So FFG really made awesome games with X-Wing and Armada and rightfully jumped to No.2 of most selling (tabletop) games 2015 with that from nowhere.

The (new) ideas of FFG are great and refreshing. However GW seems to have learnt some lessons too. With their rebranding of Fantasy to Age of Sigmar they did a plenty of awesome changes. I have the impression many of them were inspired by FFG (I would have whished they also would do special dice too).

However they also did some good things on their own. I really like that there are no points in Age of Sigmar and no forced "even" battles. My main concern with Armada is, that in real battles you will do anything to ensure there is not an even battle. I really love how Age of Sigmar features uneven battles, balancing everything out with the mission and victory rules.

Awesome??

I've been playing fantasy since second edition, and AoS is the worst set of rules I've ever seen, sorry. The lack of points mean you cannot have pick up or tourney games. I would just bring my over 10,000 points of troops and squash you every time. You need points to balance a game out.

As for fun unbalanced games, that's what special scenarios are for.

AoS is what made me finally jump out of any GW altogether.

I beg to differ good sir.

As a long-time Fantasy player I feel the AoS is a steaming pile of manure.

I am waiting for Kings of War 2.0 now. Hopefully this works with my old/existing armies.

(Empire/Bretonnia/Orcs&Goblins/Chaos and Vampire Counts)

Fantasy was in a long decline. AoS brought it back to life. Its not AoS that killed Fantasy but the latest Editions. Many agree with me on this point.

I dont care about tourneys, and in AoS you can win with 1000 points against 10000 points and thats just great. The point is: Its perfectly balanced out.

Umm... how do I put this diplomatically: It's great that you feel that way, fellow wargamer, and I'm glad you're enjoying your choice, but I'm not sure any of what you say made it to my brain in a way that makes reasonable sense as recognizable English.

I'm too traumatized by AoS and the horrors that have been unleashed after my tens of thousands of points worth of WFB was suddenly invalidated (and I don't mean 'it's not good', I mean when you have more than 500 infantry in your Empire army, and most of them are on grouped regiment bases, the mechanics don't work very nicely. I already have an Imperial guard army, I will never hand move that many models ever again. Period.)

Not to say it did everything wrong, there's some little aspects I quite like.... and yet there is a rotting, festering, broken part of my gamer core thanks to that big monster across the seas. I'll make my own objectives, scenarios, and the likes because that's what a narrative gamer does.

So, what Darth Lupin and Elkerlyc said, and I've got a reserve of... -does a quick count- twenty-nine thousand points (Empire/ Bretonnia/ High Elf/ Dwarf/ Skaven/ bit of Orcs and some Dogs of War) so... sure. I've only been playing since 5^th, but AoS is my least favourite set.

Post scriptum: should this be in off-topic? It's sorta borderline and I don't want things to disappear or to stifle conversation if a good idea comes from it (such as, 'what fun uneven battles/scenarios can be derived from this'). And for the Love of the Horned rat, please don't go crowing about how Fantasy was so naff and dead and anyone who thought it was good is 'factually wrong', or that it was 'our fault' for its demise: it's like singing songs and dancing at what amounts to a funeral for us. It's just uncouth, there's a few other forums out there for that sort of thing, one might ring a bell or two. But there -is- good conversations to be had once the lines in the sand can be kicked over.

nothing is stopping you from putting together your own scenarios to play with your friends. But for a game to work in a competitive environment there needs to be some framework to allow each force an equal chance of winning.

If you look at the star wars LCG also by FFG each match is empire vs rebels and both sides have different win conditions. This works in a card game where matches are quick and each player has both rebel and imperial decks but would not be ideal for a minatures game like Armada which has a higher barrier to entry re cost and games that are 2 hours long

Your latest comment about you not caring about tournaments really comes down to the question of 'why we play'. you are free to play the game how you like and if that is with deliberately unbalanced forces with unique win conditions then that is fine, but to say the game should be designed this way discounts the reason why a whole lot of the community wants to play.

Re AoS - yes this is GW trying to reinvigorate an arm of their franchise that was dwindling compared to 40K, and what they have done with it will appeal to certain people. However the people who it does not appeal to include the following: people interested in mass fantasy battles using ranked units; competitive players; people who aren't that interested in space marines.

There is a game that can cater to these three categories of people - that game is Kings of War

Well, unbalanced games might be fun on occasion, subject to a good gaming group with fun-to-play people. And even in this favourable environment, I prefer to play (more or less) balanced games, and point costs are the easiest way to achieve balance in games with not pre-set and diverse army compositions. That said, AoS killed the little feeling I still had for WH fantasy, and added to the personal dismay the mentioning of GW raises in me. I played both 40k and fantasy loosely for years and devoured all armybooks and fluff over great parts of my youth, just to see it butchered and recycled again one too many time - its the soilent green of a once great game universe.

I do hope for some scenario set in the near future, that gives a greater attention to objective based games with somewhat unbalanced fleet setups, but as soon as anything AoS-y is only even looking in the direction of armada I willl abbandon ship..

Well, unbalanced games might be fun on occasion, subject to a good gaming group with fun-to-play people. And even in this favourable environment, I prefer to play (more or less) balanced games, and point costs are the easiest way to achieve balance in games with not pre-set and diverse army compositions. That said, AoS killed the little feeling I still had for WH fantasy, and added to the personal dismay the mentioning of GW raises in me. I played both 40k and fantasy loosely for years and devoured all armybooks and fluff over great parts of my youth, just to see it butchered and recycled again one too many time - its the soilent green of a once great game universe.

I do hope for some scenario set in the near future, that gives a greater attention to objective based games with somewhat unbalanced fleet setups, but as soon as anything AoS-y is only even looking in the direction of armada I willl abbandon ship..

The point is that GW made good rules for uneven but balances battles.

The point is that GW made good rules for uneven but balances battles.

my 10 chaos knights are the equivalent of your 10 night goblins. yay balance...

I have an awesome idea for GW: surrender to Asmodee.

However the people who it does not appeal to include the following: people interested in mass fantasy battles using ranked units; competitive players; people who aren't that interested in space marines.

This ^^.

I played WHFB for massed ranked units. It looks appealing and I like a balanced ruleset.

(that last part always has been rather lacking in WHFB. If only the last edition of Fantasy did not have the 'tactical nuke/ 6th spell in hte magic decks...)

[edit; goofy quote box disappeared. Sorry NickyTT]

The point is that GW made good rules for uneven but balances battles.

my 10 chaos knights are the equivalent of your 10 night goblins. yay balance...

So you didnt even bother to read anything about it? Surely the Goblins are not the equal, however they can still win -like in real life- on a tactical and strategic level.

The point is that GW made good rules for uneven but balances battles.

my 10 chaos knights are the equivalent of your 10 night goblins. yay balance...

So you didnt even bother to read anything about it? Surely the Goblins are not the equal, however they can still win -like in real life- on a tactical and strategic level.

I have read the 4 page rule set. Sudden death win conditions only come into play if one player had a third more models than the other. Other than that the objective of the game is to wipe out the enemy force.

Can you please elaborate on what you are referring to when you mention "tactical and strategic level" as I fail to see it

DScipio (and others defending AoS)

Please feel free to enjoy AoS. Fine.

But have some empathy for people enjoying other aspects of a game perhaps?

Especially if those people invested *lots* of money and investing countless hours in said game?

I feel AoS (and yes; I tried it) is a kids game. Appealing to 4-10 year olds.

But that might be the grumpy neckbeardy wargamer in me.

While I don't think the change in Age of Sigmar is terribly good (and I think the new background is awful), I actually agree with the OP that getting rid of points was a good idea, or at least an interesting one,and one that could be justified. Warhammer and 40k were never balanced, or well designed as competative rules. This was accepted back in 3rd edition Warhammer (never read the rules for 1st and 2nd, so don't know about them) and 1st edition 40k. They actually said that you should play with a GM, who would create hopefully balanced scenarios, or at least ones that would be fun for both side.

Since then, with theory-crafting points lists, exacerbated by the ability to discuss and spread them via the internet, the fact that the game was not a tournament suitable system became increasingly evident and more of a problem. People sought to build abusive lists and use the points and army restrictions as a justification for making lists which were unpleasant and unsatisfying to play against. Removing points gets rid of this justification, and forces players to agree to something that is sensible. Yes, you can take your 10,000 point army vs their 750 point one, but why the heck would you? That's not going to be fun for either side.

It does cause problems for pick up games (which the system was never really designed for anyway). Even then, just take a sensibly sized army, with interesting choices, and your will probably be able to come to agreement with any sensible player.

Now, to be fair, the rules otherwise are not great. I personally didn't really play the game, so didn't have much of a stake in the rules (though I liked the background and I am dissapointed with the change), but it seems a terrible idea by alienating so many existing players. The players that were playing Warhammer were not playing to play a game like 40k, so removing rank up units seems daft. Removing the interaction between models (ws vs ws, S vs T) seems to have removed a lot of design space to not much gain. It would be a perfectly valid design choice, but then why not change the "to hit, to wound, to save" mechanic as well, instead of just retaining the 3 rolls, but flattening the variety? Now, to be fair I do think the rules have greater depth to them they first appear (choosing orders of combats, board control with units still exists, if in a less obvious way), but I don't think they are particularly distinctive either.

DScipio (and others defending AoS)

Please feel free to enjoy AoS. Fine.

But have some empathy for people enjoying other aspects of a game perhaps?

Especially if those people invested *lots* of money and investing countless hours in said game?

I feel AoS (and yes; I tried it) is a kids game. Appealing to 4-10 year olds.

But that might be the grumpy neckbeardy wargamer in me.

So I like a aspect of a game, but I may not talk about it because its from a game you dislike? A bit .... egocentric.

So an easy game, thats not flawed like the last Fantasy Edition is per se a kids game. Its appealing to me and your grumpy reaction is more fit to a 4-10 year old.

Even worse, you people behave as GW would have taken you books from you, so you cant play any previous edition anymore. Even more childish.

Well, unbalanced games might be fun on occasion, subject to a good gaming group with fun-to-play people. And even in this favourable environment, I prefer to play (more or less) balanced games, and point costs are the easiest way to achieve balance in games with not pre-set and diverse army compositions. That said, AoS killed the little feeling I still had for WH fantasy, and added to the personal dismay the mentioning of GW raises in me. I played both 40k and fantasy loosely for years and devoured all armybooks and fluff over great parts of my youth, just to see it butchered and recycled again one too many time - its the soilent green of a once great game universe.

I do hope for some scenario set in the near future, that gives a greater attention to objective based games with somewhat unbalanced fleet setups, but as soon as anything AoS-y is only even looking in the direction of armada I willl abbandon ship..

The point is that GW made good rules for uneven but balances battles.

That is not a point but your honorable opinion. However, I tend to disagree.

Well, unbalanced games might be fun on occasion, subject to a good gaming group with fun-to-play people. And even in this favourable environment, I prefer to play (more or less) balanced games, and point costs are the easiest way to achieve balance in games with not pre-set and diverse army compositions. That said, AoS killed the little feeling I still had for WH fantasy, and added to the personal dismay the mentioning of GW raises in me. I played both 40k and fantasy loosely for years and devoured all armybooks and fluff over great parts of my youth, just to see it butchered and recycled again one too many time - its the soilent green of a once great game universe.

I do hope for some scenario set in the near future, that gives a greater attention to objective based games with somewhat unbalanced fleet setups, but as soon as anything AoS-y is only even looking in the direction of armada I willl abbandon ship..

The point is that GW made good rules for uneven but balances battles.

That is not a point but your honorable opinion. However, I tend to disagree.

Isnt that self-explanatory?

So I like a aspect of a game, but I may not talk about it because its from a game you dislike? A bit .... egocentric.

Thou may'st not talk about it, for it is in the wrong section Seriously though, can we make this about Armada if its in the Armada main forum? I've got no problem that people like Age of Sigmar (I don't, but that's irrelevent.), but can we have some relevence here? For instance, how can the new scenarios that are coming up be applied to Armada, and in what way? What campaign battle and 'narrative' parts can help add flavour to Armada? What can be done differently? Even systems we don't like can have good elements that add to the enjoyment of other games, so lets hear about it.

Oh, and after all: not to be a backseat mod, but...

"As always, we expect you to be respectful of all members, so please refrain from any hostility, and use language appropriate for all audiences."~The big welcome sign in the sky.

Can we all keep that in mind and not get our hackles up about a difference of opinion?

DScipio (and others defending AoS)

Please feel free to enjoy AoS. Fine.

But have some empathy for people enjoying other aspects of a game perhaps?

Especially if those people invested *lots* of money and investing countless hours in said game?

I feel AoS (and yes; I tried it) is a kids game. Appealing to 4-10 year olds.

But that might be the grumpy neckbeardy wargamer in me.

1) So I like a aspect of a game, but I may not talk about it because its from a game you dislike? A bit .... egocentric.

2) So an easy game, thats not flawed like the last Fantasy Edition is per se a kids game. Its appealing to me and your grumpy reaction is more fit to a 4-10 year old.

3) Even worse, you people behave as GW would have taken you books from you, so you cant play any previous edition anymore. Even more childish.

(red numbering is mine)

re; 1) Where did you read that I think you cannot speak about it? I must have missed that post. I will edit if I accidentally typed this.

re; 2) Last fantasy was not flawed. Only 6th (most powerful) spell was. And yes; I think AoS is so massively dumbed down with incredibly childish rules like for example "pretend you ride a horse for a re-roll" *really?* Feel free to like AoS. But do not mind me thinking otherwise. Thank you.

re; 3) Once again; you seem to misinterpret a lot of things. What I do not like is that GW no longer supports my favourite 'large unit" war-game. They effectively killed it. This will eventually result in the inescapable fact that you can no longer casually stroll in your LGS with a 'standard size' fantasy army for a pick-up game. THAT part sucks. I have no idea why you think I somehow said or thought I can no longer play the previous edition any more.

Well said Vykes - we are in the Armada forum after all.

Personally I am a big fan of the rule set as is and the flavour and nuance added through the use of the objective cards which in my opinion are the cornerstone of your force.

What I want to know is what does a "scenario" look like:

Does it dictate the exact composition of each force thereby forcing people to make certain purchases if they want to play it?

Would this over ride the current objective system or perhaps say "to play this scenario use these objectives"?

DScipio (and others defending AoS)

Please feel free to enjoy AoS. Fine.

But have some empathy for people enjoying other aspects of a game perhaps?

Especially if those people invested *lots* of money and investing countless hours in said game?

I feel AoS (and yes; I tried it) is a kids game. Appealing to 4-10 year olds.

But that might be the grumpy neckbeardy wargamer in me.

So I like a aspect of a game, but I may not talk about it because its from a game you dislike? A bit .... egocentric.

So an easy game, thats not flawed like the last Fantasy Edition is per se a kids game. Its appealing to me and your grumpy reaction is more fit to a 4-10 year old.

Even worse, you people behave as GW would have taken you books from you, so you cant play any previous edition anymore. Even more childish.

Not being grumpy here, but the point that GW is not giving too much about their old gamers is fact and canon for a reason - they want new customers who have to build armies from scratch, the old "I have already 10k points worth of whatever in my basement" dude is not the money generator they admire. From a business view this is fine for me, but their constant disregard of peoples expectations towards the game who have been playing it for years has become too much to accept for me. You just DONT f*ck up all fluff and established canon constantly to include some uber new guy, be it 40k or WHFB. The decline in WH gaming groups in my local area was a direct effect of this policy, and the constant feeling that neither 40k nor WHFB will ever get back to what we feld was their former glory did not help either.

Again, that is just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

So I like a aspect of a game, but I may not talk about it because its from a game you dislike? A bit .... egocentric.

Thou may'st not talk about it, for it is in the wrong section Seriously though, can we make this about Armada if its in the Armada main forum? I've got no problem that people like Age of Sigmar (I don't, but that's irrelevent.), but can we have some relevence here? For instance, how can the new scenarios that are coming up be applied to Armada, and in what way? What campaign battle and 'narrative' parts can help add flavour to Armada? What can be done differently? Even systems we don't like can have good elements that add to the enjoyment of other games, so lets hear about it.

Oh, and after all: not to be a backseat mod, but...

"As always, we expect you to be respectful of all members, so please refrain from any hostility, and use language appropriate for all audiences."~The big welcome sign in the sky.

Can we all keep that in mind and not get our hackles up about a difference of opinion?

I began this topic because I think AoS has a game element Star Wars Armada could benefit from. I really didnt want ot start or start a discussion if AoS is better than Fantasy.

Elkerlyc:

You didnt write that out, but you gave the impression that this are you (unwritten) statements. The 8th Edition is widely regared as flawed, the sales were in massive decline despite support and a lot of factions could were excluded from you "competive" gaming. AoS is a chance to see Bretonnians and WoodElves on the table again and I like that.

Not everything is fine in AoS, but its better than the last Fantasy Edition. And now you can stroll in even easier in a store because you dont have to agree to a point limit beforehand.

Back to topic: I think it would be nice to have a basic rule-set that allows different strenghts on bot sides of the table.

I really woul like to see some Resistance or Withdrawl Mission, with i.e. a small Rebel Fleet and a more powerful imperial fleet.

This thread sadly has no place here.

If I wanted to hear people whine about AOS I'd visit a GW forum.

Well said Vykes - we are in the Armada forum after all.

Personally I am a big fan of the rule set as is and the flavour and nuance added through the use of the objective cards which in my opinion are the cornerstone of your force.

What I want to know is what does a "scenario" look like:

Does it dictate the exact composition of each force thereby forcing people to make certain purchases if they want to play it?

Would this over ride the current objective system or perhaps say "to play this scenario use these objectives"?

Good question, do we want to go for the additional main objective route, or secondary objectives? There's no reason not to inspect both and wee what we can do. I made some secondary objectives for Armada from BFG's stocks and altered them, there's no reason why AoS couldn't incorporate something, even if it's the whole 'sudden death' thing for Victory conditions for having a fleet 33% higher costed. What would those conditions look like?

Oh, what about additional terrain features? Surely AoS has something it can lend.

I began this topic because I think AoS has a game element Star Wars Armada could benefit from. I really didnt want ot start or start a discussion if AoS is better than Fantasy.

Back to topic: I think it would be nice to have a basic rule-set that allows different strenghts on bot sides of the table.

I really woul like to see some Resistance or Withdrawl Mission, with i.e. a small Rebel Fleet and a more powerful imperial fleet.

Then lets not grandstand the game, let it stand on its merits and lets get to work, we've got some scenarios to work up "If thou art a narrative gamer and true, then let us see thy mind's eye"

Post edit: that's a good one. The fighting withdrawl, 'escape' VP missions are all great ones. A small rebel fleet, an imperial splinter force, so what avenue would we go to liven up the objective itself?

I'm not a tournament gamer, let me state that first and foremost: but, we can always use the tournament 'score' system and add modifiers (it's the route I went. It's not tested, but it's an idea.).