>resources
pastebin.com/J3Nv182k
It is WAAAAAAGGHH!! edition
GW outsource the pool system to own fanbase, is it wonderful? If they can the system update frequently(monthly?), you can need to afraid of WAAC list, becasue you don't need to wait 3 years until the nerfhammer hit.
Other urls found in this thread:
Based President Kroak giving us Kroak-care (point system)
Reposting
>bought 2 boxes of Terradon riders at 25% off, planning on building 6 Ripperdactyls
>order came in today
>browsing local kijiji
>found 6 Ripperdactyls for almost 50% off today
I currently have no Terradons. Are they any good?
Should I build 6 terradons and then buy the Ripperdactyls?
>Optional points system
Good luck finding an open game again ever, when was the last time you played Unbound 40k...
Let's hope they make scenarios that blatantly favor one side over the other, making it clear that you can't play them as points matches
To be clear here- The points system is equivalent to 40k unbound. No HQ and 2 troops, no FOC, just take what you like within a points limit.
"Open" is some kinda crazy super-unbound where you don't even keep to a vague pretence that both armies bring roughly the same force to bear.
Loads when it suits our campaign or scenarios. Pick up games will probably use them because it's simpler and fairer. But with mates why worry?
You don't have to play people who insist on points.
Community mare and regularly updated rules could actually make AoS one of the most balanced games GW have ever done. Exciting times.
*pickup games will use points
*made not mare
Don't get me wrong, I'm hopeful for the future, but if they handle it badly it's just going to be awful. Just look at the winning SCGT lists....
I'm just really worried that I won't be able to play with the models I love and the list I like because they will be overcosted for what they do and just get crushed every time.
Plus, so much of AoS relies on synergy, it's going to fuck up SOMEWHERE. If I have a fluffy list with no synergy, I'm going to get fucked every time, even with equal points.
Fucking Beastmen, Bretonnia, and Tomb Kings players were winning 8e comps over some of the most broken shit in any Warhammer, ever.
You can win with anything, if you are actually a better player.
How do you guys feel about manglers in AOS?
And if I'm a shit player just looking for fun games I'm SOOL.
Goblin Big Boss on Gigantic Spider
30 Forest Goblin Spider Riders
3 Arachnarok Spider with Spidershrine
3 Thundertusk
Stonehorn
Ah yes, a nice fluffy list of spider riders and mammoths.
The Glottkin
Skarbrand
Verminlord Deceiver
Rotbringers Sorcerer
Lord of Plagues
40 Stormvermin
20 Putrid Blightkings
6 Warplock Jezzails
1 Plagueclaw
1 Soul Grinder
Skarbrand what are you doing here did you get lost?
Third one at least has a semi-rational allied detachment but good god.
What are you talking about, mammoths are super fluffy.
Point is, its almost impossible to completely balance a wargame. Too manu variables, too many units and stats-add dice to the equation and you'll see it. even the most regarded and balanced, warmachine, in reality works only when two players play meta lists, as its FULL of literally useless units. the whole point of Aos was "take what you want and have fun", I don't want the 40k like "take what you like and LOSE, BUY MORE IMPERIAL KNIGHT AND FLYERS YOU LOSER"...
Points Systems are a Pandora's Box. Once its out and "official" you can't undo it.
Even though it's supposed to be for tournaments of whatever, we all know it will seep down into casual games.
The points system will become the norm, at least here in America where if you can't make something competitive and beat your opponent, then it's not "fun."
Our culture is addicted to competition.
Geez, people have no imagination, it's time to forge your narrative more u silly.
This is exactly why I'm worried. Everyone who I've won or lost to has HAD FUN. My list looks cool because I've put love into painting it because I like the models, I'm not there to win. I just want to play with THESE models.
>ven though it's supposed to be for tournaments of whatever, we all know it will seep down into casual games.
>The points system will become the norm,
exactly my point. And i fear it. It kinda kills the whole Aos point of "play what you like".
Amen brother.
Its a game, you start as a shit player and get better at it.
If something favors everyone equally, its not a game. Just a gamble with as much complexity as a raffle.
That was a result of points systems lol.
Also, with a points system you are just trading one problem for another!
Whether or not you're being a dick or a good sportsman is turned into a debate over whether something is properly balanced.
The game just got ruined because now I won't be able to take one thing because I like it, it will always be a determination of "how useful is it in terms of its points cost"
God damn it.
Yes and? How do points stop narrative?
>I'm not a dick for taking 5 Stardrakes, GW is a dick for making them cost too few points.
Thats exactly what we want. I dont want to have to take core units again unless I actually want the models.
>Our culture is addicted to competition
You can always take your pinko communist views to play with your buddy Kim. I'll bet he'll let you use your Power Rangers colored six Nagash's.
Teradons are aces, I'd seriously consider getting at least one unit (with sunleech bolas, always with sunleech bolas). Killing your foe's special snowflake by dropping rocks on his head will never stop being funny.
>Yes and? How do points stop narrative?
Because now they have justification for taking a list like that and saying it's balanced against whatever I take instead of us talking for 5 min beforehand about what would be fair or not.
I have 4 star drakes but only because the extremis chamber bonuses are fucking sweet
The announcement of points has somehow managed to make both sides equally angry, it's beautiful.
What are some third party alternatives to Stormcast?
Chronopia Firstborn mebbe? That's all I could really find from google.
And before someone could have taken the exact same list justifying it as "that's the models I have and like" or "AoS is not supposed to have pitched battles all the time"
The answer before was to not play against him or to discuss a compromise
The answers with points are not to play against him or to discuss a compromise
Points are an instrument for balance
Balance is an instrument for competition
Yet you can have balance without competition
What you don't want is competition, stop blaming points
with points you can either use them as they are should they be perfectly assigned, use them as loose point of reference or completely ignore them
points are objectively better than lack of points
the flaws come from the players
>1 Plagueclaw but no monks
>Random Verminlord
>Fucking Skarbrand
>That entire list
Fuck all these cunts cherrypicking the 'best' units.
They need to implement a 'stick to your own overarching keyword' rule. Or you should be forced to take at least a unit and a hero first.
I have 0 respect for anyone picking in this way, and even less for the people who mix the 4 factions. Total Waacko faggots
>the flaws come from the players
They're pretty nasty actually. I have a pair, and my opponent elected to charge a unit of 5 liberators into each, thinking he could take them down with ease due to the monsters bonus and buff from a celestant. The manglers both killed their attackers with ease in a couple rounds.
Of course you need to be wary of shooting, 5+ save and 10 wounds is relatively squishy compared to monsters of equally killiness.
Dreamforge Eisenkern Valkir -troopers?
That woud work only if you have 2 lists and you don't see them before the game starts
In Aos you see opponents army and you can discuss the list.
Usually battlepnas involve fielding ONE unit at a time taking turns with the opponents, o its even easier to balance it. With points it all just goes down on who has the most performing units point wise.
Pic Related is how I feel about trying to get players to understand that you don't need a points system to have fun.
People are just clinging to what they know. Freedom is scary.
Anyone have a good list of dragon minis? My GF loves to paint, and I convinced her to play with me so she has a fluffy/stupid list which is 3 dragons, some dwarves and a blonde elf sorceress as the leader of the army (super original)... We currently have the FW Carmine dragon and the Cave Drake from LoTR. Are there any good Dragon minis by GW or anyone else? I'm not a fan of the reaper ones and that's all I've found so far which are halfway decent.
Are the rocks really that good?
Ripperdactyls seem incredible at demolishing units in a charge with extra attacks on hits, rerolling hits + wounds, and the blot toad giving them bonus attacks.
Also, picture definitely related
should the points not be perfect for all situations players will be confronted with the choice of following the imbalance provided by points or to find a compromise
since choosing the imbalance is not forced in absence of a competitive scene like a tourney, the flaw derives from the players
I am 200% okay with this
FAAC are just as bad as WAAC
It makes stupid people angry. Everything makes them angry.
Stop turning AOS into a "us vs them" scenario, there are many shades of grey here
Except people have different ideas of what is fun, which is why the entire human race doesn't have the same hobby.
Its great you like it, but clearly most people did not.
Inability to understand that is, I kid you not, a sign of autism.
Son, I don't give a rat's ass if I can have fun with a low quality product with a high buy in cost. For the amount this company charges, they should provide a high quality, polished ruleset.
"Most people"
Stats please.
What is this need to have two "balanced" armies going head to head?
War is rarely, if ever, balanced.
>iron dome is op nerf israel plz
I think you're wasting your time user. He's just shitposting at this point.
>the flaw derives from the players
It's all he's going to do from now on.
It's a game, son. Not a war, a wargame. Both components of the compound word? Both relevant.
Right, so why do you always need to have a perfectly matched army?
There's so much more to this game than kill the enemy general or occupy a zone on the board.
There's plenty of great games to be played involving scenarios that don't depend on both sides being equally matched but apparently you don't think that's fun. You only seem to want point-for-point equal armies.
Everyone who played at the tourneys that GW is now restructuring Age around.
Or are they just the minority that GW gives more of a fuck about than you and you are not their target audience?
Either way you're having to bluepill yourself to believe your way is the Games Workshop way. Instead, you're stuck with the Fantasyfags as the unsupported relics trying to be relevant.
I'm one of the players who was happy with the current state of AoS before all the tourneyfags complained that it needed points.
Boy am I glad I don't live in your country.
Not just so I don't have to put up with whole rooms full of WAAC sore losers, but so I don't have to put up with you whining about it against all reason either.
I duno, I see a lot of whining about a points system and a few people trying to calm them down who eventually get sick of bothering.
>Right, so why do you always need to have a perfectly matched army?
You don't always need a perfectly matched army. AOS is great at setting up narrative/scenario battles
But people also want to play more even battles and unfortunately the current rules do not support that.
Adding an optional point system gives people the option to do both. It is the best of both worlds.
Happy he doesn't live in the greatest county on Earth...
>Adding an optional point system gives people the option to do both. It is the best of both worlds.
So long as people don't force people into playing points, yeah.
>Right, so why do you always need to have a perfectly matched army?
The best games are the ones where both sides are beaten, battered and down to a few men. If there's no balance, then that's far less likely to occur.
You wanna run an ongoing narrative campaign? That's just lovely sweetheart, but having enough people interested to sign on to that and make it enjoyable is -not- remotely the norm. Wargames ain't tabletop rpgs, with the less personalised view following armies instead of individuals, the violence is the number one priority. You ain't gonna get much of a detailed story out of a depersonalised format, just broad strokes.
I guess at the end of the day it still comes down to what each player wants and you just gotta hope people don't act like dickbags
Literal autism.
You can''t handle being blown the fuck out with rational argument so you resort to samefagging and fucking reaction images.
Fuck you. You're the problem with this hobby, you fat slovenly neckbeard manchild cunt. Not the points system.
As they fucking should. Outside of -carefully constructed narrative games-, getting steamrolled is joyless.
Showing up to an average match with mismatched armies ain't a constructed narrative game, it's an aimless slaughter.
Yeah mate I'm jealous of all your obese mass murderers in waiting. Maybe you can put them in your bloated prison system so they aren't a drain on your failing economy that your incompetent politicians can't get a handle on.
int/10
>posts a picture of glorified seagull while defending "getting shot" -the country
...
>"getting shot" -the country
had a healthy chuckle
that's a good one
you're still dealing with it if you're posting in this thread , foreign bro.
gotta learn to live and let meesk or else you'll never enjoy life.
everyone's gotta learn to be thrillhouse
youtube.com
Who am I kidding I might as well wear an Australian flag the amount I shitpost.
Wish my headphones were working. Replacement cable should arrive this week.
I like the one where he just stands still.
OH THAT'S NOT A GIF
Sorry I think my phone screwed it up.
Its almost like they want to win a tournament or something.
Yo nigga how have your recent battles gone with your Slannesh army? I forget your last update and wanted to see how your army's been doing.
>US speaking of WAAC and destroying anyone in any game.
It's like you never had a chance to play with a Pole.
>points are bad and you are forced to use them
>wanting balance makes you a waac tourneyfag
>AoS is a narrative game that encourages fluffy lists
>'core taxes' are bad
>points and balance interfere with narrative, flufffy play
Where do all these stupid myths even come from?
I spent years playing fluffy armies full of converted, named models and I love scenarios. But I still think its lazy and unacceptable to chuck out an unfinished game because you think your fans are desperate morons who will buy whatever you make.
Core tax is objectively bad design
They are like Land cards in MTG. Nobody wants to fucking play them, but the game design forces you to.
Continuing that analogy, Core units should be more like how Quest/Location cards worked in the WoW TCG.
>On Faeit 212
via TheInsider on Faeit 212 from the Comments Section (big thanks for chiming in again)
It will be released through free pdf,s the "points system" will be in list format.
The gaming systems have been built around interactions with event and GW stores from around the world.
GW are listening.
AoS has overtaken WFB and is up there with 40k for sales and interest.
GW realise it has had a rocky start but expected this.
AoS is an evolving game made with the player and fun mind.
As for the "haters" GW could not care less about what you think and are very happy to see you go.
(I was the person who first told Natfka about points coming for AoS around two months ago.)
I can now add.
The different styles of play are very exciting indeed (And may well be used for the future addition of 40k.)
My favorite is the Narrative system which allows you to build your own Warlord and carve out your own territory in the 9 realms!
GW will move away from drip releases and start to put releases out in bulk.
The Start collecting box's are the first step in a long line of cheaper ways to begin AoS/40k and GW will increase this and release boxed games and such to allow easy and cheaper start up and more fun for different types of gamer!
GW are very aware of the toxic part of the community and no longer wish to be associated with it.
The move back into the community with the FB pages is the first step towards a healthy creative and fun community which they hope will encourage new players and keep older players involved (YES the GW love in has begun!)
This year is going to be big for AoS and 40k alike (The former rumour from a very dubious source about this year being the year of AoS is nonsense this year is the year of Games Workshop! Expect great things friends)
Your local GW managers will be given a lot more info in the future!
>nobody wants to play them
Anybody who bitches about core taxes then says AoS is a narrative game is a fucking hypocrite yet I see it all the time.
Why the hell would someone play O&G, Bretonnia or Lizardmen if they don't want to play orcs/goblins, knights or lizardmen?
If I build an army I want it to look like a god damn army. I wouldn't play 40k then bitch my Imperial Guard army needs Guardsmen in it.
>AOS has taken over whfb
>up there with 40k in sales and interest
Shitposters on suicide watch
Heres a draft list 100 wounds lol
Be'lakor (8)
5 hellstriders (10)
5 hellstriders (10)
Hellebron(5)
35 Bleakswords(35)
8 Harpies(8)
2 treelords (24)
>40 stormvermin when you can field 80 clan rats
>no Stormfiends
>A soul grinder
What in the fuck are you talking about
Infantry should be taken because it is useful and desired for strategic reasons, not forced into an army list so that GW can make more money.
My last was against a Dark Elf Pirate Queen. She sent her Harpies crashing into my Knights, but she quicklyrics found out that unsupported harpies cannot kill the glorious lancers of the most beautiful prince. Her corsairs and Self crashed against The Fabulous Lord of Slaanesh, but in the end she yielded up a Victory to me, aso she found herself yielding to my glory.
>GW are very aware of the toxic part of the community and no longer wish to be associated with it.
What does he mean by this?
>Core tax is objectively bad design
Point for balance is a bad design in a wargame. It does not work and there will ALWAYS be units better point/wise
>I spent years playing fluffy armies full of converted, named models and I love scenarios
You didn't, or you will know how hard is to have fun with a fuffy army in games with points.
I made fluff armies in 40k because everyone said so and regretted it, its just NOT fun. Points are literally the worst possible balancing method. GW should have gone with something more original.
Guess only time will tell, I guess. I just hope GW continues to regrd narrative games as the main focus of Aos.
Because they want an all-chariot army?
Because they want an army that is just seven hella badass knights?
Because they want a kroxigor army?
What are YOU talking about? I take the core units that fit my army concept or because they look good/fit the fluff.
And that's rich, AoS is nothing but the most cynical and obvious cash grab GW has done recently.
Having standards and not being a fanboy willing to throw money at shit makes you toxic.
Yet DOZENS of games make it work. GW being incompetent does not justify AoS or make it a good game.
Then you now know you are not GW's target audience.
Go sit in the corner. Buy models, then go back to the corner.
All chariot army is the best of all time. It's the only reason I'm not playing 40k.
3x Gorebeast Chariot
2x Flaming Chariot of Tzeentch
1x Herald on Burning Chariot.
>It does not work and there will ALWAYS be units better point/wise
It will never be 100% balanced but as long as every unit is viable (ie: useful in some way) then that's all that matters. Warmachine does it reasonably well - I can't think of a unit that is strictly worse than any other unit, they are all useful in their own way.
The biggest problem with GW balance in the past is that they derived the point values from some combination of the unit stats, which didn't take into account unit synergies. The other big problem was that they had to publish a new codex if they ever wanted to make a tweak to the unit, which could take 5+ years sometimes.
A living document of online rules is seriously the best thing that could ever happen to Warhammer
>What are YOU talking about? I take the core units that fit my army concept or because they look good/fit the fluff.
That's exactly why you SHOULD take them. Being forced to take them because you need 25% of your army to be trash units that don't fit the vision of your forces is exactly what is wrong with the Core Tax concept.
Games Workshop points are bad since they can't into sensible balance
>tourneyfags
Do you people honestly think this or are you so desperate to defend AoS you just lash out at people who demand a functional game?
Points benefit everyone and a game with them is better than one without them. Its easier to ignore the point system with friends than do all the playtesting to make a game functional yourself.
>Warmachine does it reasonably well
Warmachine has lots of useless units that no one uses unfortunately. It's really balanced if you pick the meta lists but there are lots of useless models.
>A living document of online rules is seriously the best thing that could ever happen to Warhammer
Totally agree.
Isn't part of skarbrands fluff that he kinda just shows up sometimes since they can only shunt him off to another plane and not kill him?
There should still be a minimum number of core units to keep armies feeling like armies. They are not 'trash' for not being giant monsters or super elite badasses. They are the normal members of your force.
And before GW fucked up the game there were plenty of variant army lists that let people take themed armies.
That means we should demand better rules, not praise them for giving up.