Do Age of Sigmar armies deserve better rules than leftover WHFB armies?

[Kramer]

24 minutes ago, novakai said:

you try playing a game blindfold and see how that goes for ya

 

Tried that once.... my opponent apparently only rolled sixes.

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Can we try to keep on topic here folks

[Evangelist of Cinders]

A lot has been said already, but I'd like to add accessibility  to the hobby and to ease maintaining groups . not everyone can afford build and paint army during the run of some army books while other formats like open and skirmish help a lot, not every group may be playing small games . We aren't in the era of the blister-pack built anymore and .  second hand armies, old armies and slow build up help get/keep folks in the hobby that otherwise wouldn't pick it up or  would got to another game £ 60(let alone the cost in australia)  can be a lot to put down for a start collecting  box for a new army.  Anything avoidable that may hinder people participating in the hobby is a negative in my book

Repeating whats been said 40k has gone through a similar strategy at least a few times and the meta changed to meet it. around 4th edition the  40k rule and line became very space marine oriented with the  the poster boys getting points drops and invulnerable saves for elite units(at a time a rarity with few armies even having them for their top characters). Soon too succeed as the marines became even more common after the power boost anti space marine tactics was what everyone built in tournaments and the meta starcannon spam ect.  all of a sudden space marine players weren't wanting to play any more until they got  a boost and the cycle continued for a bit causing a complicated keep up meta, other games like warmachine with its ease of entry took a lot of players and customers from GW at least in my area at the time. GW does a good job keeping the secondary market from getting too cheap, I think with more competition GW doesnt want to risk loosing player base like they did in the at the beginning of the last decade. Especially  as taking your army or group to kings of war from AOS is just a rulebook and some cardboard away.

on the AoS setting field literally anything your mind can come up with fits the setting from what i've seen

air pirate goblins X

army of living statues X

steampunk power armoured Pikemen X

candy coloured djinn X

ect.

setting is subject to sales and production capabilities but rules probably shouldn't be  especially as the alliance soup books seem to be the direction of the game. who knows in 2 years maybe soon Disney's Atlantis elves may get eaten by tyranids.....errr i mean get merged into an elf soup book as production capacity makes the  rules cut unit numbers.

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by Evangelist of Cinders
complete sentence

[zilberfrid]

2 hours ago, HollowHills said:

I get what you are saying. I'm not suggesting they should make these armies unplayable. More like they should be lower tier than the new armies. 

And not that the newest army is always the best. Just a clear line between armies released before summer 2015 and armies released since then. 

Basically so the old armies are there for people who want to use their old models, but not to encourage them being chosen over the newer factions. 

Does that make more sense? 

 

Genuinely not a troll topic. I am most familiar with idoneth out of all the new armies, so I used them as an example. 

I am dissatisfied with their battletome, but not because it isn't competitive enough. I wish it had better balance and its a shame that such a small model range is made smaller but dodgy rules, but that isn't the point. 

I believe many of the new aos armies should have better rules, stormcast, KO, Nighthaunt... 

It's more worrying that you're serious.

I started in may with what ended up in Cities.

I am not a fan of the design of most of the new armies (Kharadron excepted). I thus purchased Freeguild stuff, which I really like. GW sells these models.

I would be quite upset if part of the line GW sells is worse than the rest to force those players into an aesthetic or lore they don't like. You are suggesting GW would make the experience a bad one for players that like certain designs. Designing the game to be unbalanced is really puzzling to me.

AoS is a majority of old models, It would not have started if GW did not keep the majority of their factions in the game (the starting factions would have been too limited), would it be fair to dump the players that kept the game being played when it came out, because you don't like the aesthetic of their armies? I find the Fyreslayers repetetive and uninspired, but I don't call for their removal.

[Kurrilino]

9 hours ago, Overread said:

Not being Slaanesh/Bonereapers petrifax powerful doesn't make it the worst book ever

Baking the buffs inso their point cost to make it the most expensive army

and hide the buffs behind random dice rolls makes it the worst book ever.

[Kadeton]

I... kind of agree with the OP, from a certain point of view. There's some sense to the idea that armies which have been properly brought into or created as part of AoS, i.e. have well-rounded lore describing their place in the Mortal Realms, along with models that have been designed using AoS aesthetics (which are quite different from WHFB), should be promoted over those that haven't. This helps to establish AoS as its own setting, and not just WHFB redux.

However, I totally disagree on the approach. Making old armies bad is just a terrible thing to do, and will make lots of people upset. To my mind, the correct approach is to make old armies new. I think this has been done very successfully with several armies already, and that process should continue.

[Kyriakin]

New rules... 

Close Combat (Hero Duels)

"Each player rolls 2D6 (1D3 if you are a salty Grognard, who played dead WHFB), and adds the result to the production year on their miniature's sprue.

Subtract 10 for square-based miniatures, and subtract a further 10 if these bases are painted Goblin Green. 

The difference represents the damage influcted on the losing hero. 

Finecast cannot damage plastic, and metal miniatures can only damage other metal miniatures"

[Lord Krungharr]

9 hours ago, Overread said:

They will redouble their efforts and unleash new horrors from the far depths of the seas. Storming into the battlefields in a fresh tsunami of destructive force! Who knows we might see vast armoured crabs; huge sea serpents; nightmarhish angler fish; ancient trilobites! 

If Idoneth get armored crabs and/or trilobites, I'm in.  And I hate Aelves!

[Shearl]

I feel like the reasonable conclusion should be "I wish my army's rules were better" rather than "I wish other armies were worse".

This thread smacks of sour grapes to me.

Plus, deep down we all know the army that deserves the best rules are a certain race to marsh dwelling cyclopes. Heck they don't even sell our models anymore, the least they could do is give us good rules! 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Shearl

[flemingmma]

No, all armies deserve the best rules. Anything else is an injustice to our little plastic mans

[HollowHills]

I'm not saying WHFB models should have rules so bad they are a total joke. 

More like if you have two equal skilled players and one is playing an old WHFB army and the other an army made for aos then the aos army should be better on paper. 

Is it really good for the game that a new player to aos who picks up either Nighthaunt or Stormcast will soon discover they are far worse than ancient WHFB armies like cities of sigmar or skaven? 

[Debello90]

why after waiting 4 years for a batteltome where many models have also taken away from me should i have a "weaker" batteltome? 
You are comparing 2 totally different armies, Skaven is a poorly written batteltome and OP, CoS is a fun soup that offers little really competitive

[Still-young]

23 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

I'm not saying WHFB models should have rules so bad they are a total joke. 

More like if you have two equal skilled players and one is playing an old WHFB army and the other an army made for aos then the aos army should be better on paper. 

Is it really good for the game that a new player to aos who picks up either Nighthaunt or Stormcast will soon discover they are far worse than ancient WHFB armies like cities of sigmar or skaven? 

Surely you can see that the best thing in an ideal world would be that armies are equal, regardless of whether the models were made before or after AoS. Brand new armies are no more deserving, or no more part of the setting than old ones, they just happened to be thought of after the new game was made. 

It would be no better for the game for a new player to pick up CoS or Skaven and find that they’re much worse than Nighthaunt or SCE. 

In a few years should we make Idoneth Deepkin etc worse so the new stuff then is the best?

Games Workshop isn’t good at balance. Sometimes brand new stuff comes out too strong, sometimes it’s rubbish. It’s indiscriminate. 

Advocating for them to be balanced is one thing. Advocating for older armies to specifically be weaker than newer ones seems bitter and vindictive. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Still-young

[Skreech Verminking]

30 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

I'm not saying WHFB models should have rules so bad they are a total joke. 

1)More like if you have two equal skilled players and one is playing an old WHFB army and the other an army made for aos then the aos army should be better on paper. 

2)Is it really good for the game that a new player to aos who picks up either Nighthaunt or Stormcast will soon discover they are far worse than ancient WHFB armies like cities of sigmar or skaven? 

Well would it be better the other way around?

since Games workshop has chosen to update the, in your Eyes old world armies (since the old world doesn’t really exist any more I wouldn’t really call any of those existing armies a Warhammer fantasy faction), a lot of people have come back playing those armies and even a bunch of new players have chosen some of those great looking older factions.

If Games workshop would practically male the newer armies better in everything then the well older ones, wouldn’t we be at the same place as before?

I can remember a time when the skaven literally had a single battletome, telling a short story of and almost nothing about the skaven and even about the clan they were surprisingly representing, isn’t something I wouldn’t want back.

you’ve certainly heard how the fantasy edition went by for The beastmen (beasts of chaos) and tomb kings.

Both respectively good looking armies with a great amount of fluff, but they were extremely weak in the old world edition, which was the reason that they were almost not played.

Also there are so many people who just started with aos thanks to the game known as total war warhammer.

Those players are mostly interested  in picking armies they’ve learned to love from the old world computer game, and then being told that those armies aren’t great to be played and have a high chance loosing against others will probably more then likely scare this people away from the hobby.

In total I think every Army/faction should be dealt equally.

now This is probably not possible, but seeing how Games workshop have been dealing this matter for at least from last year till now, makes me so much more happier.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Skreech Verminking

[Icegoat]

I'm not sure how I can be called out for trolling when hollow hills is literally calling for peoples armies to be worse be cause they aren't fish aelves.  Without the old fantasy armies when this game released it would have just been stormcast eternal.that would have been it.if we look at totally new concept armies you would have got kharadron, idoneth and ossiarch bonerepaers. Everything else had representation in the old world. The claim that every other army should be worse because it is old is utterly ridiculous trolling. If the old world armies had been wiped out aos would be a game of about five armies.

[HollowHills]

25 minutes ago, Debello90 said:

why after waiting 4 years for a batteltome where many models have also taken away from me should i have a "weaker" batteltome? You are comparing 2 totally different armies, Skaven is a poorly written batteltome and OP, CoS is a fun soup that offers little really competitive

CoS is an incredibly competitive army. Also counter question, instead of waiting for a battletome for an army that was a carry over why not buy an army designed for the game? If you don't like aos armies then why play aos? I don't mean that as a personal attack, they are the questions I pose to many of the posters. 

 

19 minutes ago, Still-young said:

In a few years should we make Idoneth Deepkin etc worse so the new stuff then is the best?

Games Workshop isn’t good at

I don't mean the newer the army the better it should be. Just that armies released since 2015 should be the ones the game is designed for, while those prior to 2015 should be seen more as "legacy". 

I agree about the balance though, its very hit and miss as to which armies end up on top. 

Anyway this is going to be my last reply. I think it's evident that the majority are against what I'm saying, at least on this forum. I do hope that GW try to improve balance in general either way. 

[Skreech Verminking]

27 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

army the better it should be. Just that armies released since 2015 should be the ones the game is designed for, while those prior to 2015 should be seen more as "legacy"

You do know that legacy armies are not supported at any rate anymore.

basically meaning that you would not be able to play them against the newer faction.

wouldn’t that make the game even worse then it is right now, considering that it  would not have more then 6 legal factions to choose from?

No I actually think that the road Gw choose to take makes the game a much better game, considering how many new players have chosen to collect and play those old world armies.

(as well as us old grumbling veterans, who still love these old factions)

look and the person who calls himself doom.

he would be devastated just like most of us players if we-got told that our armies are officially unsupported and can no longer be played  in any way possible in the game.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Skreech Verminking

[Melcavuk]

Your split based on the date a model was sculpted/released is insane, using Cities of Sigmar as an example they feature in far more lore and key events than the Idoneth, and are arguably far more setting relevant than reclusive sea aelves due to well... the reclusive element of the Idoneth. Your pitch here is anyone playing Cities of Sigmar, and Age of Sigmar lore driven faction that happens to have a pre-aos release date should be inately less competitive than your Aelf so you can win more games because in your opinion you are "Playing the game right" and they arent is gatekeeping which only ever harms to hobby.

Every released battletome has "Warhammer Age of Sigmar" on it, they are Age of Sigmar armies, and as always the strive should be for balance throughout rather than forced meta changes because one sculpt is 2 years older than another.

[Clan's Cynic]

1 hour ago, HollowHills said:

I'm not saying WHFB models should have rules so bad they are a total joke. 

More like if you have two equal skilled players and one is playing an old WHFB army and the other an army made for aos then the aos army should be better on paper. 

Is it really good for the game that a new player to aos who picks up either Nighthaunt or Stormcast will soon discover they are far worse than ancient WHFB armies like cities of sigmar or skaven? 

90% of the Imperial Guard line in 40k is close to eighteen years old. Much of it's actually older than most of AoS' leftover WHFB models. Would you argue then that the Imperial Guard 'dex should be weaker than Space Marines because they're far older sculpts?

Again, what happens in ten years if Idoneth go without an update and there's all these new, fancy kits around? Should Idoneth have worse rules because of they're now an 'ancient' army?

Of course, you'd disagree because this is yet another poorly disguised hate post for WHFB. After the success of CoS and the continued aesthetic of WoC/Pointy Elves it looks like we'll be getting more influence from the Old World rather than less. Tick tock.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Clan's Cynic

[Phasteon]

39 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

I'm not sure how I can be called out for trolling when hollow hills is literally calling for peoples armies to be worse be cause they aren't fish aelves. 

This is very true though. 

Interestingly people are still discussing the topic 🤷🏼‍♂️

[Beastmaster]

I’m not an old veteran. I started collecting Ogors last year. Miniatures from the AoS website, with AoS logo on the package, with an old and now a new battletome. So, for all intents and purposes, a full AoS army, sold and marketed and bought as such. Newer than your Deepkin army. 😎

 

[Debello90]

44 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

CoS è un esercito incredibilmente competitivo. Anche contro domanda, invece di aspettare un combattente per un esercito che è stato un riporto perché non comprare un esercito progettato per il gioco? Se non ti piacciono gli eserciti di aos, allora perché giocare aos? Non intendo dire che come un attacco personale, sono le domande che pongo a molti dei poster. 

 

Non intendo che più l'esercito è nuovo, meglio dovrebbe essere. Solo gli eserciti rilasciati dal 2015 dovrebbero essere quelli per cui è stato progettato il gioco, mentre quelli precedenti al 2015 dovrebbero essere visti più come "eredità". 

Sono d'accordo sull'equilibrio, tuttavia, è molto incerto su quali eserciti finiscano in cima. 

Comunque questa sarà la mia ultima risposta. Penso che sia evidente che la maggioranza è contraria a ciò che sto dicendo, almeno su questo forum. Spero che GW cerchi di migliorare l'equilibrio in generale in entrambi i modi. 

CoS is a Age of Sigmar army !

[zilberfrid]

57 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

CoS is an incredibly competitive army. Also counter question, instead of waiting for a battletome for an army that was a carry over why not buy an army designed for the game? If you don't like aos armies then why play aos? I don't mean that as a personal attack, they are the questions I pose to many of the posters. 

I don't mean the newer the army the better it should be. Just that armies released since 2015 should be the ones the game is designed for, while those prior to 2015 should be seen more as "legacy". 

I agree about the balance though, its very hit and miss as to which armies end up on top. 

Anyway this is going to be my last reply. I think it's evident that the majority are against what I'm saying, at least on this forum. I do hope that GW try to improve balance in general either way. 

I still want to respond to this.

I like the ruleset of AoS, and there is a large playerbase. I may not like the "loudness" of the lore, or quite a few of the army designs, but the playerbase and ruleset drew me in.

[HollowHills]

23 minutes ago, Melcavuk said:

inately less competitive than your Aelf so you can win more games

I honestly don't have any issue winning games. I am confident in my ability to win games regardless of which army I play, though obviously if I was going to a lot of major tournaments that wouldn't be the case. 

 

25 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

90% of the Imperial Guard line in 40k is close to eighteen years old. Much of it's actually older than most of AoS' leftover WHFB models. Would you argue then that the Imperial Guard 'dex should be weaker than Space Marines because they're far older sculpts?

Again, what happens in ten years if Idoneth go without an update and there's all these new, fancy kits around? Should Idoneth have worse rules because of they're now an 'ancient' army?

Of course, you'd disagree because this is yet another poorly disguised hate post for WHFB. After the success of CoS and the continued aesthetic of WoC/Pointy Elves it looks like we'll be getting more influence from the Old World rather than less. Tick tock.

The difference is that 40k has always been the same game over those 18 years, but aos is a totally different game to WHFB. 

I also don't hate WHFB. 

I liked the lore of WHFB at the time and had WHFB armies. I didn't like the rules of WHFB or how impenetrable / toxic the community became. 

I want aos to be it's own game, with it's own lore and it's own identity. 

What I do hate is the group of players from WHFB who have wanted aos to fail from the beginning. Those who regularly went on rants, in person and online, about how stupid the game I was enjoying is. Who go on and on about how stupid my army is. Those who continue to spread rumours about new armies selling badly.

If it was up to me would I squat a lot more stuff? Yes I would. But I'd also make a lot more new aos armies to replace them. 

I'm not in charge of ****** though, so you can rest easy 😉

[Melcavuk]

1 minute ago, HollowHills said:

I didn't like the rules of WHFB or how impenetrable / toxic the community became. 

A pitch to make models bought by AoS players worse because you dislike the age or aesthetic of those models does little to prevent your community becoming that which you disliked most about the old one.