Just as @Lord-Marcus had wanted! Those who oppose me shall perish. There is no freedom from me, only freedom through me.
I can't truly be mad at age of sigmar. It had granted me a long running painting commission. But I still prefer WHFB fluff As to kings of war: yes it is very good. Do you have any questions?
I guess that is fair enough. Never strike the hand that feeds you. As you should! Why does no one seem to play at? Or discuss it on the forum?
Meh, AoS Fluff is kind of all over the place in terms of quality. Mostly it's just lacking quantity though... simply not enough yet to make up a similar world as they have in 40K or had with WFB. There's no characters like a grimgor yet. Hell, in general very few named characters.. As for end times.. I would see it as seperate of both really... WFB did need a reset, a bit too many rules & fluff, though it didn't need to be anywhere near as complete a reset and they definitly didn't need to let go of the regimented fighting altogether. AoS however seems to mostly been made independent from it all. The only connection being it uses the same name and a handfull of the same races and such. AoS feels like people making the best of a poor decision (the end times..) What's the core of the gameplay, how does it compare to AoS. What's the interesting and boring bits
Splitting this up Inyo two replies because I am on my phone: It is played, just depends on your area. We have a lively us community but we are spread out. We also have a tournament circut now. As to the firing bits: 1. Salamanders have not been competitive. With the new clash of Kings organized play for 2018 now out, we have a chance. We also have a fire elemental who hits like a tactical missile at ranged. 2. People can play several games in the time it takes to play other systems, so we tend to forget to document games
Rank and flank. A unit is a unit, no single casualty removal. Extremely tactical movement phase with a lot of depth. Boring bit is magic. Yes it is there, yes it has depth and tactical flexibility, but it's not wacky like warhamer was
Ah yes, like Warriors of Chaos then. They are basically unkillable because of their super-duper Chaos Armour, they murder honourable Dwarfs, Lizardmen, High Elves, Bretonnians and Tomb Kings and seem to do almost anything to their corpses afterwards. They are also supported vastly by GW who gave them a white dwarf before the one releasing their book to release more stuff to make them OP, when they could have given Bretonnia or Beastmen an 8th Edition book because they really needed one. Warriors of Chaos were already OP without the Warshrine and Slaughterbrute to further amplify their OP-ness. I do love Fantasy, but the one thing I dislike about it is that WoC are a broken, game-breaking army. Of course @NIGHTBRINGER doesn't see this because he is biased as he plays them as well. He seems to think they are perfectly balanced, and yet he dislikes the fact that Dwarfs now have a monster in AoS, probably because it, and AoS itself, disturb the 'balance' of WoC being super-strong. @The Penguin , @ I do agree with most here that Fantasy fluff is better than AoS fluff. It has more depth and is more interesting, with some comedic moments. However I disagree that 40K fluff is better than Fantasy fluff. The Blood Angels should never have defeated the Tyranids at Baal. They are such a bad chapter, the Tyranids should have devoured them all, to the last man. In fact I ignore that rubbish GW come up with and I know that in fact the Tyranids devoured and destroyed Baal and ate most of the Blood Angels, the few remaining running for their lives like the cowardly angelic ponces they are.
to be honest that seems to be the main issue with warhammer, be it AoS, 40K or fantasy, is that GW seems to prefer chaos over any other faction. And I don't just mean that they regularly get some OP unit, with 4 completly fleshed out sub-factions it's no wonder at least one of em is a top-tier army with some OP nonsense at any point in time. But also in terms of fluff. Chaos Always wins. The imperium of men in 40K only has the most phyrric of victories, if any at all. Idem with fantasy, the entirity of fantasy fluff can be summerized as "The polar gates exploded and it was one long drawn out war untill finally the last Slann kroaks (get it? get it? I'm hilarious! ) and the planet got consumed by chaos as the other races are incapable and/or traitorous twats...". What makes it worse is that there's also rarely any real victory over chaos. Grimdark is fine, but if the outcome is set in stone and there is absolutly no light in the dark it just gets boring and predictable.. There's no hope, no redemption, just a slow inevitable fall into chaos.. It doesn't help that every aspect of chaos is completly and utterly corrupted beyond insanity. Which means there's no hope for redemption. But more importantly, with how insane they are there's no hope of them ever being able to cooperated with anyone uncorrupted. It'd be much more interesting if say Magnus after being corrupted would've said "screw this, i'm not joining freaking horus" and instead had build his own little empire in a corner of the universe. Then after the heresy he and whatever remained of the imperium come together they agree on an uneasy truce and from then on they occasionally fight some wars occasionally join hands to stop Abbadon on one of his crusades etc. But instead we just get him corrupted, the end (although ahriman was/is? still trying to free his marines I think?). anyways tl;dr: GW likes chaos too much...
It would be interesting to know how closely related the cancellation of WFB (+ the introduction of the End Times) and the creation of AoS actually was. By which I mean what took place behind the scenes. When did they decide to cancel WFB (because they would have known about it years in advance) and when was the decision to create AoS made? Was AoS made to fill the void left by the departure of WFB or was WFB scraped to make way for AoS? (a what came first, the chicken or the egg scenario) Perhaps in the literature that is true (I haven't read it), but in the movie he was more skill-based than tank-based. In the movie it wasn't a case of him getting hit and not being affected by it, but rather his opponents not being able to strike him at all. In the movie he didn't even need to wear armour... all he needed was his trusty shield. I agree that the white dwarf rules update was not needed, especially when considering how quickly it was supplanted by their 8th edition hardcover army book. I could be mistaken, but I thought that the time between the white dwarf and the army book was only a few months. I think the WoC only needed the army book update, and if that freed up the time to update Bretonnia or Beastmen that would have been awesome. My biggest regret in 8th edition was that Bretonnia, Beastmen and Skaven never got their books and that a final round of FAQs were not released. (oh and the poor balance between cannons and monsters, but that is a different matter) First off, the Warshrine was introduced during 7th edition (it didn't have a model, but had rules) and was actually nerfed in 8th edition. Under its 7th edition rules you could set up a system where you could almost guarantee getting 3+ ward save Chosen. As for the Slaughterbrute, it is pretty much the weakest unit in the entire army book. It is an EXTREMELY sub-par unit. No competitive list would ever feature them. The Slaughterbrute was literally the WoC version of the Troglodon. If you think that the Slaughterbrute made the WoC more OP, then I would argue you don't understand WoC or Warhammer as a whole. I have a massive WoC army but I don't even own a single Slaughterbrute. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. If you are to make a statement like that, then by all means provide evidence (in the form of a quote) to support your accusation. If we start falsely stating the beliefs of others in the absence of evidence, this thing spirals out of control very quickly. It is an underhanded tactic and a fact which I have no issues pointing out. Let's keep it fair and above board . While I do play WoC, that doesn't mean I can't accurately gauge their power level. I also play Lizardmen (a middle tier army) and Tomb Kings (a bottom tier army). So I have some experience with different power levels of armies. I have always maintained that the WoC are a top tier army. I'd place them in the top 3 armies in terms of power level, alongside the Dark Elves and High Elves. I'd say that Skaven and Wood Elves (only with a skilled general though) come in next, and then perhaps Ogres. I actually set up a series of three polls over at the EEFL forum to explore this issue. Here are the results (as of Nov. 14, a few more votes might have trickled in since then): Firstly, I have no idea how powerful Chaos is in AoS. Secondly, I couldn't care less about the power level of Chaos in AoS. Lastly, I dislike the inclusion of a monster in a Dwarf army for fluff/thematic and army variation reasons. I like the fact that armies look, act and play differently. That's what makes Warhammer interesting to me. I don't want each and every army to have the same stock set of units, because in such a world, armies would only vary from one another in the most superficial of terms.
Surely you mean other than Space Marines and Fantasy Space Marines (Stormcast)? There is nothing that GW likes more than them. That's an interesting point, but I can see where GW is coming from. Warhammer/40k is an open-ended unfinished book. During any story, your heroes must be constantly under threat. Where loss seems all but inevitable and where any strides you make only seems to result in further disaster. It is only at the end of a story that the hero prevails and thwarts the bad guy(s). That said, I can see your point as well. In such a large story universe, surely you can give the good guys some legitimate victories to maintain some nuance and balance. I think the best tactic would be to let the good guys win some important victories but keep them constantly under the ever present threat of annihilation.
I can testify that this is true. But this brings a question to my mind. Given that we have a fact (different power levels of armies in the WHFB game system), how can we assume that 8th was a balanced game? The fact that a skilled general can play an underpowered army and, once in a while, win against overpowered armies, doesn't (or shouldn't) negate the fact that 8th was a poorly balanced game. Or anyway, it was a not-so-balanced game (there are undeniably issues in the rules... see cannons) with unbalanced factions.
8th edition improved the balance in comparison to the ridiculousness that was 7th edition (remember Daemons?), but it is not fully balanced. The truth is that no wargame is truly balanced. Discrepancies exist in 40k, KoW and AoS. Even T9A suffers from some balance issues, even though (seemingly) their number one goal is to create optimum balance. Wargames are simply too complex and possess too much variation to fully balance. Perfect balance can only be achieved in games such as chess and checkers (and even then only when alternating who gets first turn) or in games that are 100% chance based, like snakes and ladders. The balance of 8th edition could at best be described as pretty good, but definitely not great and far from perfect. 7th edition would be worse in terms of balance and T9A would be better. For the most part, I agree with the results from the graph I posted earlier. There are few armies that I would shift up or down a spot or two, but nothing significant. The top 4 armies from the poll turned out to be a 100% match with what I deemed the top armies to be.
That could be true and accounts for the lack of KoW activity on this forum. I believe that @Crowsfoot dabbled in it for a time. I wonder how Kings of War fares against T9A in terms of popularity... or even against WFB 8th edition as it stands today (it obviously has no chance of matching it in its prime).
Because I have no one else to play with, I have taken up playing with myself In all seriousness, I have played several games against myself.
I believe that grand master chess player Bobby Fischer was quoted as saying that he played against himself. Maybe you'll be a world champion one day! So are you playing AoS against yourself or WFB? or both?
Considering T9A is in flux and was dropped from the GT circut because of it, yeah. Kings of war is more popular imo. Doesn't mean I'm not creating lists in all systems and using dice to represent killed models in ICR systems