Warhammer Fantasy Battle / Age of Sigmar

[mitchiemasha]

For me if you have to wait for 1 guy to move his entire army, it takes too long. Playing some sort of priority tokens first, unrevealed, then if you have initiative you move through a phase order, move, fight etc of first priority, next player does the same with his first priority, then it moves to second priority. First priority have the ability to forfeit to second but then you risk more casualties from the other player.

[Goblin-King]

When I used to play I didn't feel it was too bad. And you feel like you have more control when you get an entire turn to do all your crazy stuff uninterrupted.
But even chess can take too long if the opponent is an overthinking jerk.
It all depends on which kind of opponent you are up against.

I once fought a guy who tried to maneuver a regiment up on a hill. But he had a hard time fitting the entire regiment there. One mini kept falling down.
I was like "it's allright, just put that one on the ground. I accept that in time you will probably make them all fit on that hill".
And he was like "No no. We have to do this the right way. It has to fit for me to play legal".

[slev]

I once fought a guy who tried to maneuver a regiment up on a hill. But he had a hard time fitting the entire regiment there. One mini kept falling down.
I was like "it's allright, just put that one on the ground. I accept that in time you will probably make them all fit on that hill".
And he was like "No no. We have to do this the right way. It has to fit for me to play legal".

And yet, for the last three editions, this was covered in the rules!

For myself, AOS is effectively an entirely different game that you can play with your existing WFB armies.

I don't like the bulk of the new ninis, and the new background is lame generic fantasy.

Interestingly, WFB sales where only problematic in the Americas by all accounts. It seems they don't like historical fantasy.

[cornixt]

AoS is essentially Warhammer with all troops as skirmishers, no proper magic, the stats rearranged and renamed, all special rules and weapon rules moved to the unit descriptions, and all the points values removed. Apart from that, it is pretty similar.

I can't see myself playing it. The lack of balancing forces makes it less fun. It's like competing in a race where the competitors pick different starting points in different directions. No one really knows who started with a disadvantage, so it is less exciting to win.

[slev]

The lack of balancing forces makes it less fun. It's like competing in a race where the competitors pick different starting points in different directions. No one really knows who started with a disadvantage, so it is less exciting to win.

A large number of wargames have a similar lack of point systems, the idea being that players arrange their own scenarios. The purchasable materials come with a large number of scenarios for just that reason.

[cornixt]

For someone starting out, that would be fine. As someone who already has nearly all the models they want, I'm not going to buy any more or try to wedge my models into their scenarios. It's just not for me. I'm sticking with an older edition.

[mitchiemasha]

A large number of wargames have a similar lack of point systems, the idea being that players arrange their own scenarios. The purchasable materials come with a large number of scenarios for just that reason.

Yeah I like this idea. Many people play just to win but seeing how long your tiny group with stands an entire army could be just as fun.

Gaming isn't just about balance, it's about creating impossible to survive situations, then surviving it. Perhaps they should of wrote it's for both sides to agree what to play and against. Not just bring everything you have and play it against the other. Creating scenarios should be as equally big part of the game as the actual battle itself. Whether they've created this game will take time to tell. it's a new concept for the W40k lot to pick up on and go, ohhhh I see how that works now!!!

Also, if some ones a dick and insists on playing everything and it's just open field, simply don't play them. No commander would lead his army into that battle, you'd try meet them on landscape more suited to your odds, that's half of what a commander is being about, bringing a new level of pregame to the game.

Guy 1: My parents are rich I've got a huge army and I want to play the lot.
Guy 2: Well I'm new to it and there's no way I'm meeting all that in open field. My small army would wait to ambush you via a deep valley.
Guy 1: There's no way I'd march my army through a valley that deep knowing you might be about.
Guy 2: yeah but your supplies are low and you've got no choice, lets say you get...(a certain unit or amount through) you win.

It's upto both sides to decide the winning conditions, by judging how well they think their army can achieve in the situation. A guy who knows his army can bluff for some easy plays, which wouldn't be much fun after a while. A guy could have a huge army and be fooled into some tragic battles. Think how good it would feel trashing what would be thousands of points with a small band. If they had points, you'd know how strong it was, with out points you have to guess, a much truer mechanic.

A good commander, knows the strengths of his army and where to play it. if they've reflected this in game play here, I'd like it. Shame I'm not so fussed on the new miniatures not fitting any actual history.

To some it up, balance is for wusses!!!

[Goblin-King]

I guess tournaments aren't a thing anymore?
Or did GW just flip all tournament players the bird?

[Baylor_OgreBane]

Some of the fun was the designing of a nicely balanced army list, getting the punching power you wanted at the budget you had. I remember that people used to pour hours into this and some people just made up army lists for fun. That is all now a thing of the past. I have my copy of AoS but haven't played it yet (waiting until its all painted) so I am trying to reserve judgement. At the end of the day, if people prefer the old battle game they will play it, they probably have all the stuff they need. If Aos is a failure it wont take them long to switch back to the old system.
I find it odd that they didn't just release AoS along side the old rule book as 2 separate games, that to me would have made a bit more sense!
But then we all know that common sense is in short supply at GW.

I almost completely forgot to mention the triumphant return of the whipy stick measure! It is the best idea ever, if you and your fellow gamer get into a dispute then you both take up arms and whip them into submission, yes it can be a bit of a downer having to play through the tears but at least the dispute is over!

[Baylor_OgreBane]

@ mitchiemasha

That is the point of AoS, to diversify the scenarios, and I would love to play more games like that and have a proper storied campaign going on. Problem is power players, those that have to play to win at everything, or the technical term for them "Fun Sponges"
In HQ we don't really get them much and most of the players are mature enough to be able to enjoy the story aspect. Having played many Warhammer tournaments I know that the gamers are very different, and being able to reason with them is a no-no. I think that GW over estimated their ability to except change when they rolled out AoS in blind faith that their customer base is either so loyal or stupid that they will buy anything.
anyway I am rambling and forgot the point I was trying to achieve...