Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Overread wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because they did what was IMO, tantamount to cultural vandalism by so callously throwing the Old World in the bin. No matter how good this game could get- I will never play it; as giving it any kind of support to me gives vindication to Kirby's bone-headed decision.

It's ok now, Kirby's gone; he can't hurt you any more. It's ok to like new things now.

You asked why I'm not playing and I answered and got mocked.

Nice to see the community has not changed in any way- You're trying to foster a (relatively) new system and actively antagonizing people who give honest answers as to why because they happen to still have a deep love of WHFB. Doesn't really encourage them to come over, eh?

pm713 wrote:
GW removed most of my army so now I don't really have much to play.

Ok I'll bite. What army do you play and I will tell you how you are wrong.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

pm713 wrote:
GW removed most of my army so now I don't really have much to play.

Ok I'll bite. What army do you play and I will tell you how you are wrong.

I'm not him but please do tell how easy it it to play Tomb Kings or Bretonnians. In matched play.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

pm713 wrote:
GW removed most of my army so now I don't really have much to play.

Ok I'll bite. What army do you play and I will tell you how you are wrong.

I'm not him but please do tell how easy it it to play Tomb Kings or Bretonnians. In matched play.

As easy as asking your opponent/TO "Is it okay if I use the points and rules from the Legacy system?"

No close order formations.
If I wanted to play a warhammer game with squads that have 360 degree vision arcs and loose formations I'll play 40,000...which I already play.

Also, I don't like the AoS setting. It doesn't really appeal to me all that much.

Is that the system that gave you bonuses for big mustaches?

In the spirit of the OP's post (questions rather than bashing), is there any way to replicate the Bretonnian shock charge?

 kestral wrote:
Is that the system that gave you bonuses for big mustaches?

In the spirit of the OP's post (questions rather than bashing), is there any way to replicate the Bretonnian shock charge?

Yeah, it had those stupid rules on release, but I think they discontinued them when GW realized that no one liked them and how stupid they were.

Holding off because I want to see it get a little more years behind it, develop some more, and start focusing on where it will be going.

I do not play AOS for several reasons.

1. The rules. They are far too simple with too much hand-holding. I want strategic depth and meaningful decisions, and strong elements of positioning and maneuver.
2. I'd been interested in WHFB, and the armies I would have liked to play have been broken up into small one-dimensional forces, or no longer exist at all, either in rules or in terms of in-production kits.
3. The naming of newer units tends to be well past silly and just plain stupid, and the majority of the newer kits are either over-decorated, poorly sculpted and lacking that special "something" many older kits had, or both.
4. GW prices.

 djones520 wrote:
It's not Fantasy. It's 40K with more swords. I played Fantasy to play a different game. When the switch to AoS happened, it took away all of the reasons I played it, and there is nothing in AoS that makes me want to devote time to it, instead of just sticking with 40K.

Covers it about as well as anything. At the end of the day I'll either like the mechanics of a game or I won't. AOS is one of the games I don't like the mechanics of, pure and simple.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

pm713 wrote:
GW removed most of my army so now I don't really have much to play.

Ok I'll bite. What army do you play and I will tell you how you are wrong.

There are a good number of WHFB armies that have been butchered. Dwarves, for example, lost half their artillery, miners, slayers, battle standard bearer, and had a number of different hero options reduced down to a handful. Using old slayers as fyreslayers and removed artillery as new artillery does not change that those are proxies and the actual units are gone. Wood Elves lost tree kin, waywatchers, glade riders, wardancers, mounted characters, and special characters. A High Elf army will have no battleline since spearmen and archers are gone. This is without touching on many armies that can technically be run using a Grand Alliance but simply are not viable without retooling them. And obviously Tomb Kings & Brets are gone entirely.

I don't play AoS because it scratches the same itch as 40k.

Back when it was fantasy, the formation rank and file stuff appealed to me. Facing, limited movement options, flanks, etc. That stuff made Fantasy great, and a far more strategic game than 40k. At the very least it was a different game than 40k. And they were 2 different games.

But AoS is just 40k with more melee (or less pew-pew). It literally scratches the same itch. And I barely have enough time for 40k.

Also, while I do like the new models, it's a much different aesthetic than Fantasy. More over the top. I prefer something more subdued in my fantasy, like Middle earth flavored.

I still can't stand Stormcast Eternals. I'm also not really a fan of the newer dwarves, or the deep elves, or the witch elves, or the new names for everything, or the rules. It's also very expensive now.

In a word, 40k.

More in depth, because I just started collecting a bunch of Fantasy Battle stuff and then suddenly it was all nuked. So I figured I'd just concentrate on one game.

Plus some of the new models are kinda lame. Khorne stuff in particular is like way OTT. Valley girl voice and everything. Like, Blood for the Blood God, Totally.

 darkcloak wrote:
In a word, 40k.

More in depth, because I just started collecting a bunch of Fantasy Battle stuff and then suddenly it was all nuked. So I figured I'd just concentrate on one game.

Plus some of the new models are kinda lame. Khorne stuff in particular is like way OTT. Valley girl voice and everything. Like, Blood for the Blood God, Totally.

Just got a great idea for a Valkia conversion...

If you do, Valkia the Valley Girl may replace Malalice as my go-to GW themed humor.

None of the factions leap out to me as being a must have, and i'm already invested in several other game systems that i'm falling behind in when it comes to what i'm buying vs what i'm actually finishing. I also preferred the more grounded and historical inspired setting of WHF. I just can't get invested in AoS cause its lacking that human element...the struggle. Even if that element finds its way into the black library books, I don't read those, I care about the models first. And the models are very stylised high fantasy bordering on cartoonish, which i'm not a bit fan of. Also on top of all that, i'm not into playing with armies, and prefer games which consist of 5-20 models per side maximum so skirmish is more my style. The only thing AoS I got into was shadespire and that is simply because the gameplay appealed to me more than GWs usual games.

 EnTyme wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

pm713 wrote:
GW removed most of my army so now I don't really have much to play.

Ok I'll bite. What army do you play and I will tell you how you are wrong.

I'm not him but please do tell how easy it it to play Tomb Kings or Bretonnians. In matched play.

As easy as asking your opponent/TO "Is it okay if I use the points and rules from the Legacy system?"

So you are at the mercy of opponents. Not easy after all.

Don't like the rules, dont like the setting. Unit names and faction names are terrible TM tat and no more rank and file. I still play Fantasy

I'm looking into AoS, but only in a Skirmish level situation. My problem is that AoS is a veritable mountain of material to sift through when thinking about starting.

In addition to my distaste for the large task of painting entire armies anymore, Skirmish (or Hinterlands, as I have that from before Bottle had to stop) seems to distill that down to just needing the Skirmish book, warscrolls for any units I want to take, and the expanded points list that can be found on the Grand Alliance forums that allows other units that aren't in the Skirmish book.


In the meantime, I have been having great fun playing "Age of Sigmar" games by using the rules and army lists found on One Page Games ruleset called "Age of Fantasy" which can be played as army scale or skirmish.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

pm713 wrote:
GW removed most of my army so now I don't really have much to play.

Ok I'll bite. What army do you play and I will tell you how you are wrong.

Dwarf Strollaz. I was also about to start Brets.

I don't play because I haven't finished my army.
I only use painted models. I really enjoy AoS models.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm looking into AoS, but only in a Skirmish level situation. My problem is that AoS is a veritable mountain of material to sift through when thinking about starting.

Skirmish sadly feels as an abandoned project. I was hopeful that GW would treat it more seriously when they released few Skirmish boxes. I enjoy AoS, but I'm currently really itching for some quality campaign. Characters developing skills and quirks during a campaign. Skirmish is good for a quick after work afternoon game before you pack those models and go to dinner or something similar. I mean, who knows, maybe next year GW will publish AoS version of Kill Team (RIP Shadow War of Armageddon).

I feel the community could come up with something pretty cool for skirmish, as bottle had done, but that the fear of it not being official would mean it would be a waste of time.

I just noticed this on the main forum page. I don’t play because I would rather have the sci-fi of 40K.

Very very few people in my geographic area play it, hard to get a game with so few players.

auticus wrote:
I feel the community could come up with something pretty cool for skirmish, as bottle had done, but that the fear of it not being official would mean it would be a waste of time.

We must send out our prayers and offerings, build shrines and conduct ritual! Skirmish or the skirmish god! Bottles for the bottle throne!

 Overread wrote:
be encouraged to ask questions that give them pause in starting AoS.

Okay, here's a dumb question and a follow-up. Bear in mind that I'm completely new to all this, so when someone inevitably mocks me, I'd appreciate it if the sarcasm was done in a way that doesn't require me to actually understand the game

Dumb question: Am I understanding it correctly that one Warscroll Batallion always counts for the same number of points irrespective of its size? For example, a Dark Feast is listed in the Blades of Khorne Battletome as containing 3-6 units of Bloodreavers. Does that seriously mean I can double the number of Bloodreavers without a points penalty?

Followup question: If that's the case, how does this not seriously affect the game's balance? The rules have just been revised, so there must be something I'm missing here.

Actually, second dumb question: in case you can't tell, I'm putting together a Blades of Khorne army. Now some Warscroll Batallions call for a Mighty Lord of Khorne, but the only model with that keyword that I can find is Korghos Khul and one in a Start Collecting set that's described as a Mighty Lord, but looks to be identical. Does that mean you basically decide whether your model is Khul or someone else at the start of the game?

 spacehamster wrote:

 Overread wrote:
be encouraged to ask questions that give them pause in starting AoS.

Okay, here's a dumb question and a follow-up. Bear in mind that I'm completely new to all this, so when someone inevitably mocks me, I'd appreciate it if the sarcasm was done in a way that doesn't require me to actually understand the game

Dumb question: Am I understanding it correctly that one Warscroll Batallion always counts for the same number of points irrespective of its size? For example, a Dark Feast is listed in the Blades of Khorne Battletome as containing 3-6 units of Bloodreavers. Does that seriously mean I can double the number of Bloodreavers without a points penalty?

Followup question: If that's the case, how does this not seriously affect the game's balance? The rules have just been revised, so there must be something I'm missing here.

Actually, second dumb question: in case you can't tell, I'm putting together a Blades of Khorne army. Now some Warscroll Batallions call for a Mighty Lord of Khorne, but the only model with that keyword that I can find is Korghos Khul and one in a Start Collecting set that's described as a Mighty Lord, but looks to be identical. Does that mean you basically decide whether your model is Khul or someone else at the start of the game?

When you buy a Battalion you spend points on the battalion itself. That gets you the ability that the battalion gives the unit (whatever that is detailed on the battalion warscroll) and you also get a command point as well. However you still have to pay points for all the models in the battalion itself. This is why they become very expensive very fast, you are basically paying a premium for the command point and the additional ability ontop of the units.
Many times this can mean that you have to run most of the units in a battalion at minimum numbers unless its the core focus of the entire army.

Note if any of the key words in the battalion list are bold then you can take any unit that has that key word in it not just a specific unit. Whilst if its regular type you have to take the specific unit with that key word (typically its the unit name so its pretty clear).

I don't know the Khorne army to answer your second question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because they did what was IMO, tantamount to cultural vandalism by so callously throwing the Old World in the bin. No matter how good this game could get- I will never play it; as giving it any kind of support to me gives vindication to Kirby's bone-headed decision.

It's ok now, Kirby's gone; he can't hurt you any more. It's ok to like new things now.

You asked why I'm not playing and I answered and got mocked.

Nice to see the community has not changed in any way- You're trying to foster a (relatively) new system and actively antagonizing people who give honest answers as to why because they happen to still have a deep love of WHFB. Doesn't really encourage them to come over, eh?

I'm sorry, but I honestly took your first post to be partly tongue in cheek considering that its mostly hate against the person behind the change to AoS (a person who is now gone) rather than any specific hate toward the game itself. Plus in keeping with the threads opening post (and not just title) there isn't really anything anyone can do to swing you back if your dislike/hate is focused on the specific lore and the people behind the initial ideal and launch of the game. Save to say that AoS 2.0 is WORLDS away from the 1.0 launch rules and that the fluff is also improving all the time and getting deeper in its own way; its just got to get its feet under it compared to decades of old-world stuff.


Only thing I can say is get a copy of Warhammer Total War (which is utterly fantastic) and relive the old world in huge rank and file army battles!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm looking into AoS, but only in a Skirmish level situation. My problem is that AoS is a veritable mountain of material to sift through when thinking about starting.

In addition to my distaste for the large task of painting entire armies anymore, Skirmish (or Hinterlands, as I have that from before Bottle had to stop) seems to distill that down to just needing the Skirmish book, warscrolls for any units I want to take, and the expanded points list that can be found on the Grand Alliance forums that allows other units that aren't in the Skirmish book.


In the meantime, I have been having great fun playing "Age of Sigmar" games by using the rules and army lists found on One Page Games ruleset called "Age of Fantasy" which can be played as army scale or skirmish.

I've honestly not looked at the Skirmish side, but have you considered Shadspire? It's basically the skirmish-ish mode for AoS at present. Whilst its different and has some card mechanics it at least gives you small scale adventures in the AoS world with warbands. It's getting its second season releases with Underworld so a new wave of models and spells and cards are coming for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a general point the Beasts of Chaos release and the recent Nagash release are showing that GW is slowly going through and taking some of the broken up armies and putting them back together once more.

Some are being combined up and bolstered a little; others are being made into their own factions (eg Daughers of Khaine). IF AoS gets a year or so of big releases and focus like 40K has just had then I think in a year or so we might ahve a very different picture for many AoS forces.



Personally, reading the lore, I think that there is strong potential that GW will introduce a fully human force, though what form this takes and the how and when is totally unknown. I also think that there is "potential" that Tomb Kings could return - The realm structure makes it effortlessly easy for GW to throw a new faction in wherever they want through multiple mechanics (heck Seraphon - Lizardmen - basically only exist as summoned armies by Slaan so they don't even need lands or cities or a territory to function so it shows how easy it is for GW to push armies in). That is assuming that GW held onto the moulds for the TK stuff and that there is a will at GW to add them back into the game.

Heck now that Sisters are getting a big release if GW do another community survey it could be an ideal time for Tomb Kings to shine in that and get a re-release!

The people I play AoS with and I are in different cities, so we have to plan months ahead to set aside a day to nerd out. Locally, I'm pretty involved in the Warmachine community and, while I have nothing against other gamers, I simply don't have time to build new relationships at the dork store.

This isn't really airing a grievance, and I am still involved in AoS despite this, but I really find the setting pretty disappointing. I'm happy they fleshed out the mortal realms and such, and my friends and I have had little trouble "forging the narrative" (I write up after action short stories to try and string together the series of contrivances that occur when four gamers converge in one city). However, despite my best efforts not to, I always end up comparing AoS not to Fantasy (my first love) but to 40k. This is a big problem for AoS. 40k is an evocative setting that can envelop people who are not involved in the hobby. Sure, you can argue, AoS doesn't have video games or cheap CGI movies, but I have yet to encounter someone who has read an AoS novel and enjoy it that didn't intend to delve deeper into the hobby.

In 40k, everything lies under the shadow of Big E, the Imperium and the events of the Horus Heresy. Even though the Eldar, the Orks and the Necrons have excellent, venerable (if recently altered) and deep lore, they can only play second fiddle to the Imperium, the Horus Heresy, and Big E. At the heart of it all, there is a latticework of interpersonal tragedies that spiral out and magnify to make gakkier an already gakky galaxy.

With the coming of Chaos in the Mortal Realms, we are told about personal failings of individuals that led to the downfall of their societies and the insidious corruption of chaos, but we aren't really shown it happening. Dwarven holds overrun in Chamon? Why should I care to learn their names when I didn't see how they mattered in the setting before? I still want to know how Belegar's expedition into Karak Eight Peeks COULD play out. Oh, that world blew up? Nothing matters.

Emps really tried, and he still fethed up. He failed as a father and, ultimately, as a sovereign. His very deification and formative godhood are a mockery of the Imperial Truth he promulgated.

Sigmar threw his hammer in a space hole.