Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

655 Celestant-Prime

About Jamopower

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. IMO Morale (and command) should be one of the key attributes in a wargame. It's after all the reason for which the wars and battles are actually won in a real life. The way it was handled in 40k (pre 8th) and WHFB is the worst. Both had extensive rules for psychology, but essentially if your army was subject to them, it was a liability that in the worst case made the army not worth playing at all.
  2. I believe Epic had a detachment based army building, where a detachment (of multiple units) activates at a time (might confuse the details, as it's been a long time I have played it) and the number of detachments is quite limited forcing the both players to have pretty even number of them. (I by the way hope quite eagerly that they would eventually reboot Epic.) But yeah, it would require quite heavy rewriting. I also like the current system as well. It's far better than what was in WHFB and what is in 40k, but maybe some sort of CP based system to break the turn order would be fun and could reduce the downsides. That said, I think one of the main advantages of the Age of Sigmar ruleset is how easy it is to tweak for your tastes (as can also be seen from all the expansions that GW releases themselves for the game). I can't see much problems house ruling the turn sequence to following: Roll of initiative Hero phase in initiative order for both players Activation phase where each player activates one unit at a time and moves, runs, shoots and charges with them (I would perhaps allow only two of the above in a turn and give a +1 to hit shooting if the unit doesn't move). The activation could be random (drawing markers from bag) or there can be passes, or players can be given playing cards for each unit that they put face down on the table and then the units are activated in ascending order by revealing the cards, or whatever the players fancy. Close combat phase as it is now. End step where players roll for battleshock, etc. then a new turn. The major difference on this would be that there are less close combat phases than normally, so maybe a second round of combat should be done to settle the ongoing combats after the first end step. The game would be quite different, don't know if it would be better or worse, but this kind of tricks give the players more "gaming value" out of their models. We played 40k this way for some time and it worked fine.
  3. The player who has less models/units can pass the activation turn by the number of times the difference between the units is. So in case the other has 10 and the other 5, the player with less models can force the one with higher amount of models to activate the first five before he moves. My current favourite game is Saga, where players play the whole turn at a time, but the activation is more "free" in such way that you usually can't activate all of your units, but you might activate some of them for more times, for which they take fatigue, which is usually a bad thing. That way there is the strategic element of "double turn" in there, but it's not as crucial. Also there are reactions that you can do on the opponent's turn, such as cancel the opponent's actions in certain situations or move your own units on the opponent's turn etc. But everything is related to a resource that is fixed to a board situation. Sounds more complicated than it is, but it makes for a really fun and tactical game. I also like Lord of the Rings system, which is similar to AoS, but you can influence the initiative and break the turn order by might points, that are a limited resource. That gives more skill based element to the game by resource management instead of just risk management. I think command points could function in similar way in AoS.
  4. That is the main problem with direct one at a time activation alternating between players. Typically this is avoided by allowing the player with less units to pass the activation. For example in The Batman miniature game, a match where one side has 10+ and the other has 3-5 models to activate works fine with the pass system.
  5. Alternating activation (i.e. units/detachments move one at a time) games, that have some sort of variation such as chance to react to opponent's activation (such as in Infinity), a randomized turn order (such as in Bolt Action), possibility to continue activating units if you succeed in a roll (such as in Epic, Batman or the various Rampant rulesets) or a semi-random, where e.g. you have a set of cards drawn randomly and you can arrange them to influence which units you want to activate first and which last, tend to work pretty well. Still as alternating turns is a fundamental part of "Warhammer experience", I doubt that they will ever change it in their core games. Even when it starts to be quite an archaic way compared to newer games.
  6. I'm not an expert of manufacturing, but I'm a process engineer. Just thinking about the system, if making one sprue takes about 15 to 30 seconds. If you run the machine for say, two hours you'll have already close to five hundred sprues and I believe it is not optimal to swithc the molds too often. Thus in a run you might realistically look at, say, thousand boxes of product. If you sell 200 boxes per year, it takes five years to empty to storage. So I would say that meaningful amount of sales must be in thousands of boxes.
  7. The problem is not that single powerful units would be unbeatable. They are just incredibly boring.
  8. This sounds very interesting. 1000 points is my sweet spot for this game. I agree with the unti sizes. I would even halve the minimum sizes and put the maximum to roughly twice per minimum size (so for example stormcast units would be 3 to 10 models). Having big units that you can "grease" with command abilities and spells make the games pretty boring.
  9. It would be expensive mechanism, if the Slanns had any good spells to start with...
  10. I would be surprised if we don't get at least partly High elf based faction as they have always been popular and would most likely be something that many people want.
  11. Northern and Eastern Europe, i.e. the countries that have had big interest in the ETC and whose tournament scene has formed around that.
  12. My main gripe with the terrain pieces is how badly they usually fit to the rest of the table. Nothing wrong having an underground cavern with a throne on a pedestal that the flesh eater courts are defending from invading Skaven, bit more wrong with a green grass field with a throne on a pedestal with the Beastman herdstone set up few hundred meters from it
  13. This is simplifying a lot. Even with the most masterful master there is, I'm sure that there are a lot of forces that have a very lopsided set-ups against even a mediocre player with an army that has all the tools the new books give you. And even then, the number of units you can actually choose from is pretty limited. Nothing wrong with that as such, but the game is far from a situation where the list building wouldn't have a massive influence on the outcome of the game if the players are even close to the same level. Of course a complete beginner might lose with any kind of super army, but that doesn't tell anything on the overall side of things. This is a fundamental aspect of Warhammer and it has ever been so. If you want to compete, you'll have to leave a lot of options out of the consideration. Though the situation at the moment is pretty good in that sense, that there are reasonably many options available. Still I'm pretty sure that no one thinks that, say, Wanderers, Disposssed or Freeguild are anywhere near as good as any of the new forces that have the new type of battletomes. The warscrolls are in general worse and they get less than half of the good free stuff that has been added into the game since their rules were made. Even if sometimes you can win a game or two against the newer forces it is still a very different thing if the win percentage is in longer run 33% than if it is 55%. As a comparison, in Magic a deck is already strong if the win rate is 60% against the field. And as a disclaimer, I'm mainly interested n thematic scenarios and casual gaming. It's just bit strange, that for some reason the "basic mindset" seems to be that everything that GW has released for the game is the baseline where you might remove something, instead of the baseline being just the warscrolls, where you add the extra stuff like allegiance abilities or the realm rules to spice things up a bit, but still keeping the battlefield level. The games are usually most interesting where at the start of the game, both sides have equally good chances to success. Except if it is a special scenario where the goal is to last as long as it is possible or such.
  14. Yeah, playing with just the "free content" would probably reduce a lot of issues there is. This concerning casual gaming with what ever armies. In more competitive setting it is just an unfortunate fact that the range of options you "can play" is limited to certain degree. All my armies are results from how awesome the Grand alliance system was when I started playing this game, so I heartily agree to two earlier posts.
  15. I like the basic rules in the second edition, but as my main army is mixed order based on freeguild units, I don't have any sort of incentive to play the game in anything other than very curated casual environment. My army is just so bad against anything that there's little to do. Luckily there are lots of good alternative fantasy games that have recently released. It's of course not the game's fault as such, but in my mind there are at least 4 levels of rules in the system at the moment (realms, the allegiance allegiance abilities like different cities where your army is coming, the terrain pieces, the special endless spells) that really should just be similar add-ons as all the content we used to have in White dwarfs for flavour (like the general trait tables etc.). They just add more inbalances and complexity to the game, which is fine in some degree, but having everythin everytime is just lame. Especially as at the same time there are armies in the game that doesn't even have basic allegiance abilities. Of course the counter argument is that you just have to play the armies/units that are good, but that doesn't help too much if someone wants to play Ogres or mix of old High elves that still are thematically perfectly reasonable.
  • Create New...