Army selection is basically the only worry I have left about AoS' rules, and although my gut instinct is that individual warscrolls will be balanced against each other somehowI thought the post was worth noting.
For that to work there will have to be be no units that are more powerful than 1 warscroll worth of goblins or skaven slaves also no units less powerful than Nagash or an elflord on a dragon.
Will goblin heroes be as powerful as vampires?
You could make a game with a concept of "every box of minis is balanced against every other box" and maybe that would be a brilliant marketing plan. I somehow doubt you can combine that rule with "also every box of miniatures produced for WHFB is valid in this game".
Without having seen any examples of power levels of a few warscrolls (I don't think any have surfaced yet?) it does seem plausible to me that unit sizes and stats could be fixed so that everything is equivalent. They could tone down the power of major characters and monsters and assign relatively high unit sizes for weaker troops; they could make heroes that should be physically weaker than others give buffs to the rest of their army.
The starter set certainly looks like it's following that model. Six units per side. One dude on a battle catlizard equals one lord equals three angels equals ten grunts. If warscrolls for older units aren't restricted to the number of models that were originally in the box (and why would they be?) then you could easily have three ogres, five witch elves, ten Empire crossbowmen and twenty goblins all being one warscroll each.
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
The premise sounds awesome, what little we're told about it. A new universe of nine realms born from the destruction of the Old World by Chaos. Presuming they are patterned off the old winds of magic and WHFB races:
Light - Stormcast Eternals
Metal - Empire / Dwarves
Life - Wood Elves / Orcs?
Heavens - High Elves / Lizardmen?
Shadow - Dark Elves
Death - Vampire Counts / Tomb Kings
Fire - ??? / Dwarves? / Chaos Dwarves?
Beasts - Beastmen / Skaven? / Orcs? / Lizardmen?
Chaos - Warriors of Chaos / Daemons / Khorne Goretide
Dunno where Bretonnia and Ogre Kingdoms would call home.
It says 'no more armies per se' but this could be where all the new incarnations of the old models/units will call home.
0
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
Apparently units aren't fixed. Minimum size is what comes in the box, maximum is anything you want. Along with no points values, it's basically an open door for people that want to be a complete dick. Someone brings 3 minimum sized units, someone else brings 3 units of 150 models each.
The geek slappy fights that occur over this will be funny, but it doesn't sound like there's much of a game in there. More of an excuse to mash your collections together on the table.
The premise sounds awesome, what little we're told about it. A new universe of nine realms born from the destruction of the Old World by Chaos. Presuming they are patterned off the old winds of magic and WHFB races:
Light - Stormcast Eternals
Metal - Empire / Dwarves
Life - Wood Elves / Orcs?
Heavens - High Elves / Lizardmen?
Shadow - Dark Elves
Death - Vampire Counts / Tomb Kings
Fire - ??? / Dwarves? / Chaos Dwarves?
Beasts - Beastmen / Skaven? / Orcs? / Lizardmen?
Chaos - Warriors of Chaos / Daemons / Khorne Goretide
Dunno where Bretonnia and Ogre Kingdoms would call home.
It says 'no more armies per se' but this could be where all the new incarnations of the old models/units will call home.
I think I read somewhere that all the races are in all the realms to one degree or another.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
The premise sounds awesome, what little we're told about it. A new universe of nine realms born from the destruction of the Old World by Chaos. Presuming they are patterned off the old winds of magic and WHFB races:
Light - Stormcast Eternals
Metal - Empire / Dwarves
Life - Wood Elves / Orcs?
Heavens - High Elves / Lizardmen?
Shadow - Dark Elves
Death - Vampire Counts / Tomb Kings
Fire - ??? / Dwarves? / Chaos Dwarves?
Beasts - Beastmen / Skaven? / Orcs? / Lizardmen?
Chaos - Warriors of Chaos / Daemons / Khorne Goretide
Dunno where Bretonnia and Ogre Kingdoms would call home.
It says 'no more armies per se' but this could be where all the new incarnations of the old models/units will call home.
I think I read somewhere that all the races are in all the realms to one degree or another.
That's probably better than hard racial divides. I wonder if there will be a lesser or greater presence of one race based on what realm it is though. The realm of 'beasts' is mostly dominated by beastmen, for example.
Apparently units aren't fixed. Minimum size is what comes in the box, maximum is anything you want. Along with no points values, it's basically an open door for people that want to be a complete dick. Someone brings 3 minimum sized units, someone else brings 3 units of 150 models each.
The geek slappy fights that occur over this will be funny, but it doesn't sound like there's much of a game in there. More of an excuse to mash your collections together on the table.
The game is what you and the people you are playing with make it, which is fine by me. Sounds like a tournament scene will be impossible, or will need to be custom made. Perhaps groups on the internet will collaborate to make a standard version of that. Personally not interested in the tournament scene, and I personally had plenty of fun playing Inquisitor back in the day, and that game didn't really have a point system either.
0
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
The game is what you and the people you are playing with make it, which is fine by me. Sounds like a tournament scene will be impossible, or will need to be custom made. Perhaps groups on the internet will collaborate to make a standard version of that. Personally not interested in the tournament scene, and I personally had plenty of fun playing Inquisitor back in the day, and that game didn't really have a point system either.
See, I don't have a problem with that in theory. In practice, in my experience, it doesn't work without a moderator. Inquisitor had a game master, from memory,as it was an RPG.
If someone shows up with 3 blocks of 50 Chaos Warriors because it looks badass, and someone has 3 blocks of 20 Skaven Clanrats, it's a legal game. But the Skaven player will likely be horribly destroyed.
If you need to spend an hour before a match trying to come to an agreement about who can run exactly what, it's going to have real issues gaining traction. The reason behind a points system isn't to make it playable on a competitive level, but to make it easier to pick up and play faster.
It might not have a points system but still have some kind of ranking. Like Chaos Warriors are one troops slot per 5 warriors and goblins are one troop slot per 20.
I find it hard to believe it'll be as entirely Wild West as the worst doomsayers are assuming.
Nothing so far has inspired me with confidence that equal armies is really even a consideration. It seems like it will be an afterthought at best. Which means I will probably have no interest.
I'd say I'm a fluffy, non competitive player who has come to realize the hobby side is what interests me most. As such, the latest batch of rumors really has me intrigued. I had pretty much shelved my Fantasy mini's in favor of WMH and Malifuax. But a set of free rules to play with the models I have (or any cool new models that catch my painter eye)? And they can be used for smaller, lower model count games? Sounds good to me.
There has to be a least a modicum of a balancing system or it's not really a game anymore. More an odd fantasy battle simulation device.
A lot of sources are now claiming "no points, no force organization charts, each individual unit/warscroll has a minimum size but no upper limit". The only balancing seems to be that the side with fewer models receives additional victory objectives if the enemy army's 33% larger.
The odd thing is that some units have been getting shuffled around on the GW website from "special" to "rare", yet as far as I'm aware no rumours are indicating that those categories will still exist in the new game.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There has to be a least a modicum of a balancing system or it's not really a game anymore. More an odd fantasy battle simulation device.
A lot of sources are now claiming "no points, no force organization charts, each individual unit/warscroll has a minimum size but no upper limit". The only balancing seems to be that the side with fewer models receives additional victory objectives if the enemy army's 33% larger.
The odd thing is that some units have been getting shuffled around on the GW website from "special" to "rare", yet as far as I'm aware no rumours are indicating that those categories will still exist in the new game.
I wouldn't pay attention to thing being shuffled around. GW is bad keeping things straight on their site (aka Vanguard Veterans being classified as Fast Attack because jump packs).
We should probably hold off judgement of how things are organized until we see some scrolls. Even if the rumors are true, there are still balancing forces with no upper limit. People are acting like players are going to show up with ∞ models. It's worth remembering that these, you know, cost money.
There has to be a least a modicum of a balancing system or it's not really a game anymore. More an odd fantasy battle simulation device.
A lot of sources are now claiming "no points, no force organization charts, each individual unit/warscroll has a minimum size but no upper limit". The only balancing seems to be that the side with fewer models receives additional victory objectives if the enemy army's 33% larger.
The odd thing is that some units have been getting shuffled around on the GW website from "special" to "rare", yet as far as I'm aware no rumours are indicating that those categories will still exist in the new game.
I wouldn't pay attention to thing being shuffled around. GW is bad keeping things straight on their site (aka Vanguard Veterans being classified as Fast Attack because jump packs).
We should probably hold off judgement of how things are organized until we see some scrolls. Even if the rumors are true, there are still balancing forces with no upper limit. People are acting like players are going to show up with ∞ models. It's worth remembering that these, you know, cost money.
Man. Think before you post.
You just said that this game will be balanced not by points but by money spent.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
0
Options
Dr_KeenbeanDumb as a buttPlanet Express ShipRegistered Userregular
A lot of sources are now claiming "no points, no force organization charts, each individual unit/warscroll has a minimum size but no upper limit". The only balancing seems to be that the side with fewer models receives additional victory objectives if the enemy army's 33% larger.
I think a lot of people forget that if you want to play a game with 20 models and some shitlord brings 100, you can still always say 'I'm not playing with you, shitlord'.
The odd thing is that some units have been getting shuffled around on the GW website from "special" to "rare", yet as far as I'm aware no rumours are indicating that those categories will still exist in the new game.
If I were a web developer at GW, the categories would be in a table in the database and changing the name of that category site-wide would only involve changing that cell in the corresponding row in that table. So on July 4th I could change 'Core' to 'Mooks' and be done with it.
There has to be a least a modicum of a balancing system or it's not really a game anymore. More an odd fantasy battle simulation device.
A lot of sources are now claiming "no points, no force organization charts, each individual unit/warscroll has a minimum size but no upper limit". The only balancing seems to be that the side with fewer models receives additional victory objectives if the enemy army's 33% larger.
The odd thing is that some units have been getting shuffled around on the GW website from "special" to "rare", yet as far as I'm aware no rumours are indicating that those categories will still exist in the new game.
I wouldn't pay attention to thing being shuffled around. GW is bad keeping things straight on their site (aka Vanguard Veterans being classified as Fast Attack because jump packs).
We should probably hold off judgement of how things are organized until we see some scrolls. Even if the rumors are true, there are still balancing forces with no upper limit. People are acting like players are going to show up with ∞ models. It's worth remembering that these, you know, cost money.
Man. Think before you post.
You just said that this game will be balanced not by points but by money spent.
Maybe you should try reading my whole post, specifically the part where I said
We should probably hold off judgement of how things are organized until we see some scrolls.
I just don't buy that people are going to show up with the biggest squads they can afford since, you know, one of the biggest complaints about fantasy is that it requires too many models. Between the cost of those, the time to assemble, and the time to paint, it's just not going to happen.
Furthermore, as Keen pointed out, nobody is forcing you to play. If a guy does that, just say no. I don't understand what' so fucking hard about having a conversation with your opponent setting some reasonable limits.
I don't understand what' so fucking hard about having a conversation with your opponent setting some reasonable limits.
Because it's one extra step in setting up a game. Because it's a subjective viewpoint. Because forget avoiding 'that guy', I don't want to be agonising over my choices to avoid being 'that guy' myself!
Stop thinking about the extremes and think about normal play. I don't want to be the person who has to decide if 15 dwarven axemen are worth 10 elf spearmen or 15. Say I reckon the former and my opponent reckons the latter? No matter who wins, somebody is going to feel stiffed before the game has even begun.
'Step 1) Open negotiations' is a bad way to start a battle.
Yeah, take a game like Bolt Action, for instance. Because there are no super humans or greater demons, it's overall much better balanced than a typical GW game. But certain things like cavalry and tanks with flame throwers are over powered. Even though Bolt Action's culture is far from Win At Any Cost, it still causes annoyance because people don't like second guessing what's in their army list.
Obviously AoS will involve nothing but second guessing what's in your army list.
As an aside, it would be nice if Warlord had done what GW is planning to do and basically gone digital with all the rules because then they could fix the game's problems as they become apparent. As it is Alessio is reluctant to fix balance issues with FAQs, which is understandable. Why do I know all this? Because Warlord communicates with their customers. Crazy, I know.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
The "you don't have to play" is kind of a silly argument. That's always been true, but the game has also always taken some kind of measures to enable people to play randos or play competitively. It might be very stifling for what's supposed to be a fresh start if all of a sudden you can only play with people you know/trust, or you have to spend 15 of your precious 120 mini-mans minutes arguing about whether their Skaven block is the right size.
This is all moot until we see some rules though. I'm skeptical that there's absolutely 0 scaling considerations for this, because otherwise it shatters a lot of pick-up play. And I say that as someone who stopped playing outside of living rooms years ago.
0
Options
Dr_KeenbeanDumb as a buttPlanet Express ShipRegistered Userregular
I'm bowing out of this discussion until we have something concrete that isn't just crooked half-pictures (seriously what the fuck?) of rules.
Side note: @lowlylowlycook All the Bolt Action rules have Kindle editions on Amazon. I seriously just found out about it yesterday. And they're actually cheaper than their physical counterparts!
My only hope is that with armies not having to be large and the models no longer have to be designed to rank up in blocks, that we get to see some really rad stuff. I very much look forward to rat ninjas and other crazy Skaven things being released.
@Dr_Keenbean Thanks, but ironically I happen to prefer hard copies and the real advantage of digital doesn't happen unless the hard copies don't exist or are at least depreciated.
One other thing I like about GW going with free rules is that it removes the "necessity" of buying books just to know what your opponent might be throwing at you and to be familiar enough to catch any mistakes. Not being familiar with WoC made teaching one of my group's new players a bit of a pain.
Just thinking outloud... If GW was going to totally blow up Fantasy anyway, maybe they've missed an opportunity to do something really new like make the game a miniature/mobile app hybrid.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't understand what' so fucking hard about having a conversation with your opponent setting some reasonable limits.
Because it's one extra step in setting up a game. Because it's a subjective viewpoint. Because forget avoiding 'that guy', I don't want to be agonising over my choices to avoid being 'that guy' myself!
Stop thinking about the extremes and think about normal play. I don't want to be the person who has to decide if 15 dwarven axemen are worth 10 elf spearmen or 15. Say I reckon the former and my opponent reckons the latter? No matter who wins, somebody is going to feel stiffed before the game has even begun.
'Step 1) Open negotiations' is a bad way to start a battle.
My experience is that this is how every friendly game starts.
"How many points?"
"Battleforged or Unbound?"
"What kind of mission do you want to play?"
"Are we using mysterious objectives?"
"Do you mind if I proxy models?"
I don't see how this will be fundamentally different, other than the specifics will shift to reflect AoS.
Dr_Keenbean Thanks, but ironically I happen to prefer hard copies and the real advantage of digital doesn't happen unless the hard copies don't exist or are at least depreciated.
One other thing I like about GW going with free rules is that it removes the "necessity" of buying books just to know what your opponent might be throwing at you and to be familiar enough to catch any mistakes. Not being familiar with WoC made teaching one of my group's new players a bit of a pain.
Just thinking outloud... If GW was going to totally blow up Fantasy anyway, maybe they've missed an opportunity to do something really new like make the game a miniature/mobile app hybrid.
I've played Golem Arcana and it was neat but dang was it clunky. Any other hybrids out there?
Talking about Fantasy and skirmish and shit, I mentioned in the painting thread that me and a buddy are starting Mordheim...well, actually we're going with WyrdWars.
Still being updated, all the flavour of WHFB but in a skirmish size. Looks fun! I'll report how it is when I get a game.
Talking about Fantasy and skirmish and shit, I mentioned in the painting thread that me and a buddy are starting Mordheim...well, actually we're going with WyrdWars.
Still being updated, all the flavour of WHFB but in a skirmish size. Looks fun! I'll report how it is when I get a game.
Hm, I wonder what the differences between that and the living rulebook for Mordheim are. Both are basically fan projects at this point. That said, Mordheim (and I assume WyrdWars) is RAD so enjoy it! Cult of the Possessed 4 lyfe!
Talking about Fantasy and skirmish and shit, I mentioned in the painting thread that me and a buddy are starting Mordheim...well, actually we're going with WyrdWars.
Still being updated, all the flavour of WHFB but in a skirmish size. Looks fun! I'll report how it is when I get a game.
Hm, I wonder what the differences between that and the living rulebook for Mordheim are. Both are basically fan projects at this point. That said, Mordheim (and I assume WyrdWars) is RAD so enjoy it! Cult of the Possessed 4 lyfe!
There actually seem to be about 4 different "mordheim" systems at present.
Mordheim core, which is meant to be crazy unbalanced.
Mordheim something else (coreheim maybe?), which is meant to be much more balanced but had far less Warband options
a 3rd one which i also can't remember. It looked pretty good and had a bit more of it's own spin on things but had big gaps re; races covered (no beastmen for example)
Wyrdwars has a very good range of warbands, some nice options for converting heroes and having a nice looking warband, and hopefully a bit more balanced than the living rulebook. It has a few flaws (no big guys! Boo! I want trolls and minotaurs etc) but seems to be the best of the bunch.
The full rules have now been leaked. Nothing about army composition, it's just place as many of your miniatures down as you'd like (although every model in a single unit must share a warscroll). Warscrolls have no points value or restrictions on taking multiple units of a particular keyword.
All terrain is magical and has some kind of effect. If you're outnumbered by 33%, you can win by either killing a specific hero, killing a unit with five or more models, surviving until turn six, or occupying a piece of terrain in enemy territory at the end of turn four. If you play consecutive games in a row, the winner of the last game gets a bonus in the next if they won a major victory.
the winner of the last game gets a bonus in the next if they won a major victory.
LOL
In theory I kind of like the Sudden Death victory conditions and they could make unbalanced games interesting. But at first glance they seem like they will result in very specific builds. If there were more of them and they could be customized in some way it would be more interesting. I think Armada has this where one player has to include 3 victory conditions in their army list and the other picks one. Or something I haven't played it yet.
Anyway, I'm intrigued by the idea of an unbalanced game that automatically compensates mid game by adjusting the victory conditions but I'm not convinced that simply counting up models on the table cuts it.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
0
Options
Dr_KeenbeanDumb as a buttPlanet Express ShipRegistered Userregular
Armies can be any size, but if one is 1/3+ larger than the other, the smaller army can choose a Sudden Death objective. Achieving this objective grants them a Major Victory.
Tabling the other army is a Major Victory.
Otherwise you calculate who lost a greater percentage of their starting army at the end of the game. Whoever lost less wins a Minor Victory.
So, yeah, there's nothing in the rules keeping you from playing a game with 10 Liberators (the Sigmarines) vs 1000 Chaos duders. I'm a little surprised but not super worried.
the winner of the last game gets a bonus in the next if they won a major victory.
LOL
In theory I kind of like the Sudden Death victory conditions and they could make unbalanced games interesting. But at first glance they seem like they will result in very specific builds. If there were more of them and they could be customized in some way it would be more interesting. I think Armada has this where one player has to include 3 victory conditions in their army list and the other picks one. Or something I haven't played it yet.
Anyway, I'm intrigued by the idea of an unbalanced game that automatically compensates mid game by adjusting the victory conditions but I'm not convinced that simply counting up models on the table cuts it.
I don't see these rules as doing anything but encouraging people to use the biggest, toughest single model units that they can find. I'm running ten dragons? I guess I'm outnumbered by your thirteen goblins and deserve a bonus victory condition.
Even without that level of cheese, I'm genuinely uncertain about how you're meant to play a game of this that's going to feel fair to both players. It's not even like there are minimum unit sizes to base gentlemen's agreements on.
The only way I can see things working now is if the humble goblin is simply no more and there is some vague attempt to balance every figure by making everything all extreme all the time.
A pity none of the leaked scrolls include the Chaos barbarian looking dudes to compare to the Warriors.
But then they said they'll have scrolls for everything they've already created available? None of this makes sense.
If anything in WHF/40K needed streamlined it's the whole roll these dice 3 times then have your opponent roll twice and you'll finally know how many wounds you've done. I guess if there are no ward saves then it's slightly faster.
Also, attacks that do multiple wounds killing multiple mooks seems like a bad idea.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Posts
Without having seen any examples of power levels of a few warscrolls (I don't think any have surfaced yet?) it does seem plausible to me that unit sizes and stats could be fixed so that everything is equivalent. They could tone down the power of major characters and monsters and assign relatively high unit sizes for weaker troops; they could make heroes that should be physically weaker than others give buffs to the rest of their army.
The starter set certainly looks like it's following that model. Six units per side. One dude on a battle catlizard equals one lord equals three angels equals ten grunts. If warscrolls for older units aren't restricted to the number of models that were originally in the box (and why would they be?) then you could easily have three ogres, five witch elves, ten Empire crossbowmen and twenty goblins all being one warscroll each.
Light - Stormcast Eternals
Metal - Empire / Dwarves
Life - Wood Elves / Orcs?
Heavens - High Elves / Lizardmen?
Shadow - Dark Elves
Death - Vampire Counts / Tomb Kings
Fire - ??? / Dwarves? / Chaos Dwarves?
Beasts - Beastmen / Skaven? / Orcs? / Lizardmen?
Chaos - Warriors of Chaos / Daemons / Khorne Goretide
Dunno where Bretonnia and Ogre Kingdoms would call home.
It says 'no more armies per se' but this could be where all the new incarnations of the old models/units will call home.
The geek slappy fights that occur over this will be funny, but it doesn't sound like there's much of a game in there. More of an excuse to mash your collections together on the table.
I think I read somewhere that all the races are in all the realms to one degree or another.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
That's probably better than hard racial divides. I wonder if there will be a lesser or greater presence of one race based on what realm it is though. The realm of 'beasts' is mostly dominated by beastmen, for example.
The game is what you and the people you are playing with make it, which is fine by me. Sounds like a tournament scene will be impossible, or will need to be custom made. Perhaps groups on the internet will collaborate to make a standard version of that. Personally not interested in the tournament scene, and I personally had plenty of fun playing Inquisitor back in the day, and that game didn't really have a point system either.
See, I don't have a problem with that in theory. In practice, in my experience, it doesn't work without a moderator. Inquisitor had a game master, from memory,as it was an RPG.
If someone shows up with 3 blocks of 50 Chaos Warriors because it looks badass, and someone has 3 blocks of 20 Skaven Clanrats, it's a legal game. But the Skaven player will likely be horribly destroyed.
If you need to spend an hour before a match trying to come to an agreement about who can run exactly what, it's going to have real issues gaining traction. The reason behind a points system isn't to make it playable on a competitive level, but to make it easier to pick up and play faster.
I find it hard to believe it'll be as entirely Wild West as the worst doomsayers are assuming.
well, we have no idea if this is true.
This I'm actually interested in.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
A lot of sources are now claiming "no points, no force organization charts, each individual unit/warscroll has a minimum size but no upper limit". The only balancing seems to be that the side with fewer models receives additional victory objectives if the enemy army's 33% larger.
The odd thing is that some units have been getting shuffled around on the GW website from "special" to "rare", yet as far as I'm aware no rumours are indicating that those categories will still exist in the new game.
I wouldn't pay attention to thing being shuffled around. GW is bad keeping things straight on their site (aka Vanguard Veterans being classified as Fast Attack because jump packs).
We should probably hold off judgement of how things are organized until we see some scrolls. Even if the rumors are true, there are still balancing forces with no upper limit. People are acting like players are going to show up with ∞ models. It's worth remembering that these, you know, cost money.
If they'll be free anyway then IDGAF.
Man. Think before you post.
You just said that this game will be balanced not by points but by money spent.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I think a lot of people forget that if you want to play a game with 20 models and some shitlord brings 100, you can still always say 'I'm not playing with you, shitlord'.
If I were a web developer at GW, the categories would be in a table in the database and changing the name of that category site-wide would only involve changing that cell in the corresponding row in that table. So on July 4th I could change 'Core' to 'Mooks' and be done with it.
Or they're just doing it because reasons.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
Maybe you should try reading my whole post, specifically the part where I said
I just don't buy that people are going to show up with the biggest squads they can afford since, you know, one of the biggest complaints about fantasy is that it requires too many models. Between the cost of those, the time to assemble, and the time to paint, it's just not going to happen.
Furthermore, as Keen pointed out, nobody is forcing you to play. If a guy does that, just say no. I don't understand what' so fucking hard about having a conversation with your opponent setting some reasonable limits.
Because it's one extra step in setting up a game. Because it's a subjective viewpoint. Because forget avoiding 'that guy', I don't want to be agonising over my choices to avoid being 'that guy' myself!
Stop thinking about the extremes and think about normal play. I don't want to be the person who has to decide if 15 dwarven axemen are worth 10 elf spearmen or 15. Say I reckon the former and my opponent reckons the latter? No matter who wins, somebody is going to feel stiffed before the game has even begun.
'Step 1) Open negotiations' is a bad way to start a battle.
Obviously AoS will involve nothing but second guessing what's in your army list.
As an aside, it would be nice if Warlord had done what GW is planning to do and basically gone digital with all the rules because then they could fix the game's problems as they become apparent. As it is Alessio is reluctant to fix balance issues with FAQs, which is understandable. Why do I know all this? Because Warlord communicates with their customers. Crazy, I know.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
This is all moot until we see some rules though. I'm skeptical that there's absolutely 0 scaling considerations for this, because otherwise it shatters a lot of pick-up play. And I say that as someone who stopped playing outside of living rooms years ago.
Side note: @lowlylowlycook All the Bolt Action rules have Kindle editions on Amazon. I seriously just found out about it yesterday. And they're actually cheaper than their physical counterparts!
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
One other thing I like about GW going with free rules is that it removes the "necessity" of buying books just to know what your opponent might be throwing at you and to be familiar enough to catch any mistakes. Not being familiar with WoC made teaching one of my group's new players a bit of a pain.
Just thinking outloud... If GW was going to totally blow up Fantasy anyway, maybe they've missed an opportunity to do something really new like make the game a miniature/mobile app hybrid.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
My experience is that this is how every friendly game starts.
"How many points?"
"Battleforged or Unbound?"
"What kind of mission do you want to play?"
"Are we using mysterious objectives?"
"Do you mind if I proxy models?"
I don't see how this will be fundamentally different, other than the specifics will shift to reflect AoS.
I've played Golem Arcana and it was neat but dang was it clunky. Any other hybrids out there?
Still being updated, all the flavour of WHFB but in a skirmish size. Looks fun! I'll report how it is when I get a game.
Hm, I wonder what the differences between that and the living rulebook for Mordheim are. Both are basically fan projects at this point. That said, Mordheim (and I assume WyrdWars) is RAD so enjoy it! Cult of the Possessed 4 lyfe!
http://nstarmagazine.com/FROSTGRAVE.htm
http://thegaragegamers.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/frostgrave-fantasy-wargames-in-frozen_25.html
Looks to be everything I wanted in a fantasy skirmish campaign game.
There actually seem to be about 4 different "mordheim" systems at present.
Mordheim core, which is meant to be crazy unbalanced.
Mordheim something else (coreheim maybe?), which is meant to be much more balanced but had far less Warband options
a 3rd one which i also can't remember. It looked pretty good and had a bit more of it's own spin on things but had big gaps re; races covered (no beastmen for example)
Wyrdwars has a very good range of warbands, some nice options for converting heroes and having a nice looking warband, and hopefully a bit more balanced than the living rulebook. It has a few flaws (no big guys! Boo! I want trolls and minotaurs etc) but seems to be the best of the bunch.
All terrain is magical and has some kind of effect. If you're outnumbered by 33%, you can win by either killing a specific hero, killing a unit with five or more models, surviving until turn six, or occupying a piece of terrain in enemy territory at the end of turn four. If you play consecutive games in a row, the winner of the last game gets a bonus in the next if they won a major victory.
LOL
In theory I kind of like the Sudden Death victory conditions and they could make unbalanced games interesting. But at first glance they seem like they will result in very specific builds. If there were more of them and they could be customized in some way it would be more interesting. I think Armada has this where one player has to include 3 victory conditions in their army list and the other picks one. Or something I haven't played it yet.
Anyway, I'm intrigued by the idea of an unbalanced game that automatically compensates mid game by adjusting the victory conditions but I'm not convinced that simply counting up models on the table cuts it.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
So, yeah, there's nothing in the rules keeping you from playing a game with 10 Liberators (the Sigmarines) vs 1000 Chaos duders. I'm a little surprised but not super worried.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
I don't see these rules as doing anything but encouraging people to use the biggest, toughest single model units that they can find. I'm running ten dragons? I guess I'm outnumbered by your thirteen goblins and deserve a bonus victory condition.
Even without that level of cheese, I'm genuinely uncertain about how you're meant to play a game of this that's going to feel fair to both players. It's not even like there are minimum unit sizes to base gentlemen's agreements on.
So close to something quite intriguing, then all thrown away.
Punching a snotling? 4+ and it does 1 damage
Punching the Immortal King of All Dragons? 4+ and it does 1 damage
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
A pity none of the leaked scrolls include the Chaos barbarian looking dudes to compare to the Warriors.
But then they said they'll have scrolls for everything they've already created available? None of this makes sense.
Also, attacks that do multiple wounds killing multiple mooks seems like a bad idea.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)