Age of Sigmar has potential!

[orkdork]

One game in, and I like the game a lot. Basically, if you fix the model-2-model measuring nonsense and add a simple rules for how to measure with square bases, then use the kings of war 2nd edition LOS rules, it plays very well!

 

No balance is a non-issue for me, as WFB sucked without community balancing anyhow.

 

After 1 game of AOS (with kow2 LOS rules), I like the game better than kow2 (3 games of that so far).

 

I actually think it is a superior game to 40k, btw. Has all the same basic strategy (objective control, concentration of force, match selection, terrain use, etc) with a far cleaner system and more meaningful player choices. You lose the ranks and flanks game, which breaks my heart a bit, but it isn't as far dumbed down as you might think. I actually think it might have a higher skill ceiling than kow2 (which I find frustrating for how it is one-half brilliant and one-half failure).

[orkdork]

I should also mention that I played with a buddy who hasn't played warhammer since early 7th, and we learned and played in less than 3 hours, which was cool. Ogres vs orcs. As host, I had to lose :)

[Murphy'sLawyer]

I am not disagreeing but GW still f'd up by not even bothering to do any of this.

 

There is no movement rules to differentiate between model types, heck there are really no different model types outside of the large monster types. There is no difference or modifiers to combat really. Just run in and throw dice. The highest roll wins.

 

Where is the tactical depth outside of run forward at all speed and roll dice. You can even shot into combat with no penalty.

 

Yes, the community can do something with this but why didn't GW put any effort into this?

[Fixxer]

Haha!!

 

We did HE vs WoC yesterday. Had great fun. Magic leaves something to be desired, BUT the heroes and their command abilities really make the game interesting. 

 

Im with you OrkDork, it DOES have potential as a stand alone Warhammermachinehordes type game. 

[JMGraham]

Oh, Micah. Oh, oh, oh, Micah. ;)

 

I'm curious about with which other skirmish games you have experience for a basis of comparison. My argument is, that a dirt simple skirmish game, that is only playable once you start layering on house rules, doesn't cut it in this day and age. There are too many excellent skirmish games already on the market. The one thing AoS would have had was the Warhammer IP, but they ditched most of that for Realmgates.

 

There are so many great skirmish games out there...

 

Saga has the fatigue mechanic, which does a great evocative job of forestalling never ending grindfests, and makes for a surprising amount of tactical depth. The Battleboards are awesome, too.

 

Wrath of Kings has a brilliant one-roll combat resolution mechanism that still allows for a surprising amount of unit interaction. It also has some wonderful tactical opportunities in regards to the flexible unit activation and command bonuses. It really evokes the leaders taking control of the battle.

 

Warmachine is one of the best regarded competitive games out there. They managed to keep things skirmish based, but still have facing matter. Add to that a 2d6 distribution of odds and lots of interacting abilities, and you've got a wonderful challenge.

 

Infinity, while sci fi, is as close to a perfect RPG in a skirmish game as I can imagine. Being able to react to movement in your line of sight makes things very dynamic, and again, facing matters.

 

I've heard good things about the Lord of the Rings skirmish game, but have never played it.

 

Helldorado...

Dark Ages...

Empire of the Dead...

Cutlass...

 

I don't doubt I could have fun playing AoS, but it would be in spite of the rules. Hell, with my friends, I can have fun playing Chutes and Ladders. However, i would have MORE fun playing another game. AoS is a really regressive 1980s style game, and shows how out of touch GW is with the current gaming market.

[indytims]

I am not disagreeing but GW still f'd up by not even bothering to do any of this.

 

There is no movement rules to differentiate between model types, heck there are really no different model types outside of the large monster types. There is no difference or modifiers to combat really. Just run in and throw dice. The highest roll wins.

 

Where is the tactical depth outside of run forward at all speed and roll dice. You can even shot into combat with no penalty.

 

Yes, the community can do something with this but why didn't GW put any effort into this?

 

There can be many modifiers in combat. I would bring my own counters to remind myself what they are. And no, the 'highest roll' doesn't always win. Even the highest number of successes doesn't always win. You could kill six of my guys, and I only kill one of yours - and I could still 'win'. It really comes down to attrition. There is no 'break point', but you do have to test morale whenever you suffer model losses, and that simulates morale pretty well in my opinion. If the going gets too tough, you can retreat, and the only penalty is you can't shoot or charge for the rest of that turn.

 

Shooting into combat is pretty silly. If they're going to allow it, they should have at least given the target cover AND had a penalty to hit. -1 to hit, and the targets get +1 save. I think that would make players think harder about actually attempting it. Sam had an idea that shooting into combat was cool - but 1s to hit would hit your own troops instead. That would work awesome too. Just seems like there should be SOME risk when doing this.

 

I think GW's 'effort' for this game is going to be an ongoing thing. Pretre made a post somewhere with some -rumored- details about GW's plans. If those plans come to fruition, I could see this being a fun-type game long-term. Granted, we could be waiting months for this to happen, and sadly - I think most of the -current- fanbase will have made its mind up one way or the other about this game by then. Heck, there were tons of people making their mind up before the rules even came out. ;)

 

-Tim

[dashneeb]

I love HellDorado, but I'm not sure how much longer it's going to be around :(

[indytims]

Oh, Micah. Oh, oh, oh, Micah. ;)

 

I'm curious about with which other skirmish games you have experience for a basis of comparison. My argument is, that a dirt simple skirmish game, that is only playable once you start layering on house rules, doesn't cut it in this day and age. There are too many excellent skirmish games already on the market. The one thing AoS would have had was the Warhammer IP, but they ditched most of that for Realmgates.

 

There are so many great skirmish games out there...

 

Saga has the fatigue mechanic, which does a great evocative job of forestalling never ending grindfests, and makes for a surprising amount of tactical depth. The Battleboards are awesome, too.

 

Wrath of Kings has a brilliant one-roll combat resolution mechanism that still allows for a surprising amount of unit interaction. It also has some wonderful tactical opportunities in regards to the flexible unit activation and command bonuses. It really evokes the leaders taking control of the battle.

 

Warmachine is one of the best regarded competitive games out there. They managed to keep things skirmish based, but still have facing matter. Add to that a 2d6 distribution of odds and lots of interacting abilities, and you've got a wonderful challenge.

 

Infinity, while sci fi, is as close to a perfect RPG in a skirmish game as I can imagine. Being able to react to movement in your line of sight makes things very dynamic, and again, facing matters.

 

I've heard good things about the Lord of the Rings skirmish game, but have never played it.

 

Helldorado...

Dark Ages...

Empire of the Dead...

Cutlass...

 

I don't doubt I could have fun playing AoS, but it would be in spite of the rules. Hell, with my friends, I can have fun playing Chutes and Ladders. However, i would have MORE fun playing another game. AoS is a really regressive 1980s style game, and shows how out of touch GW is with the current gaming market.

 

Jim,

 

You can add Malifaux, Confrontation, Mordheim, Necromunda, and Alkemy to that list as well, and there are many more, probably, too! :)

 

But it almost sounds like you resent the fact that he enjoyed the game he played. AoS obviously has a place on store-shelves (for now), given the company that put it out. It's obviously not going to please everyone, but orkdork seemed to enjoy the game he played. The argument that there are 'better skirmish games' seems as if you are simply trying to talk him out of enjoying the game in the first place. Yes, there are other skirmish games available, but how much 'better' they are is purely a matter of subjective opinion. I would personally put AoS above Warmachine - I've played Warmachine extensively for a few years, but grew-out of it and have zero interest in its game-play or fluff. I also still love Confrontation 3.0 and Helldorado, and LotR is probably my all-time favorite game, but that doesn't mean I can't also enjoy AoS, whether it's better, worse, or somewhere in between.

 

I dunno... your message comes across as though orkdork is 'silly' for having enjoyed the game he played in the first place. "How dare you have fun playing that silly piece of crap, when there are a bazlliion better skirmish games to play?!?" is how it sounded to me. The last paragraph, especially, seems like a dig toward anyone who might have fun playing the new game. Regressive or not, GW out of touch with fans or not, etc, etc,... orkdork still had fun playing the game (at least the first one), and it feels as though you're trying to make it sound like that is a ridiculous outcome.

 

-Tim

[JMGraham]

Oh, not at all! I've known and respected Orkdork as part of the competitive Warhammer scene for close to 10 years, and know that he's a top-notch player with an incredible tactical mind. I also know he's been out of the gaming scene for several years. As such, I suspect that he's not as exposed to the wide variety of games out there. Knowing orkdork and his playstyle, I suspect that he would enjoy something like Saga, or any of the other games I listed a great, great deal more. Sure, I'm angry at GW and that comes across as prickly, but that message was for orkdork, and not a general dig at you, him, or anyone else.

 

No disrespect to anyone who enjoys AoS intended! I will state my (strong negative) opinions on the game, but the world is a varied place full of diverse opinions and experiences, and I am glad for that.

[indytims]

Oh, not at all! I've known and respected Orkdork as part of the competitive Warhammer scene for close to 10 years, and know that he's a top-notch player with an incredible tactical mind. I also know he's been out of the gaming scene for several years. As such, I suspect that he's not as exposed to the wide variety of games out there. Knowing orkdork and his playstyle, I suspect that he would enjoy something like Saga, or any of the other games I listed a great, great deal more. Sure, I'm angry at GW and that comes across as prickly, but that message was for orkdork, and not a general dig at you, him, or anyone else.

 

No disrespect to anyone who enjoys AoS intended! I will state my (strong negative) opinions on the game, but the world is a varied place full of diverse opinions and experiences, and I am glad for that.

 

Yeah, I suspected some of that, since I assume you were using his real name in your response (at least I THINK he is the 'Micah' you were referring to. ;) )

 

Your words are wise. And there's nothing wrong with sharing diverse, strongly negative and even 'prickly' opinions!

 

Likewise, I mean no disrespect to anyone who hates the game. I still have a couple MAJOR issues with it, myself. :)

[bkieft]

 

Im with you OrkDork, it DOES have potential as a stand alone Warhammermachinehordes type game. 

 

This.

 

But it is not a WFB replacement and I think it has scaling problems at the grand army level.  Gigantic conflict is one of the things that makes me stay with WFB.

[indytims]

This.

 

But it is not a WFB replacement and I think it has scaling problems at the grand army level.  Gigantic conflict is one of the things that makes me stay with WFB.

 

Definitely make sure to have a BUNCH of dice! :)

 

One of the combats I saw yesterday I think Matt needed 50+ dice. Zounds!

 

But with how fast the system moves and all the streamlining... I honestly think it would handle larger games just fine, to a point of course. Every system tops-out at some point.

[bkieft]

I didn't find all of the streamlining that streamlined.

 

Yes fast paced but actually too many dice rolls for the results.  Is this the Age of Dicehammer?

[orkdork]

You guys are nice :)

 

Jim, I will check those games out right away!

 

Though I do often win games with excess minutae, I prefer games that restrict detail to only when it involves interesting player choice. AOS might be this way. I really like the way generals work. I like choosing attack ordering. If spells prove to be interesting, you might get all the 'meaningful player choice' needed for high skill ceiling. Just four choices per turn with three viable options each makes 81 good ways to play a turn!

 

Then it comes down to is the aesthetic evocative? This being the essential piece for gamer geeks like us. Not sure on that score, but I remain hopeful :)

[orkdork]

3 posts while I fumbled to post from my phone....

 

I think of AOS as streamlined 40k :)

[Threejacks]

After wrapping up my 3rd game with my Son I totally agree that AoS has potential!

 

 

We each played a formation from the new books,He played the Saurus host with minimum scroll models and I used a Great Moonclan with a 6 strong WS of Cave squigs and 4 Strong WS of Handlers.Total models was 36 on the Lizard side and 44 on the OnG side

Got wrecked as I knew I would using minimum NG units, also my rolling was horrid so that didn't help.I got tabled on turn 5 but did manage to kill 47% of his army,,just couldn't avoid that tableing mainly because my last block was within 3" of a Mystical terrain piece and rolled a 1 /rolleyes.

 

Anyhow it was a very fun game with the usual battle line closing into on midfield,though I kept my archers and Shaman back near some mystical ruins to benefit from the reroll on wounds.

 

This game does have a lot of fiddling going on when units are in melee but so far im not see a lot of issues with it.Like I say,use trays until you start to pile in,then just,well..pile in!.Yes it may be necessary to get onto another models base but that shouldn't be a big deal.If you have models with sword arms stretched out,yes!..stick that thing in between the arms of models in the front rank and start a Pokin!, isint this the way that massed combat should be?

 

Also doing pile in a particular order is all part of the tactics of this game.Several times pile in moves can bring units that weren't within 3" of an enemy unit into the combat,thus those units are now in the IgoUgo rotation and start piling in themselves when they get the chance.This leads to quite the chaotic melee,more so than what Ive seen both in fant8th and 40k.Also keep in mind that you can break off from combat during your movement phase further adding to the pile in options of nearby units to close the gap so you can escape.

 

I got to use some magic this time as well,Curse of the Bad Moon to be exact.Yup!,its a sniping attack that does D3 mortal wounds that targets a MODEL within 18"..then it has a 50% chance to target EACH unit within 6" of the original target(roll for each target) with D3 mortal wounds,,pretty nice little spell.Coupled with the magic mushroom it goes off on a 6+ too:)

[orkdork]

I read that pile in is optional on a per-model basis, but that the move itself can only be done one way (3" along the shortest path to the nearest enemy model). Means that you might not pile-in some guys in order to avoid the giant standing nearby. I don't mind this, personally.

 

My biggest concern is that there isn't much reason not to clump your units.

[Threejacks]

I read that pile in is optional on a per-model basis, but that the move itself can only be done one way (3" along the shortest path to the nearest enemy model). Means that you might not pile-in some guys in order to avoid the giant standing nearby. I don't mind this, personally.

 

My biggest concern is that there isn't much reason not to clump your units.

Indeed,pile in is optional..as it says models "May" make a pile in move.

 

The thing is it says you must take the shortest route to get to the nearest enemy if you do decide to pile in and often times that means back rank models need to go around models in front of them as you cant move through you own models.So in the process of making their way around,they could easily end up within the 3" range of a neighboring enemy unit,thus bringing that unit into the combat.Might not be a preferred thing to do all the time but certainly can be usefull especially if you are trying to tarpit as many units as you can while retreating or reforming your back line ranged/utility units.

[dkieft]

Jim, I will check those games out right away!

 

Though I do often win games with excess minutae, I prefer games that restrict detail to only when it involves interesting player choice.

With this in mind definitely add Malifaux to Jim's list. the second edition really cleaned up the rules and much of the depth in the game come from interactions between abilities on the models. Not a game goes by that I do not have a "Holy crap you can do that?" moment, and even knowing my crews really well I still have tons of  "Holy Crap I can do that?" moments as well.

[dkieft]

I thought GW needed a hand, so I used my considerable Photoshop skills to make them this:

 

[generalripphook]

I think a great part of making a game good is writing lists. Making it so that within whatever limitations the game has you can have an army with synergy and combos and some tactic. 

 

I see a [big bad swear word] ton of synergy and combos and whatnot which is super exciting....but where is the limitation? There is no reason not to take all of the combos. 

 

In 40k there are always the debate well I have 200 points do I take this or this? In AoS why not just take 7,9 or even 12 of both?

[pretre]

You still have to estimate how many units your opponent is going to put down. Break your combos into blocks of units, etc.

[JMGraham]

I thought GW needed a hand, so I used my considerable Photoshop skills to make them this:

 

 

But ... but! How could you say that? Look at these gems:

 

[Brother Glacius]

So first off, glad you enjoyed your game Orkdork. Second, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what parts of KoW v2 you don't like. I am eagerly awaiting my book and plan to make it my WFB replacement game. I know it won't have the same depth, but I do like many of the streamlining they have done. But I also know there are a few things I'd house rule already.

 

Lastly, the above post really points out just the ridiculousness of GW to me. Those are just moronic. Really, you want me to take you seriously as a game company after your publish stuff like that? This is your new flagship game?

[pretre]

I like 'em.