but the end times just seemed messy to me. I like my WH people. I don't want to see them go, but that's what 30+ years will get you. I, like you will miss our play world, but having seen so many changes over the years, I hope they will continue to do cool things for many years to come.