What do you want from an AOS Skirmish update?

[eekamouse]

As someone that's played the new Necromunda with 3D terrain and with the boards... I love both ways. I'd definitely be "in" if they did a similar setup for "Mordheim" (skirmish). I'd love for more of a Kill Team approach... but if they went the full bore RPG-style route like they did with Necromunda (doubtful), I'd be all in on that as well. But... I can't handle it if they release the rules like they did for Necromunda. The new rule books are amazing for Necromunda, but that's how they should have been released from the get go.

[Kirjava13]

I want a game where my team is a group of individuals. I want to give a damn (or not, of I'm Skaven) about all of them. I don't want what Mordheim did with regard to Leaders and whatever the goons were called- I want every individual to be named and be able to level up and improve, like in Kill Team. Unlike in Kill Team, I want everyone to be able to specialise in some way. In XCOM, everyone can make their way up an experience tree and end up as a sniper or whatever- the limitation of only having four specialists in KT bothers me. If Brother Alan the Primaris Mehreen doesn't have a special role, why is he on this team? He has to be more useful for something than anyone else, or why did we bring him?

Other than that, I want to be able to have some variation and uniqueness in my troops. Nothing about KT has been more disappointing than realising my Necrons are basically identikit. The only way I can differentiate them is specialisms and my own narrative choices. I bought a box of Primaris just so I had a few more options to choose from when equipping my dudes.

Perhaps an AoS Skirmish 2.0 could have two levels of rules- a basic level, where things like equipment, progression and specialisms are simplified or excised completely, so that it could still fulfill its role as an entry-level game, and then a more in-depth set for people who wanted a more narrative or complex experience.

I am in Dreamland, addled on warpstone. 

[kenshin620]

All this talk about terrain is making me visualize a "Kill Team" of Orruk Brutes trying to scramble up a 3 story ruin.🤣

25 minutes ago, Kirjava13 said:

If Brother Alan the Primaris Mehreen doesn't have a special role, why is he on this team? He has to be more useful for something than anyone else, or why did we bring him?

He brought the Angle Food Cake with 7 minute frosting!

[Luke82]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Shadespire is a card game that uses miniatures, which is completely different from what kill team is or an AOS version of killteam.

Fair enough, I’d just heard it was a really good competitive rule set.

[Morglum StormBasha]

I sort of want two different things from warhammer skirmish - 

1. Is an open world version of warhammer quest - teams of characters I build myself facing off against each other in a 3 by 3 or 4 by 4 setting - heavy scenery - maybe import some Lotr rules

2. A revival of campaign sets from old hammer like terror of the lichemaster, mcdeath and it’s equivalents reimagined for aos . Low model count scenario campaigns with a few models you buy to supplement the actual special character based campaigns - say 4 unique characters a campaign set. 

[Aegisgrimm]

Do the existing Skirmish rules have any element of Warband progression?  I have not played them, but have been thinking of picking them up (despite the new Skirmish rumors).

[svnvaldez]

Terrain and a game mat like kill team.

[Carnelian]

11 hours ago, Kramer said:

The necromunda boardplay version wasn’t that good from what I saw

The Necromunda board game was a great way (and I don't say great lightly) of introducing new people to Necromunda. It was basically zone mortalis necromunda, which was something players wanted for a v long time, and and they gave it to them on a budget. It's still a great way to play and no campaign would be complete without a new it if hive tunnel warfare. 

[angrycontra]

Here's my skirmish wishlist:

- Much like in kill team, I want skirmish specific warscrolls for as many units (including heroes) as possible. And these units should also include some big guys like storm fiends, pusgoyle blightlords etc. The reason for this is simple: Some units are just so broken in skirmish without extensive house ruling (take knight azyros for example, dude has ability that can blow up  entire enemy skirmish warband in 1 turn). I'm aware that this might mean that certain units don't get rules (knowing gw and their policy, resin/metal kits will be out) but that is sacrifice I'm willing to make.

- Path of glory -esque warband progression. 

- Alternating activations between units would work nicely in skirmish setting.

- Slightly more detailed/tactical combat than in aos. Since the scale is smaller, I want every element that can effect combat in some way to have meaning, like attacking from high ground, multiple models surrounding enemy model and so forth. 

[tom_gore]

I just want the AoS Skirmish to be more like Kill Team. So in essence modified activation order, command points and tactics cards. Some kind of lightweight campaign system is a bonus, even if I myself would probably mostly just play one-shot games.

 

 

[Kramer]

7 hours ago, Carnelian said:

The Necromunda board game was a great way (and I don't say great lightly) of introducing new people to Necromunda. It was basically zone mortalis necromunda, which was something players wanted for a v long time, and and they gave it to them on a budget. It's still a great way to play and no campaign would be complete without a new it if hive tunnel warfare. 

Happy it worked for you, I read the rules, saw two games. Was ready to throw my money at it. Would have been my first 40K game... but it really turned me off. But like I said, it's all personal opinion if you like it or not, but the conversation was IF there was a board game in the set. Again great that it worked for you, and if they do it for Skirmish and it works all the better, I'd just rather see a company put all there efforts in one thing not something that does both until they get the first function exceptionally good.

[SirPug]

Basicly Mordheim wih aos miniatures, i remeber people playing catiously for risk of injury or permadeath on their character, that gave it intensity coupled with high customability and experience progression.

[Sleboda]

I like the current Skirmish just fine, so for me all I need is a good set of good looking modular terrain. If that's all that results from a new version, I'm good.

[Bohemond]

9 hours ago, SirPug said:

Basicly Mordheim wih aos miniatures, i remeber people playing catiously for risk of injury or permadeath on their character, that gave it intensity coupled with high customability and experience progression.

This. 

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I like the current Skirmish just fine, so for me all I need is a good set of good looking modular terrain. If that's all that results from a new version, I'm good.

And this. 

I would like some kind of amalgamation between Mordheim’s and Skirmish. There’s a lot in Skirmish I allready like, such as its quick pace and diverse list of miniatures. 

A potential Skirmish 2.0 have to compete with other good skirmish-type games (Frostgrave, RoSD, etc.), and funny enough that includes GW’s own and old Mordheim + lotr. 😛

[eekamouse]

Glancing through the latest video that covers the January White Dwarf... it looks like the Skirmish update is some new scenarios and maybe a page or two of some kind of lore or (possibly) rules tweaks? Hard to decipher. Not sure what that implies for a full blown Skirmish/Mordheim/Kill Team style update.

[Overread]

My impression is its a soft advance of Skirmish to boost its popularity within existing fans and that a full reboot will likely come later when GW has more factions supported with Battletomes and Armies. It makes less sense for them to really push skirmish now when there are so many small factions that can't function or don't have a clear future ahead of them. 

 

PS this doesn't mean every small faction has to become a full army; some might get consolidated into others; we might lose some and some could be made into smaller "mercenary" forces that are not designed to operate as a full army, but instead compliment nad be ally choices for others.

[Aegisgrimm]

So I am a newbie to AoS, though I am a long(long, long)time GW gamer and lurker around here.

What do I need to get into Skirmish (without owning ANY previous AoS rules materials?  I am assuming either a rulebook or the rules download, the relevant Warscrolls for the units in any warbands, the Skirmish book, and Forgotten Heroes from here on the forums.

Probably not going to ever play hardcore, mostly casual play between friends (and my son or dad, too) in which I'll need to own the rules material.

[Overread]

@Aegisgrimm Right now there is a Skirmish rule book, however its quite old. Honestly I would wait a few weeks and see what the new White Dwarf has inside it. If its a full rules system then all you might need is that; however if its a top-up then the old book might still be a valid purchase. 

 

[MacDuff]

I do not envy GW trying to decide what to do based on these wish lists.

[Kirjava13]

All they have to do is release something that satisfies a large range of completely varied and conflicting desires. That's not too hard.

[Aegisgrimm]

I'm coming from a very newbie viewpoint, but it seems all they really need to add is a few new battleplans (which have been previewed in the WD pictures) and a Hinterlands-esque style of individual advancement for warband members.  I looked through the Skirmish book today and it looked to be lacking in that department.

 

 

[stratigo]

On December 21, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Kramer said:

Happy it worked for you, I read the rules, saw two games. Was ready to throw my money at it. Would have been my first 40K game... but it really turned me off. But like I said, it's all personal opinion if you like it or not, but the conversation was IF there was a board game in the set. Again great that it worked for you, and if they do it for Skirmish and it works all the better, I'd just rather see a company put all there efforts in one thing not something that does both until they get the first function exceptionally good.

You didn't read the rules clearly. If you had you would have noticed no rules actually changed. At all. You may as well go "well there's aos, and then there's aos with endless spells and they are completely different games" the base rules as in how you PLAY the game never ever changed and the claims to the contrary are nonsense. Entirely. Everything gang wars adds are additions like endless spells or firestorm campaigns or realm rules. But would you sit here and smear at aos because it's a separate game from firestorm? No, because that would be stupid. Really stupid. And yet you are doing this and pretending you read and understood what you were reading. You either did not read the rules or you slimmed and didn't understand it. There is no other choice here

 

as for aos skirmish, people here want two different games. Some people was necromunda. Some people want kill team. The answer is to not try and please both types of people with one game, But to make two games like they did in 40k. One game would be, essentially, new mordheim (which was the fantasy version of necromunda, or vice versa) and the other would be the AoS version of kill team

[Kramer]

And a merry Christmas to you 😂Oh goody, so much wisdom to digest in this one. First off, tone. If you want to call someone stupid be an adult about it and just do it. Don't hide it behind a false choice like a small keyboard warrior raging against his screen. 😒

10 hours ago, stratigo said:

No, because that would be stupid. Really stupid. And yet you are doing this and pretending you read and understood what you were reading. You either did not read the rules or you slimmed and didn't understand it. There is no other choice here

 

Secondly, and it's a genuine question in the hope a conversation is possible instead off insulting generalised statements, how doesn't a tabletop game change when you bring it from the 9 tiles to a bigger board? You limit or expand the space, the gaming experience changes. How is it impossible to not like on or the other?

And following on that, I never claimed the rules changed 😕Quote me if I'm wrong on that. Accusing me of not reading the rules and you not reading the comments you are replying on. 'You either did not read my comments or you slimmed and didn't understand it. There is no other choice here' *
But I  did say the game changes. And to me the gaming experience definitely looks to change between the board game and playing on tabletop. I honestly don't understand that you think that's impossible. I like 1K games of AoS on a 6x4 board better than 4x4, the gaming experience changes with the board size. More on that below.

10 hours ago, stratigo said:

You didn't read the rules clearly. If you had you would have noticed no rules actually changed. At all. You may as well go "well there's aos, and then there's aos with endless spells and they are completely different games" the base rules as in how you PLAY the game never ever changed and the claims to the contrary are nonsense. Entirely.

Thirdly, following the previous. You made a flawed comparison in your statement but I'll try to respond to it. 

10 hours ago, stratigo said:

Everything gang wars adds are additions like endless spells or firestorm campaigns or realm rules. But would you sit here and smear at aos because it's a separate game from firestorm? No, because that would be stupid. Really stupid. And yet you are doing this and pretending you read and understood what you were reading.

If GHB18 forced me to buy the firestorm supplement together with the GHB. Hell yes, I/anybody would be perfectly 'allowed' to decide not to buy it because they don't like one or the other. If i'm looking at the set for one half, say the campaign modes from Firestorm, but to me it really looks like it won't be fun... why would I ever buy it. 
Taking your comparison back to Necromunda. The boardgame version excited me before release. It seemed like a good game but I would have bought it for the board version and maybe expanded into the tabletop playstyle later. But right now I don't have the terrain for that, so I need to believe the board version would be fun, otherwise i'm not investing €100 in it. Doesn't seem that stupid to me and not 'Smearing' a game system just because what i've seen doesn't excite me. 

To me, the small scale and amounts of cover on the tiles favours the melee focussed faction too much and the games I saw were indeed clear victories in favour of the Goliath warband. Even if the balance returns after 10+ games, that's not going to work for me because I didn't expect to play that much games against regular opponents with it. Again i'm stating my assessment of it, not saying it's this or that and calling anyone with a different assessment or experience a liar or stupid. After the conversation about it, I watched 2 other Battle Reports... and to me that really reinforced my assessment. So again, why would I invest in it?

12 hours ago, stratigo said:

as for aos skirmish, people here want two different games. Some people was necromunda. Some people want kill team. The answer is to not try and please both types of people with one game, But to make two games like they did in 40k. One game would be, essentially, new mordheim (which was the fantasy version of necromunda, or vice versa) and the other would be the AoS version of kill team

And this is the part that baffles me. Your argument is they shouldn't do multiple types of game in one game but to separate both. That's very close to literally what I said: 

On 12/20/2018 at 5:37 PM, Kramer said:

c. In principle I believe it’s very hard to make a lasting game system, and if that is so, why try to do both? Go for one, maybe if that works, than an expansion that allows a different play system. And Id hate it, if they did boardgame first, tabletop version later. 

 

But for Age of Sigmar I do have the models and a terrain so I'd want a tabletop Skirmish game. Not set board pieces. But I admit ' And Id hate it, if they did boardgame first, tabletop version later.' Is too strongly worded.

So please reply, but try to make it a conversation... or don't and present a black and white argument where you call me stupid for not liking the same thing as you. In that case i won't see any purpose to the conversation and i'll leave you to have the last word.

*Oooh, I get it now, very fun these remarks  

[stratigo]

12 hours ago, Kramer said:

And a merry Christmas to you 😂Oh goody, so much wisdom to digest in this one. First off, tone. If you want to call someone stupid be an adult about it and just do it. Don't hide it behind a false choice like a small keyboard warrior raging against his screen. 😒

Secondly, and it's a genuine question in the hope a conversation is possible instead off insulting generalised statements, how doesn't a tabletop game change when you bring it from the 9 tiles to a bigger board? You limit or expand the space, the gaming experience changes. How is it impossible to not like on or the other?

And following on that, I never claimed the rules changed 😕Quote me if I'm wrong on that. Accusing me of not reading the rules and you not reading the comments you are replying on. 'You either did not read my comments or you slimmed and didn't understand it. There is no other choice here' *
But I  did say the game changes. And to me the gaming experience definitely looks to change between the board game and playing on tabletop. I honestly don't understand that you think that's impossible. I like 1K games of AoS on a 6x4 board better than 4x4, the gaming experience changes with the board size. More on that below.

Thirdly, following the previous. You made a flawed comparison in your statement but I'll try to respond to it. 

If GHB18 forced me to buy the firestorm supplement together with the GHB. Hell yes, I/anybody would be perfectly 'allowed' to decide not to buy it because they don't like one or the other. If i'm looking at the set for one half, say the campaign modes from Firestorm, but to me it really looks like it won't be fun... why would I ever buy it. 
Taking your comparison back to Necromunda. The boardgame version excited me before release. It seemed like a good game but I would have bought it for the board version and maybe expanded into the tabletop playstyle later. But right now I don't have the terrain for that, so I need to believe the board version would be fun, otherwise i'm not investing €100 in it. Doesn't seem that stupid to me and not 'Smearing' a game system just because what i've seen doesn't excite me. 

To me, the small scale and amounts of cover on the tiles favours the melee focussed faction too much and the games I saw were indeed clear victories in favour of the Goliath warband. Even if the balance returns after 10+ games, that's not going to work for me because I didn't expect to play that much games against regular opponents with it. Again i'm stating my assessment of it, not saying it's this or that and calling anyone with a different assessment or experience a liar or stupid. After the conversation about it, I watched 2 other Battle Reports... and to me that really reinforced my assessment. So again, why would I invest in it?

And this is the part that baffles me. Your argument is they shouldn't do multiple types of game in one game but to separate both. That's very close to literally what I said: 

But for Age of Sigmar I do have the models and a terrain so I'd want a tabletop Skirmish game. Not set board pieces. But I admit ' And Id hate it, if they did boardgame first, tabletop version later.' Is too strongly worded.

So please reply, but try to make it a conversation... or don't and present a black and white argument where you call me stupid for not liking the same thing as you. In that case i won't see any purpose to the conversation and i'll leave you to have the last word.

*Oooh, I get it now, very fun these remarks  

You calls it two separate games and when I call you out for that nonsense, boy do you walk that back real fast. You could have just said you misspoke, people do that all the time, and what you really meant was that you felt the addition of 3d terrain rules or campaign rules changed the experience too much for you. But no, you can't admit even that tiny modicum of error. 

 

The experience of course doesn't change that much between the terrain options providing you are playing. It is still the same game. The balance was a bit of a mess either way, but that's sort of the warhammer experience. They fixed a lot of that as they revised the rules, as they do regularly in all their games

 

 

 

my comments on the skirmish game were poster agnostic

[Aegisgrimm]

Skirmish definitely needs a few definite things:

-Better rules for terrain than what exist for AoS

-Warband member advancement

-Updated rules in general

-all of the above inside an easily bought softcover, rather than spread across multiple White Dwarfs at 10 bucks apiece.