• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS Age of Sigmar Rumours - Mk II. (Our new name)

Around August was mentioned so we'll see.
 
Pinktaco said:
Some random Spanish guy quoted on warseer have stated that we'll see more (something else), but right now GW is pushing AoS. Someone else mentioned that we'd see different games of which one was called "Age of Steel" or so.

Could all very likely be made up like all the other rumours.
Click to expand...

Age of Steel is one of 3 playmodes that has been rumoured.

Age of Steel - The Warhammer before as we knew it.
End Times - The Warhammer we currently know.
Age of Sigmar - The Warhammer that is being presented to us now.


I find this both likely and likeable.
Wise business decision.

"People dont want to move away from oldhammer? - Age of Steel."
"People want to field both a tooled slann and an oldblood? - End times"
"People dont want to buy entire armies to start the game? - Age of Sigmar"
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
Three things bother me with AoS...
  1. Simplicity - it seems GW turned my game of chess into a game of pin the tail on the donkey
Click to expand...

Not that I dont see your point, but you cant tell the depth of a game before you have tried it.

Have you ever played checkers against someone who was GOOD at it?
 
I d on't think that there is problem with too many units. I read somewhere that the players, thanks to simplicity of new system, will make they own boundaries. I doubt it would be hard. The problem I see is balance.

On the one hand it would be easier for GW to balance the units. Just make the new pdf and put it on site. I like this but unfortunately GW is only "miniature company".

On the other hand, when GW won't check if unit is balanced or not it could make some unbalanced units unusable. Why?

Troglodon is bad, but still cheaper than carno. For spare points you buy more saurus and it can work from time to time. In this predicted AoS it may mean that you will never use Troglodon because it's in the same slot as carnosaur but without giving you same spare points for more saurus.
 
Guys....is this what everyone is raging over?!

I simply didnt understand people untill I read it again with the "I can bring 800 bloodthirsters" in mind.

Reading it from the point of view that you can "bring anything without balance", I get the rage....now...try this.


Read it again in this context: "There is no upper or lower limit on how big a battle you can play using these rules."
Also, we didn't include the list builder system because in this plug and play STARTER SET the lists are made for you in advance."this.png
 
And just exactly why cant pts be part of this?

I spend 500 pts on skinks and a cheif

He spend 400 pts on a bloodthirster and 100 pts on....5 dogs?

He has WAY fewer models than me, and cant thus claim the Sudden Death conditions.
He can do this because his 1model might be stronger, but each one of the dogs also counts for a WAY bigger that %-value!

It makes perfect sense to me? is there something I dont know to ruin this take on it?
 
"but there are no points costs on those warscrolls"

Why would there be? its rules for a premade list in a starter set....pts is an unnecessary complication.

We haven't seen ANYTHING that ISN'T part of the starter set, which is MADE for an easy and simple start.


I bet you this happens: every warscroll that isnt part of the starter-set has a some kind of pts value or cost on it.
They merely didn't include it in the starter, because why would they?

........now...lets discuss what should happen to me if I am wrong :D
 
Phatmotha-phucka said:
Not that I dont see your point, but you cant tell the depth of a game before you have tried it.

Have you ever played checkers against someone who was GOOD at it?
Click to expand...

Personally I think you can analyze the rules of a game and get at the very least a fair idea into its complexity. In any event, they took a 100+ pages of BRB and reduced it to 4... I'd bet that complexity has been lost throughout that transition. Straight off, the complexity of movement and magic have been greatly reduced.

I see your point about checkers, it can be quite complex. But I don't have much faith in GW replicating such a level of complexity... especially in a dice game. Furthermore, even a game like checkers is quite simplistic in comparison to chess.
 
Phatmotha-phucka said:
I bet you this happens: every warscroll that isnt part of the starterset has a some kind of pts value or cost on it.
They merely didn't include it in the starter, because why would they?
Click to expand...

Then how do you use the starter box stuff against the rest of the stuff with points associated with them?
 
Cant and wont argue anything you said Nightbringer.
I dont say it is as good, I say its something that might be fun enough.


I am looking at Age of Sigmar as a variation of warhammer, not the new Standard playmode.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
Then how do you use the starter box stuff against the rest of the stuff with points associated with them?
Click to expand...

Well, you put up a version of it that has a pts value of course?
They excluded it from the starter-set to simplify.

It makes sense.
 
Phatmotha-phucka said:
Well, you put up a version of it that has a pts value of course?
They excluded it from the starter-set to simplify.

It makes sense.
Click to expand...

It makes sense from the viewpoint that it could easily be done. But that doesn't mean that GW is going to do it. ;)
 
Phatmotha-phucka said:
Cant and wont argue anything you said Nightbringer.
I dont say it is as good, I say its something that might be fun enough.


I am looking at Age of Sigmar as a variation of warhammer, not the new Standard playmode.
Click to expand...

That's a fair view point. As a variation, it might be very well be fun every now and again.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
It makes sense from the viewpoint that it could easily be done. But that doesn't mean that GW is going to do it. ;)
Click to expand...

Have another "Wont argue that" mate ;)

I am not claiming that my interpretation is the solid truth, I might very well be wrong given GW's track record.
I am just saying that it might as well be true, as the rules could easily work in a pts system.
 
for all we know the scrolls could have the points on the back.
 
Phatmotha-phucka said:
Guys....is this what everyone is raging over?!

I simply didnt understand people untill I read it again with the "I can bring 800 bloodthirsters" in mind.

Reading it from the point of view that you can "bring anything without balance", I get the rage....now...try this.


Read it again in this context: "There is no upper or lower limit on how big a battle you can play using these rules."
Also, we didn't include the list builder system because in this plug and play STARTER SET the lists are made for you in advance."View attachment 16928
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself and what annoy me the most is how little this actually resemble WHF. If this would've been a game on the side I wouldn't give 1 fvck.

I'm just hoping that GW is keeping their trap shut becaue they're pushing AoS :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top