|
Post by Baronthehumbled on Jul 10, 2017 21:46:31 GMT
Oh, I'd say Chris Peach's freeguild stuff is quite spectacular for the amount of conversion work in it.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Jul 10, 2017 22:11:43 GMT
Sigh... you guys are relentless you know that? Well let's see. First off, AoS has a player base who's ages cover everything old fantasy did, 12-26 getting into it and 30-40 year old vets returning due to the fresh change up of cleaner rules and models. Secondly, huge battles are a thing in AoS. People play them at tournaments and there's formations allowing for humongous battles as they give multiple armies special abilities. Thirdly, the new model > old model conspiracy is wrong as it's the older stuff that really packs a punch like the ogres, Bretonnians and Tomb kings. In fact there's three new start collecting sets coming, one's Fyreslayers and the other two are Slaanesh and Ogres. The size differences are hardly that bad as well. There's very little creep between mortal models between 6th and AoS. I don't know why why Nagash and Allarielle are being pointed out. They're gods, that's like being upset at a huge dragon because lizards can't get that big. And finally Overlords are entirely up to peoples opinions whether you like them or not but GW have been going that direction for awhile now. Or do missile launching Irondrakes and double barreled gun-toting engineers that use ironclad ships, an armored train, submarines and dirigibles not count towards being too technological? Besides, and I feel u must reiterate this point, they're not replacing the old fashioned Dwarf in the setting who still love beer, underground holds, axes and telling manlings their stuff is inferior to Dawi workmanship. (Amusingly there's lore mentions of Rootking Dawi that seem to be natural allies of the treefolk in the life realm. You can bet they're not into new fangled tech. ) Sorry for the defensive rant but you guys just had to drag AoS into this. I know it's so great that you can't stop thinking about it but come on, gotta remember this is an 8th forum. Also, the 9th age's 1.3 changes were a grave blow to my support as well. I can understand wanting to sell rulebooks to pay the devs but the drastic changes were just so abrupt. The defenders of the changes saying 9th never promised the players anything was quite galling too. That community project was nothing but promises to "not throw away your army". Lol, as soon as we started mentioning AoS, I thought to myself, "I wonder how long it'll take Baron to comment"? You must own stock in AoS or something.
I appreciate your viewpoint toward AoS, Baron, but I respectfully disagree. It's a completely different game and trying to say this game will work with this game is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I think that the main problem with all of this is that there is an assumption that everyone wants to play an AoS style game. If GW didn't believe that, why couldn't they have simply left the Old World alone and created AoS apart? Why did they have to kill it? It seems to me that having two options as to how to play would be the better choice. They could simply have stated that they wouldn't be making new models for 8th anymore and that they would be focusing on AoS. No, they wanted to link the two as a gateway bringing existing players into their new AoS game. That tells me that they weren't confident in AoS at all and would force the issue instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 22:22:46 GMT
Sigh... you guys are relentless you know that? Well let's see. First off, AoS has a player base who's ages cover everything old fantasy did, 12-26 getting into it and 30-40 year old vets returning due to the fresh change up of cleaner rules and models. Secondly, huge battles are a thing in AoS. People play them at tournaments and there's formations allowing for humongous battles as they give multiple armies special abilities. Thirdly, the new model > old model conspiracy is wrong as it's the older stuff that really packs a punch like the ogres, Bretonnians and Tomb kings. In fact there's three new start collecting sets coming, one's Fyreslayers and the other two are Slaanesh and Ogres. The size differences are hardly that bad as well. There's very little creep between mortal models between 6th and AoS. I don't know why why Nagash and Allarielle are being pointed out. They're gods, that's like being upset at a huge dragon because lizards can't get that big. And finally Overlords are entirely up to peoples opinions whether you like them or not but GW have been going that direction for awhile now. Or do missile launching Irondrakes and double barreled gun-toting engineers that use ironclad ships, an armored train, submarines and dirigibles not count towards being too technological? Besides, and I feel u must reiterate this point, they're not replacing the old fashioned Dwarf in the setting who still love beer, underground holds, axes and telling manlings their stuff is inferior to Dawi workmanship. (Amusingly there's lore mentions of Rootking Dawi that seem to be natural allies of the treefolk in the life realm. You can bet they're not into new fangled tech. ) Sorry for the defensive rant but you guys just had to drag AoS into this. I know it's so great that you can't stop thinking about it but come on, gotta remember this is an 8th forum. Also, the 9th age's 1.3 changes were a grave blow to my support as well. I can understand wanting to sell rulebooks to pay the devs but the drastic changes were just so abrupt. The defenders of the changes saying 9th never promised the players anything was quite galling too. That community project was nothing but promises to "not throw away your army". Fair. Seeing as I brought this up and you're most likely targeting me I will just mention why I think the way I do and point out some caveats: (in order) I'm well aware that gamers of all ages play this game, that is NOT what I talked about or mentioned. I mentioned what I (and most of the internet thinks if you do a search, although to be fair I don't think that GW has blatantly said this) felt like/thought was the TARGET audience. Whether or not this tactic/strategy has attracted older gamers frankly feels anecdotal. I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong here though. To me simple =/= clean when it comes to a ruleset. Kudos if people think that this ruleset is actually better, but I feel it's a slap in the face and further proof that they're marketing towards a younger audience. (If the players want to play the game, they'll learn the rules. doesn't matter how complicated the rules are; PLENTY of other manufacturers out there prove this) This to me says: "we know you don't have the patience/attention span to actually sit down and READ a rulebook so HERE! it's only 4-pages now! buy our models and spend all your time collecting and buying them instead! I never said you couldn't play large games in AoS. I've seen large games played at my FLGS and the only thing I could think of was: "that's way too many models to be pushing around in a skirmish type ruleset". I don't think that the game scales well into larger games, as movement alone takes a LONG time. But again, that's my opinion. I've played enough large apocalypse games to know that the larger games only work when there's transports/tanks galore as infantry just slows the game down; even though the infantry are the best part of the game (to me). Having lots of monsters in AoS I feel would be the equivalent here to tanks. And I know about older models/armies currently having some of the better rules. I deliberately didn't mention rules, I was talking about the models themselves becoming obsolete. Also: rules can easily be changed in the future. We've seen enough power creep from GW to know that at this time next year the balance could be entirely different. I'll concede the point about the size creep; I forget that a lot of those models are wearing suits that make them bigger, although to be fair I was talking about the model itself, not necessarily the fluff size of the guy in it. (and where do we draw the line btw? what happens when ALL future releases [hypothetical] are "normal 28mm scale models" but everyone in this world has decided to wear giant suits of power armor? The model itself is still way too big to lend itself to oldhammer conversions; which is what I'm primarily looking at with new model releases). This argument can extend however to things like blightkings, the khorne guys (don't know their names) and the Orc things. They're monstrous infantry "infantry". Without KevinC's rules how would we use some of these models in games of oldhammer? Also I never singled out Alarielle/Nagash. I actually think that with suitable wings that Alarielle model would make a kickass dragon conversion for an elven faction. And Nagash is Nagash, that model alone has me wanting to play undead, even though I won't. I've talked about AoS much longer than I thought I would today Hopefully this clears up some confusion, I'm NOT trying to be douchey or confrontational, just trying to explain why I dislike AoS so much; hopefully this clears up any misinformation/confusion out there about why I posted what I did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 22:37:05 GMT
Lol, as soon as we started mentioning AoS, I thought to myself, "I wonder how long it'll take Baron to comment"? You must own stock in AoS or something.
I appreciate your viewpoint toward AoS, Baron, but I respectfully disagree. It's a completely different game and trying to say this game will work with this game is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I think that the main problem with all of this is that there is an assumption that everyone wants to play an AoS style game. If GW didn't believe that, why couldn't they have simply left the Old World alone and created AoS apart? Why did they have to kill it? It seems to me that having two options as to how to play would be the better choice. They could simply have stated that they wouldn't be making new models for 8th anymore and that they would be focusing on AoS. No, they wanted to link the two as a gateway bringing existing players into their new AoS game. That tells me that they weren't confident in AoS at all and would force the issue instead.
I HONESTLY think that GW saw that Warhammer was doing poorly in sales compared to EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE and felt for some reason that it was because no one wanted to play a mass-battle fantasy system. They saw that a lot of the competition out there doing well were skirmish style games and felt that they should counter with a skirmish style game of their own. It NEVER occured to them that the reason fantasy was doing so poorly was because: Lack of game support. model count creep. needing more models to play the same size game. the STUPID cost of a box of infantry. the lack of discount deals. Larger game sizes becoming the norm, hence the need to buy more models. There's probably other reasons too, these are the only ones I can think of right now. I wish they would just continue to support BOTH systems. It wouldn't be hard to pay a couple guys to be "product support" and push updates, FAQ's, and tweak existing content. They can also tweak/balance all the new stuff coming out as time goes on as well. Video Games do this all the time. You keep a token crew maintaining the older games while the majority of your crew focus on the new stuff coming out/just out. EDIT: I really don't begrudge those that like AoS; if that's a better fit for you then I sincerely wish you the best playing that game. I just HATE that AoS came at the expense of my favorite tabletop game of all time.
|
|
|
Post by Baronthehumbled on Jul 10, 2017 23:17:01 GMT
Fair points and nothing I can really begrudge you on for you're entitled to your opinion. Also I was addressing you and Mottdon at the same time so sorry for that confusion. mottdon, haha, no I haven't any stocks but I do really enjoy the rules and lore of AoS. I believe a hobbyist is allowed to defend their hobby. As for the whole "why not have the Old World too" stuff. Copyright and letting Fantasy wither too long after 6th edition. Lots of companies were filling the market with the stuff GW neglected in both models and games so when 7th and 8th edition sunk to abysmal levels it was too late to crawl out of it's pit while still being a low fantasy setting that relied on large armies that were decreasing in popularity. The other companies forced them to go in a different direction design-wise, either the other guy would just steal their humans and elves while filing off the Warhammer icons or they'd make their own new low-fantasy stuff and box GW in more and more as they run out of options that fit the Old World and kept the low fantasy flavor. So even if they kept the old world the name changes and high fantasy flavor would hit it anyway even if AoS was a side-franchise. All the Tolkien inspirations (like halflings) and named places with real-world links like Altdorf and Praag would be gone. So really, if it's not the Old World anymore why keep it? Selling the license to videogame companies(among others)covered the nostalgia angle and made it so they didn't have to deal with the copyright problems.
|
|
|
Post by mahbruck on Jul 10, 2017 23:49:51 GMT
All sweet conversation here, lads. Yeah, this forum is in itself the pledge to keep the Old World alive as long as possible (no matter the odds).
Also the most impactful thing I learned from all these is that I have finally solved the problem that pestered me for many years, yep the Blood Knights are super cool to use and convert to be the up-to-date human knights. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Baronthehumbled on Jul 10, 2017 23:55:01 GMT
^ This man knows what's up.
|
|
|
Post by frozenfood on Jul 11, 2017 7:08:33 GMT
I'm just a lazy sod. I was playing 8th edition with one guy. GW pulled the plug. Absolutely no reason why I should stop playing. I still play lots of boardgames that I've had for years and their rules stay the same. The only difference is that I love the tactics and army building. This forum keeps me interested. Aos is of no concern to me. They look too much like 40K to me but meh. KOW looks cool but I think I would miss the magic and magic items. We have seven armies and I have a mate who still keeps buying stuff. Let it be
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Jul 13, 2017 6:26:33 GMT
I love 8th Edition because it's the best Fantasy Battles ruleset on the market. I also love the minis and the Old World. I'm probably different than some purists here in that I have played Meirce, AOS, Malifaux, 40k and other minis all in 8th edition. Whenever I see a cool mini...or even a toy that could be made into a cool mini I always think.... how could I bring that into Warhammer Fantasy. Chillhammer or 8th Edition with additions is my jam. Picture from a recent Chillhammer battle. Wonky army lists. The Goblin King from the Hobbit joining the Glottkin, Deathshroud Terminators....... 2500 point battle.... Legal Beastmen list vs Pestilence of Glottkin Chillhammer list. Game was awesome and close till the end. All using the core 8th edition ruleset..... and people say 8th is restricted. Pah i say! Any ruleset is as adaptable as the people using it...and when i comes to Fantasy Battles 8th edition with all its books, units and expansions is the best ruleset yet!
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Jul 13, 2017 13:05:41 GMT
Looks fun! I love mixing and matching models and even "adding" new units - as long as their fair and balanced.
The Goblin King from the Hobbit actually fits in quite well with Nurgle Deamons! Lol!
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jul 13, 2017 13:15:31 GMT
Whenever I see a cool mini...or even a toy that could be made into a cool mini I always think.... how could I bring that into Warhammer Fantasy Same. Exact same.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jul 13, 2017 13:15:58 GMT
Cool Toy?? "Counts As!"
|
|
|
Post by Bureaucrat of Chaos on Jul 15, 2017 8:34:46 GMT
Yo! Haven't contributed much lately, for no particular reason except perhaps low painting output. Painting Blood Bowl at the moment. All is well though, played a nice game of 8th yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Jul 17, 2017 14:35:02 GMT
Good to hear from you again!
|
|