BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11

    Default

    Well, when you have nothing to say what a person can or can't take, it's too easy for a person to buy their way to victory, dropping a thousand dollars or so on the elite models and the right stuff to buff everything to make it even nastier. Sure, "don't be a jerk" should be a given, but eh, everyone just assumes their opponent will be a jerk if given the chance, it seems. But you could have a situation where someone wasn't trying to be a jerk, and ended up with something way too nasty, like if someone shows up to fight, say, 50 Empire models with 40 Ogres, and is too young/new to realize that's not going to be a fair or fun match (or even just the types of units on each side). The one "balancing" mechanic was terrible, and that didn't help the game's rep.

    With more ways to play, it should help everyone, even outside of Matched Play. Optimism's a nice thing, eh?

  2. #12

    Default

    Well that's what I'm meaning.

    The game itself is pretty damned good, and far better than some claim. But the addition of points has been a common request since launch. Now it's coming, I really hope people revisit it.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  3. #13

    Default

    Only crowd that won't be satiated then will be the regimental combat folks. You could make that work in AoS, but I suppose KoW and 9th Age make it not that much of a necessity. At some point when I'm not being a lazy git (I have reasons to be "lazy," but still...), I might take a stab at it, but of course it'd be unofficial.

  4. #14

    Default

    Well, you can and you can't with AoS.

    Rank and Flank is of course no longer an option, but due to how combat is now worked out, and melee weapons having a range, you have a lot of new formations to play with.

    Main downside there is that it requires quite precise deployment, and even more precise movement if you wish to keep formation. For some, no real issue there, especially if you don't have a set time limit to get your game in. Of course in Store and at organised play, time is something one needs to take into account, and the micro managed movement could slow down larger games considerably.

    But once you start exploring those and get the hang of it, your speed will naturally increase!

    Only thing I'm left baffled by is how to make cunning use of Retreating - relatively risk free disengagement isn't something I'm at all used to in my 28 years of gaming - but it's totally something I need to learn how to make good use of!
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  5. #15

    Default

    I suppose I should add that points will only add to tactical and strategic decision making - after all, it's a cap on the troops at your disposal, meaning from the outset you need an idea in your head of what strategy/strategies to focus on, the sorts of tactics needed to realise them.

    I'm really intrigued to see if there's any kind of FoC attached to Match Play as well. With an increased focus on character based buffs and debuffs, having a limited access to such things again helps to focus one's forethought.

    Let's look at some of the most common ones, Khorne Bloodbound.

    Bloodstokers - each hero phase, pick a Khorne unit. Add 3" to its run and charge moves, and re-rolls 1's to hit for it. A tasty boost in itself.

    Bloodsecrator - plant your standard, and all friendly Khorne units get an additional attack with each melee weapon, and ignore Battleshock so long as they're within 18" of this model. Very nice, marries well to the Bloodstoker.

    With free choice, why not take two of each? Their abilities all stack.... But if there's a restriction, and you can only take say, three Characters? You've got the choice of that very nice synergy above, or the far pokier and handy in a fight Fighty Characters - you can just take them all!
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  6. #16

    Default

    I think that was mentioned somewhere, but might have been a rumor. Would be pretty handy to have, but I understand people not wanting restrictions... then again, they could just stick with Open Play, or opt not to use any force organization rules.

  7. #17

    Default

    Indeed.

    To me, that's one of the strengths of AoS with the coming additional rules - since the word 'go', it's been a very open system.

    Whilst I'm sure play will quickly standardise in some manner, having started off with a 'whatevs, nerds. Just DBAD about it!' I reckon that spirit will pervade.

    Currently toying with a 'welcome to AoS' type thread for the main board. Nothing preachy, just a 'this is what I've found since I've been playing it' - pointing out the differences from Warhammer (like Artillery no longer dominating big Monsters to the point that if you knew you were playing Dwarfs or Empire, Scaly Dave the Black Dragon might stay in his cave). Maybe dredge up some of my wonderful artwork from my tactics thread to help people get a rough feel for how they might want to do things.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  8. #18
    Librarian
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Orem, UT
    Posts
    829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mystery View Post
    I simply hope it helps people give the game the try it deserves.

    Sadly, it was dog piled by the Hate Mob who claimed it had no tactics etc, which is nonsense....
    Let's be fair to the hate mob- the only scenario that is part of the core rules is hopelessly broken (via, Sudden Death). And a number of tactics were discussed from the start that were equally broken (like the Infinite Lords of Change host).

    And without any balancing mechanisms in the game, the game rules were incomplete to the point that any winning force can be considered broken. The only way to get around that was for your group to play enough times and use house rules (often unspoken house rules cited as the DBAD rule).

    I find that arbitrary enforcement of DBAD breaks the DBAD rule. But it isn't like the rulebook is going to help with that, and the recent FAQ has sided with the hate mob on what all of the rules actually intend (summoning and infinite named characters).

    I think that people checking it out is going to depend a lot on the price. If the free rules get updated with Matched Play rules, then we'll see a lot of people looking into this. If they don't, then a lot of people are going to check it out, mostly from the hate mob (because people who talk that much about the problems are probably people who care about Warhammer).

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Setzer View Post
    Only crowd that won't be satiated then will be the regimental combat folksl.
    Nah, the game got such an overhaul, there are going to be others who liked things that aren't part of AoS. A good number of them are offended by the end of the old fluff. I doubt they're coming back.
    Last edited by odinsgrandson; 05-06-2016 at 08:50 AM.

    www.GardenNinja.com

  9. #19
    Librarian
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cannibal Sector 1
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by odinsgrandson View Post
    A good number of them are offended by the end of the old fluff. I doubt they're coming back.
    Not coming back in the sense that we never went away, we just didn't make the leap to AoS :-)

    Warhammer's nice though.
    "Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a **** about the rules? Mark it zero!"

  10. #20

    Default

    I can't say I can object to those who criticised the game for not having an army structure in place - it was very unusual, and, outside of set scenario Historical play, completely unique to the best of my knowledge.

    But to explain the Hate Mob I was referring to (those who will always criticise anything GW does, because that's what they seem to live for) can be reference by reading [url=http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/aug/31/terry-pratchett-is-not-a-literary-genius]this article, which was an ignorant and utterly unwarranted attack on not only my favourite author, but an internationally respected author whose passing prior to the article, left him unable to respond[/url]. The literary bigot responsible then tried to make amends, [url=http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/sep/11/jonathan-jones-ive-read-terry-pratchett-now-its-more-entertainment-than-art]by reading just one of Sir Terry's 46 (count 'em) Discworld novels[/url]. Feint praise, but ultimately still snide.

    Worse, he didn't read one of the later ones, when for my money Sir Terry really hit his stride (Sam Vimes is probably my favourite character). And having not read more than one, he's completely missed the compelling, ever changing world Sir Terry created - events from one book affect the rest in the series. He's also missed possibly the greatest part of Sir Terry's writing - you can read the books in any order - they're not direct sequels, just continuations of the Discworld background. Yes you get more out of reading them in the correct order, but it's by no means a requirement.

    It's the same with the Hate Mob - never played it, don't intend to play it, but they knew before even look at the rules it was terribad.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •