40k Can Learn From Age of Sigmar?

oh-really-please-tell-me-morePimpcron wonders if 40k could learn from some of the good things in AoS.

Hi people! The only robot you fantasize about, Pimpcron is here. Now that Age of Sigmar came out and the world didn’t end like it was foretold by the Internet, what did they do right? And how could 40k benefit from what they learned?

What Did They Do Right?

I think that not having a codex to buy is an awesome idea on their part, being that many of the competitors already do that. This makes that buy-in price for new players drop by roughly $60 which in many cases is either a whole box or maybe even two boxes of units worth of savings. Also, giving the rules out for free is cool too but of course we all know they are doing this out of necessity because of their competition. But even so, I think it’s the right move. And let all of us plastic crackheads be honest for a moment, even if they gave out codex stats for free, if they released fluff and/or formations books for our armies we’d still buy them. I’ve seen too many people complain about GW price gouging while their smacking their forearms for another hit and pulling out their wallet for the Newest Shiny.

63232197

I am also a fan of the simpler rules, if only for the fact that it will bring in players much easier. Now before you hunt me down and curb-stomp me, I wasn’t a Warhammer Fantasy player before AoS and I completely understand if you guys are pissed with what they did to the rules. I hope they don’t do this to 40k’s rules, but I do like the spirit of it. I do hope they make a stripped-down version of 40k for beginners to dip their toe in the game. We’ve all heard the rumors that the 4-page rule set for AoS might get an Advanced Rules version that comes out later. That would be great, and I think it’s a good idea for 40k as well. But at the moment, it feels a bit like they went “full retard” on the rules if they don’t plan on making more advanced rules.

Just like 40k, I think that bringing “Unbound” to Fantasy is a good idea and allows beginners to buy some of the flashy units without having to invest in the more mundane units first. Of course this is a double-edged sword and one could argue, “Why bring the regular troops at all?” I don’t have an answer to that; I actually really enjoy playing with normal troops versus all-the-crazy-all-the-time. But it ultimately gives players more freedom and that’s a good thing and once again, makes it easier for new players to enter.

So all-in-all I think they made some awesome moves towards opening the doors to new players, which 40k could definitely use as well. Did they go too far with simplifying it? Maybe.

What Did They Do Wrong?

Simply put, measuring from the model is stupid and not called for. Functionally it is the same as measuring from the base, until I realized that I could get more of my Lizardmen into close combat if they went in tail-first. Now I just need to finish painting my circle of old business men models so they can yell, “Butt to butt!”

de3cee40_asstoassguyTell me in the comments if you get the reference and then pretend not to be embarrassed that you got it.

Having a whole bunch of Lizardmen backing into combat to be more effective is simply dumb. Not to mention you run the risk of chipping paint on the models by measuring from them versus the base. No reason for it.

Also, having no point costs for the units and upgrades is unnecessary and confusing, especially for new players. And being that there are no max unit sizes, according to the game rules, my 72 man unit of Kroxigors is equal to your goblin unit. What I think they should have done is give you the option of adding models to units in intervals of what they secretly deem to be, say, 100 points. Each 100 points worth of things would be a warscroll. Anything that falls short of being worth 100 points would either have its number increased or stats improved to make it effectively worth 100 points. So any given warscroll would be somewhat even with others. So a really awesome Hero might count as 3 Warscrolls or something, but there would be some semblance of balance.

This makes me feel like all of our complaining about balance caused them to just drop points all together. It’s as if they said, “You think you can balance it better? Here, balance it til your hearts content and quit bitching.”

Another lesson Games Workshop could learn from this whole endeavor is that they NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS. GW is famous for being completely quiet about everything they do; especially when it comes to releases. Some may say that this builds tension as leaks come out and what-not, but I’ve heard of many people considering Mantic’s Kings of War due to the months-long hiatus GW gave them with End Times. Even if only one customers leaves their brand because of this, it was a bad move. Because they left a huge door open for their competitors to swoop in and snatch up some of their customers just because they were either too arrogant or clueless to know that they should probably let people know they are discontinuing entire lines of models. Lizardmen players were really sweating bullets. This just seems like bad business. The least they could have done was let everyone know that their armies would still be playable during the many months that the game was up in the air.

Some of you might hate me for saying this, but Age of Sigmar has actually brought me to start playing the game. Even if I acknowledge that it is a bastardization of what you existing players are used to. The main reason why I never got into Fantasy is because the rules were close enough to 40k for me to confuse them, while being different enough for me to mess up my working knowledge of rules for both. I was just too lazy to learn both sets. But now that it feels a bit like Fisher Price is making Warhammer, these rules are different enough for me to learn them and not worry about confusing them. So ultimately they succeeded in my case, they changed things up and drew me in as a new player; which is what we need them to do for 40k.

So in conclusion, I think that AoS isn’t a complete PoS. There are some things they did right, and 40k can learn from them. Mainly, the fact that all of their changes are geared towards bringing in new players. Also, I feel that 40k could also use *some* rules simplification without hurting the game.

What say you serfs? Do I make sense, or just heresy?

Want to witness my slow descent into madness first-hand? Check out my blog at www.diecforthedicegod.com

Pimpcron Signature
  • Jason McFarland

    The only thing they did wrong is not cap unit size, other than that, perfect so far. Oh, and I agree with the measuring thing. I think most will house rule base to base.

    I find it funny that not having points would ‘confuse new players’. Actually not having points to worry about makes it easier to just focus on the mechanics and help new players learn.

    • Kevin Buesse

      The issue is as always, new player would have no clue what a fair list should be. Points are a guideline for that, imperfect but a guide none the less. No points means I might show up with 20 csm and 40 cultists and you bring 40 terminators and 3 dreadnoughts. You have less models but sure as hell are winning that fight handily.

      When there are no rules for how to have a fair game it’s a small step above kids in the sand box making pew pew noises and going “nuh uh it didn’t hit him.”

      GW wants to have this fantasy they are only a model company, but guess what I look at the models they offer and without a game, nope nope. To much $ for too little. I don’t buy videogames so they can sit on my self I want to use them. The bike in my garage isn’t there as a show piece.

      Certainly some people will buy for the art value and the joy of building. I know I have tremendous fun doing that, but without a game I have no reason to do more than look.

      Such a shame the company has it’s head so far in the sand. They had a real chance to make a major shift with and outsider CEO, but instead they went it more in the same vein. Though the new guy at least knows how to write a investor brief.

      • Jason McFarland

        There is a game, it’s a blast, and it actually works without points. I’ve seen too many examples to say otherwise. Not your cup of tea, that’s cool, but don’t belittle it because you don’t get it.

        • Autumnlotus

          And don’t belittle others by assuming a level of greater understanding then others. I have played it countless times now, and my store has straight dropped the game for 8th edition minus to playtesting new rules. It’s not because of a lack of knowledge, we just hate the system and think the 2 new armies are unimaginative trash meant for conversions to 40k

          • Jason McFarland

            Not getting it doesn’t mean lack of understanding.

            I don’t get Malifaux or Infinity. I’ve never seen either played ever at any stores around me. I’ve seen the rules for both, I’ve watched videos, I don’t get the appeal. It’s not for my lack of understanding how it’s played, I just don’t get the enjoyment. But both systems are doing very well, so I know other people are getting it, just not me.

            But, just because I don’t get enjoyment from the concepts doesn’t mean I’m going to belittle it around those that do.

            Saying there’s no game there and it’s pew pew in a sandbox is belittling it, and it’s uneccesary. I’m in two Facebook groups, focusing solely on AoS, there are large amount of members for a new system, and we all ‘get it’. We get where the enjoyment behind the game is.

          • Autumnlotus

            Alright fair enough, I see the two terms as synonymous so I was a bit confused. I see the game as a failure because it is inferior to both fantasy, Mordheim, and onepagefantasy skirmish. It’s a weaker creation, but that doesn’t mean people who enjoy it are subhuman. People play Palladium in rpgs, I’ve seen it to my horror, but its still playable

          • Jason McFarland

            Ugh, Palladium…

            I totally agree on that

        • Kevin Buesse

          If the game works for you great go on and enjoy. My overall points still hold and you did nothing to address them, you just tried to belittle me.

          There is a game, and in your anecdotal situation it works. Now imagine someone who isn’t you and not in your situation. Say a newbie coming into the game. They see some sigmarites in the window and decide to buy them. Great GW mission accomplished they made a sale. Except now jim wants to play someone.

          Who should he play and how does he know they aren’t that guy? How does Jim know he’s not being that guy? Well we’ll assume they both want a fair game, because we’d like to believe humans are decent on the inside.

          How do Jim and Eric now agree on what is a fair game? Can’t do it based on models as a Sigmarite isn’t the same as a skink or skeleton. Eric could bring a single unit of cav maybe, but is that fair?

          Well Jim will just have to trust Eric’s judgement about rough balance since Eric knows the game. So ideally Eric is a decent person who doesn’t want to club the baby seal, they play a great game and Jim is now hooked. He buys tons of stuff and fun ensues all around.

          But what happens if one link in the chain of trusting that your opponent is a decent person breaks? Well with points at least you can have a rough idea that he’s not totally screwing you from the outset. Sure he might still be a scumbag who cheats, no way to know for sure.

          Still as a company that relies on the game to sell their product they’ve removed one key pillar of support. Points while imperfect and requiring GW to put in time and money to develop, help ensure a healthier and more equitable game. Which in the long run helps ensure a more vibrant and growing community.

          Try to imagine scenarios outside your experience where the system can fail. New guys are the life blood GW needs and outside guys like you and Pimpcron who have stable trustworthy gaming groups. There are legions of potential customers who don’t have that support and need all the help they can get to get into our beloved hobby.

          On a personal note, I don’t give a flying F about fantasy or AoS. I was interested temporarily when they released End Times stuff and started moving plot lines they’d dangled for 20 years towards fruition. I bought some great models released during that time and have repurposed them for 40K. Nothing I’ve seen since the third End Times book has convinced me to dip my toes in. That said my gaming group has looked at and tried AoS and given it a solid pass. For the guys who I play with on anything resembling a regular basis there is no love there. That’s about 10 people GW lost, and several more that were cautiously curious.

          So while I’m glad it’s been a success for you and your gaming group it’s been about the polar opposite in mine.

          • Xodis

            Generally the shop owner himself would direct him to a person that isnt “that guy”. Customer service isn’t just issuing refunds.

          • chuck_lapine

            All shops arent the same. Most of the time I walk into a new store I can t get the time of day let alone a game.

          • Zechrabah

            I agree that they are not all the same, but I honestly hope that 1) you have other options for gaming stores, and 2) that you go to the ones that will give you good support.

          • Xodis

            This is true and one of the reasons why shops are declining. As Sheldon put it “I can get these things cheaper online, I come here for the customer service.”

          • false-emperor

            Whaaaa? whose responsibility? the shop owners? really? did the shop owner write the rules?
            what about is IS GW’s responsibility, period.

          • Xodis

            No, its no ones responsibility but the new player in your scenario to find a good player to play a game with. People can cheat and be A$$holes in any and every game. Some games allow it more, thats the drawback from having a game with few limitations. The upside is that if you have good players you can have a lot of fun.

            However if that shop owner wants to keep his business running, he better learn SOMETHING about customer service.

            Its not GWs responsibility to find you a suitable opponent to play with. Obviously they are tired with trying to force everyone into the same boundaries and using points to give this illusion of balance. Its a social game, go be social and quit trying to get the rules to do it for you.

          • false-emperor

            Perfect, exactly this.

          • jeff white

            10 people x 100-400USD = 1000-4000USD.
            rinse.
            repeat over 100 cities like yours.
            a thousand cities like yours…
            and, done.

      • You clearly haven’t played age of sigmar with scenario’s in mind. Deathmatch is in the past. Yes deathmatch won’t work without point system. But that is not the idea behind this game. You are supposed to use the scenario’s.

        And please, build your army infront of eachother so you can counter that kind of stuff.

        • false-emperor

          So, just buy, buy, buy like a cold war, and then just make up your own rules for a scenario (a GM)?
          Will you be limiting what can or cannot be fielded, or will you allow all models and units?
          Then someone wants to use el supremo de las muertes (Nagash), and another players collection only includes a starter box, good luck with that scenario…
          And then, and then, and then, and then, and then… infinity…

          What is a players motivation to buy build and paint, and subsequently play, if his/her models are bad/mediocre (starter) or will not be allowed, or an opponents collection is better, larger, and etc.
          No motivation, at all, scenario of otherwise.

          • Sorry, I shouldn’t irritate shortsighted people, my apologies.

          • false-emperor

            Nor should you insult people, nice.
            Not addressing the problems with AoS is not a solution either.
            Oh, look your comment got removed, I wonder why?

          • I am not trying to insult anyone, just speaking a fact. Playing half the game or try to force house rules on it, is shortsighted. It doesn’t fit in your vision so it needs to change!!!!!

            Why I removed my comment? Simple, I am tired of arguing, it is like explaining to religious people that god doesn’t exist. Or there is no heaven or hell. It is a pointless discussion. You believe in what you want to believe and i’ll believe in what i want to believe.

            I don’t have a problem with aos, you guys do. Not even sure why, just play another game you like. If you don’t like this game, why waste your breath on it. Just don’t play it. There are so MANY games out there, put your time in that. Instead of these pointless discussions that NEVER end. You can even play 8th edition, no one is telling you to stop playing it!

      • false-emperor

        9000 to 0, great game!
        How about this, rules wise;
        You have a fully painted whfb 8e army, you are considered a veteran of the game, your army and its units are NOW bad/poor, or do not exist in AoS, what is your motivation to buy, build, and paint new units? What is your motivation to play?

        What if your whfb army and units are super duper awesomely great, what is your motivation to buy, build, and paint? What is an opponents, veteran or new, motivation to play you?

        All of these examples equal NO playing, which equals no buying.

        Buying, building, and painting models is order to “test” them out is a big favor to ask.

        • You’ll buy it. Don’t worry. They’ll ALL buy it

          • false-emperor

            lol, muuuuuust re… sist, grab…. ing… gold… amex… oh whew, they do not take amex, that was close.

      • DeusXenith

        Points are also the best way to make many more unfair lists.

        3 wraithlords and an avatar in under 500 in previous editions, while the other person has 50 guardsmen.

        • false-emperor

          50 guardsmen are not 500 points
          (unless they are very well armed with las cannons, and etc.) (55 are only 280 in a naked infantry platoon)
          Good example, but a poor example at the same time.

          Yes, with points, a wraith-lord verses a SM dread, the WL will most likely win 90% of the time, but there are a lot more variables (points) on the table than just those two units.

        • Gridloc

          Points do work, just don’t use another GW game as an example… GW doesn’t balance games, but other games do great job of doing so as they want their players enjoying the game, not arguing over if 5 guardmen is equal or greater than 2 Tyranid warriors.

      • Exactly. As a new player, playing with my fellow 40k player who is also new to AoS, we have just taken turns bashing each other’s face in depending on who accidentally took a more powerful army list. We have no idea what is balanced. We are about to start using a point system.

      • BrianAWC

        See, I don’t think they care that new players have no idea how to balance the game. That seems like it’s part of the design. New player #1 gets a box of Eternals for his birthday and recruits his friend to play against him. His friend wants to play Orks so he buys TWO boxes of Orks and makes one big ass unit. Now player #1 goes out and buys another box so he won’t be outnumbered. It’s a CCG style power creep.

        I’m totally fine with that, if these two theoretical kids have fun playing the game, great.

        But there are still people who have been playing the game since the 90’s who want the ruleset to be a little more complex than what we got. GW doesn’t seem to see those players as a big source of revenue anymore.

  • gene williamson

    I would been happier if they came out and said.. one system and everything uses the 40k rules.. here is the basic rules for your current fantasy miniatures and we will release books. And the points are scaled so you could fight 40k vs fantasy. The one good thing Games workshop did was the end times.. this was a dropping off point for me.. I stopped collecting all fantasy stuff after it. Not going to complain how good or bad the game is.. I don’t care for it.. so I don’t buy it.

    • false-emperor

      Great points, did you notice GW stores were holding whfb vs 40k games for over a year before AoS dropped.
      Master plan? Merger? Like Warma-Hordes?

      I think you have stumbled upon something here.

  • Tsumugi123

    Making an easier version of 40K without replacing the original sounds like a cool idea. If they make a new version of 40K specifically to recruit new players then yeah, I totally agree what they are doing with AoS, assuming there will be more complete rules coming out later, that is.

    • Haemonculus

      I wonder if that will be the Horus Heresy starter. Age of Heresy?

      • Tsumugi123

        If that’s the case that would be awesome actually. You play and learn the history with simple rules, when you are ready, go for the big league of 40K.

        • Haemonculus

          Brilliant reasoning, Tsumugi. Completely agree.

          • Tsumugi123

            You’re welkhrone.

        • An_Enemy

          The only problem is that veterans are the only people that know what the Horus Heresy is. Or care for that matter.

          Forgeworld’s done right by the HH. If GW turns it into 40k Junior then it increases the chances of them axing one version for the other in the name of brand unity. After they release the remaining books to maximize profit of course. *cough*End Times*cough*

          Not saying they’d do it for sure, but GW has not engendered a lot of faith recently.

          • Dave

            My hope is that the new HH is like basic D&D. Present the game with simple rules and spark that ember of interest in the hobby/lore. Players can always buy up to more complicated rules. They key is pricing. If they want new players it needs to be under $100. I’d love to see a box with a couple squads each (using the same models) with narrative scenarios and a refined warscroll system (some kind of points). The lower model count would be less daunting to assemble/paint for newbies. Price it to sell, provide rules that work and expand from there. That would grow the 40k and existing HH player base.
            Personally, I think if they release a huge HH box at $125+ they’ll sell a ton, but only to folks that are already in the hobby.

        • I’ve been hoping for this as well: AoS is a fine skirmish game (though I HATE the lack of points now, but that wouldn’t matter so much on such a smaller scale), but it lacks so much for army vs army engagements.

      • PinkTerror

        What if it were the same rules with a twist for 40k stuff and we could combine Sigmar and Heresy! If they have Warmahordes, why can’t we have – Sigaresy! Or Horus Sigmar….ruff!!!

  • wedsny

    Pretty much agree with everything said. As far as not having points or any balance to the warscrolls, In my opinion as a game store owner, it has hurt the game. It may be good for newbies, but it has kept most of our player base away from the game, and they all gave it a good try, but got frustrated with poor balance.

  • I’m not 100% against no points because I grew up on historicals that had no points.

    However – in this modern day and age I think that even if its not horrible, that the majority of people who have never ever played a game without points is pretty much the vast majority and that introducing no points as the only way to play was damning.

    • Porty1119

      Pointsless (not pointless!! 😛 ) systems are the norm in the indie wargaming scene I tend to hang out in. Points are unnecessary for those games designed to be played among close friends and in particular scenarios, and the system really doesn’t suffer for not having them.

      That said, given as *the* appeal of GW games is the ability to easily score a pickup game, the lack of any balancing mechanism is a really poor design decision.

  • McNs

    I think the lack of balancing mechanic (it doesn’t haven’t have to be “points”, just give me some rough metric to figure out how to have a fair fight), the lack of communication regarding what AoS was up to the release, and the very large, poorly written (IMO) changes to the background have been a turn off.

    I’m fine with simpler rules and I’m downright very happy about free rules, but I don’t think AoS has staying power. I bought the box and have no regrets about it, but I don’t think it’s a game my group will play regularly.

    I don’t mean this as a snipe at the author, but I do find it amusing that this is one of many articles to appear on BoLS that praises AoS with the caveat of “Please don’t do this to 40K”. Imagine if GW gave you 4 pages of rules and no point values for 40K; that’s how WFB players feel. I know hyperbole is to the internet as waffles are to waffle irons, but this was a pretty major change that felt like it came out of nowhere for us (or rather, for myself and my playgroup).

    • Shiwan8

      I see nothing stopping you from playing oldhammer. I get the frustration, but WHFB was beyond saving anyway.

      • McNs

        I don’t think “old” WHFB was beyond saving. I think 8th’s push for hordes and magic system pushed a lot of people away. I think they could have simplified the game without going this simple.

        • Shiwan8

          A lot of things would have had to change. Any and all cheap tricks in troop positioning would have had to go, all army books would have had to be remade so that they are actually balanced and so on. The change would have been so huge that AoS would have been about the same anyway.

      • Porty1119

        There doesn’t seem to be much oldhammer WHFB, unfortunately. Not with the crowd that was playing 8e recently. This wasn’t the Rogue Trader/2e or Battletech fanbase here; people want a “supported” (a term worth a rant all its own) game and aren’t too willing to strike out on their own.

        • Shiwan8

          Interesting. Our gaming group has house ruled most of the stupidity out of 40k to the point that the game is just barely recognizable, but it’s A LOT better than the 40k GW made.

          Don’t like it, change it. Don’t like it and will not change it, shut up. This is the line of thinking that gets things done.

    • As I said, I really do feel for you existing WFB players. It was a crappy thing to do. I honestly think they could have made everyone happy if AoS was somewhere in between the old rules and new rules. Simpler and faster, but keeping some of the old aspects. Also, this article is only partially praising AoS. I really don’t mean to just be doing lip service to AoS, but I also don’t think everything is bad about it either.

  • Aaditya Rangan

    I really like the AoS rules. I think they are very elegant and include simple resolutions to:
    1. multiple charges: charge however you want, attack whoever you can!
    2. shooting into/outof close combat: Yes, why not!
    3. heroes mingling with units: Go ahead! If I can get within my range of your hero I can hit him, otherwise I can’t.

    I think I would enjoy playing 40K with these rules.

    • Chris Reynolds

      The thing is, those are artificial restrictions anyway. Other games don’t have the issue- everything from Flames of War to Infinity and Warzone just let you hit whoever is in range. Warzone lets you shoot into CC with penalties, just like 40K used to in 2nd ed.

  • Mordrot

    Why did you remind me of “requiem for a dream”! Your evil

    • Mars Needs Beer

      I can feel the sadness returning…

  • Nocturnus

    Nice Requiem For A Dream reference!

    • Senexis

      “Nice?”
      That word does not belong in that sentence

    • Ha! Thanks Nocturnus. my Saurus Warriors gotta make that money for drugs. So butt-to-butt it is.

  • Douglas Burton

    I love the comment that it feels like Fisher Price is making warhammer. Lol

  • Truthiness

    The first thing I thought when I read the rules as both a veteran WFB and 40k player was “this is 40k.” The game functions far more like 40k than WFB. Seeing as I already play 40k, I’ve moved my fantasy army over to Kings of War. I hate AoS has a replacement of a rank and file game that used to revolve heavily around the movement phase. As a 40k simplification? I think it would work. I would actually really enjoy such a game.

    • Firefly

      Another 40k & WHFB player, here. The movement phase in AoS is more critical than WHFB, imo.

      While charge arcs and other bogus nonsense are gone, positioning, unit formations and group formations are all huge – vitally important. It’s far more dynamic, I think.

  • Dennis Harrison

    Age of Sigmar actually changed the way I see points. It is almost like if we are given a rule to exploit we will. So this unit is awesome and that unit is terrible. It’s based on some contrived point values though. Everyone has stuff sitting on the shelf because of the game mechanics- either the unit changed or you just have better options. Age of Sigmar really felt like you could play a game with whatever models in your collection you wanted to field.

    • Frank O’Donnell

      I think what you’ve said has a lot to do with the thinking behind AoS, I would think that GW got feed up with the we can make these models fast enough & we can’t give these ones away that there points system caused.

      A no points system means there’s not need for players to spam certain units unless they really love the model & want a whole army of them.

      • Dennis Harrison

        I remember my brother painting this awesome night goblin army – piece by piece assembling this horde. But I looked at it in game terms. There was no way it waa competative. Like how was he supposed to actually play it? The new rules made goblins look pretty cool again. I can stand a few dwarfs up and we are off to the races.

  • Me

    Well thought out article with some good points. I hope you keep posting here for a long time to come. No one’s perfect, but you tend to think about stuff instead of just rambling without a filter (like a certain unnamed author on this site). Most of all (or at least a close second), thank you for actually writing and NOT posting videos that a some people don’t have the time or inclination to watch.

  • I bought it, was excited for it, played it… thought I needed more time with it and now, I don’t like a lot of things with AoS.

    I initially was all for more story-driven games (I do this a lot in 40k), so I thought the lack of points was going to be fine – it’s not when the people hardly know each other/trying to make new gaming friends (hell even old ones want to have the most hardcore lists). At least points smoothed things out a bit… in this case we just needed points and then a rule for story games to help build lists/opt out of points for different bonuses. The overwhelming forces rule seems like a great idea, except a brittonian bowman does not equal the same thing as a sigmarine, and a single ogre doesn’t equal the same thing either.

    The measuring of model to model rule urks me more the more I play it – the hobby can be fairly small enough as it is, we don’t need little things like modeling to divide people further on what is ‘cheesy’ or not. I’d love to just say ‘play people that don’t do that’, but gaming groups, as I mentioned, are only so big.

    Yes, I play for fun, and not competition – that’s an issue when the previous set of rules were competitive (to at least a higher degree), were a bit more balanced (I use this loosely, but at least points tried), and people are used to playing a bit more competitive.

    Having said all of that, I enjoy this more as a skirmish game, than an army vs army game… this is what it should have been – skirmishes only with additional rules to scale up.

  • ZeeLobby

    To say it’s a game at all is pretty laughable. I might as well make up my own rules and just buy the models, which is maybe what GW wants…

    • Porty1119

      There was a point towards the end of my time playing GW games where that happened more and more. We would cut up and remix rules, unit profiles, and everything else and combine it into squad-level special operations/dungeon crawl games. Stuff like leading a squad of IG into a stronghold (meaning a floorplan traced onto cardboard) guarded by Fire Warriors and Gue’vasa, with a nonstandard-armament Valkyrie using reworked vehicle rules providing fire support, mannable support weapons in strategic locations, et cetera. Definitely the most fun I had with GW products.

  • Tsumugi123

    Just to point out the elephant in the room, AoS itself isn’t bad.

    What’s bad is how GW intended to replace WHF with this game while the game itself is nowhere near what WHF was, at least for now.

    For WHF players, this is the biggest middle finger they have taken in their lives. Spending tons of money on End Times just to learn their game was “Replenished” will surely induce hostility towards GW.

    For 40K players, the news of Hours Heresy in conjunction with this event could only encourage doomsayers and trolls to spread the rumor of “This will happen to 40K too, GW sucks, AoS blows”.

    And, just like that, Age of Sigmar went from the newest and shiniest franchise to the most hated and unwanted piece of junk, at least from the mouth of most WHF players, and some insecure 40K players.

    You see, the problem isn’t with the game itself, so defending how game is refreshing or easy to pick up has nothing to do with the decision made by GW. If AoS didn’t replace WHF, there will be much less hate on it.

    • Shiwan8

      While the move was stupid considering the community, it’s not that when you look at the old game. Honestly it was nothing but bunch of WAAC players gathering and trying to break the game more than their opponent did. That is all it was in the end.

      AoS at least has a theoretical chance to be enjoyable. It’s slim chance, true, but it’s that much more than what WHFB had.

      • ZeeLobby

        AoS is even easier to break than WHF was tho, and whats worse is it’s breakable via wallet…

        • Tsumugi123

          Our wallets were doomed the second we walked into a Warhammer Store for the first time.

          • ZeeLobby

            While true, with no unit size limitation, it’s literally, whoever can buy more stuff wins…

        • Shiwan8

          Pay to win was a thing in WHFB too and sigmar, while breakable, can not result to that accidentally like in WHFB. AoS is not good, that is clear, but to break it you’d have to lie to your opponent about what kind of lists you are going to play and then the opponent has to be dumb enough not to see the lie and/or understand since you will be designing the lists together.

          So yes, breakable, but it’s a lot harder than in WHFB.

          • Aezeal

            8th wasn’t really pay to win.

          • Shiwan8

            Well, there were armies that were useless and the fix for that was to buy the current OP army. How is that not pay to win?

            In AoS there is a need for communication between gamers. If that is too much to ask then I can understand that in that context the game is easy to break. It it’s not, you can not really break the game.

          • ZeeLobby

            I can walk into any local gaming store with 2000 pts of 40K and get a pick up game whenever I want. Right now, trying to achieve the same with AoS is a nightmare…

      • dodicula

        Actually my observation was that fantasy was the more mature players running away fromthe waac neckbeards playing 40k

        • Shiwan8

          You mean the WHFB standard gaming style that was trying to break the game and power building to the max is some how less WAAC than the exact same thing that is used pretty much exclusively in tournaments in 40k? At least in 40k there are other kinds of games too. 🙂

          • dodicula

            to a bad dancer the floor is always crooked, WHFB did not have a ton of broken stuff, and that which was broken was generally comped out of tournaments, unlike 40k whose player community looks at the desire for a fair game as a sign of weakness.

    • Aezeal

      It’s not most fantasy players hating it… it’s only most of the whiners on here that have that opinion.

  • chuck_lapine

    If you want a stripped down version of 40k play 3rd edition.

    • crusader284

      Good luck getting hold of a copy of 3rd edition. 😛

      • Shiwan8

        Google?

        • ZeeLobby

          Shhhh. He doesn’t know yet!

          • Shiwan8

            Ah, ok. 😀

      • Michael Gerardi

        I have one. Also 2nd, 4th and 5th. I am armed and ready for OLDHAMMER, 40K style.

  • Pete McGwire

    In response to the article headline… NO, NO, HELL NO!

  • dodicula

    What can 40K learn from age of sigmar? I would say the answer is: How to Double Warpath’s player base over night.

  • Michael Gerardi

    Yes, having free rules was something AoS got right. Good job Pimpcron–picking out the one corn kernel in the giant pile of doggie-doo that is AoS.

    If you think GW’s veteran WHF customers were infuriated by AoS, well, if 40K is AoS’d, the suits at GW had better all go on extended vacations, because what long-time 40K customers will do to Nottingham will make Coventry look like urban renewal.

    • Porty1119

      Brits sure know how to have good (destructive) riots…

      • Commissar Molotov

        Remember the British “poll tax” riots in the ’80’s?

        Pepperidge Farm remembers.

    • eldarconvert .

      If they AoS 40k then you like every other English man will write a strongly worded letter that you will deliver in person as you buy £70 worth of plastic off them

      • Michael Gerardi

        Not a chance in hell. I haven’t bought 40K plastic crack since they imposed 6th ed, if not earlier. And if trends continue like they’re heading now, I have spent my last $$$ on GW products and will confine my gaming strictly to Oldhammer.

  • benn grimm

    I’m struggling to find more ways of saying to people nicely, no that game sucks, no I don’t think it has elegant design or offers/adds anything new to wargaming, no sudden death or some kind of wounds total does not make the game balanced and no I don’t like the kind of fun you like…I usually agree with at least something you’ve said in your articles. Not today, but that’s ok, like you said, you’re a 40k guy. I look forward to next weeks article, hopefully on 40k.

    • Firefly

      “I don’t like its design. It’s not for me.”

      Solved?

      • benn grimm

        Well apart from that sounding far too smart and well measured to sound like something i would say in real life, there’s only so many times you can grin and nod and go yeah, they are kinda cool arent they, just not really my cup of tea, whilst being told about how much better it is now without points or ranks before you share your opinion.

    • Wait, you don’t even agree with the things that I didn’t like about Sigmar? Does this mean you liked those aspects? I’m kidding. next week I will be back to straight 40k-talk.

      • benn grimm

        Sorry dude, what can i say? Feeling a little under siege from the AOS crowd, just heard a wfb event i was planning on going to got cancelled and got invited to an AOS thing within an hour of each other this morn and I was feeling, shall we say a little sensitive? But yeah you;re not wrong (entirely;)), I’m just struggling to be grown up about it atm and yes I am ashamed…;)

  • Aezeal

    I’ve played fantasy for years and I don’t mind MOST of Age of Sigmar.
    I like the new faction (even though I will continue playing wood elves) and it’s lore and looks.
    I don’t mind the changes to say.. shooting.. even though my archers can now often be charged by units they haven’t been able to shoot at because the enemy can move/charge more than their lousy 20 inch range and have no stand and shoot anymore.
    I don’t mind the static rolls on the warscrolls.

    But I DO not like the lack of balance and I hope a good comp system gets made and I think GW SHOULD have made a balance system that is at least semi-serviceable for casual play. (Like 8th edition had, I could see the use for the swedish and ETC comp.. but for casual play most armies where acceptably balanced (even though my tombkings opponent somewhat rightfully disagrees).

    • Shiwan8

      The lack of static army creation system (ie. no points etc.) is, as far as I know, the only thing that makes the game bad. Other than that there are some confusing things in the rules, but it otherwise seems to be better than even 40k. Haven’t played it though. I could be wrong.

      • I think it’s fine for a casual game to play with friends who are d heads. As far pick up games or tournaments, I’ll stick to 40k.

    • Firefly

      If you must do it that way, then try to agree to a wound cap per unit, and a wound cap per army. Then, fix a number of warscrolls, and a number of battalions. Be generous, too. It’ll prevent the formation of weird, static lists.

      Here’s a very big game, for example:

      1 or 2 battalions (min. 1),
      up to 8 warscrolls,
      40 wounds per unit max,
      255 wounds per army max.

      It’s been working well so far. You can fidget the numbers a bit to suit your needs, if you want. Flexible system. Requiring battalions helps a good deal. Note that ’40 wounds per unit’ does not equal ’40 wounds per battalion.’

    • I couldn’t agree with you more. Well said.

  • Rob brown

    Some of us like army books/codexes because of the art, the updated storyline and the way these often reinvent a whole armies style of play. Releasing rules piecemeal can make this harder and risk a bolt on approach as designers inevitably make mistakes – will they have the courage to remove or redefine models that they get the rules wrong for (As a DE player I’m thinking 6th ed War Hydra) or will we have to wait for a new model. It can still be achieved but I don’t think warscrolls are inherently better. GW should be making the rules free on the web and the fluff, artwork, scenarios, special characters part of books (which have a reasonable priced pdf version). Paizo do this to great effect, and guess what – I still buy the books because I like to have them.

  • Shortsighted article, wasted my time reading this. thx

    • Please explain.

      • Matthew Pomeroy

        because you are a necron pimp, thats why! now go back to sleep another 40 or 50 millenium, when the hos is bettah! 😀

  • Spacefrisian

    I wonder how long it takes to keep the model to model thing, wait until tourneys start hearing peeps screaming “FIX BAYONETS” on there first turn and than put 18″ bayonets on there model using the model to model system for measuring….Now imagin this system in 40K…..hah beer and pretzels my behind.

    • I don’t get the problem? Even if someone had a HUGE gun, it works both ways. If you can hit someone he can hit you back at the same spot.

  • Having a whole bunch of Lizardmen backing into combat to be more
    effective is simply dumb. Not to mention you run the risk of chipping
    paint on the models by measuring from them versus the base. No reason
    for it.

    I don’t get why doing this has any merrit btw? Can you explain why you think this gives you any advantage?

    • euansmith

      You can get a bunch more tails into contact with a target than bases.

      • so giving you a disadvantage ? Because more contact = more hits on you.

        there is no advantage here.

        • euansmith

          If you are hitting first, there is an advantage. 😉

          • doesn’t matter who hits first 🙂

            The only advantage here is when you want your unit of lizard men, attack a unit containing a single model that is pretty small. But then you have to remember this rule.

            No part of the model may move further than the model’s Move charracteristic.

            Which would force you to always move backwards and doing this is more disavantage, making it not worth it. Because more models can target you better because of it. So if i were you, hide the tail before a bloodreaver unit shows up and is able to put a full unit attack on you.

          • Or move them facing like normal until you roll for the charge, which is hopefully more than just a few inches. Swing them around butt-first on the charge move.

          • Ok lets assume you do that, it is not like the charge gets any further, if you roll a 12 inch it doesn’t matter if it is head first or tail first, the distance doesn’t change. So i don’t see the reason for swinging your but around.

            If you measure from the sword, up to 12 inches, that is the where the tip of your tail or your sword ends.

        • In the case of a assault where you have more models than your opponent you would want as many as possible in, but it wouldn’t increase the number of hits you take.

  • euansmith

    “Hi people! The only robot you fantasize about…”

  • neul13579

    War is not fair i dont think the battle of Britain was agreed on 100 spitfire agaisnt 100 me109. On side always has more. It how you use it.

    • Midou

      You’re right, playing warhammer is war just like other games. Often times i play chess with friends i add in a handful of extra queens and when they complain about how an extremely uneven game isn’t as tactical or fun i just tell them war isn’t fair.
      Check mate mother f*ckers.

      • This made me laugh so, so hard. Hahahahaha

  • Diego Moreno

    Totally agree with the measurements. Doing it from the model is just dumb, as you mentioned giving place to many out of place situations.
    However the removal of the points systems, even if at first seemed to me like a blunder, has been quite liberating. The thing is, even with a points system there is no such thing as a balanced match. This is the same for all games where you may think it is so but as there is no consistent way to set the point cost you are subject of the criteria applied (if there is any) by the army book/codex author. Knowing there is no set price for a unit helps by not giving you false expectations as to its supposed performance.
    As a side note, this is not GWs first approach to a list/points free format. Just read the rules for 40,000 Apocalypse. No where does it say its supposed to be played at any given points threshold, but its intended for you to field whatever you wabt from your collection. The idea of it being for large scale, some thousand points battles is something players added to it.

    • Dylan

      And apoc failed so bad GW rolled it into 7th

  • Gdub aint gotta say s#it to any of ya, the bad eggs ruined it for everyone. Gw owes you nothin.

    • Commissar Molotov

      That goes both ways, bro.

  • Agent OfBolas

    Yes, you don’t need a codex… but you are paying 58 bucks for 5 miniatures….

    Indeed “something that went good” lol

  • Firefly

    The butt to butt reference (vomit) xD

    • Haha. Glad you got it. We are playing base-to-base too.

  • Gridloc

    Where I would think it would be somewhat poetic justice to see 40k go the way of AoS, and then repeat what they have said to the WHFB players to stop complaining; ‘play old edition’, ‘just discuss with opponent why he can’t drop 4 LoW’, ’70 dollars for 5 guys is fine when there is no unit size’, ‘its about fun not winning’. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone as it was horrible watching something we care about change with little control.

  • John Felger

    All we have learned from this debacle is that Games Workshop is no better at making simple rules than they are complex. It boggles the mind that their four page rule system has the EXACT same problems as their novel length rules.

  • jeff white

    “butt to butt”?
    a-hem…
    AoS is not AoA, that is for sure.
    I adore AoA.
    AoS is… not gonna get bought and played,
    but maybe clearance-bought and converted in a year.

    AoS is the new dread fleet.
    It is a board game.
    Done.

    Lot’s of board games to buy that don’t need painting.
    That board gamers like playing.
    AoS is a miss.

    GW will get bought by Hasbro in 18months,
    less, for a song.
    My current prediction.