|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 22, 2015 10:34:21 GMT -5
|
|
J4far
Immortal
Posts: 443
|
Post by J4far on Jul 23, 2015 16:52:14 GMT -5
Really good read! This is the impression I have been getting the more I peruse responses to the game. So far, the only huge gripe I have with the game is the lack of structure to selecting armies, but that is being addressed it seems by the Kingston Comp and Ottawa Comp. I was hoping for a "unified" comp to be provided by GW when the game was released, and am still waiting for them to fill that last gap in the game.
There will always be sub-par options, but with their claim of releasing warscrolls for free, it is easy for them to update certain weaker units as the game matures by adding little rules here and there to improve them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 23, 2015 21:30:05 GMT -5
GW has been pretty up front that this was an intentional design of the game.
|
|
J4far
Immortal
Posts: 443
|
Post by J4far on Jul 24, 2015 4:15:44 GMT -5
I know, I know, but its the only part of the game/rules I actively dislike. While the MtG analogy made at the end of the article is somewhat relevant, there is still structure in that game, organized by WotC. Decks have certain sizes (60 card minimum deck size), and you can have a maximum of 4 copies of a card that isn't a land. Within these limits, however, anything goes (number of lands, colour of the cards, etc...) and the sky is the limit for how much you are willing to spend. Additionally there are "brackets" for what cards are allowed in different tournaments (Standard, Extended, Legacy). This is the sort of loose structure I was hoping to see from GW, and it is what people are implementing now. Without a COHESIVE structure that works from store to store, city to city, country to country, I don't think it AoS will reach its full potential as a seemingly great and tactical game. Back to MtG, you could 100% have major mismatches when playing with friends, but if you were to play at any event anywhere, the same ground rules apply.
In the end, I think GW is making a mistake by not implementing some basic "suggested" structure, but its their game.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadianguy on Jul 24, 2015 9:21:09 GMT -5
As much as I am pissed about a lot of what GW has done over the last few years I do believe intentionally or by accident the lack of structure is brilliant. It is forcing communities to develop and do it themselves. This has several consequences but 2 big ones are it takes away all the expense and time off the company and places it on the community. Thus, allowing GW to just be the model company they desire to be. It also allows a wider group to use the game as they see fit creating many smaller groups that are actively involved then a bigger less actively involved group. Brilliant or dumb luck I am still unsure!
I fear I might have to finally look at AOS as I doubt fantasy as "fantasy" is ever going to be released by GW again.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsc on Jul 24, 2015 9:54:51 GMT -5
I like the reports (granted their rumors but given how hyper-accurate these rumor sources are about releases they have truth to them) that age of sigmar has had more play testing than any recent release. I really find that this game is great, it fits together well and what we've seen with keyword buffing the gameplay is very technical even though the book keeping has been streamlined very elegantly! Manipulating how lines collapse is something that I do a lot with my gors (4 inch pile in baby), it's somewhat easy to hit a unit with something + gors and force the opponent to pile into the tougher unit rather than the gors (for example if they pile intowards the gors they break coherency and will be forced to retreat on their next turn, very nasty) keeping my goatboys away from sharp sticks  I haven't had a chance to play any of the 8 battleplans from the hard cover yet, hopefully soon! Although I bought a realmgate pair instead of the book because the realmgates were limited and indeed are already sold out (apparently for good). I've also been finding that in pickup games the comp systems don't really work since they're not unified (yet) or wide spread. It's a little difficult to explain to someone that a tourney in Ottawa is using this so we should try it, or my friend out in kingston came up with these brilliant rules -- they just don't get it, however just slapping down a rough wound/keyword limiter is very simple and if someone brings more wounds it's not as big of a deal. If they game doesn't feel fair hopefully they feel shame for handicapping themselves and then winning  |
|
|
|
Post by tyrnakandfenrir on Jul 24, 2015 11:09:16 GMT -5
I've played a couple battle plans from the book. Forget what one was called but it's the one where one army has to run to the other side of the board. Did not like it, completely unfair for the runner, at least with equal wounds. If the runner overpowers the defender then the game would be more interesting. I think that might be intentional because with the lack of structure in creating the armies, GW must have realised that the armies aren't going to be balanced so therefore the scenarios are unbalanced. Or, this is where the table size needs to come into play, a smaller table would also help even it out. Either way, my brother and I played both sides and got destroyed when it was our turn to run across the table.
We've also played the trap. That one was much better. Tilted towards the ambusher foot certain as the invader has auto save reductions to shooting attacks and the ambusher gets extra save bonuses from being in cover. But it felt to me like a faster game of kill everything. There's no movement in the first turn and you can either decide to shoot or attempt a 9" charge (the minimum distance between armies in set up). Since we set up so close we got into combat a lot faster and despite the bonuses for the ambusher it was a close game. Maybe because the invader's army is packed close together so any buffs will happen while I spread my army around them to be able to target different units. Would play that scenario again.
We haven't tried playing in either the realm of fire or life but we both want to so that will happen on the weekend. Might try out a different scenario at the same time.
|
|
J4far
Immortal
Posts: 443
|
Post by J4far on Jul 24, 2015 14:59:37 GMT -5
I think running across the board would be highly army specific. Can imagine that being incredibly easy with an army of flying warscrolls, or the super awesome chariot army you can do with TK scrolls. Settra + King on Chariot + King on Sphinx, then tons of chariots. Settra makes everything within 18 +1 hit +1 wound, when chariots charge they have double attacks, King lets all chariots reroll charge distance (Settra lets other Kings use their command abilities), and to top it off, Sphinx king selects one enemy unit, and all your guys get additional +1 wound.
Army is super fast (10" moves, minimum 6" charges due to icon bearers), hits like a freight train, and super thematic to boot! I guess in those cases, the "collection" you bring and can choose from really impacts how well you do for given scenarios. Might write this list up for Army section as it seems rather fun... Damn I really want to play!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 24, 2015 15:08:45 GMT -5
Question: How do you know if Age of Sigmar is a good game? Answer: you come up with a TOMB KINGS army that sounds deadly effective and fun to play. You'll really like AOS... Frank was commenting last night that it reminds him of early 7th edition (a high point for the game in my opinion - until they let Matt Ward write DOC of course!) |
|
J4far
Immortal
Posts: 443
|
Post by J4far on Jul 24, 2015 15:15:02 GMT -5
Just posted the list in the appropriate section. Seems damned deadly and looking forward to playing with it!
|
|
|
|
Post by nsc on Jul 24, 2015 17:38:16 GMT -5
Yeah the tk sound like some of the more powerful warscrolls
|
|
