Librarium Online Forums banner

21 - 31 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
i can see your point to now...
but that's just... sick
:)

i went to my local gw store yesterday and they told me this was THE most balanced game they've seen so far from warhammer...
they said 8th was so unbalanced...
they must be brainwashed to say that...
8th wasn't perfect but imo it was very good!
 

·
Benevolent Dictator
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
i went to my local gw store yesterday and they told me this was THE most balanced game they've seen so far from warhammer...
they said 8th was so unbalanced...
they must be brainwashed to say that...
8th wasn't perfect but imo it was very good!
There are two ways that people are looking at the balance of this game, and there are two different arguments.
The first and most common "internet hates it" argument, is that there is no points system, and therefore you can exploit the game as much as you want. And people think that means that it's not balanced. I agree. I want a balance system of some kind. Not because I need one, but because I think that a "game" should have one. There needs to be some sense of a predetermined size. When I went to the FLGS, I usually had about 3000pts of any army with me. That was my 2500pt list, and roughly 500pts worth of "sideboard" stuff that could take the game above the "normal" size, but could also be swapped in and out if we played a smaller game (can't field enough Crushers, might as well swap them for extra Chariots, etc) or I wanted to soften/harden my list to suit an opponent. Now, I show up with 100 Wounds worth of models, because that's what I consider balanced, and some other kid shows up with a whole suitcase full of Dwarfs. Umm... sorry kid, but you have a lot of stuff that you're not going to be putting on the table because...

...the other hand of the argument is that if someone takes an exploitative bent to the game, you just don't play them. The community self-moderates in small groups. The points system wasn't perfect - no balance system in any game ever will be. You could exploit the points system, and people claimed that there was this huge problem where players were saying, "well, the rules say that our game is fair, because we both have legal 2500pt armies" and then would just steamroll a "fluffy" list with some tournament-optimized "WAAC" army.
And that's what it really boils down to: the whole argument between "Fun" gamers and "Competitive Jerkwad" gamers. The problem, is that the entire argument is based on the foul-cries of jilted "friendly" players who "don't care about winning and losing as much as having fun" deciding that they're not having fun because they're not winning.
GW targeted AoS at those "for fun" guys. According to GW, they've been targeting that group forever, so I suppose that's fair.
Among those guys, AoS is balanced. The simplified "To Hit" and "To Wound" being innate, and not modified by opposed stats, etc, means that the game is extremely easy to balance. The small range of numbers also means that all units are very close in performance. To some this is dull, but from a balance perspective, a Skeleton can and will kill Chaos Warriors now. It's funny, because they have just as hard a time with it as they did in 8th, but we're not telling anyone that, now, are we?
So if you're the type of person who sits down ahead of time and plans out a story and scenario with your friends, and writes your armies together and aims more at having a "fluffy" army and so on and so forth, then yes: the game is vastly more balanced. Because all of the armies are on a much more equal footing (no more "Tomb Kings are a suck-book, can't compete with Skaven" type comments) and because if someone shows up with a bad attitude and a really exploitative army, you can just exclude him from your game until he never comes back again.

Buuuuuuuuut....
It's not going to pan out well for GW in the long run. I don't understand why they're pandering to the "Funsies" guys. Yeah, sure, they buy the models. As collectors. They'll always buy the models. But look at the other guys who care a lot more about "fun" than being competitive. Look at the sub-groups that exist within that cadre of players that doesn't exist in the tournament/competitive guys:

"Money Hammer" Haters
You've heard it. The guy who bashes on all GW games because "the most expensive army wins". This was actually my problem with M:tG and why I switched to Fantasy, but sure - I get it. The guy is saying, "yeah, I could update my High Elf army from nothing but Cavalry and Spears, and win games, but that means I have to buy $300 worth of White Lions, and that's not fair"
These guys forget that GW is running a business. Their option as a player is to either keep getting use out of $300 worth of models that they bought 10 years ago, or go and give GW a little of their hard-earned cash and support the hobby/company/game that they've been enjoying.
These guys usually don't stop playing, they just stop buying. If they do stop playing and switch systems, it's no loss for GW - they weren't buying anything anyways.
--The "Competitive Jerkwad" flip-side
The guy who wants to run a competitive army and win all of his games, is not only more likely to buy those $300 worth of White Lions now that they've become good, but he will also be more likely to buy a completely new army if a book/update comes out which is "better" than his High Elves. And when you have a guy like that, you end up with a guy like me: I own half of the armies in the game. This, in turn, makes me even more likely to buy something new at every release, because I no longer have to start a new army - I just have to buy another $300 worth of an army that I already own.
AND GW KNOWS THIS
Why do you think Codex Creep even exists in the first place? GW knows that if a player loves High Elves, they won't buy Chaos Daemons unless there's a good reason.
Aesthetics? Probably not - nothing will look quite like High Elves
Fluff? Probably not - High Elves are High Elves because they're High Elves in the fluff
Playstyle? Probably not - nothing will ever play quite like High Elves
Does it win games? Yeah, this will sell books. The competitive gamer will buy the book to keep winning, the "friendly" gamer will buy the book because he's sick of losing.
GW can't even begin to deny that they weren't targeting or at least exploiting the competitive gamers.

OldHammer Guys
Basically, this is all of us right now, because we're not updating to AoS and are continuing to play 8th. GW acknowledged this group too, when they said that the reason they "dumped WHFB" is because updating to 9th would just splinter the community between the guys who stuck with 8th, and the guys who jumped to 9th. To GW, they see this:
Edition 1: 500 gamers
Edition 2: 250 gamers (half stick with edition 1)
Edition 3: 175 gamers (half stick with edition 2)
Edition 4: 88 gamers (half stick with edition 3)
Edition 5: 44 gamers (half stick with edition 4)
Edition 6: 22 gamers (half stick with edition 5)
Edition 7: 11 gamers (half stick with edition 6)
Edition 8: 5 gamers (half stick with edition 7)
Edition 9? 2.5 gamers (half will stick)
or
Age of Sigmar!!!!!111!!: 2.5 will switch, +500 new arrivals!
It's idiotic. Mostly because the reason that people didn't switch editions was because they believed "this edition was better". That's always going to happen, but more importantly, if you give them a solid, balance book that isn't just a nerf/buff festival filled with exploits to enlarge unit sizes and sell more models, people would be more likely to switch to it.
--The Competitive Jerkwad flipside
Even though we hate Age of Sigmar, the major tournament circuits that we all play or aspire to, have actually adopted it. Because they always adopt the newest rules. GW could always sell the tournament players new books, because our option was to either buy up, or quit. And quitting GW "cold-turkey" (to use another addict's phrasing) is a lot harder to do than just phasing back into an older edition. Every time one of my armies got a new book, I bought it. Because my friends wouldn't allow outdated material even in our "for funsies gais!" games, because you wouldn't see that army in a modern tournament anymore.

The bottom line is that GW wants to sell models. That's their first priority. If they could do this without supporting a game, they would. The game is actually just a way to sell more models (Elf Spearmen aren't as cool as Swordmasters, but you need to fill minimum Core - buy them) and to control the collections by saying "you can only use our models in our games". As a legal tool, they know that they can't copyright the mere name 'Space Marines', but they can copyright the exact fluff, all the iconography, etc. They realize that they're going to be printing and distributing this stuff anyways, so that they can reference it in court, so there's no reason not to package rules in there - rules will help sell the fluff, to make back their "insurance premiums".
GW sees companies like Chapterhouse and Scibor and wants to be like them. Just selling models. What they seem to fail to realize is that they created that industry. Literally: GW kickstarted miniatures collecting into what it is today, and games are the only reason the hobby hasn't died yet. GW doesn't want to sell to gamers - they want to sell to modellers and toy-collectors. So consider:

Toy Collectors: the closest would be the guys who collect action figures. Why do they collect action figures? Because it's pop-culture. It might be some super-rare Superman that nobody has ever heard of, but people have heard of superman. GW "fluff" is not mainstream. GW isn't filling cinemas with 'Space Marine: First Blood ptII'. The collector can't show a bunch of strangers his Space Marines and have someone go, "wow, that's a lot of SpaceMarine stuff - I can relate to that because I've seen all the movies/books/comics/fandoms, even though I'm not 'hardcore' enough to collect the figures"
So those guys are out. That leaves...

Modellers: have you seen the finescale modelling industry lately? It's like - non existent. I can't find Revel or Tamiya models anywhere anymore, without going to a dedicated model shop. And there are actually more FLGS in my area than there are dedicated stockists for Revel/Tamiya kits. I used to subscribe to finescale magazines, and they've either dried up or have switched over to bi-monthly or even quarterly publications. Because it's a boring hobby! Once you've seen a King Tiger in 1:48th scale, you've seen every King Tiger in 1:48th scale EVER. But that's also why modellers stick to real-world stuff as their basis. The only way to separate one of those King Tigers from the other, is which builder took the time to carve every individual bolt into the proper shape and screw-type used by the German wehrmacht for tanks built during the last 6 months of 1943 in the BMW factory in small town who-really-gives-a-hoots-burg. In other words: attention to real world detail.
You can't "fact check" a Space Marine for "historical accuracy".

I don't buy Dystopian Wars miniatures because I don't play Dystopian Wars. They look cool, but I would just build/paint them and then sit them on a shelf to look at. And they're a little expensive for that. And hey: GW IS EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE! If GW wants to sell modes and just sell to collectors, then they need to drop their batch sizes (nobody needs five Terminators, one is enough) and funnel all of that effort into making one really cool model, and then not charging an arm and a leg for it.
And do you know who's really good at that right now? FORGEWORLD. And do you know who GW seems to actively want to shrivel up, die, and fall off like some kind of benign tumorous growth? Forgeworld.

Seriously: f- this sh- I quit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
How to deal with Wounds in War Machines?

Hi,
Wounds in Warmachines to me are a little bit confused since I saw some BR with different interpretations.
When a Warmachine is wounded, what shoud I do? Count 1 less wound in the profile or remove 1 crew or both?
If I just count a Wound in the War Machine profile, I will never use the table that describes negative effects in war machine due to elimination of crew. If I eliminate the crew to each Wound, aparently there is no need to have the profile Wounds to War Machine (example: Duardin Cannon has 4 Wounds).
Looks like a basic question (maybe I lost some detail in the rules), however, please any help?
Thanks,
Kaznak
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
well the way we do it:

as in a unit, where you can choose with model takes wounds first, we do the same with warmachines
first remove wounds from the warmachine, till you have only one left
then from that point on start removing crew members...
until they are all dead
then when you remove the last wound from the warmachine.

seems the most logical way imo
 

·
Benevolent Dictator
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
My group runs wounds in mixed units, by who the enemy can legally strike. If you are closest to the Crew and inflict a wound, any of the 3 crew members can be removed. If you are closest to the cannon and inflict a wound, that wound MUST be placed onto the cannon.
Usually it's not a problem, as we're dealing with entire regiments made of one troop type (Chaos Warriors and their Champion) so whenever wounds are suffered you're just pulling from anywhere in that unit. But if there are mixed units, or characters present, then we go by "what could this model actually swing at" just as if it were 8th edition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Thanks Cap !

I've tried both alternatives and my group decided to use the approach of the War Machine's player decides which model/wound is removed.
It makes more sense to the team following the "rule" of what it is not mentioned as forbidden is allowed.

Considering this, we could not agree on another topics that I again ask some support:

-May a unit in close combat fire its missile weapons in the same unit ïn contact" (we did not find any mention that is not allowed)? : majority thinks "no", becuase they are engaged in close combat with that unit.

-May a unit in close combat fire its missile weapons in another enemy unit in range, even if it is in close combat with another enemy unit (also no mention found that is prohibited) ?: majority of my group thinks "yes".

Please, let me know your oppinion.

Thanks again !!

Kaznak
 

·
Benevolent Dictator
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
It has been confirmed that you can shoot into, and out of, combat. Units who are in combat are still allowed to shoot. The only time you cannot Shoot is if you have Ran or Retreated.
It makes models armed with missile weapons very powerful. I played an Empire "gunline" against a Dark Elf "gunline", and it was effectively like playing 40k.
 

·
Benevolent Dictator
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Sounds like GW has successfully completed their objective....Warhammer Fantasy,000
I'm waiting to see how it shakes out, actually - for two reasons:

1) The rumors that a Heresy-era game is coming to 40k, basically "plastic 30k" but that it will have rules very similar to AoS. I think that the AoS rules would fit beautifully with 40k. It's not a bad system (once you work out some kind of balance), when looked at on it's own. Everyone's big gripe (and a valid one) is that they've destroyed everything we knew and loved about WHFB.

2) The Legacy armies are very odd. The faster they can get through the updated scrolls, the better. But I don't think they will. I think AoS has already died in the water, to be quite honest. But the problem at the moment, with the Legacy stuff, is that it's balanced around "all being there". The newer stuff, if I recall - is much better in Shooting than Melee, and vice-versa. It's not quite so bad as what happened with our gunlines. The best way to think about it, is that there are NO MORE "Core" choices in AoS. Things like Dark Elf Repeater Crossbowmen compared to DarkShard Spears are a thing of the past. Now everything is like comparing HE Sisters of Asuryan to Swordmasters - it either shoots really well, or it fights really well. There's no more "basic guy with a bow" anymore.

It gives me some faith in AoS, actually, but like I said - I think GW has already come pretty close to pulling the plug on it. Also, the prices are ridiculous - models are hitting somewhere around the $6-12 each for units. That's kinda dumb, so much for "lower barrier of entry". But if they could get through giving us proper updates for the other factions, I think the game will actually balance itself out nicely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
...Has anyone "come around" to playing Age of Sigmar yet, or are we all still just hate-mongering this game into the ground?
Interesting video in the other thread, and like you I really like the insight it brought to the game.

I think that the video basically reinforces the fact that this is purely a model driven game, and that’s what appears to be the difficulty for people when trying to compare it against whfb.

The first rule should be look at the model.

Come round... now there’s a term. I was always willing to give it a shot, but clearly it’s not Warhammer as we know it, but it’s here for the present time and you may as well just roll with it or get off and stop bleating. I could hate monger, but unless I jump ship and play KoW or similar, I don’t see the point of rage quitting only to play malifaux or warmachine etc.

“But kaleb, this is right up your street – you’re a hobbyist and fluffiest first..”
Sure I am, but I like a structure and framework to build my army to. Infuriatingly I can totally see what they tried to do, and also what the hidden jewels are, but somehow I can’t help thinking that it’s got lost in translation along the way.

The warscrolls are a great idea, and you could have army books being nothing more than fluff / formation / plot advancements, in this way the world can evolve, characters and maps can be replaced or change without the mess we’ve seen of old where this didn’t happen or that was always there because-new book. It could be so fluid and work so well.

I'm waiting to see how it shakes out, actually - for two reasons:

1) The rumors that a Heresy-era game is coming to 40k, basically "plastic 30k" but that it will have rules very similar to AoS. I think that the AoS rules would fit beautifully with 40k. It's not a bad system (once you work out some kind of balance), when looked at on it's own. Everyone's big gripe (and a valid one) is that they've destroyed everything we knew and loved about WHFB.
I do so agree with this. AoS could and should have been an amazing feeder into a more complex game, and yes, the destruction didn’t need to happen. There is nothing that I have read so far that could not have happened in the old world post end times. New map, new factions, new alliances, realmgates, different worlds the lot. It was all there for the taking, and could have been done so very elegantly. Instead in order to rid the apartment block of a mouse, we demolished the building to the ground and realised that the tenants haven’t got anywhere to live apart from the refugee centre they’ve just put up until the new block is built.

WHW’s own even just puts a comp of 100 models in its event pack – great. My wallet beats your wallet.


2) The Legacy armies are very odd. The faster they can get through the updated scrolls, the better. But I don't think they will. I think AoS has already died in the water, to be quite honest. But the problem at the moment, with the Legacy stuff, is that it's balanced around "all being there". The newer stuff, if I recall - is much better in Shooting than Melee, and vice-versa. It's not quite so bad as what happened with our gunlines. The best way to think about it, is that there are NO MORE "Core" choices in AoS. Things like Dark Elf Repeater Crossbowmen compared to DarkShard Spears are a thing of the past. Now everything is like comparing HE Sisters of Asuryan to Swordmasters - it either shoots really well, or it fights really well. There's no more "basic guy with a bow" anymore.
Correct again about the legacy armies, and in truth we were told this at the beginning. GW pledged to us that all of our miniatures can be used – nobody said anything about the armies, nor did they promise anything of the sort. And they did say that as time went on the existing “armies” would be more and more compromised.

However... I was speaking to my friend who works up at Nottingham, and there was a very interesting conversation that grew, and it was this;

Internally it’s all a bit of a mess at the moment, rules writing / mini design / painting studio / product strategy really don’t talk to each other. He also mentioned that for the foreseeable aside from reboxing and rebasing not a lot if anything will be delete.

Now looking at it from a different angle, we all know that the whfb 9th rulebook and army books have mostly been written, and lets face it, if it all tanks, then sigmar does his thing, beats back chaos, and creates a new world with all the survivors, and hey what do you know, there’s a big fat new rules set to go with it.

I think garagehammer summed it up perfectly when they said that AoS succeded in one thing above all else and it was this;
AoS has made people who were blind to anything other than GW suddenly realise or consider a big new world of alternatives out there.

I totally agree about the core choice need, short of liking warriors or having lots of them why have them over chosen?
But also it does allow us to field the army of our choice if we so wanted, but again we could have had this in the regular rules – i don’t know, perhaps saying that anything outside of its own slot outside of core (special/ rare)carries a loading of +100% to use? (you have a good sense of balance and could probably come up with a way better ‘take what you like but here’s the price’ model).

I can field the blood charge list I always wanted to field, chaos knights and juggers and horsemen – it looks awesome and the Warhammer world 100 model rule means I can show up with my collection of 16 skullcrushers, 16 bloodcrushers, 10 knights, 25 marauder horsemen, 3 gorebeast chariots and warshrine perfectly feasibly. But I know that someone will basically bring down a world of greater daemons and other hugeness. However if I had them I’d still love to take 90 bret peasant bowmen, trebuchets and a paladin!

That’s why for me I’m still struggling, I need and want the structure even at a very simple level.

It gives me some faith in AoS, actually, but like I said - I think GW has already come pretty close to pulling the plug on it. Also, the prices are ridiculous - models are hitting somewhere around the $6-12 each for units. That's kinda dumb, so much for "lower barrier of entry". But if they could get through giving us proper updates for the other factions, I think the game will actually balance itself out nicely.
I think we play the 40k line of argument on this one. They argue cost vs fantasy yet the costs are hidden, and have not got cheaper. The model count can be perceptibly less, but the cost as you say is still there. The only difference is that now like 40k a box is essentially a squad and all you need to get going.

I’m going to reserve judgment until all factions and realmgate war books are out. We won’t know what the hell the intent is until all the AoS era stuff is packaged up and on the shelves. AoS has been a vanity project in every sense of the word but cleverly it can be U turned without retcon. It’s not an un-enjoyable game, and it’s all we have if we want to keep on the ship, but it’s not Warhammer,and I suppose like many I'm still in a state of mourning for that.
 
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
Top