WHFB suffered from the problems that A) it was super expensive to get into and B) was very generic. You had generic humans, generic orcs and elves and generic undead. The game couldn't continue to function when no new players could afford the buy-in cost, and no old players needed to buy new models, and the players who DID want to start up could buy much cheaper generic models from other manufacturers.

So they brought out AoS, with much smaller forces and no rules composition for a much easier buy-in for new players, and they are in the process of redesigning the entire range to be more unique. It's a super smart move for them.

As a result, I no longer player WHFB and have pre-ordered KoW V2.

Honestly, the rules for AoS are an afterthought. An easily broken afterthought that depends entirely on the good-will of your opponent to fight a fair game, and not just take a single tomb swarm, burrow beneath the sands for six turns and auto-win every game he plays.

I don't see how this topic in any way relates to Armada. Even for scenarios and suggestions, there are many other threads dealing with the topics that aren't choked with WHFB stuff. I think this one should be locked.

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.

Terrain features have been a thing before AoS, and there is a ton of other sci-fi fleet games from which we could lend before bending over to AoS. Same with the objectives, there are lots of scenarios available from other games where uneven fleet points are somewhat balanced out by victory conditions, favourable set-up, defensive installations or whatever. Why considering this overstretched jump from "even pointcost per fleet" to "screw points!" when there are so many slighter paths to try first?

What happens in age of sigmar when I have literally more models than table space? Like you have fifty and I bring a few hundred. Do I just win everytime?

One move that FFG did with Armada that I find absolutely brilliant was the fleet objectives and asymmetric victory conditions. I always found it absolutely stupid that both armies in W40k were fighting at the exact same size for the exact same reasons. Then they whipped out that Maelstrom of War idiocy

The objectives selection in Armada will favour one fleet more than the other and it's already more believable. So while both fleets can achieve them, I see this more as the first player's attempt to stop what the second player is trying to achieve and that fills me with a warm fuzzy feeling of immersion

AoS is just a Bad Bad business move. It gave the Old WHFB players the middle finger while it put out the most lazy set of rules I have seen.

Also our LGS's are sitting with piles and piles of the AoS starts and they can't get anyone to buy them. GW sales are going to look skewed right now because a lot of stores and players preordered the products and are now stuck with it. The next 6 months will give a better picture but so far it is a vocal minority that likes the game and many like myself are Done with everything GW.

I am looking forward to the day GW hangs themselves on Stupid business decision and FFG doesn't just own some of the IP's to do games but buys them out right.

I hate AoS. Just my opinion.

Tying that back into this thread; the notion that FFG could learn something from GW...no, they cannot. The only thing FFG can learn from GW is how to ruin their game.

This suggestion about getting rid of points values is the mother-lode of bad ideas and it seriously needs to be purged liked the frekkin' plague amongst wargamer communities. There is literally nothing you can accomplish by getting rid of relative points values to models and upgrades, that you cannot do by actually having a balanced system of assigned of points values, even if that system is not perfect.

If you want to play a desperate escape scenario; fine! Do it. Give 1 side 500 points of Armada and the other 300. By having points, though, at least you get a semblance of an idea of how disparate the fleets are. Do you want to play an underdog scenario? Go 2:1. A super-underdog scenario? Go 3:1. A "We have no chance in hell but if we manage to pull this off we will be big **** heroes the likes of which the Galaxy has never seen!" Go 5:1, 10:1....whatever. Knock yourself out.

There are a couple good things about AoS. The battleshock test with individual models running away (instead of the whole unit), I think, is a good one. The simplicity of hit/wound tests I actually have come around to liking (despite thinking I would not like them). But the composition rules and lacks of point is terrible.

AoS is just a Bad Bad business move. It gave the Old WHFB players the middle finger while it put out the most lazy set of rules I have seen.

Also our LGS's are sitting with piles and piles of the AoS starts and they can't get anyone to buy them. GW sales are going to look skewed right now because a lot of stores and players preordered the products and are now stuck with it. The next 6 months will give a better picture but so far it is a vocal minority that likes the game and many like myself are Done with everything GW.

I am looking forward to the day GW hangs themselves on Stupid business decision and FFG doesn't just own some of the IP's to do games but buys them out right.

This day might be coming sooner than expected. There are some rumours going on (with relative credibility on the source because the one who's been leaking them only pushes verified stuff, check on the Bolter and Chainsword forum) that they are slowly focusing on making models and are going to publish lightweight rules leading to no rules at all (AoS being a testbed for that idea) for all their range.

They'll be shooting themselves in the foot if they do that, as a gaming company you want to be close to your customers and manage the rules, the community etc. FFG is a prime example of how succesful that business model is !

I'd gladly sacrifice a painted army of mine if FFG would re-do the "epic 40K" rules with Star Wars miniatures.

I'd sacrifice a second painted army if they'd make these SW armies backwards compatible with the 40K armies GW released.

I'd gladly sacrifice a painted army of mine if FFG would re-do the "epic 40K" rules with Star Wars miniatures.

I'd sacrifice a second painted army if they'd make these SW armies backwards compatible with the 40K armies GW released.

I would find a wife, produce an offspring and sacrifice my first born to FFG if they did a SW wargame

My wife and I were just saying how nice it would be if Fantasy Flight took over the rules writing for GW. I currently have more fun with FFG 40K Conquest card game then any GW set.

My wife and I were just saying how nice it would be if Fantasy Flight took over the rules writing for GW. I currently have more fun with FFG 40K Conquest card game then any GW set.

I really wouldn't mind that at all either. They really messed up the balance in the game with some Codexes and some units that are just must haves. I have no more business with their releases in terms of models since they only want to push the sales of new shinies rather than making a balaced system, it's a bit sickening I find.

I've spectated a X-Wing tournament, and there was more build diversity that were strong enough than what you could see in 40k tournaments.

Hving not heard nor given two ***** about AoS versus fantasy, I can say that "no points" is a ******* stupid idea just on its own merits

just because you're balanced on points doesn't mean you're balanced on capabilities. Take 2 MK-a fatties w/int agents and stack them against four CR-90as. The four CR-90s are going to steamroll right through those fatties, despite being very similar in point cost

Even at equivalent or near equivalent points, fleets are not and never will be perfectly balanced against each other

they will have differing capabilities (star destroyers kick your teeth in at close range, cr-90s are basically unassailable at long range, nebs support squadrons etc.) that you, the player, have to leverage against the opponent in order to win. It is your skill, ultimately, that constructs these ideal unequal engagements. That's doing everything you can to win the engagement, that's what makes the game and the objectives an engaging experiencing that involves both players to the fullest possible extent

Hell, just this monday I ran 2 VSDs + squadrons up against 6 CR-90s. Was that an equivalent engagement? In points, yes. In practice, **** no. The Cr-90s would rip my VSDs into teeny imperial shreds, unless I managed to isolate them in my front arc and one-shot them while not over-exposing my large ships to devastating concentrated fire. Armada already has the best possible variation of "uneven battles" a wargame can have, one that is based entirely on how players use their models.

having equivalent points cost in a game with such asymmetrical design encourages choice, specifically choice of fleet composition which, in turn, forces choice of playstyle and your main victory conditions (which changes game to game based on what you come against and which objectives you are playing). Without limits, there are no choices. There is only spam.

after having read the AoS rules and having been a 40k & fantasy (don't worry, I have no love for the 8th; I gtfo when they introduced the sheer idiocy of random charges) player in my youth, I can very safely say:

the moment FFG can learn anything from GW apart from the lore (which it uses in its own GW games) is the moment the world eats itself inside out and then explodes.

Fickle, you underline bits of sentences way too much Joke aside, I agree with your points. The objectives are key to level the imbalances and the fact that you can create winning scenarios from losing match ups makes it very interesting.

I'm not sure if Armada is the best system (because, let's face it, we can always make stuff better !), but I find that it is currently the better.

but if I don't underline, who will be able to see the emphasis in the wall of text ?

I'd gladly sacrifice a painted army of mine if FFG would re-do the "epic 40K" rules with Star Wars miniatures.

I'd sacrifice a second painted army if they'd make these SW armies backwards compatible with the 40K armies GW released.

For a FFG epic 40k SW game, I would sacrifice my bank account and credit card!

Then FFG could release a strategic game like Twilight Imperium SW style and all space conflicts would be resolved with Armada and land combat with this epic SW system...

Who knows... maybe one day....

but if I don't underline, who will be able to see the emphasis in the wall of text ?

My wife and I were just saying how nice it would be if Fantasy Flight took over the rules writing for GW. I currently have more fun with FFG 40K Conquest card game then any GW set.

The best possible outcome would be GW says "Prepainted models? Well, that's not our audience, so sure, you go ahead and do some sort of prepainted 40k miniatures game."

Which will never happen, because for all that GW maintain that the assembly and painting is the hobby, well. They know in their heart of hearts that X-Wing 40,000 would do very well indeed, and probably eat a lot of the 40k core business.

My wife and I were just saying how nice it would be if Fantasy Flight took over the rules writing for GW. I currently have more fun with FFG 40K Conquest card game then any GW set.

The best possible outcome would be GW says "Prepainted models? Well, that's not our audience, so sure, you go ahead and do some sort of prepainted 40k miniatures game."

Which will never happen, because for all that GW maintain that the assembly and painting is the hobby, well. They know in their heart of hearts that X-Wing 40,000 would do very well indeed, and probably eat a lot of the 40k core business.

GW has gotten really really lazy with their own products and relied on winning the Chapter House case but ultimately lost big time. So now they have a choice, step up and make Good games or watch as their 40K crowd gets smaller and smaller every year. The constant raising of prices will only offset their lose of sales for so long.

Age of Sigmar is nothing more than a re-branding of Warhammer 40,000. The game is there to appeal to that market, not the Warhammer Fantasy market which was pretty much dried up and disappeared. There's a big reason why one faction in the game are fantasy Space Marines!

There's nothing "new" about the rules in AoS. Games like By Fire and Sword already featured easy ways to balance out games if one side was stronger than the other. Building armies have been getting easier (i.e. less math) since Gripping Beast's Saga was released years ago and there's been talk of it also having a fantasy version coming out some time in the future.

At this point GW is getting closer and closer to capsizing under it's own decisions. It's going to go the way of TSR in a year or two. I'd rather FFG just decide not to renew the licence when it comes. Yeah, I really like the Conquest game but I'd rather it be re-branded as anything else.

I've tried AoS. And it doesn't work.

If you bring 1000 points and I bring 10000, I'm going to win every single time. Doesn't matter what sudden death condition you pick. I'm going to either hide my general, hide the target unit, and in any case, steam roll you so bad it'll look like I wasn't even trying. It is NOT balanced, and GW has stated so. They have said very clearly they do not care about the game, or balance, they only care about selling more minis....and the game accomplishes that, as f I stomp you, you're going to want to get more goodies to try and stomp me back.

If you enjoy it, fine. But as a balanced, well thought out game system, it absolutely blows. This is of course my opinion, which happens to be shared as far as I can tell, by the great majority of veteran players out there. But everyone is entitled to what they like.

I'm selling everything GW and investing all in Armada. Because there is a truly balanced, well thought out game, that is fun to play.

To each his own.

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.

See, if you has just said this I wouldn't have had an issue. This I can see as a fun scenario.

Kiiinda what I've been trying to get at since comment #4, page 1. One's thoughts on the game are irrelevant, the things that can be derived from it are still worthwhile even if you don't like the setting/subject. If it's a short and extremely 'general' modular ruleset.... great, because the concepts might be easier to disentangle from the mechanics, so we have something to work with and apply to another system.

But nope, I've never played a tabletop wargame or RPG in my life, uh-uh, never. I've just got thousands of models and shelves of role playing books around for show. Wave around a first-edition copy of Shadowrun or After the Bomb and 'bang', "Sorry, I'm one of the cool kids who just keeps this for show, can you do my math homework, dweeb?". Yep, gets them every time. :P Naturally I'm kidding. But you can take concepts from any of those and apply it to something else, just like tabletop wargaming can take aspects of one thing and apply it to another.

So, as a general question without the snark, what's in these new touted scenarios and how can we make them work as something interesting? I stopped paying attention to AoS, so I genuinely don't know if there is something of real, significant supplementary value in the pipeline (or in print with the big ol' deluxe ultra-non standard edition AoS book).

the AoS "sudden death" scenarios are basically simplified Armada objectives on steroids and every kind of narcotic

instead of providing a noticeable victory cost addition, sudden death scenarios provide immediate victory upon completion.

this, imo, is pretty **** for two reasons

1.) Armada gains incredible flexibility by having objectives greatly influence the tide of battle, but not determine it immediately. This gives players two viable avenues of victory in every game (kill **** and objective) which leads to a far wider variety of engagements.

While AoS would technically allow for this as well, the massive discrepancy in army size makes it impossible for the smaller force to compete and the larger force does not benefit from sudden death. Both players have one way to win.

2.) Unlike Warmahordes, where objectives and assassination (kill the leader, win the game) award victory regardless of the board state, AoS objectives are not built from the ground up to support gameplay.

Assassination in Warmahordes is significant, because the Warcaster/warlock is far more significant than just a grunt with better stats and some re-rolls. They are the single most influential model in one's army, packing game-changing one-turn/round "Feat" abilities, a host of powerful spells, and forming the center of an army's "Battlegroup," which governs the usage of powerful warjacks and warbeasts.

the positioning of the warcaster becomes doubly important because a.) you can either have the Warcaster near the center of the table, where the game-winning objectives like to hang out, and have him/her/it help to the fullest of his/her/its potential or b.) keep them in the back, where they are relatively safe but not as influential

Basically, AoS' objective system is not particularly deep or complex in comparison to other games. It is simply a stopgap measure to account for a complete lack of internal game balance.

Armada itself essentially already has "sudden death" objectives, only they're far more balanced (don't auto-win the game; instead provide another avenue of victory), factor far more into the game (integral part of list building, part of the trade-of between having initiative or not), and there are more of them.

if anyone would like to play casual Armada with point discrepancies, all you'd have to do is give the "underdog" initiative and choice of objective, and then tweek things accordingly. For example, Intel Sweep normally gives 75 victory points when you collect the majority of objective tokens. If you're the Underdog, have it instead win you the game.

You can do this with almost any objective/victory token (hold the contested outpost, secure the firing lanes, grab the objectives in dangerous terrain) and then create "assassination" scenarios with Advanced Gunnery or Most Wanted (instead of victory points, underdog wins the game)

probably won't be as balanced or as compelling as actual Armada, but it will be more balanced than AoS

What ficklegreendice said. Well put, sir.

I am still confused as to why an Age of Sigmar thread is in the Armada forum.