Age of Sigmar

So, Age of Sigmar is here. I have a fledgling Empire army myself, which I was looking forward to getting some more games in with, but now I'm not sure there's any point I don't have too much of a problem with streamlining, but this seems to have gone too far. The game seems a lot less tactical than it was. No points values seems like there's no way to have a competitive game with this system unless you use the old army books, at which point you might as well just play eighth edition fantasy. So what do people think about the changes? If you have fantasy, are you looking forward to getting a game in? And if you don't have fantasy, has this release made you more likely to play it?

The models look incredible. I really want to use the Khorne models for Demonkin. Just replace pistols with the knives for the cultists. I am curious to see what else is to come.

The rules which give you advantages for standing up and dancing, or having a bigger beard than other players, are flipping ridiculous.

I'm not trying to claim ownership of a crystal ball, but these really seem like streamlined trial rules designed to generate buzz.
My reasoning:
1. GW gave it to us for free.
That never happens. Ever. If the rumor is true that they are giving the rules (warscrolls) for each unit in their box ala Warmachine I would expect to see a faction book ala Warmachine. It would make sense that faction benefits, force org type structures would be introduced in those. They make a ton of money on suckers like me that buy digital downloads, can't see them changing that.

2. The free rules have the haters at least trying it.
In our local group the staunchest of the butthurt 8th edition players are actually trying it. Because it's free. They are complaining and bemoaning Warhammer turning into "A game with no strategy built for 8 year olds" (actual quote from the most butthurt of the elitist WHFB players at our FLGS), but they are still playing it and trying out ways to balance the game.

3. Not including points was probably intentional, but not for the reasons that you are thinking.
My theory...for whatever that's worth *NOTHING, is that they intentionally left out points values so to wean players off of 8th edition. If you had points values for units in a previous edition you would be able to directly compare how a unit played in the previous edition relative to its cost. Another possible reason is that they want players to get used to a 40K formation style army comp/way to construct your armies rather than the percentages for each category (hero/core/special/rare) by creating a less rigid way of selecting your army. Take a look at EVERY army and the formation style offerings at the end. Unit requirements? Check. Benefits and special rules for taking that "formation"? Check.

In short, I believe they are trying to get us to give the game a rip while purging the old and stale system. I truly believe that they will have a points/comp system that will make playing the game fun.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

In short, I believe they are trying to get us to give the game a rip while purging the old and stale system. I truly believe that they will have a points/comp system that will make playing the game fun.

I hope not. The game is fun *now* (I've already played it!). Point costs are mostly arbitrary and punish some armies while spoiling others. Why is a Voidraven worth as much as a Stormraven? Why is a Wych worth 3 points more than a Kabalite? How is the rules writer supposed to reckon the value of a special rule except 'that sounds about right'?

It forces you to play with what is *effective*, instead of what you'd like. I know that some people enjoy the mix-maxing of making army lists, but it inevitably ends up categorising units as 'good for their points', 'mediocre for their points', or 'terrible for their points'. And the points mean nothing.

I dearly wish WH40K would get the same treatment. Don't worry though, it's probably too popular and valuable an IP to take such a risk with.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

In short, I believe they are trying to get us to give the game a rip while purging the old and stale system. I truly believe that they will have a points/comp system that will make playing the game fun.

I really hope that's right, but the theory from GameInformer is that they believe things like points costs and balance will be taken care of by tournament organisers, implying that the only people who care about making the game competitive are tourney players. Also implying somewhat lazy design. It is hugely out of character for them to give stuff away for nothing, so I would imagine there'll be proper faction books at some point. And hopefully some sort of balance.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Evil Space Elves wrote:

In short, I believe they are trying to get us to give the game a rip while purging the old and stale system. I truly believe that they will have a points/comp system that will make playing the game fun.

I hope not. The game is fun *now* (I've already played it!). Point costs are mostly arbitrary and punish some armies while spoiling others. Why is a Voidraven worth as much as a Stormraven? Why is a Wych worth 3 points more than a Kabalite? How is the rules writer supposed to reckon the value of a special rule except 'that sounds about right'?

It forces you to play with what is *effective*, instead of what you'd like. I know that some people enjoy the mix-maxing of making army lists, but it inevitably ends up categorising units as 'good for their points', 'mediocre for their points', or 'terrible for their points'. And the points mean nothing.

I dearly wish WH40K would get the same treatment. Don't worry though, it's probably too popular and valuable an IP to take such a risk with.

Totally agree on these points. I think a points-free system would definitely work with more mature gamers and would reduce the Good For It's Points syndrome that dominates play. On the other hand, I think people gravitate towards structure. I play with an awesome group that can pull off a points-free game, but a gamer that relies on pick up games would have a tough time and may be turned off from the game entirely.

All that said, the "wait and see game" is killing me right now! I really want to dive in and safety (round) base some new Ogres *ahem Ogguuurs or whatever they are called now, but don't want to get screwed if they release a rules set for a system that offers bonuses for ranked models in larger games. I'm still optimistic about all of this.

That demon prince of khorne looking guy -- is he a corrupted Orc? His face kinda looks like it used to be one. This guy I kinda want to make him into that Orc Warlod who fights and dies for Khorne's amusement.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

Totally agree on these points. I think a points-free system would definitely work with more mature gamers and would reduce the Good For It's Points syndrome that dominates play. On the other hand, I think people gravitate towards structure. I play with an awesome group that can pull off a points-free game, but a gamer that relies on pick up games would have a tough time and may be turned off from the game entirely.

Wouldn't it be exactly the opposite? Right now, if your pick-up opponent brings out 3 Wraithknights and 5 Imperial Knights, or something, they can say, 'What? It's 2000 points, and it fits the FOC's. Do you want me to gimp my list to take it easy on you?' But without the justification of that points system, you could just say, 'Dude, come on', and it would be on him, instead of on you. Wouldn't it?

There's a nod toward structure with the Formations at the end (for those who really must be told what to do). I'm tempted by the Khainite one, but I'm too fond of my Medusa (which now kicks ass!), my Hydra, etc., and I'd like some Sisters of Slaughter, so probably not for me.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

All that said, the "wait and see game" is killing me right now! I really want to dive in and safety (round) base some new Ogres *ahem Ogguuurs or whatever they are called now, but don't want to get screwed if they release a rules set for a system that offers bonuses for ranked models in larger games. I'm still optimistic about all of this.

Well I'm not re-basing my Dark Elves. As if I haven't got tons of miniatures to paint still, I absolutely have the time to cut each miniature out of their square base and into a round one, and hope that most of them get to keep their feet!

The new names are hilarious. I'd like to have been in that meeting:

'Quick! We need a new name for ogres that we can copywrite, and for some reason we can't sleep on it, we need it right now! Any thoughts?'

'Ogor...'

'Brilliant! Ogor it is.'

'Ogorrr... gakk... pfui! I wasn't making a suggestion, I was choking on a biscuit.'

'Oh. Well never mind, we're still going with it. Next, orcs. Anyone?'

Barking Agatha wrote:

Wouldn't it be exactly the opposite? Right now, if your pick-up opponent brings out 3 Wraithknights and 5 Imperial Knights, or something, they can say, 'What? It's 2000 points, and it fits the FOC's. Do you want me to gimp my list to take it easy on you?' But without the justification of that points system, you could just say, 'Dude, come on', and it would be on him, instead of on you. Wouldn't it?

I see what you're saying about the point system legitimizing shenanigans, but most players will still play the "Dude, come on" card (BTW, love that!) when a pick up game opponent drops a abusive list that will result in a really crappy game. I've had a pick up game opponent show me a list with the Void Shield Generator, Tau with Imperial Knights, Chaos daemons, and some other nonsense that he didn't get a chance to get to because I told him to go play with himself in the corner.

Barking Agatha wrote:

The new names are hilarious. I'd like to have been in that meeting:

'Quick! We need a new name for ogres that we can copywrite, and for some reason we can't sleep on it, we need it right now! Any thoughts?'

'Ogor...'

'Brilliant! Ogor it is.'

'Ogorrr... gakk... pfui! I wasn't making a suggestion, I was choking on a biscuit.'

'Oh. Well never mind, we're still going with it. Next, orcs. Anyone?'

Based on what I've seen of Age of Sigmar, I think I can see what GW were trying to do........but I think that phrase says it all.
From the in-person things I've heard of the game, the reaction has been almost completely bad, and from what I've read of the tules I am really not a big fan either. Sure, its quite good that the core rules have been so streamlined, but I think they went too far. I don't think GW had to completely obliterate both the lore and the competitive edge of the game in order to streamline it. As it stands, Age of Sigmar is not a game any could play competitively, and this will utterly destroy the tournament scene (with the exception of those already declaring they'll stick with 8th). Hell, The Warhammer Forum has already put a brand new Kings of War board right under the Warhammer Fantasy one, and "Kings of War" now seems to be on the lips of anyone I knew who played Warhammer Fantasy.
I think GW's attempts to make the game casual really went too far, the two big reasons being destroying the existing races - yes I kn ow their rules are available online, but its obvious they won't be the main races anymore) and those really, really stupid meta rules.
There is a Dwarf character who gives a bonus if you the player have a bigger beard (sexist?). Another which gives a bonus if you are younger than your opponent (ageist?). The Masque of Slaanesh gives a bonus if you dance, and more if you get your opponent to dance too. Konrad Von Carstein gets to reroll wounds if you talk to the model, and hits too if he talks back.
I mean what the hell is that? Thats not the rules for a decent tabletop game, thats the sort of sillyness a group of kids would make up when they can;t be bothered with the actual rules (and maybe thats the point).
I'll partially agree that SOMEof the models look nice. The Khorne guys especially are very nice, but I don;t like the Sigmarines. THe flying guys really look like too buly and flat footed for those wings to carry them, and once again GW have managed to produce a monster like the Dragon Ogres with both front legs straight out in front looking ridiculous.

I will say, I don;t think the rules for th game are terrible, I just think they don't currently stand as a good replacement for Warhammer Fantasy. Maybe if the silly meta-rules were removed and the focus was back on the classic armies that everyone already had, this would be more acceptable, but as it stands it isn't. For the past few months, even since the rumours started about Age of Sigmar, my local club has been losing Fantasy players. Some are gone and haven't been seen in some time. Others have joined us in 40k. A few have started looking at other games, and we've recently seen a bid of Kings of War and even Necromunda.
Hell, we run an annual tournament, and the Fantasy side if depleted to half what it was last year (ish).
I think GW expect that this change will result in the lose of players/cunstomers, but I sincerely think they've underestimated exactly how many. The tournament guys I've heard from are furious over the "outright slaughter of their game" (yes, thats a quote) so this is possibly going to have long lastring repurcussions.
And I think that says it all.


(Also, how exactly do you choose AGe of Sigmar armies now without points?! I'm told its on Wounds, but that makes no sense to whatsoever. There;'s unbalanced, and then there's no sense of balance whatsoever.)

(Also, the AGe of Sigmar rules seem to say "bring however many models you want". They at no point say "bring the same number as your opponent, or at least close")

There is literally no system, Squid. You literally bring whatever you want. If you outnumber you opponent he gets a bonus. That's it.

Squidmaster wrote:

There is a Dwarf character who gives a bonus if you the player have a bigger beard (sexist?).

I've seen more than one female with thicker facial hair than me. No joke, actually jealous.
Excuse me for a moment while I weep about my pitiful peach fuzz.

Squidmaster wrote:

(Also, how exactly do you choose AGe of Sigmar armies now without points?! I'm told its on Wounds, but that makes no sense to whatsoever.

As Jimsolo said, there's no system. People are looking at using Wounds as a house rule for balance, but it still doesn't quite work.

Not seen the full 'rules' yet but it sounds very much like GW have taken a reasonably good idea and then sucked all the best bits out of it. Not sure why anyone would be surprised by this.

Latest rumours on balance and the future of AoS.

Essentially, balance is based on scenarios, of which there will be hundreds.
Supposedly, rules are coming for competitive and tournament play (which seems dubious given GW's lack of support for that scene). And the meta/gag rules are apparently homage to older characters and won't be in going forward.

No worries about basing apart from the worrying following sentence in WD:
"Bases play NO PART in Age of Sigmar" which I can't understand at all. How to measure range?

I think you're all looking at it from an existing gamer's point of view. This is to make introductory games in-store take ten minutes and bring the new players in. I imagine that they don't care about me and you, who have to choose what to spend our money on, they care about many many kids with access to their parents' money, in a world where wargaming is like the least cool thing you can possibly do.

thesaltedwound wrote:

How to measure range?

It's measure from the model itself - but no part of the model may move more than it's movement value. Which results in two stupid things:
1. Modelling for advantage.
2. A model using up it's movement just for pivoting on the spot.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

All that said, the "wait and see game" is killing me right now! I really want to dive in and safety (round) base some new Ogres *ahem Ogguuurs or whatever they are called now, but don't want to get screwed if they release a rules set for a system that offers bonuses for ranked models in larger games. I'm still optimistic about all of this.

Don't do it!

I mean, by all means, dive in and play Age of Sigmar if you want to. But if your Ogres are on round bases, that's all you can use them for. If your Ogres are on square bases, then you can use them in both Age of Sigmar and Warhammer.

Friends don't let friends put fantasy models on round bases.

Erebus wrote:

Squidmaster wrote:

There is a Dwarf character who gives a bonus if you the player have a bigger beard (sexist?).

I've seen more than one female with thicker facial hair than me. No joke, actually jealous.
Excuse me for a moment while I weep about my pitiful peach fuzz.

Ok. I'll weep for how much I spend on razors each month and the beard burn I've inflicted on people I've cared about.

It's a problem that it's often very hard to be sure if a given thing is actually sexist. In this case... I don't think so.
I performed at a beard competition a while back. My (female-bodied) partner and I wore fake beards for it, and there was a fake beard category which was all ladybeards (which were awesome).

(I'm pretty sure my ability to seamlessly transition from discussing miniatures gaming to circus performance and back again is equally disconcerting to both wargamers and performers alike. I'm sorry. I can't help it.)

Some of these rules sound like they were drafted why playing drunk. Maybe that is the intent, turn Warhammer FB into a drinking game.

Erebus wrote:

Latest rumours on balance and the future of AoS.

Essentially, balance is based on scenarios, of which there will be hundreds.
Supposedly, rules are coming for competitive and tournament play (which seems dubious given GW's lack of support for that scene). And the meta/gag rules are apparently homage to older characters and won't be in going forward.

That's the same Game Informer article I found that they're quoting from. Reading the whole article, it sounds like GW expect tournament organisers to comp the system to make it competitive. Essentially they're saying that balance isn't a concern for them anymore. I know that's the way it's been going for a while, but I still like to at least maintain an illusion of it. This scenarios nonsense sounds like the LOTR game to me, and that's half the reason I steered clear of that.

I can understand them wanting to appeal to a wider audience, I really can, and I would love to see more people playing. But they're trying to find a casual audience for something that isn't casual. The people that they want to get playing their games do not want to spend hours cutting out tiny bits of plastic and gluing them together before they can even start playing, let alone paint them. They should really just start selling push together models in different coloured plastics. That way you can undercoat them and paint them properly if you want to, or just push them together and start playing the game like it's a big boardgame.

I suspect that what they're doing will prove that you can't adopt a blue ocean strategy for something like tabletop wargaming unless you're prepared to market it properly, and they don't market it. At all. They don't advertise on TV, they don't adequately promote through social media, they don't advertise in fringe culture magazines and they don't host properly promoted events. Streamlining a game because they think their audience is put off by how complicated it is makes no difference if you don't make sure that audience knows you've streamlined it. Only pushing your product to those who already know about it is a losing battle.

I like the magic system in AoS better than the one in Fantasy (which was akin to playing checkers whilst juggling fireworks), save for the fact that summoning can sod off and die in a fire.

But, I just wish the magic system had been implemented into an actual game - instead of being shoved into a pile of garbage-rules and jokes that would be rejected even by cracker companies.

The Shredder wrote:

... a pile of garbage-rules and jokes that would be rejected even by cracker companies.

I strongly disagree

Barking Agatha wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

... a pile of garbage-rules and jokes that would be rejected even by cracker companies.

I strongly disagree

+1

CurstAlchemist wrote:

Some of these rules sound like they were drafted why playing drunk. Maybe that is the intent, turn Warhammer FB into a drinking game.

Probably why I'm so keen to put some ogres on round bases?

Go home, ESE, you're drunk.