The Rumour Thread

[Bosskelot]

29 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

The ability has an diameter of roughly 37". That's a lot considering the whole battle field only measures 60" x 44".
After reading the ability it's cleary worded in a way that let's the ability trigger on a once per unit bases. Otherwise they would have said "...once per turn, when an enemy unit..."

 

Only one solution:

 

Skaven snipers go zzzzZZZaap

 

 

Changing topic:

Honest Wargamer mentioned something interesting which very much resonates with me:
He assumed AoS is getting closer to being a Board Game instead of a wargame.
I've thought about this quite a bit and I agree - It's also the reason that I think most units feel like tokens (on a board game) instead of the RPG + Wargame mix Warhammer and AoS used to be.
 

In my case this would explain why my interest in the game reduced itself proportionally to the rising board-gamification.

 

What are your thoughts?

Yeah this was a whole point of discussion on one of the Square Based shows that it's really only the specialist design studio that are making actual "wargames" for GW nowadays. TOW, HH, even LOTR, are all a very different vibe to what you get out of 40k and AOS.

[Sarouan]

24 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

He assumed AoS is getting closer to being a Board Game instead of a wargame.

I'd tend to answer "thank you, captain Obvious".

I mean, wargames are already technically boardgames since the very beginning, since boardgames are "games that involve the movement of counters or other objects round a board."

Miniatures are always treated as counters round a board (the battlefield) in wargames.


I'd still want to distinguish Spearhead from the AoS "core" game on that matter. The first is much closer to a boardgame you'd see advertised in BoardGameGeek, the second still feels like a wargame. Spearhead clearly doesn't want to give you freedom on how you build your lists : much like chess, you have to deal with the pieces you are given and nothing else.

[Beliman]

12 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

What are your thoughts?

I'm curious about that, why AoS is "closer" to a board game? What are the points that decide the diference between a board game and a war game?

[Sarouan]

1 minute ago, Beliman said:

I'm curious about that, why AoS is "closer" to a board game? What are the points that decide the diference between a board game and a war game?

Wargame is a simulation of war and doesn't have to be limited to a boardgame, that's the main difference (the category does also apply to video games, for example). Tabletop wargames are always played on a board, and thus are a sub-category of boardgames. AoS, 40k, Bolt action, historical tabletop wargames...all are a sub-category of boardgames, in the end.

[Beliman]

1 minute ago, Sarouan said:

Wargame is a simulation of war and doesn't have to be limited to a boardgame, that's the main difference (the category does also apply to video games, for example). Tabletop wargames are always played on a board, and thus are a sub-category of boardgames. AoS, 40k, Bolt action, historical tabletop wargames...all are a sub-category of boardgames, in the end.

I get the technical explanation, but that completely discards the feeling that Rob, @Bosskelot and @JackStreicher. In other words, there should be more things around this argument to know why some people think that a wargame that has all "checks" feels like a boardgame.

[Sarouan]

6 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I get the technical explanation, but that completely discards the feeling that Rob, @Bosskelot and @JackStreicher. In other words, there should be more things around this argument to know why some people think that a wargame that has all "checks" feels like a boardgame.

Mainly because the new version of AoS focuses way more on gameplay mechanisms than the miniatures and general aspect of war itself. You can also see it in the objectives that are much more abstract and exist only for gameplay purposes rather than thematic aspects of the war they're normally supposed to represent.

I mean, no army really wants to control an "objective marker" or "painted circles on the field" in themselves, or have "a couple of basic units be in the enemy deployment zone at the end of the battle" to claim victory.

I'd say it's more a question of focusing on the gameplay rather than the story. Boardgames may tell a story, indeed...but nowadays, they're much more focused on the gameplay. "Play and forget" - it's just a game that doesn't stick to your mind, because it's a game for game sake. It has nothing special to say nor to tell.

That's why they're so obsessed about balance and all. Everything is about the gameplay and give equal chances to both sides. Like chess.

Edited June 12 by Sarouan

[JackStreicher]

12 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Wargame is a simulation of war and doesn't have to be limited to a boardgame, that's the main difference (the category does also apply to video games, for example). Tabletop wargames are always played on a board, and thus are a sub-category of boardgames. AoS, 40k, Bolt action, historical tabletop wargames...all are a sub-category of boardgames, in the end.

It's not about the semantics so no need to be pedantic about it.
Per definition wargames are a tabletop game, tabletop games aren't neccessarily board games. The last time I checked Warhammer was also played on a neoprene mat which if we're getting pedantic is not a board. So let's keep this nonsensical argument out of the way, shall we?

The point about it turning into a board game more than an RPG + Wargame is the whole feeling of it. That's why the semantics are irrelevant. The mental images of a TT Wargame and a Boardgame are very different.

 

Imo AoS has shed that rules more or less accurately represent a lore piece. The new Lord Terminus with the big axe is an example. He is a gaming piece with a specific role, the rest is just there to fill the void (his lackluster stats)
We're chasing magic circles instead of meaningful objectives

All in all it's less of a simulation of the AoS world and more a quick way to play with minis (and sell them). The side effect is that one identifies less with ones miniatures since they lack charakter and one can't make them ones own by customisation.
It's cleary by design.

Edited June 12 by JackStreicher

[Sarouan]

Just now, JackStreicher said:

It's not about the semantics so no need to be pedantic about it.
Per definition wargames are a tabletop game, tabletop games aren't neccessarily board games.

The point about it turning into a board game more than an RPG + Wargame is the whole feeling of it. That's why the semantics are irrelevant. The mental images of a TT Wargame and a Boardgame are very different.

Try to play a tabletop wargame like Bolt Action without a board, and tell me about how it goes. That's why semantics are actually important, because words mean something to everyone and people using words incorrectly lead to confusion.

Honest wargamer does indeed have a specific (and personnal) conception of wargames (and I suspect he sees them as "superior" to the "normal boardgames"). Doesn't mean it's the same than everyone's else.

It is about gameplay vs story, I feel.

[JackStreicher]

1 minute ago, Sarouan said:

Try to play a tabletop wargame like Bolt Action without a board, and tell me about how it goes. That's why semantics are actually important, because words mean something to everyone and people using words incorrectly lead to confusion

Context matters. In this context getting pedantic derails the conversation for no sensible reason. Bolt Action is but one example.

[Ejecutor]

Probably worth creating its own thread for this discussion.

[Sarouan]

5 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Context matters. In this context getting pedantic derails the conversation for no sensible reason. Bolt Action is but one example.

Otherwise, give an example of a wargame that isn't a boardgame. That will be context.

[Gitzdee]

4 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Otherwise, give an example of a wargame that isn't a boardgame. That will be context.

Larp?

[Nezzhil]

Ironjawz or Kruleboyz tomorrow? What do you want. Vote.

[Gitzdee]

Orruk Warclans!

Im in denial.

[Sarouan]

1 minute ago, Nezzhil said:

Ironjawz or Kruleboyz tomorrow? What do you want. Vote.

Bonesplitterz.
 

[Ejecutor]

4 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

Ironjawz or Kruleboyz tomorrow? What do you want. Vote.

IJ. Leave KB for the very last FF as the antagonist of the 3rd edition and close the circle. SCE first, KB last.

[Tonhel]

1 hour ago, Ejecutor said:

In a world where the gaming aspect seems to look for quicker games, it wouldn't surprise me if GW opted for that approach to get fresh blood into their games. It is a win-win, IMO, younger players who are used to quick stimuli will be more in line with this and those with family and not much time for it would appreciate it as well.

I don't know. I am a father of two. It's indeed more difficult to play games. Max 2-3 evening per month, but my hobby time (painting / building an army) is still fine and I should be able to finish a lot of stuff, sadly I am very easly distracted 😄.

While I really like the AoS miniatures, I do see  them more as gaming pieces and not as a project like as building / painting an army for TOW or for HC or even the Barons War ruleset. As that are imo more complete hobby projects for me. Or atleast I am more emotional attached to it.

I love the 12-13th century, so when working on a project like that I try to give the characters their own history or base them on historical characters. The heraldry, the flags, the background story of the units and etc. It feels like building an army. Same for TOW (certainly if you don't min-max) but take the fluff approach for building an army.

With AoS I don't have the same feeling, it does feel more like tokens moved around the board. Beautiful tokens and still a joy to paint, but as a hobby project it doesn't feel the same. I don't have the feeling that I am building an army or warband.

This is probably because of the AoS background doesn't do much for me and the rules itself don't encourage it. But this is ofcourse very subjective.

The majority of the guys I play with don't really have the same look and are really looking forward to AoS 4th, exactly for the reasons you stated.

 

 

[cyrus]

43 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

Ironjawz or Kruleboyz tomorrow? What do you want. Vote.

[Ejecutor]

3 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

I don't know. I am a father of two. It's indeed more difficult to play games. Max 2-3 evening per month, but my hobby time (painting / building an army) is still fine and I should be able to finish a lot of stuff, sadly I am very easly distracted 😄.

While I really like the AoS miniatures, I do see  them more as gaming pieces and not as a project like as building / painting an army for TOW or for HC or even the Barons War ruleset. As that are imo more complete hobby projects for me. Or atleast I am more emotional attached to it.

I love the 12-13th century, so when working on a project like that I try to give the characters their own history or base them on historical characters. The heraldry, the flags, the background story of the units and etc. It feels like building an army. Same for TOW (certainly if you don't min-max) but take the fluff approach for building an army.

With AoS I don't have the same feeling, it does feel more like tokens moved around the board. Beautiful tokens and still a joy to paint, but as a hobby project it doesn't feel the same. I don't have the feeling that I am building an army or warband.

This is probably because of the AoS background doesn't do much for me and the rules itself don't encourage it. But this is ofcourse very subjective.

The majority of the guys I play with don't really have the same look and are really looking forward to AoS 4th, exactly for the reasons you stated.

 

 

I guess it depends on the age of the kids. I have 1 year and a half twins and I couldn't spend as much hobby time as you. Obviously it won't apply to everyone, but I guess you got my point.

[Marcvs]

on the boardgame-fication of AoS, here's a few elements which might be interpreted as going into that direction (NB: I don't necessarily dislike/disagree with these choices):

• Miniatures do not have a front or a rear. Also: attacking a unit from the front/rear changes nothing
• Less importance for WYSIWYG
• Moving away from real LoS

Basically, the more miniatures feel like "tokens" the more we move towards the "boardgame" end of what is necessarily a spectrum.

Personally, the most interesting part of this conversation is not about being "right" but more about exploring our own feelings about what makes a "wargame" for us.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

AoS is getting closer to being a Board Game instead of a wargame.

That claim sounds good and kind of makes you want to agree with it, but it really doesn't mean anything if you think about it for more than a few minutes.

[OkayestDM]

3 hours ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

I'm such a hypocrite. 

I'm often amused at how eager contributors to this forum are when it comes to reveals and countdowns and the like. It'll all come in the fullness of time, people.

... but right now I am literally counting down the hours until the Hedonites FF gets unleashed! 

In your defense though, the rules for Hedonites in 3rd didn't land for a lot of people, and much of their strategy and unit cost was tied to summoning. With summoning removed, their entire design has to change, and given what we've seen for Tzeentch and Nurgle, GW could do some interesting thing with Hedonites. 

I don't even play them and I'm excited bout their rules. Maybe this will be the edition where GW gets it right?

[Beliman]

42 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

I love the 12-13th century, so when working on a project like that I try to give the characters their own history or base them on historical characters. The heraldry, the flags, the background story of the units and etc. It feels like building an army. Same for TOW (certainly if you don't min-max) but take the fluff approach for building an army.

(Note: I love my KOs books and their lore)

I get your point, and I think the same. I love to build my armies with some background, designing their heraldy, their battalions, even name all unit's champions.

Yesterday, I was reading an essay from William King about WFB Dwarfs (fantastic read btw). How they think, how they live, what means to be an slayer, etc... that's the type fo stuff that I miss in AoS. Not because it doens't exists, but because it was never properly presented. In other words, AoS is a bit more problematic if you want to build your own army, but still, it can be done.

35 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

• Miniatures do not have a front or a rear. Also: attacking a unit from the front/rear changes nothing
• Less importance for WYSIWYG
• Moving away from real LoS

Most of the new wargames follow the same pattern. I start to think that it's just the new Wargaming model, and part of the community has the feeling that it's not a wargame anymore.

[Inferno]

Leaked warscroll:

[Ejecutor]

Just now, Inferno said:

Leaked warscroll:

Is that a battletome? Is the index printed? What's that?!