|
TKIY posted:I have a fair number of people trying to make AoS work here, but it's such a mess rules-wise that everyone that wants to play has their own set of house rules which makes the whole process pointless. The shooting rules function fine, but conflict with people's expectations that "in a fantasy melee, you're too busy fighting to shoot your weapon" or maybe you can't see out. That is less a change to fix the rules and more to make it map to expectations of how things work in other games. Can you clarify how attaching heroes to units changes the way the game works? Regarding to hit-to wound, it seems like they could have combined these into a single check. There are some things like "if your to-hit is a 6, deal a mortal wound instead of rolling to-wound", but that could still be captured in a single roll. GreenMarine fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Nov 21, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Texmo posted:You know, I used to think GW was the worst offender here, but I just recently put together two Young Nephilim for Malifaux, and they are not even close to being designed as "miniatures which are going to be picked up and moved around a bunch" at all. 1mm wide joins to a resin scenic base is Not Good, and I feel like they'll break as soon as I try to to transport them anywhere. GW is still pretty bad for over-designed nonsense and spindly bits. Nagash doesn't look like something that would function on the table in the slightest. The other problem is less of a problem in AoS since you measure from the model, but these things do not fit in their bases and never have. Trying to rank GW models was an exercise in futility. The reason why melee is in bands now is because you would never, ever be able to get models to be in base to base with each other. It's clearly a case of the rules following the models and not vice-versa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Shooting in a melee was the entire point of pistols and, say, the tercio formation. Ok, not the entire point of either, but still.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
TKIY posted:I have a fair number of people trying to make AoS work here, but it's such a mess rules-wise that everyone that wants to play has their own set of house rules which makes the whole process pointless. Having played a fair few games of it, I honestly don't see a need to house-rule anything. The game functions just fine as written. Sure, there are things you can change if you want to but to suggest there's a need to do it to play a functional game is false, based on experience. Measure from the base makes things a little quicker/easier if that's how you want to play. Rotation doesn't really matter for movement since the models don't have a facing like they did in Fantasy. Shooting into/out of combat really isn't much of a big deal, you just have to accept that combat isn't the "safe" haven it used to be (though admittedly randomising hits could be a fun addition). Allowing heroes to attach to units gives some units a massive advantage. If I could attach my characters to my Khorne units, the synergy would be extremely difficult to disrupt and I imagine I'd roll over armies. Using the General's Handbook to build lists isn't a house rule; it's how to play an official game type. I didn't play a game of AoS before the GH was released because I'm a sucker for structure. The idea of "just turn up with whatever" didn't appeal to me, but the addition of points and some more balanced scenarios meant I gave it a go and liked it. It's a quick game to learn since you only have to worry about your own rolls i.e. what you need to roll to hit, wound, your own saves etc. so you can plan how you want to attack based on these numbers. I'm not suggesting it's better or worse than the old S vs T system; it's just different but different doesn't have to mean bad. I'm not suggesting there aren't dumb parts to it. Units with no natural save not getting benefits from cover is pretty dumb for example, but I would just say give it a go with an open mind. Take whatever you think is cool and good and play some friends and see how you find it. The General's Handbook is probably online somewhere and just proxy models or whatever. E: Fun content. A thing I painted. 
Fuegan fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
I'm considering starting a Seraphon army. Does anyone know what would make a decent 500pt list? My only need is to include the Skink Starpriest because that model is fantastic and I need it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Fuegan posted:Having played a fair few games of it, I honestly don't see a need to house-rule anything. The game functions just fine as written. Sure, there are things you can change if you want to but to suggest there's a need to do it to play a functional game is false, based on experience. Measure from the base makes things a little quicker/easier if that's how you want to play. Rotation doesn't really matter for movement since the models don't have a facing like they did in Fantasy. Shooting into/out of combat really isn't much of a big deal, you just have to accept that combat isn't the "safe" haven it used to be (though admittedly randomising hits could be a fun addition). Being someone who played dwarves in fantasy and played a couple games of aos, if you think shooting in combat is fine, you haven't played a list that can honestly take advantage of it. The game is okay if you keep it at the "play with some friends and just do whatever" but it absolutely falls apart when you sit down and try to figure out a list that can win
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Fuegan posted:Having played a fair few games of it, I honestly don't see a need to house-rule anything. The game functions just fine as written. Sure, there are things you can change if you want to but to suggest there's a need to do it to play a functional game is false, based on experience. Measure from the base makes things a little quicker/easier if that's how you want to play. Rotation doesn't really matter for movement since the models don't have a facing like they did in Fantasy. Shooting into/out of combat really isn't much of a big deal, you just have to accept that combat isn't the "safe" haven it used to be (though admittedly randomising hits could be a fun addition). At the absolute bare minimum you have to house rule measure from the base and use the GH, or else it isn't even a game
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
You also have to house rule out the combos that straight up break the game too
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Endman posted:I'm considering starting a Seraphon army. Does anyone know what would make a decent 500pt list? Seraphon Collecting box is a good start. Warriors and Knights are your Battleline and you get a Carnisaur/Trogladon for if you decide to bump up the limit for the cost of the Carnesaur on its own. Starpriest, Warriors and Knights puts you at 320 points, so you've got some options: Ripperdactyls are vicious, even after the GH changes. Easily slot in at 140 for 3. Astrolith Bearer makes a nice bodyguard for your Priest, and can buff up his spells. Salamanders and Razordons w/ handlers are piss cheap and can deal with heavily armoured units.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Being someone who played dwarves in fantasy and played a couple games of aos, if you think shooting in combat is fine, you haven't played a list that can honestly take advantage of it. I'll admit I've not played an army as shooting-heavy as that so it'll be interesting to see how it works, especially when they add the newer dwarf stuff next year. I do wonder if it'll be as range-heavy as dwarf lists of old, which should give more of an indication as to how they see the balance in the system going forward with regards to how much ranged stuff there is. Moola posted:At the absolute bare minimum you have to house rule measure from the base and use the GH, or else it isn't even a game I've said previously that I've played games with and without a measure from base house rule and not really had problems either way. Measuring from base is definitely an easier way of doing things though. As for the GH, choosing to use it isn't a house rule; it's a way you choose to play. My group only plays Matched Battles. Not trying to seem like I'm fanboy-defending a system for the sake of it. I'm just giving my opinion on it based on games I've played in the environment I play in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Being someone who played dwarves in fantasy and played a couple games of aos, if you think shooting in combat is fine, you haven't played a list that can honestly take advantage of it. What lists really abuse the shooting mechanics? I might be forced into playing a game of AoS and I want to bring something abusive I'm thinking ogres???
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Moola posted:What lists really abuse the shooting mechanics? I might be forced into playing a game of AoS and I want to bring something abusive If you stick with the Gutbusters allegiance you could run units of Leadbelchers as Battleline so yeah, you could make an army pretty much entirely out of them and take a couple of Scraplaunchers and/or Ironblasters plus a Tyrant or Butcher as your Leader. Give him the Bellowing Tyrant command trait and he can make a unit within D6" add 1 to their hit rolls for that turn as well. E: Only downside would be that you'd get less shots from them if there are enemy models within 3" (they get D6 shots instead of D3 if they don't move and don't have enemies within 3") but it'd still be pretty brutal, especially since their trait ability lets you move D6" in the Hero phase (the Leadbelcher's special rule specifically states "it did not move in the movement phase..." Fuegan fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Fuegan posted:in the environment I play in. I think this is ultimately what critics of the game just want fans of the game to acknowledge. We can debate game mechanics and discuss how the new fluff stacks up to the old, but if at the end of the day the people you play the game with are people you like being around then it doesn't really matter how awful the game is or how stupid the fluff is. There are still groups of people that get together regularly to play Munchkin. But critics of the game are trying to say that if you divorce who you play the game with from the game itself, there are a lot of really obvious flaws that it doesn't take a genius to notice and people love to dismiss them without really offering a good explanation for why the criticism should be dismissed. For instance, you said that the game works equally well regardless of if you measure from the base or from the model. I posit that there actually is a difference. How you pose your models is pretty wide open (or at least it used to be, a lot of the new ones look like they have fairly rigid poses). But in any case if you have to be within a certain distance to shoot or get close enough to trigger a melee, having a model's spear or bow pointed forward offers a clear advantage over measuring from the base. In other games, this is ignored as flair because the models represent warriors who would obviously not be static. The base is just a convenient representation of the space they are most like to occupy. So using the rules as written, you encourage players to model to advantage and accidentally award models an advantage just based on how they're sculpted. You also get dumb situations where the base is entirely behind cover or something but a strand of hair is sticking out and welp models don't have facing so it's totally legit to measure to or from the hair. Now how big of a deal all of that is, it's hard to say. Both sides are subject to it, so it might not be a problem, but it very well could be depending on how the models look. The point is though, it never needed to be a problem because they could have just had models measure from the base to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:I think this is ultimately what critics of the game just want fans of the game to acknowledge. We can debate game mechanics and discuss how the new fluff stacks up to the old, but if at the end of the day the people you play the game with are people you like being around then it doesn't really matter how awful the game is or how stupid the fluff is. There are still groups of people that get together regularly to play Munchkin. I don't disagree with any of this. I'm quite interested to see how the Matched Play system holds up in a competitive environment as it's not something I've attempted yet. Hell I'd be fine with them saying "measuring from bases is the way to play" because I agree with the points you made, but having played "measure from model" it can definitely cut both ways. For what it's worth, I prefer the ease/balance of measuring from the base.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:The point is though, it never needed to be a problem because they could have just had models measure from the base to begin with. I'm fairly sure GW wrote it as measure from the model in order to grandfather in square-based WHFB armies into the new round based world. Being able to have the same units used differently sized bases introduces the same model-for-advantage problems that measuring from the model does though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
This whole conversation about base measuring vs model is absurd. Only dick bags would model their figures to get a minor advantage instead of making them look as cool as possible. I would not be surprised if many of the "terrible" moves GW made was nothing more than a tactic to purge these kinds of players as they create negative experience for new players. I swear to god I don't understand people who get into these games to compete... go play go and lets us drink and roll dice in peace. So I know very little about AoS, I bought the last starter set of fantasy with elves and vermen, I really liked the elf models and wanted to paint them but never got around to it. My friend is getting into AoS and I was wondering what faction the high elves are part of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Technically, most of High Elves don't exist in the same way so are included as part of the "Compendium" section. Some of the models (Swordmasters, Archmage) still exist as part of the Order Grand Alliance though. I don't know why, it's a bit confusing. Basically you'd run under the Order Grand Alliance, with part of your army being made up of the Eldritch Council allegiance (Swordmasters, Archmage) and the other part being made up of the rest of the unit from the Compendium section (Spearmen, High Elf Prince on Griffon, Ellyrian Reavers).
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Fuegan posted:I don't know why, it's a bit confusing. Warhammer: Age of Sigmar: I don't know why, it's a bit confusing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:This whole conversation about base measuring vs model is absurd. Only dick bags would model their figures to get a minor advantage instead of making them look as cool as possible. I would not be surprised if many of the "terrible" moves GW made was nothing more than a tactic to purge these kinds of players as they create negative experience for new players. I swear to god I don't understand people who get into these games to compete... go play go and lets us drink and roll dice in peace. nah not really, there are lots of models that have large weapons pointed out in front of them that would get an advantage if you used measure from the model. This doesnt even touch on models that have bases larger than themselves, so technically unless you house rule 'measure from base' they cant even attack Also if your game requires you have a gentleman's agreement in order to play it 'properly', then the rules might in fact be poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:This whole conversation about base measuring vs model is absurd. Only dick bags would model their figures to get a minor advantage instead of making them look as cool as possible. I would not be surprised if many of the "terrible" moves GW made was nothing more than a tactic to purge these kinds of players as they create negative experience for new players. I swear to god I don't understand people who get into these games to compete... go play go and lets us drink and roll dice in peace. I mean, how dare people try and play the game they bought with the rules the designers wrote, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I mean, how dare people try and play the game they bought with the rules the designers wrote, I guess? So are you suggesting the people in this thread who have claimed to play the game model to model are just flat out lying to me? That the 1/2 inch difference is literally game breaking?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Moola posted:What lists really abuse the shooting mechanics? I might be forced into playing a game of AoS and I want to bring something abusive As mentioned, yeah. Load up on leadbelchers and maybe drop in a few ironguts just to form a wall. Both have traits that you should abuse the gently caress out of. If I can track down some cheap leadbelchers I may try this at the local GW store. Are mournfang cavalry still amazing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
I heard bolt throwers are also pretty broken so maybe I could try that too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:So are you suggesting the people in this thread who have claimed to play the game model to model are just flat out lying to me? That the 1/2 inch difference is literally game breaking? A: This has nothing to do with your original statements. In reference to those this is more of a problem for new players; new players can't magically infer how the game is "actually meant to be played" from a rulebook. You're not helping new players with some weird-rear end scheme to drive out the badwrongs, you're just making the game more obtuse to play. The person most likely to try measuring from a spear is the guy who's never played before but has keenly read the rulebook and thinks he's spotted a fantastic tactic, only to discover this was actually the trap and now he's a bad person and should never show his face again. Is this really the best experience for new players? I would hazard not. B: A lot of people play games wrong, either on purpose (either formally or informally) or by accident, and a lot of emergent effects are, by their nature, situational. If you play model-to-model and, as a result, a flying unit can't hit your goblins because they're too far away*, or you have to start moving all your chariots sideways because they gain a lot of reach from pivoting, then I would hazard that yes, there is an appreciable rules difference between playing as written, by the designers, in the rulebook, and the way a lot of people houserule it. *fortunately, the common goblin-with-spears loadout would fix this problem, by elevating them an inch or so into the air.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:So are you suggesting the people in this thread who have claimed to play the game model to model are just flat out lying to me? That the 1/2 inch difference is literally game breaking? Go back and read what I actually wrote and the responses to it. It may not actually be a big problem, but it's not the kind of problem that ever needed to exist. If there's ever any form of competitive play, people will absolutely try and get whatever advantage they can regardless of how small. That's kind of the point of a competition. If you personally don't want to play competitively, that's fine. But other people see that as the best way to engage with the hobby and they should be able to without being accused of ruining the game. But maybe you're right. Maybe GW included intentionally abusable rules to drive people away from the game and to further reduce the community around an already niche product. That just makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:This whole conversation about base measuring vs model is absurd. Only dick bags would model their figures to get a minor advantage instead of making them look as cool as possible. I would not be surprised if many of the "terrible" moves GW made was nothing more than a tactic to purge these kinds of players as they create negative experience for new players. I swear to god I don't understand people who get into these games to compete... go play go and lets us drink and roll dice in peace. If I'm paying several hundred dollars to play a game, I expect the rules to be tight enough that I can play the game a bunch of times without running into weird issues and exploits. Maybe people won't normally do this stuff, but even a friend who's losing and starting to tilt might end up trying to take advantage of gaps in the rules to pull out a win. And even then this is a PvP game, so it's worth having tight rules that enable both sides to actually play competitively without making the game completely miserable. This expands your potential set of opponents, since now you don't have to find people who want to play the game exactly the way you do; you could play against someone more-competitive and still have fun (though you might lose). Additionally, having clearly-written rules that enable competitive play doesn't hurt the non-competitive "beer and pretzels" players at all; if anything, it helps them by providing clear answers to rules questions. In the end, if I have to be drunk to enjoy a game, that probably just means I like drinking and spending time with my friends. Might as well save the money I would have spent on AoS to buy more beer. Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
If the new player, after building, painting, and then playing a game decides that he is going to pick the poses of his models to get advantages while playing the game instead of to make them look good, or realistic, or whatever, then I would likely not want to play against that person. I also think that person would enjoy another game which was designed to be played more competitively more. Which I think is most of your points as well right? If you want to play a good balanced game play something else. If you like the models and story of AoS and aren't as invested in good game design play AoS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:If the new player, after building, painting, and then playing a game decides that he is going to pick the poses of his models to get advantages while playing the game instead of to make them look good, or realistic, or whatever, then I would likely not want to play against that person. Ok youre literally just not reading people's replies properly at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:If the new player, after building, painting, and then playing a game decides that he is going to pick the poses of his models to get advantages while playing the game instead of to make them look good, or realistic, or whatever, then I would likely not want to play against that person. Age of Sigmar: If you want to play a good balanced game play something else (For what it's worth I think it's totally possible and a Healthy Thing to have an actual AoS thread, for better or worse. I just couldn't resist the opportunity because JesusIsTehCool seems like just such a peach of a poster.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:This whole conversation about base measuring vs model is absurd. Only dick bags would model their figures to get a minor advantage instead of making them look as cool as possible. I would not be surprised if many of the "terrible" moves GW made was nothing more than a tactic to purge these kinds of players as they create negative experience for new players. I swear to god I don't understand people who get into these games to compete... go play go and lets us drink and roll dice in peace. JesusIsTehCool posted:If the new player, after building, painting, and then playing a game decides that he is going to pick the poses of his models to get advantages while playing the game instead of to make them look good, or realistic, or whatever, then I would likely not want to play against that person. lol this is the kind of retardation that has everyone primed to poo poo on this game, FYI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
"Age of Sigmar could have been and should have been a much better game than it is, but I play it anyway because of <reasons>" is not an admission that non-AOS players have a duty to try to force out of AOS players. AOS players either don't agree with that statement, or they do but don't want to say it, or they do and they say it and play on. But this isn't an AA meeting where they need to publicly state their position before they can continue. The most important criticism of AOS is that it took the place what could and should have been a better game - but that is actually a discussion about Games Workshop, which belongs in the GW Death Thread. Criticisms of AOS on its own basis - its poor rules, or whatever - can and should go in here, but do not require this sort of litmus test of AOS-posters to get them to admit that they're Bad Gamers or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
I think its a very uncool thing to assert that people who abuse the incredibly easy to abuse rules of AoS are bad people you shouldnt play with
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:If the new player, after building, painting, and then playing a game decides that he is going to pick the poses of his models to get advantages while playing the game instead of to make them look good, or realistic, or whatever, then I would likely not want to play against that person. I don't think you're reading me very well but, to be clear, your position here is that AoS is a badly designed game and people who like good games shouldn't play it? Because it's refreshing to hear that. spectralent fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
I think AoS occupies a space that needed filling as a loose rules shits and grins game. The problem is that it should have just been a proper skirmish rules supplement of WHFB. Also that the rules are less loose and more entirely unwound and piled on the floor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Bombogenesis posted:I think AoS occupies a space that needed filling as a loose rules shits and grins game. The problem is that it should have just been a proper skirmish rules supplement of WHFB. Also that the rules are less loose and more entirely unwound and piled on the floor. I mean, I'm also on the look for a loose rules game, since my little sister's getting curious about figures and I can't introduce her to ASL yet, but "quick shits and giggles game" and "£40 squad miniatures boxes" don't go together for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:This whole conversation about base measuring vs model is absurd. Only dick bags would model their figures to get a minor advantage instead of making them look as cool as possible. I would not be surprised if many of the "terrible" moves GW made was nothing more than a tactic to purge these kinds of players as they create negative experience for new players. I swear to god I don't understand people who get into these games to compete... go play go and lets us drink and roll dice in peace. 1) why would a company try to purge its own customer base? 2) what does it say about the company if you're right and they put obvious traps in their rules to snare players 3) people play games for different reasons and for the price point they sell aos at, aos definitely deserves the scrutiny of a game that should be finely tuned. 4) considering gw is actively trying to push competitive play via hosted tournaments (and even going so far as selling winning lists as bundles on the site), the company itself admits through its actions that competitive play is important to them
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Bombogenesis posted:I think AoS occupies a space that needed filling as a loose rules shits and grins game. The problem is that it should have just been a proper skirmish rules supplement of WHFB. Also that the rules are less loose and more entirely unwound and piled on the floor. Totes, I'm hoping Deadzone scratches that itch as I really want a casual skirmish game to introduce friends to But AoS absolutely is not casual for the reasons you mentioned
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
I think the Knight Miniatures Superhero game might scratch that itch. It has some of the same mechanics as the Batman Miniatures Game, but it's a lot more player friendly. The rules are all available for free (this is genuinely true) and they have just updated and rebalanced the marvel stuff at the same time as releasing the DC stuff. It's a low model count game for two of the biggest properties out there. I was initially excited about AoS, because I think skirmish games are pretty much the best way to play for people with jobs, children, etc. However I had convinced myself GW would use the award winning LOTR rules as a basis instead of the half assed crap they came out with. As someone who has done some rules design before, the AoS rules are just embarrassing. The plus point of having them online, that you can update them, has never been used. It's been a massive wasted opportunity, and while 1.5 edition AoS is now functional as a game, it has to compete for my time and game money with significantly better games, and so I've not bought it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
I think I was a dumb kid and missed most of the LOTR stuff, so if someone would school me, here or on the other thread, I'd be pretty interested in how that broke down and if I could hack it into something I could play with my sister.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
spectralent posted:I think I was a dumb kid and missed most of the LOTR stuff, so if someone would school me, here or on the other thread, I'd be pretty interested in how that broke down and if I could hack it into something I could play with my sister. It's a skirmish game that can be played at fairly small scale, is light but still tactical, and has good background fluff. Watch a couple of video batreps and see if it is to your taste.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 22:07
|
|