Sarouan

They tend to post the rules when the miniatures are officially released. I'd say wait for next week.

For a game to be "gamey", I'd say it's pretty much what people would normally expect from it - and actually a compliment.

"War simulation" isn't actually tied to game rules. No wargame made this far is actually "war simulation" accurate, they all use abstractions for game / practicality purposes (like weapon range that would normally be able to fire much further than the game range translate). However, there are players favoring some game systems above others because of what they "feel" is more accurate to their own view of a wargame should be. That's the difference. Of course it's not like chess. That's the point of having different game systems, and why keeping Double Turn gives AoS a distinction from other similar games. Point is, questionning the game mechanisms can be done in every game. Why the pawn moves this way, and the fool this way ? Why play in turns ? Why isn't it "war simulation" accurate ? Why no dice ? Rules in chess are also arbitrary on design. They all have a logic and you can also not agree with it at its core. Yet new players come in and still learn to play it as it is, instead of "what it should be". AoS isn't really different on that matter. Capturing the flavor of a what a unit is supposed to represent "in reality" is all a question of personnal point of view and imagination in a fantasy world. That's why when you narrate a battle played in game, it tends not to follow "exactly" the events in game but rather capture "its general feeling by the players" to be more evocative. Game mechanisms are just a tool to tell a story, never an end.

Design aside, proportions are (very) different.

When you learn to play chess, you don't question the logic behind its mechanics : you follow them. Because that's how the game is played, how it is taught to you and that is all that matters for its new players. New people are fine, don't worry about them. It's okay to wonder what was the logic behind game design - and their interviews help a lot about that, I suggest you watch those they already made for 4th in the previews, they actually tell a lot about it if you listen well. But again, this is a very specific question for a very specific category of players (including those who already know a lot of game systems and have favorite in some game mechanisms - thus questioning everything that doesn't fit them for self validation) that is far from being the majority.

TBH, the AoSv3 release box wasn't that big in stormcast miniatures. I'd say the number of 10 liberators, 3 prosecutors, 3 ruinators, the mounted lord, some wizard is about right we should expect.

I mean, the question is litterally "u like Double Turn ? Yes / No". The only thing we can get from it is that the number of "yes" is nearly double the number of "no". There's no controversy in that, it's just a matter of "liking it or not". We don't even know if the people answering "no" are indeed not playing AoS anymore or they didn't even bother to start playing. Same for yes, actually, we don't know if all of these people are also actually playing AoS at the moment (you may like something but not have time to engage in it for plenty of reasons). That's why I said this poll is useless : you can always make the numbers in favor of whatever narrative you believe in, because the question is so vague and we have no idea what is the game situation of people answering.

I play TOW, so yes I read the rules. And they are full of things that aren't clear at all. Just like WHFB (that I played too for decades) in its time, we'll need to wait for the FAQ. If you don't like what I wrote, it's fine. Fine if you disagree as well. But what I wrote is not incorrect. It's a fact TOW has more special rules than its predecessor about how Morale works and what "degree of running away" your unit may be in. And it's not a bad thing in it. It just doesn't make the game simple to play nor to learn. That's the difference with AoS, whose core mechanism is actually simple. Indeed, they added too many special rules changing the core over the years with their damn season books. But even so, I'm sorry to say that between starting AoS v3 or TOW right now...you'll still have less difficulties with AoS for the core mechanisms. Because TOW is way more complex in them.

That's because you have a very specific view of what a wargame should be, and you somewhat expect AoS to follow it. Thing is : that doesn't make it true. AoS game designers have their own views that may not be the same, and that's fine. To each their own. There aren't actually any hard rules saying how a game or a wargame must be.

That's true for every game made in the world, actually. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, when Warcry is no longer supported, groups of players growing up with it will keep maintaining the rules online and playing it because they had such fun with it, just like Mordheim. It's a generation thing.

Please note that I mentionned WHFB, not TOW. I know Morale works differently TOW, what I wrote was true (and happened) for WHFB. Still, units running away in TOW still have a lot of headache inducing situations with a lot of interactions from other rules. It's still far from simple, quite the opposite : it's like they were saying to themselves : "You know what was lacking in WHFB ? More special rules !"

They're cool, and they're still easy to paint. Big win for me.

Box is still not released, and the previous marauder units are still in the rules / in store, that's what I meant.

There was a rumor about teams for AoS and TOW competing a bit in intern and such. But it's pretty clear than now TOW is there and it's all focused on having the old miniatures back in line, making definitive separate miniature ranges for both games does have more weight. It will indeed take time before all AoS current miniatures get a proper "AoS specific design" (ogor, beastmen, we see you - skavens are getting it and Chaos will have its old marauders replaced soon...and CoS, yeah, I totally can see GW flatlining the old dwarf / elf / empire units definitevely and making them TOW only in the future).

TBH, I don't really understand the point of this poll. It's silly to oppose gameplay and balance, because balance can't happen without gameplay while the opposite is true. A game never needs to be balanced to be fun : it's only players thinking balance as some kind of gaming holy grail who can't enjoy a game they don't see as "balanced" - and even so, it's always a subjective point of view because they'll only aknowledge balance from their specific view of what balance is (mostly points used to build a list). So of course, it's never perfect and constantly changing. Because balance doesn't come from numbers or stats, it also needs to involve the players themselves and balance themselves each other so that a battle seems "fair". Fun fact : last game I played, I forgot one of my units in my bag and I didn't notice until the end of the game. My army was basically unbalanced in comparison to my opponent's, because I obviously had less points than him with my list. However, he didn't know and I didn't know either : so in our eyes, the game was balanced (it was tensed and I indeed managed to win, neither me nor him though the game was "stolen"). But in terms of points, it wasn't balanced at all. It just shows how balance is a trick of the mind, and it actually doesn't make the game any more fun or competitive than it can be.

Morale in WHFB isn't simple at all, in reality. It creates a lot of headache inducing situations in game and adds a lot of interactions with other existing rules. There's also the question of fun of having your entire army running away because of one poor unit failing a morale test and causing panic amongst the entire line. Basically, when a unit is running away, you don't have any control on it. Getting rid of it is a question of game simplification and enjoying playing your units the most when they're on the table.

People rarely get enthusiastic about a game mechanism, because they're not the real focus of the game. When you play it, do you say to yourself : "damn that charge phase in my game of The Old World is really an awesome mechanic !" or rather "damn, that charge of your imperial fire line by my horde of goblins was really epic !" ? Which is more likely to stick to your mind ? In the end, that depends what is your objective in game, but I find players that are -really- into the game internal rules to the point of being excited about them are more the exception than the rule (and usually those who tend to love designing entire game systems themselves ). I think though that Double Turn mechanism is also a problem for a specific category of players : namely those who already know a certain number of game systems (usually with a favorite). True new players, meaning those who never played a miniature wargame before, tend to accept rules as they are presented. When Double Turn (priority roll, to be indeed more precise) is presented to them, they see it as simply rolling a dice each turn to see which takes the first round - and that's it, it's not a question of "bad" or "good", it's just the rules of the game. Such a person doesn't see the problem because to them, there is none.

With every new edition, it's unavoidable the community loses a part of its old players. That's how old editions are still played even if they're not officially supported anymore. However, I'd personnally refrain from writing threads about me "leaving forever if GW does do that", because I would feel really silly when I come back to the game after a while in the end. Life is about change and adaptation, and only the dead never do.

I dunno, when I see new players trying AoS, Double Turn isn't really the turn off : it's more about prices, rule bloat or player's mindset of the community they're playing in (like deemed too "competitive" or too "casual", it really depends where you learned to play TBH). Remember, when you question the AoS designers to think Double Turn is "this amazing", it also goes both ways : people can also ask why you're so focused on Double Turn being "this bad". Your post there sounds more like personnal belief about what game mechanism is good or bad than hard data / numbers, and a reaction to the poll numbers not going your way of thinking, IMHO.

Between the 2 ? Gameplay 100 %. Balance and stats in a vacuum are useless.

They do have a presence in the narrative - I saw them in more than a novel in the White Dwarf, just to mention them, with names and all. As for named character miniatures, that depends when GW decides to release new Ogor models. Watch the next window for Ogor battletome, I'd say.

They're talking about the next Warcry box

Not really, because there's no point in playing a game if you have no one to play it with you - it's an investment in money and time, no matter what it is or the price it asks. Like it or not, GW games are the easiest to find people for that. In my area, Warmachine died : there's litterally no one around who wants to play anymore. And it's not a question of trying to attract new blood in it.

Proper win ? What do you mean by that ? They have already quite great named characters so far (I mean, at least litterally given their size).

Yes, that's one of the core problems of Mordheim. Core scenarios really lack incentive to play them, too few of them actually give you enough rewards that's worth risking your heroes and (more generally) the well being of your warband on long term. Some scenarios made after in expansions or players did try to adress that problem in being more generous in its rewards, or give more options in the campaign system to cater to that (one of my groups did change the way to gain money afterward by allowing surviving heroes that were out of action during the game to still roll for exploration - helps a lot to involve more your heroes in dangerous actions). But sometimes, you indeed still want to rout voluntarily rather than going full out. That problem doesn't exist at all in Warcry. Even if some people here don't want to aknowledge it as Mordheim's spiritual successor, the reasons why its campaign system is so "light" and forgiving is directly because of Mordheim's own - and Sam Pearson himself said so in the interview he made. Warcry designers did want to make a Mordheim-like game, but better. And IMHO...they kinda succeeded (Warcry is a damn great game, easy to learn and fast to play) even though it's not replacing Mordheim at all. Frostgrave is often seen as another of those Mordheim's spiritual successors - and one of its greatest mechanisms is to tie the money each band gains afterwards directly to the treasures you get during the game : thus giving a hell of an incentive to actually play them and get those treasures.