What are everyone's feelings on the new rules?

So as we all know, or should by now, Fantasy is being replaced by Age of Sigmar. and i was just wondering how everyone was feeling about the changes. I immediately downloaded the rules and have to say, I'm a bit disappointed.

Personally, in the last decade or so I have dumped quite a bit of money into this game, and i feel like we really lost what made this game what it was. We've lost the structure of the game. It now seems like they are shifting the focus away from the strategy, and simply to "buy as many models as you can and throw them at the table." this scares me quite a bit. not to say that Fantasy has ever really been a balanced game, but it feels as though anything that kept the game fair as far as army composition, and tactics, and just general competition have been removed. it really seems as though we are entering "The Age of Wallethammer" sigmar be damned.

i could be being over critical, but i fear this new game is going to bring an end to everything we have come to love about the game. how will we balance tourneys? how will we have any kind of balance in the game? someone  please restore my hope in this game. i fear the end has come to some glorious times. I mean come on. rules that can change the outcome of the game by whether you shouted FOR THE LADY! or had a staring match with your opponent? you've got to be kidding me.

http://captiongenerator.com/48861/Age-of-Sigmar-interview

Im not sure I trust GW to get the point system right anyway. I think some experience followed by some eyeballing will get me and my friends more balanced games.

I may be wrong, but I thought all those silly rules were associated with some of the older/less-used models. Its just a light-hearted rule added for some fun. You and your opponent could drop the rule if you wanted.

As far as "Age of Wallethammer", its hard to blame GW. They need to sell models. Just construct one good warscroll that you like and run with it. If that leaves you unsatisfied, build towards another warscroll. I sort of like it, it gives you a goal to paint towards. Spend as much or as little money as you want.

Who knows how tournaments will be run. Perhaps they will have set, pre-balanced warscrolls to use. Or maybe a point system will show its head in the future. I really couldn't say.

I thought Age of Sigmar was alright. In fairness, the first game me and my friends played turned out to be really close so my first impression was overly good. I like that its easier to put a narrative twist on things. I would much rather craft a fun sounding scenario than the many headache-inducing sparring matches I've experienced in 8th.

I played my first game using Bretonnian Peasants vs. demons and it was an enjoyable game as I learned the new rules.

The first balance issue I have found is with summoning which is so OP but hopefully this may get balanced at some stage.

Tactically I am not sure AoS is as good as 8th ed however but 1 game isn't enough play testing.

The rules look very weak - if you want simplicity then KOW does it better, if you wanted complexity then 8th was better.  Here's hoping that the rumoured rule enhancements come to fruition, as it stands it is a pretty weak game.

I put a more detailed post about AoS up on my gnoblog thingy, but, having played a few games my current impression is:

-AoS is pretty fun! No one is more surprised about this than me, having just read the rules it seemed like it would be both overly simple and overly frustrating. But it actually plays pretty well, it's a very different game to WHFB, it kinda reminds me of 4th ed 40k, but without a lot of the bloat that game suffered.
-That said there are some major issues; no in-built balance is kind of annoying, though at the same time it does prompt some pre-game discussion between players, which can help lead to a more enjoyable game for all. The sudden death rules do not work at all. Umm, it is very simple, which I guess could be a negative, but I actually kinda like it; I though I would hate the pared down magic and morale phases, but they are actually fine and help things run smoothly.
-My major take away is that this is not a competitive game; if you go into it with an attitude of wanting to win, then sure, you could probably (pretty easily) make some broken combination of units and models to crush your opponents armies with. But I think that's missing the point, chat with your opponent first, maybe they have their own super-powerful stuff they want to test the mettle of, or maybe they're looking for something more low key. It's a system of compromise.

It's a system of compromise.

The problem is, that compromise has never really been popular with gamers in general; it's win or lose that matters to most, not "that was a fair compromise".

I'm not sure that's necessarily true of all gamers and all games, roleplay games are far less about win/lose.

If the game is directly antagonistic zero-sum game, player on player, that's where the whole "competitive gamer" thing comes from.

There are other things that you can get out of the game other than just beating your opponent but that is nevertheless the goal of the game. For most WFB players, the challenge of besting a worthy opponent is a big part of the game. There are doubtless players who just aren't that interested in win or lose, but even then if they don't at least try to play to win it is typically not much of a game at all, even from a narrative perspective.

I'm not sure AoS does much from a narrative perspective either. It isn't like Inquisitor with a rich background and narrative-focused games with a GM to control the flow. It's still built as a straight wargame with a split personality disorder between grim high fantasy and rules that are extremely silly and want you to dance or make your opponent laugh or literally bribe them for an advantage.

Well at the moment AoS is open slather so enjoy taking whatever you like.

As mentioned talk to your opponent prior to the game to get a feel for what sort of game they want to play (hard or fluffy).

Here area couple of links of interest on the Bretonnia website.
http://www.roundtable-bretonnia.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=87&func=view&id=163332&catid=15
http://www.roundtable-bretonnia.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=87&func=view&id=163524&catid=3

I haven't played a game yet. I'm not sure I ever will. I was optimistic and quite looking forward to seeing the game moved forward, and change is inevitable. But looking at Age of Sigmar, it seems the game has gone backwards. It feels badly thought out, half finished and completely lacking in some seriously fundamental areas to make the game playable. It feels like it got to Friday afternoon and GW said "screw it, that'll do. Let's go to the pub". It's a game to be sold in a box set to 10 year olds in a toy shop. Hell, Monopoly has a more extensive ruleset...

ill probably wait 6 months to a year before giving aos a try... why?

as it is the game is totally unacceptable, in this time a usable and widely accepted fan made comp may show up, or gw themselves may complete it (i doubt it), but i will not waste days and days of my time trying to figure out how to play just one balanced game....

At the moment the huge lack of balance makes me view this as more of a battle role-playing game which should be approached with the intention of telling a good battle story, and it would really benefit from having a GM. In its current state, it's not all that fun or fair as just a straight player vs player game, and it's not at all suited for tournaments. I hold out hope that there are balancing rules on the way as the new factions take shape.

I'm disappointed by the big simplification of movement and manoeuvring, it's what sets old-style Warhammer apart from other games for me. I also very much dislike the model to model measuring, stacking bases is particularly messy for a miniatures game but it is encouraged with these rules.

A great game can sell models IMO, it can spread good word of mouth and stop wargamers looking elsewhere for their hobby fix - I hope GW will see that in time.

I joked with a friend that it feels like someone at GW is having a mid-life crisis...

I'm disappointed by the big simplification of movement and manoeuvring, it's what sets old-style Warhammer apart from other games for me. I also very much dislike the model to model measuring, stacking bases is particularly messy for a miniatures game but it is encouraged with these rules.

Exactly. i cant tell you how many battles i have won (and lost) due to one poor choice in positioning by my opponent (and myself). It was a level of strategy that this game just doesn't have. i played fantasy BECAUSE of the rank and file movement.

I decided to play a game on the new rules, and it was... not really all that enjoyable. i dont play strictly to win, but i do play for the enjoyment of outsmarting, or being outsmarted, by my opponent. it was completely a mental exercise for me. and half the game was list building. now what am i supposed to do? I guess i just need to go buy as many ironguts, ironblasters, and model as many maneaters as i can. since the game is pretty much strictly how many models can you throw at the table.

Edit: To add, the battle was played at my local GW store and it was pretty terrible. it took me quite a while to find someone who was willing to self regulate. Almost everyone i attempted to play with said "i brought this many models" and when i suggested they cut down to a more fair list, the reply i got was consistently along the lines of "the rules dont say anything about how big my army can be." there's too many out there that just want to win, and will push as many models on the table as their wallet will allow. meaning finding a fair pug is going to be nigh on impossible. which is bad news for those of us who almost have to play pugs as we don't have any friends or relatives who play. and since they have already said there will be no 8th play in the store, i dont know what im going to do here.

Well this leaked errata shows some ideas on how it might be evened out for more competitive play. Personally I play with friends only for most of my gaming and it is easy to smack them around with my club until they stop being powergaming arses.

Oh and the errata:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Age-of-Sigmar-Errata-and-Scenarios.pdf

At the moment the huge lack of balance makes me view this as more of a battle role-playing game which should be approached with the intention of telling a good battle story, and it would really benefit from having a GM. In its current state, it's not all that fun or fair as just a straight player vs player game, and it's not at all suited for tournaments. I hold out hope that there are balancing rules on the way as the new factions take shape.

The really frustrating thing is it is very easy to ignore a balancing system in a game which has one, and very difficult to create a balancing system in a game that doesn't. "Old" warhammer provided just the same narrative opportunities through both players setting up any scenario they wished and not using the points system, or putting down mismatched forces etc. You could even throw in your own "last stand" bonuses or whatever to an army. Instead of being an option, Age of Sigmar has made this play-style mandatory.

Whelp I guess Im going to be the outcast in this group. I really enjoy Age of Sigmar. I have 3-4 games under my belt and it just flows so much better than 8th.  First let me state my group uses 8th edition point systems. Your views may be different simply because you use a different if any point system at all. We have found balance in 8th and see no reason not to use it. Yes we have had to make a few tweaks but cmon lads we are all adults here. We figured it out and so can you.

I will start by saying I don't think its better than 8th but at the same time it is by no means worse. It is its own game. So many people have issues with it because they are holding it up to 8th edition and that's just not fair. It isnt suppose to be like 8th edition. If you go into it trying to compare it to 8th of course you are going to have a bad time, your trying to play a totally different game. Play it for what it is and you will have a blast.

As for point systems, I do agree there has to be some sort of system put in place but that is being left up to us really. Personally my community have just used the 8th point system and have only run into a few snags here and there, but it was nothing we could not resolve simply by posting it on our forums and deciding as a community how to handle it. And it is usually just a simple " Ok well only 1 of those allowed" or " Ok well add some more points to that" ( Mangler Squigs being one of the big ones ;D)  And if you truly want a "balanced" match just use the premade lists at the back of all the warscrolls. Yeah you don't get to make your own but those seems pretty evenly balanced so.

Now I will address an issue I have been reading about far far FAR to often, and that is this nonsence about base overlapping. Yes, there is NO rule stating you cannot overlap bases. But guess what there is also no rule saying I cant take my giant mallet and smash all your little figures because you are being a very poor sportsman. If you have serious issues with this, then let yourself be heard. Do NOT put up with this kind of horrible gamesmanship. Base overlapping is just utter nonsence. Why would GW still supply bases with our models if they wanted the game to be some pegboard experience where your models are trying to give each other hugs from behind. Really is the 3" pile in not enough? This base overlapping is just the new Conga lining, put up with it once and you will be stuck dealing with it for all of AoS. Remember guys this is a game, and games are suppose to be fun.

Also anyone who say's there is no strategy in the game now I really am wondering if they have played Age at all. Please understand me when I Age of Sigmar is an Easy to learn, hard to master game. There are LAYERS of strategy to it now. Do not let its beginner friendly rule set fool you. There is tons of thinking involved now. Map awareness is so much more important due to no front/rear/sides now so charges can come from anywhere. Army list synergy is so important. Someone said that they loved 8th because army building was 50% of the game to them. Well how has this changed? I suppose yeah if you throw EVERYTHING from a warscroll into your army then you have your bases covered but who wants to play a game like THAT. I dont know about you guys but 4-5 hour games never really appealed to me. And granted some armies are more depended on synergy than others ( VC needs synergy or it just fails vs Ogres well.. we run in and smash regardless). And battle order is soooo so so important. Do you swing with your character hoping to reduce incoming damage to him, or do you swing with your big group engaging a monster you KNOW is going to be a problem. Do NOT for a second think this game has not have many layers of strategy to it.

Now I will address my Pro's and Con's just because.

Pros -
Well lets start with movement. I really like how this works now. Before I was stuck with boxes but now its so much more free and customizable. Oh whats that a buildings in my way, well rather than spending 2 turns trying to wheel around it how about I just do what would actually happen, glob around it. There is just so much more freedom. Running is fantastic as it adds that big of gamble. Your run falls short? Well now you have to plan around that to. It makes you see things differently when you are not guaranteed your 12" anymore. Also being able to move and then charge is a great idea. Get into fights faster and it makes gun lines a lot more manageable.

Characters - Ahh long gone are the days where a 1+/4+ Lord can run around and decimate your army because you cant even hurt him. Long gone are the day's where a Wizard just runs up to your army, waves his hand, and you begin to just melt infront of him. What characters are NOW is what they should be. Support through abilities. In 8th you could run a character up to a unit and he would destroy even the most elite units single handed. Try that now and he will be lucky to last a single round. I will miss the customization, but these guys needed to be brought down a peg or 2. Now that is not to say characters are a horrible investment now, you just have to use them in a different way. They will now sit behind your army barking orders out as a general rather than slogging into combat first. They are where your armies synergy comes from. Command orders are a genius idea and my only problem with them is that they generally only have 1 special one and then your rulebook Bravery one. And should a character FIND his/her way into combat they still are by no means push overs. They can lay in just as well as anyone and with the added wounds to them now (usually around 5-6) they can make a great finisher/flanker. Just do not put them in a position where they will get engulfed by your opponents unit.

Pile in/Combat - Which leads me to my next topic. This one is sort of a Pro/Con. I love that combat is so much more free flowing now. Having combat go off of pre determined stats that are generally unaffected by anything is a double edged sword. It makes it much easier but it does lose a bit of realism. Should an Ogre hit ANYTHING on a 4? Probably not. But then again things like elves that would be considered far better soldiers have far better stats, So I don't mind it all that much. Also the inclusion of damage is genius. Now ogres truly do just cleave through multiple things which I always imagined them doing anyway. So while I think they may have lost a bit on base lining everything, they still managed to make things somewhat the way it should be. Elves are better at hitting and just as good at finding that soft spot to land a wound, but ogres will hurt a LOT more.

Magic - Ohhh this was a big one for me. What magic is now is what it should be. Simple, clean, and most importantly not game breaking. Thus far there is 1 spell in the game I somewhat frowned at ( high elves Dragon Mage fire spell, bleeeech). Bringing a caster is no longer a must, but now more of a reward. Before you just HAD to bring a least a level 2 for dispelling. Well dispelling is not much of a factor anymore, and spells are not the game deciders they use to be. They are simply nice little additions to help you out. And giving every mage the same 2 spells seems boring and lazy, but it keeps it simple and balanced. As for summoning I don't really have a problem with it right now. The bigger stuff like say a blood thirster or really any big monsters are generally 9-10 on 2d6. That is really like a 20ish percent chance and you generally have maybe 2 turns before something is knocking ( or shooting, as there is no more Look Out Sir) at your door. Plus armies like VC depend so heavily on it now that for the most part raising is gone/weaker than it once was. And as Ogre players from my experiences even a unit of "elite" things are a simple roadbump so we dont have much of a reason to complain. Most summons I have seem have the minumum unit count so.

Battleshock - This is a biggie for me. Simply put not losing your ENTIRE unit due to a combat going south and you rolling a 9 when you needed an 8 is just plain a better system. Unless it really hits the fan entire units would and should never have just all fled. It is silly and unrealistic. And I demand realism in my Fantasy games B\. But seriously its a great system and going off models lost rather than wounds suffers is great for us

CONS - The big one. No Point/Comp system. I get it GW you are a company and you want money. You make money by selling your little plastic toys. This is a great way to sell MORE of them, but giving us nothing and leaving it up to the gaming community was just plain dumb. They took all this time ( and believe me it was a great deal of time, there is no way 1 guy at a desk wrote all these warscrolls in a weekend, you can easily tell they put a good deal of though into remaking all the new models stats) but they couldn't give us even the simplest of point systems? And now the Warhammer world is going crazy due to this. They really did shoot themselves in the foot the second the cast was taken off. People just wanna sit down and play, but that doesn't mean leave it up to them to figure out what is fair. Now I have stated my group just uses 8th edition and it seems to be working out just fine. I have read many alternatives and they just seem to fall flat. Take ANY comps that use wounds. Well... why should I use Ogres instead of Ironguts? Ironguts are grossly superior and are the same wound count. Why should a dwarf player use Warriors of Ironbreakers. Also how do you compare an Elf to a Goblin. Even the (attacks+wound)xBravery seems to just fall flat to me.

Initiative - This is another of them double edged swords but I find more con with it than pro. Getting back to back turns can be very devastating and happens more than I care for.However due to the game not reaaally having a timelimit unless sudden death conditions apply, its hard to say that the old way is better.


In closing I will simply restate, this is not Warhammer Fantasy this is Warhammer Age of Sigmar. This is what we have now and the fact that they put stuff out for the old books shows games workshop did not just want to flip us the bird and move on. Understand that Fantasy counted for something like 15-20 percent of their revenue. The smarter step would have been to jut abandon Fantasy all together, but they didn't. What we have now is a fantastic new game WITH some problems in it that we all hope GW will smooth over shortly. Please do not judge this game until you have gotten a few games in. Remember you will only have as much fun as you let yourself have. And yes If you have a player pool that is only in it to win it, then maybe look for a different player pool, this game will unfortunately cater to powergamers in its current state.

So good luck with AoS guys, and have fun. This is what we have now and I for one am more than happy to welcome in a new Age

Well this leaked errata shows some ideas on how it might be evened out for more competitive play. Personally I play with friends only for most of my gaming and it is easy to smack them around with my club until they stop being powergaming arses.

Oh and the errata:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Age-of-Sigmar-Errata-and-Scenarios.pdf

I wouldn't put to much stock in this so called "leaked" errata. The game JUST came out and already GW has erratad it? Not likely. Shoot the first full armies are not even out yet. Also anyone who has read the rules can easily see they have gone out of their way to change wording on everything. Armor pen is now Rend, leadership/leadership tests are now Bravery/Battleshock. Why would they keep things like Look out Sir! when they have changed everything else to new wording. And then there is the initiative change. As I stated the game JUST came out and they are already changing one of the biggest and most impacting mechanics? Not likely. I played a game with this "point system", I played Darkelves and my opponent was Vampire counts. It was not even a game it was a massacre. A horde army under this system is just set up to lose. That wound discount works both ways, and lemme tell you a horde of undead is NO match for a horde of Elite elves.  And once again I state, does anyone REALLY think Game Workshop could be this fast with an errata? Army books were usually what, 3-4 months if we were lucky? And why is none of this stuff in the Big rule/fluff book that was released last weekend?    My guess is someone who has a bit to much time on their hands wanted to make the rule set they came up with look official. B\ Also those scenarios seem to be cut RIGHT out of warmachine.... VERY suspicious. Not to mention that fly limit grounds Mono tzeentch armies B\

I haven't the time to post a point by point reply to how I disagree with almost everything you've said.

But, I've played eleven games of AoS, and it's not become more pleasant or enjoyable with each passing game. I'm not even remotely trying to compare it to Fantasy, as it is abhorrently and undeniably different, so that'd be a false equivalency in comparing them.

I don't like the simplicity and lack of depth. I abhor the aesthetic, in the main. I don't like the skirmish style of it, there are far better crafted skirmish games so why bother with another? The lore is frankly odd. I adored the style of army composition before, and removing that and replacing it with the war scroll thing, doesn't appeal to me.

What I will say is that it's quick (far quicker than Fantasy ever could be) and could be a laugh as a more campaign orientated game to bolster your existing Fantasy battles.

I am being (unfairly?) harsh and critical, but I think I'm entitled to be having spent thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, on my hobby, not to mention the subjectivity of such a thing.

That said, I am glad people are enjoying it - GW are close to my heart, and I enjoy seeing people playing tabletop wargames, regardless of the system/manufacturer!

JJ

I agree with JJ as well. I already have more than a dozen games of Age of Sigmar under my record, the game is "fun" for the new casual players; but not even remotely enjoyable for the crusty gamers that have been playing since the golden days of 6th edition.

Yes, it is faster than Fantasy ever was; there is no denying that. However the negative points far outweigh the positive ones.

Terrain? There was much more strategy on Fantasy with that feature, as someone said: "Wheeling two turns to get around a building sucked". Guess what, if you placed wrong your units or made a poor choice that's life and you deserve that; there should be no mitigation of simple mistakes. I am sure the greybeards here had their fair share of screw ups on the past, which in turn only made them better by learning of them.

Heroes? They have been put in line, and yes they are now "fragile" but the real fun of them was kitting them out.

Magic? This one both improved and went down the drain at the same time. Good-bye purple sun, but only having 3 spells on your book of fancy tricks becomes boring after the third game.

Melee? Oh boy, this is one of the two things that make Age of Scrubmar a complete mockery of Fantasy. By turn 2 or 3 the middle of the board becomes a gigantic pile of plastic where models chip away the paint of the others in an effort to join the big pile. The so called "strategy" of the megabrawl boils down to choosing your best first, so you can mitigate the inevitable damage of the enemy bitch-slapping.

Finally the elephant on the room: Point cost. I will state this clearly: If you are using house rules to fix a core mechanic of the game (Which was stated that it will never change) then clearly the ruleset is flawed. Adding homebrewed rules to add extra characters or other features is fine, my LGS has one about jumping from a building on 40k. But blatantly ignoring the no points cost and "no retrain, bring everything to the table" speaks volumes of the players who clearly are not playing the game AS INTENDED.

Is it balanced? Hell no. Is it fun? Ask the guy that brought the 5 blobs of 40+ empire state troopers to fight your 30 sigmarines. Can it be solved? Sure, by following the golden rule of fun.

In conclusion: It is a good game of beer and pretzels, but nothing more. Fantasy and its strategy is gone and will be dearly missed, but now we have to either the Grim Darkness or the Noble Bright Age provided by almighty GeeDubs. It is good that people enjoy it though.

P.D. The flavorful rules only serve to reinforce the fact that this skirmish game is to chill down and roll some dice. Strategy went to Warmahordes.

The big competitor right now is Kings of War because that can use our models right away straight up with only some new movement trays required to match the required sizes.

KoW has simple rules (not quite as simple as AoS, but vastly simpler than WFB), minimal emphasis on heroes and magic. In that, they are fairly comparable. And there's a lot to be said for "easy to learn, hard to master".  So which does it better?

The more I look at KoW the more excited I get about the system, Alessio is a great designer. AoS, on the other hand, is looking more and more glitchy. I could perhaps forgive the lack of points if it were a great system: it's not. The rules don't work without a lot of house-ruling and it is very hard to balance things like summoning.

It feels a lot like GW have directly handed a huge chunk of their playerbase over to KoW. We've all been aware of KoW before and even played a few games to try it out but it never stole us away from WFB despite WFB's warts. GW have given us the kick in the backside we needed and it seems the US tournament crowd (at least) have landed firmly in Mantic's lap. We're even planning KoW tournaments already.

The KoW is a little too simplistic for my tastes, but will certainly play it as a viable replacement for Fantasy. I am a fan of Heroes and Magic though, so I'm still on the hunt for a game that serves those elements well too

GW have given us the kick in the backside we needed and it seems the US tournament crowd (at least) have landed firmly in Mantic's lap. We're even planning KoW tournaments already.

From what I can tell, it's torn between KoW and Malifaux.

Personally, I'm investing into all the systems I've dabbled in, but have till now only invested a little into as Fantasy has stolen the majority of my funding

JJ

The great advantage that KoW has, we can simply translate our WFB armies with little to no modification. I hear good things about Malifaux but it is a whole new system and it is skirmish so it is more directly in competition with AoS and Warmachine.

I have to say I was lukewarm about KoW but I am getting excited about it. It has magic items and magic, a bit light on both but they're there.

The major thing everyone has a bit of time adjusting to seems to be not rolling anything in the opponent's turn, but that does have the possibility of timed games.