PDA

View Full Version : Discussion of Age of Sigmar rules



PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
01-07-2015, 02:49
This is intended to be a discussion of the leaked rules and warscrolls for Age of Sigmar. It's against the rules to post these here so I won't, and neither should you, but the twitters and other forums are lousy with reposts of them so it shouldn't be too hard to find them.

So for those who have read everything...what are your thoughts? Obviously we don't have ALL the information yet, with only the rules and a handful of warscrolls having been spotted so far. But based on those, what do you think?


My thoughts:

RULES:

Somewhat skeptical, but open to being impressed. The rules are simple, but without playing I'm not sure whether that simplicity is elegance or just a lack of complexity, nuance, and depth. The movement game seems less complex, however many of the movement tricks inherent in 8th edition weren't obvious on their face so there may be more yet to be seen.

However my greatest impression of the rules is that they're really a skeleton, and that all the meat is to be in the warscrolls. As much as possible has been stripped out of the main rules, Warmachine-Hordes style, and shunted into individual unit cards. Similar to Magic: The Gathering as well. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that without the warscrolls we don't have a good picture of what things are all about.

THE WARSCROLLS:

Based on the ones we've seen...I'll admit that I'm concerned. The characters don't seem to have any customization options, which is what I really appreciated about WHFB. Perhaps that's just the starter set, which frequently have stock characters to reduce the complexity for newcomers. However the format doesn't seem well suited to purchasable options per se, nor particularly to pool options, so unless there is a marked change in format when the full warscroll roster is released on Saturday I am genuinely concerned here.


ARMY COMPOSITION

This is the one that has me really stumped. There...don't seem to be any rules whatsoever that limit or dictate what models you bring from game to game, save what you have. Your opponent drops a bunch of elite units on the table...what do you drop in exchange, in order to guarantee a fun game? Not even to mention a competitive, close, nailbiter of a game. Just a fun one where one of you doesn't stomp the other. Do the scenarios dictate this? Do further warscrolls have suggested unit sizes? What gives?

Also no minimum or maximum unit sizes seems...well very odd altogether. I suppose it might lead to some very interesting army builds, with single-model "dead drop" units, large blocking units, more nimble precision strike units. Tough to say without playing the game. However I'm genuinely concerned here about what's going on, because I really can't tell without playing a game how this is going to work out.

Honestly...it seems crazy. And the whole "sudden death" rules being the only real balance against outnumbering your opponent is just as crazy. Perhaps there will be scenarios that will really dictate how this will all work together, and massively influence play. Still seems...really strange.


VERDICT:

I'm witholding judgment until I actually play some games with the new rules after release on Saturday. However I'm very skeptical as to how they're going to turn out. My immediate impression is that these seem more like a freeform, rules-light RPG game rather than a tabletop strategy game. I won't write it off...but neither am I optimistic. I've been trying to remain thus all the way through, but I'm running out of ideas as to how this could be the compelling, deep, and tactical strategy game that's had me hooked on this hobby for going on two decades.

Voss
01-07-2015, 03:57
Army composition is bat guano crazy. There isn't any. Same for balance. Even figuring out what is reasonable is a delve into a complete mystery, and that includes the fricking box set.

Customization is dead, or at least intended to be dead as time goes on.
Rules have plenty of holes and all sorts of :wtf: moments. Standing behind a wall doesn't give you cover. Standing on top of a wall does.

Alternate combat picks is about the most interesting thing in the whole ruleset, as you can try to soak attackers with anvil units, then pull of a charge on your turn to guarantee your strikers hit first, and sacrifice first hits in one combat to seize the advantage in the other. Actual tactical choices exist in this one phase of the game.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
01-07-2015, 04:21
Army composition is bat guano crazy. There isn't any. Same for balance. Even figuring out what is reasonable is a delve into a complete mystery, and that includes the fricking box set.

Customization is dead, or at least intended to be dead as time goes on.
Rules have plenty of holes and all sorts of :wtf: moments. Standing behind a wall doesn't give you cover. Standing on top of a wall does.

Alternate combat picks is about the most interesting thing in the whole ruleset, as you can try to soak attackers with anvil units, then pull of a charge on your turn to guarantee your strikers hit first, and sacrifice first hits in one combat to seize the advantage in the other. Actual tactical choices exist in this one phase of the game.
I don't see how this won't end up being pay to win. No set lists means you bring options to counter whatever your opponent brings, which favours he with the most models.

Unless its only intended for narrative play. Which is the impression I got right away and can't shake. Its a system for garage gamers and narrative campaigns...but seems to completely alienate competitive and pickup gamers. And narrative gamers love customizing their characters...so this doesn't help them either?

Perhaps Saturdays releases will illuminate some further complexity or customisability...but I don't even see a framework for that in what we have? Only choice is what models and how many.

I just...don't get it. I don't see what this is, who it is for, or what we are supposed to do with it.

3eland
01-07-2015, 04:25
I am hoping that Griffons get a card. Then I can buy, paint and field an army of pure awesome creatures.

That or I can finally do a Griffon/Demigryph army I always wanted to build.

I am looking forward to the cool themed armies you can build and the fluffy ones you can run.

mhsellwood
01-07-2015, 06:43
There are some aspects that are really appealing like the freedom of army building implied and the level of characterisation opened up. Personally I love the idea of my hammerers actually crushing skulls with Gromril Hammers that could well be mechanically different from a great weapon wielded by a Chaos Warrior.

The rules themselves are a skeleton or a framework and some aspects of the basic rules seem open to potential abuse without gentleman's agreements or clarification within other documents. Big one for me currently is shooting and combat. Can I shoot with a unit that is within 3" of enemy models? If I can shoot while within 3", can I shoot the unit I am within 3" of? Can unit shoot a unit that is in combat that they are not themselves within 3" of? I would say no to all, but at this point that would be a house rule. This may or may not be answered by the 4 page rulebook and the 96 page book. In the long run I expect to see more expansions / whatever that expand or consolidate things. I.e. I could see a magic expansion that takes this aspect further. You can then bolt it on or leave it as you see fit.

The rules cover the basic elements of what a little man needs to do in a game - they provide movement rules, how to shoot, how to fight, how to cast spells and psychology. The rules are very basic at this point but we can see opportunities for additional wrinkles. As an example of additional psychology detail in the rules there is mention of 'fear' which reduces bravery of units within 6", so fear causing units will inflict more reliable casualties in the battle shock test. The starter box blokes are fairly close to a mirror match so relatively similar, but even here we can see that Khorne Blood Warriors are vulnerable to shooting (can't do their gorefist attacks further than 1" and can't do pile in and fight ability outside of combat so dead to shooting is worst outcome for them), that the Stormcast are tough as nails (4+ saves rerolling 1s, 2 wounds each along with a healer model available) and being in the basic box we can assume they are supposed to be starter friendly and thus pretty non complex. At this point who knows how a goblin will compare with a shaggoth?

In terms of the army selection, there are some interesting aspects of balance like if you plonk down your 1,000 chaos warriors, I can plonk down 665 Stormcast. Claim sudden death. Go for endure and put my chosen model at the back of everybody. As long as he survives I win. The real issue is that if I put down 10 spearmen and you put down 10 Chaos Knights what do I do? If I have a boss character I might put him down but if those spearmen are it I will be slaughtered. This can be controlled (i.e. pre agreed army lists. Scenarios that limit army choices. Campaigns. Narrative gaming) but for a competitive type play experience a points system, or hard limitations on what a player can field will be required.

Wesser
01-07-2015, 07:11
Unless its only intended for narrative play. Which is the impression I got right away and can't shake. Its a system for garage gamers and narrative campaigns...but seems to completely alienate competitive and pickup gamers. And narrative gamers love customizing their characters...so this doesn't help them either?


This is what I believe. Remember GW is a miniatures company who keeps telling us about "The Most Important Rule". GW wants us to buy models, paint models and little else. I suspect the AoS rulebook (fluff and ruleset both) is just there to give those models a context rather providing a specific type of gaming experience.

If we were to straight out force an answer from GW they'd answer: "Warhammer isn't a game of strategy or tactics. It's whatever you want it to be". Heh, I suppose you can't ask a company in the fantasy/sci-fi genre to subscribe to reality...

Montegue
01-07-2015, 07:18
It doesn't even work for garage gamers and narrative gamers. In fact, it's even harder for them. We can't measure a decent game. Why the hell would anyone waste a night playing a game they cannot even remotely ensure is balanced? How many failed games will you have to play before you even start getting a rough idea of what units balance each other out?

And then, you still have to deal with the amazingly vague rules. Quick - using just the 4 page rule book, someone explain to me very clearly when you are allowed to pick a Sudden Death objective? After setup? During the game when you have taken casualties? At *any time* during the game when they are up by 1/3 models?

ChargeAndDie
01-07-2015, 07:38
as i mentioned in the rumour thread, it might be wounds instead of points. both armies in the starter have about 40ish wounds. doesn't solve the issue of weak troops like skaven slaves and goblins but we'll find out soon enough..

Marked_by_chaos
01-07-2015, 07:55
This potentially seems like a disaster of Epic 40,000 proportions. Even though on reflection you could make a case for the rules in whole or part they are so alien to what came before that they just turned off most existing gamers from the previous system. It might be the case that there is some nuance or tactical genius behind the rules but if you need to play a load of games and study hundreds of war scrolls to find it most will simply pass on the new system.

I think this could be a real wake up call that the game/rules drive the miniature sales as much as the models themselves (outside perhaps new participants in the hobby).

Montegue
01-07-2015, 07:56
I hope so. I imagine a pretty big early rush to see what it's all about, but then it's probably going to taper off dramatically.

StygianBeach
01-07-2015, 08:12
I just read through the White Dwarf rules and battle scrolls, and I have to say I am impressed.

I think the only thing I would change would be to drop the Charge mechanic altogether, but I guess it is not warhammer without charges and failed charges.

Mawduce
01-07-2015, 08:22
I don't see how this won't end up being pay to win. No set lists means you bring options to counter whatever your opponent brings, which favours he with the most models.

Unless its only intended for narrative play. Which is the impression I got right away and can't shake. Its a system for garage gamers and narrative campaigns...but seems to completely alienate competitive and pickup gamers. And narrative gamers love customizing their characters...so this doesn't help them either?

Perhaps Saturdays releases will illuminate some further complexity or customisability...but I don't even see a framework for that in what we have? Only choice is what models and how many.

I just...don't get it. I don't see what this is, who it is for, or what we are supposed to do with it.

Except it doesn't even help those people Even narrative players want something to go off of with points. Unbound or bound it doesn't matter. Part of the fun is list building. This doesn't help with that.

Shifte
01-07-2015, 08:51
I just read through the White Dwarf rules and battle scrolls, and I have to say I am impressed.

I think the only thing I would change would be to drop the Charge mechanic altogether, but I guess it is not warhammer without charges and failed charges.

What are your thoughts on the model count dilemma? You've surely spotted it?

(AKA if you are going to have 30% over your opponent's model count anyway why* not flood the field and if you are going to have less models than your opponent why not make sure you have just below 30% less and get sudden death bonuses? This is your new meta.)

*Beyond collection limitations, a desire for fairness and a sense of common decency. Not everyone has those all of the time!

Chikout
01-07-2015, 08:55
Ok. A crazy thought about balancing. What if, in a tournament, you play twice. Once with your army and once with theirs. Then the onus will be to build a list that you know well but the other person would struggle with. Thoughts?

Elensar777
01-07-2015, 09:04
Except the fact that there is no army construction rules (yet?), I personally really dislike the way rounds function. The fact that you need to roll dices at the beginning of each battle round and that the winner decides whose turn is first is absurd. I mean, how could you plan anything if you don't even know how many turns your adversary is going to have (before you can play again)?

Nevertheless, I try to stay positive :D.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
01-07-2015, 09:05
I just read through the White Dwarf rules and battle scrolls, and I have to say I am impressed.

I think the only thing I would change would be to drop the Charge mechanic altogether, but I guess it is not warhammer without charges and failed charges.


Ok. A crazy thought about balancing. What if, in a tournament, you play twice. Once with your army and once with theirs. Then the onus will be to build a list that you know well but the other person would struggle with. Thoughts?
This, and you have to submit a model list. Only those models may be fielded, and you can limit how many of certain models can be fielded.

There is certainly potential for this to be awesome. I've been saying it all along. However every time I open all these doors in my mind for ways it could be great, new info comes out to slam them all shut. The warscrolls really killed it for me, since they have none of the complexity I imagined this requiring. Unless these are very simple ones because they're in the starter set. And the fluff book contains scenarios and other filler to add even more. Terrain rules, magic items, etc.

We will see on Saturday I suppose.

Spiney Norman
01-07-2015, 09:07
Except the fact that there is no army construction rules (yet?), I personally really dislike the way rounds function. The fact that you need to roll dices at the beginning of each battle round and that the winner decides whose turn is first is absurd. I mean, how could you plan anything if you don't even know how many turns your adversary is going to have (before you can play again)?

Nevertheless, I try to stay positive :D.

In fairness the random rolling for who takes each turn is exactly how LOTR works and that is a solid rules set, I'm actually of the opinion that the rules could potentially work quite well if only they had come up with a workable points system or other way of building equivalent forces. Planning a fun game is going to be based on pure guess work

Elensar777
01-07-2015, 09:13
In fairness the random rolling for who takes each turn is exactly how LOTR works and that is a solid rules set, I'm actually of the opinion that the rules could potentially work quite well if only they had come up with a workable points system or other way of building equivalent forces. Planning a fun game is going to be based on pure guess work

Never tried LOTR, you give me hope :D.

Avian
01-07-2015, 09:25
In fairness the random rolling for who takes each turn is exactly how LOTR works and that is a solid rules set, I'm actually of the opinion that the rules could potentially work quite well if only they had come up with a workable points system or other way of building equivalent forces. Planning a fun game is going to be based on pure guess work
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you roll at the start of each phase in LotR, and not each turn?

StygianBeach
01-07-2015, 09:36
What are your thoughts on the model count dilemma? You've surely spotted it?

(AKA if you are going to have 30% over your opponent's model count anyway why* not flood the field and if you are going to have less models than your opponent why not make sure you have just below 30% less and get sudden death bonuses? This is your new meta.)

*Beyond collection limitations, a desire for fairness and a sense of common decency. Not everyone has those all of the time!

Yeah, but that is not an issue with the basic rules, that is a scroll problem.

I would hope that future scrolls address this, remember how the first release of Winds of Magic card did not have something as practical as the spell number on them, but later ones did.

I can imagine that 1 scroll = 1 unit box. So for example today you get 2 Mornfang in a box so 1 battle scroll = 2 mornfang.

Sandlemad
01-07-2015, 09:38
Man, if they had just ported over the LoTR/Hobbit rules - that game being essentially dead in the water - we'd have a solid game on our hands.

Avian
01-07-2015, 09:38
I can imagine that 1 scroll = 1 unit box. So for example today you get 2 Mornfang in a box so 1 battle scroll = 2 mornfang.
No, scrolls are not currency. Scrolls are the cards with the rules on them.

A unit of Mournfang will consist of any number of models, from 1 to however many you can squeeze into your deployment zone.

Odin
01-07-2015, 09:52
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you roll at the start of each phase in LotR, and not each turn?
I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Tae
01-07-2015, 09:57
Personally these rules look like they've borrowed a lot for LotR, Bolt Action, 40k and a number of other games.

Which is all fine as all said games work well - including random turn order.

However it's all just a bit too vague at the moment. Without re-opening the 'no more rules' can, I'll simply state that IF this is it, then that indeed will be it - for the game and, potentially, the Company.

Sete
01-07-2015, 10:06
I will buy the starter. People are going crazy over the rules on a starter set. Its a cenario, and the cards provides is an example so people get used to it. If you really think GW rebooted a whole setting just to do things half assed you are naive. Wait for the next weeks. The sky is not falling. Personally I like the new to hit and to wound roll. Saves me trouble of knowing the toughness and ws of my enemy mini, and is more straight foward which will provide faster games. Maybe ill leave 40k for a while cant keep up with the current power creep.

StygianBeach
01-07-2015, 10:07
No, scrolls are not currency. Scrolls are the cards with the rules on them.

A unit of Mournfang will consist of any number of models, from 1 to however many you can squeeze into your deployment zone.

Are you sure?

Do I have to read over the battlescrolls again to check?

Kaptajn_Congoboy
01-07-2015, 10:10
then that indeed will be it - for the game and, potentially, the Company.

Nah. 40k will keep them afloat. Until. possibly, they do an AoS on that as well, and even then, I think a lot of the enthusiasts will just soldier on.

Spiney Norman
01-07-2015, 10:10
Man, if they had just ported over the LoTR/Hobbit rules - that game being essentially dead in the water - we'd have a solid game on our hands.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that is true, I love LoTR and I think the rules are awesome, but I don't know if they'd work very well for wfb. While in general LotR is great at representing infantry and cavalry, the way monsters are represented, particularly large monsters (Balrog, Mumak, dragon etc) the game really begins to break down, as they are either virtually useless or impossible to kill and since wfb has multiple models in that size category for nearly every army I think the LotR rules would need a fairly major overhaul to cope that that.

Avian
01-07-2015, 10:16
Well, one thing in the rumours was certainly incorrect - base size and shape certainly matter. Yes, technically they aren't there, and you can move over another model's base however you like, but if a model's base is large enough, or the wrong shape, you might not be able to physically place it where it can attack, while a smaller base model could.

McBaine
01-07-2015, 10:17
I will wait until I see what the scrolls for the old warhammer armies look like before judging, but even then my verdict is bound to be bad. The fact they use only model count for balancing and not what the model is capable of doing in game terms is just mindboggling to me. A Goblin vs a Bloodthirster is "balanced" out under this ruleset, because both are one model. But if one player fields three Goblins, and the other has only one Bloodthirster, then this is clearly unfair! And because one player has way more models than the other, the Sudden Death table can be invoked... I... I can't even...

I could imagine playing a game with a friend where we are using an 2000 point list from 8th edition to have an idea what could be fair (but we can't know for sure, because the scrolls might change much of the rules and point costs will no longer represent power as they were before), but new players who never had warhammer as a reference are just screwed. How are you supposed to know what is a fair and balanced game?
In my gaming group, back when we started Warhammer in 5th edition we joked about playing. It went like this: "Just deploy all your models carefully on the table, then each player rolls 1d6, the one with the higher number wins. Take your army from the table. Done." We laughed back then. And now, this stupid joke how to waste time with warhammer seems quite near to the truth.

Spiney Norman
01-07-2015, 10:22
Well, one thing in the rumours was certainly incorrect - base size and shape certainly matter. Yes, technically they aren't there, and you can move over another model's base however you like, but if a model's base is large enough, or the wrong shape, you might not be able to physically place it where it can attack, while a smaller base model could.

Absolutely, I'm thinking square bases will actually be quite an advantage, both in terms of their ability to tessellate (fitting more models in a smaller area) and in terms of being able to use your movement trays to move them about.

Also I think 20mm square bases might be the only 'standard' GW base that allows you to get two rows of model within striking range of an enemy in the combat phase.

Avian
01-07-2015, 10:48
Also I think 20mm square bases might be the only 'standard' GW base that allows you to get two rows of model within striking range of an enemy in the combat phase.
That's going to depend on outstretched weaponry and so on, but generally that seems to be the case, yeah.

Norse
01-07-2015, 11:36
It doesn't even work for garage gamers and narrative gamers. In fact, it's even harder for them. We can't measure a decent game. Why the hell would anyone waste a night playing a game they cannot even remotely ensure is balanced? How many failed games will you have to play before you even start getting a rough idea of what units balance each other out?

And then, you still have to deal with the amazingly vague rules. Quick - using just the 4 page rule book, someone explain to me very clearly when you are allowed to pick a Sudden Death objective? After setup? During the game when you have taken casualties? At *any time* during the game when they are up by 1/3 models?

'Balanced' forces produced from points are a relatively recent innovation. People were perfectly happy just not being #$%!s before that. Does it really matter whether you win or lose? Can you not enjoy a well played defeat just as much? Not for everyone I guess but I personally don't have a problem playing narrative games. Indeed, even the earliest editions of warhammer only had points as a supplemental book. I'm not convinced there won't be some sort of balancing mechanism in the 96 page book that we know almost nothing about, or released as a supplement like the original Forces of Fantasy, Ravening Hordes or Warhammer Armies books.

The rules aren't vague. If you read that paragraph again it's pretty clear:

"If one army has a third more models than the other, the outnumbered player can choose one objective from the sudden death table after generals are nominated."

So, immediately after generals are nominated, pick your sudden death objective. Simples.

swordofglass
01-07-2015, 11:39
"If one army has a third more models than the other, the outnumbered player can choose one objective from the sudden death table after generals are nominated."

So, immediately after generals are nominated, pick your sudden death objective. Simples.

You added the word "immediately". If I pick a sudden-death objective in turn 5, this is still after generals are nominated.

Norse
01-07-2015, 11:43
It is clearly meant to be a flow. Okay, perhaps it might have been a little clearer if they'd actually said immediately. But it certainly becomes even clearer if you read the next paragraph:

"After any sudden death objectives have been chosen, if your army won a major victory in it's previous battle, roll a dice and look up the result on the triumph table to the right."

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 11:57
Yeah, we don't need to read this like a legal document ("'after' doesn't necessarily mean 'immediately 'after'!" - yes it does) to find holes in it. It's already more hole than anything else.

Avian
01-07-2015, 11:58
Yeah, that's how language normally works. When I tell my daughter to clean her face and hands after eating, we both assume that it means straight after and not tomorrow.

duffybear1988
01-07-2015, 12:12
It looks like GW took the cheese to a whole new level... Swiss :D

Norse
01-07-2015, 12:13
Maybe I'm missing something here... But I've read the 4 page document from beginning to end and I'm really not seeing any holes anywhere...

Avian
01-07-2015, 12:21
Maybe I'm missing something here... But I've read the 4 page document from beginning to end and I'm really not seeing any holes anywhere...
Well, that depends on your interpretation of 'holes', I guess. There are a lot of things that lead to absurd situations without being 'holes' per se. For example: The High Elf Phoenix is mounted on a flying base tall enough that normal models can't attack it in close combat. That is not a 'hole' as such (and it can't attack back either), but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Similarly, when you are charging, you may need to place models on top of the enemy models' bases for it to be a legal charge. That isn't a 'hole', but it's not practical.

mattjgilbert
01-07-2015, 12:22
It is clearly meant to be a flow. Okay, perhaps it might have been a little clearer if they'd actually said immediately. But it certainly becomes even clearer if you read the next paragraph:

"After any sudden death objectives have been chosen, if your army won a major victory in it's previous battle, roll a dice and look up the result on the triumph table to the right."

In a pick-up game, isn't everyone going to claim that their army won its last game? How does your opponent know one way or the other?

On the whole whole sudden death thing it looks like the deployment rules attempt to bring in a balancing mechanic of sorts (I say attempt...) because you can stop deploying at any time (or when you run out of space!). If you suddenly decide to not play with half the models you turned up with, that's fine. This is going to lead to some really cagey deployments and gaming the system (and some fast mental maths as people work out whether or not they now do or don't qualify for sudden death or not). It could be genius or it could be awful - I'm thinking the latter.

Montegue
01-07-2015, 12:23
Norse - Go read the section on cover again.

Montegue
01-07-2015, 12:25
Age of Sigmar - fixes

Before play begins arrange with your opponent a number of points you'd like to use to build your army.
To determine the price of a unit, add Move, Wounds, Bravery, and then the Attacks and Damage of their weapons and upgrades, and then add 2 for every special ability. If a weapon does multiple wounds, add the highest possible result. So, if a weapon does 1d3 wounds, it costs 3 points. Multiply this number by the number of models in the unit. This is the value of the unit.

Warscrolls without the Keywords Hero, Monster, Unique, blah blah blah have a minimum number of models per unit. This number is equal to the number normally supplied in a box of those miniatures. So, if 10 Longbeards come in a box, you have a minimum of 10 longbeards in a longbeard warscroll.

Bases – change to - “All models should be set on the base they were supplied with. Shape is irrelevant, but the base size is essential”


Measuring – All measuring goes from base to base.

Cover – Don't be a dumbass like the guys who wrote the rules. If your model is behind an object, in terrain, on top of terrain, or otherwise reasonably concealed by terrain, add 1 to his save.

Shooting – Models engaged in close combat may not shoot during the shooting phase, nor may models target any unit engaged in close combat with shooting or Arcane Blast. Models who shoot may not charge in the same turn.

Combat – Any model within weapon range of the enemy or in base contact with a friendly model in weapon range of the enemy may attack. (Pile into formation and fight).

Battleshock – Add an additional wound for every enemy unit engaged in the combat in excess of your own. So, if your opponent has 3 units in a melee, and you have two, add an additional casualty (something for flanking)

Victory – Ignore this completely. Victory is achieved either via scenario objective or by counting the number of points you have destroyed. If you destroyed more points than your opponent, you win.

This took me less than 30 minutes on literally no sleep with the added stress of a fussy newborn. What the ****** are they spending their time on at GW?

Shifte
01-07-2015, 12:26
'Balanced' forces produced from points are a relatively recent innovation. People were perfectly happy just not being #$%!s before that. Does it really matter whether you win or lose? Can you not enjoy a well played defeat just as much? Not for everyone I guess but I personally don't have a problem playing narrative games. Indeed, even the earliest editions of warhammer only had points as a supplemental book. I'm not convinced there won't be some sort of balancing mechanism in the 96 page book that we know almost nothing about, or released as a supplement like the original Forces of Fantasy, Ravening Hordes or Warhammer Armies books.

The rules aren't vague. If you read that paragraph again it's pretty clear:

"If one army has a third more models than the other, the outnumbered player can choose one objective from the sudden death table after generals are nominated."

So, immediately after generals are nominated, pick your sudden death objective. Simples.

You don't need the game to be balanced. That's great for you; I am happy that you will enjoy Age of Sigmar. Unfortunately not everyone is cool with the new rules. Some people want a nominally balanced game which is as at least trying to be competitive. That sort of game wouldn't do any harm to your own gaming since balance isn't important to you. With that in mind I hope you can be supportive of or sympathetic towards those with concerns about AoS not allowing for that sort of competitive play.

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 12:41
You don't need the game to be balanced. That's great for you; I am happy that you will enjoy Age of Sigmar. Unfortunately not everyone is cool with the new rules. Some people want a nominally balanced game which is as at least trying to be competitive.

Balance isn't restricted just to competitive players. Even purely "friendly" games need to be basically balanced to be worthwhile.

My opponent brings out his army, which consists of 20 Goblins, 30 Orcs, 10 Boar Riders, and a Warboss. I see that and want to play a game that will be interesting for both of us, without one of us crushing the other in two turns. I have 500 High Elf models available... if I take all 500, it plainly won't be a very interesting game. If I take just 1 Spearman, it plainly won't be a very interesting game. There's likely a sweet spot in the middle where it might be interesting... but how in the hell do I find that sweet spot, without playing a few games and getting it wrong, just so we can play one game that gets it right?

Nothing to do with being competitive. Nothing to do with me being a WAAC power-gamer. Just to do with not wanting to waste the next couple of hours on a game that is frustrating, boring and pointless.

Shifte
01-07-2015, 12:46
Balance isn't restricted just to competitive players. Even purely "friendly" games need to be basically balanced to be worthwhile.

My opponent brings out his army, which consists of 20 Goblins, 30 Orcs, 10 Boar Riders, and a Warboss. I see that and want to play a game that will be interesting for both of us, without one of us crushing the other in two turns. I have 500 High Elf models available... if I take all 500, it plainly won't be a very interesting game. If I take just 1 Spearman, it plainly won't be a very interesting game. There's likely a sweet spot in the middle where it might be interesting... but how in the hell do I find that sweet spot, without playing a few games and getting it wrong, just so we can play one game that gets it right?

Nothing to do with being competitive. Nothing to do with me being a WAAC power-gamer. Just to do with not wanting to waste the next couple of hours on a game that is frustrating, boring and pointless.

Yep, I include myself in that bracket.

The other problem is how do we work out where player skill comes into it? If one player is just a better tactician than the other then does that mean there will be more dispute as to what is or isn't fair? Heck, what if players plainly disagree on what is overpowered and what isn't? At least points and army composition rules settled those discussions, even if we disagreed with them we knew what we were getting into in advance.

Col. Tartleton
01-07-2015, 12:58
Not impressed by the rules. Unless they're purely simplified starter rules. Which is bad because it makes learning the actual rules harder not easier.

Looks like I'll be sticking to square bases and ranked forces. This should be a cause for celebration.

This is not the telescoping Mordheim / Warhammer I was hoping for.

Thanks Obama.

Norse
01-07-2015, 13:03
In a pick-up game, isn't everyone going to claim that their army won its last game? How does your opponent know one way or the other?


On the whole whole sudden death thing it looks like the deployment rules attempt to bring in a balancing mechanic of sorts (I say attempt...) because you can stop deploying at any time (or when you run out of space!). If you suddenly decide to not play with half the models you turned up with, that's fine. This is going to lead to some really cagey deployments and gaming the system (and some fast mental maths as people work out whether or not they now do or don't qualify for sudden death or not). It could be genius or it could be awful - I'm thinking the latter.


Yeah, if they want to lie about a game of toy soldiers then that's on their conscience. Age of Sigmar is clearly not aimed at that audience. Which some people will have a problem with. But me, I'm happy with it.



Norse - Go read the section on cover again.


Have done. No problems spotted as yet. If you are in or on a terrain feature you get a +1 to save. What's the issue?



You don't need the game to be balanced. That's great for you; I am happy that you will enjoy Age of Sigmar. Unfortunately not everyone is cool with the new rules. Some people want a nominally balanced game which is as at least trying to be competitive. That sort of game wouldn't do any harm to your own gaming since balance isn't important to you. With that in mind I hope you can be supportive of or sympathetic towards those with concerns about AoS not allowing for that sort of competitive play.


We don't know yet that there will be no method of balancing. We haven't seen the scenarios yet. Maybe there will be. If there is, great the competitive WAAC players can be happy. If not, it won't be a problem for me. Look - Warhammer has been badly skewed towards competitive play for a long time with no support for other play styles since 6th edition. If they swing back the other way for an edition, then I'm happy with that.

swordofglass
01-07-2015, 13:08
I've fixed AoS! All you have to do is add this:

"After a battle finishes, you must swap armies and fight the battle again. You are only victorious if you win both battles."

That's the only way to balance this mess of 'take whatever you like'. Of course, it's nonsense.



Have done. No problems spotted as yet. If you are in or on a terrain feature you get a +1 to save. What's the issue?


So you see no issue with a model standing behind a wall, which covers everything apart from its head, receiving no bonus or cover save at all? That's, like, one of the main time cover comes up - when your models are obscured, not just when they're 'in or on' terrain. And yet the writers left it out.

Voss
01-07-2015, 13:38
Have done. No problems spotted as yet. If you are in or on a terrain feature you get a +1 to save. What's the issue?

Then you need to read it again.

X <--- model, |-| <---wall

.X
|-| OR |-|X

One of the two scenarios above gives a cover bonus. It isn't the one it should be.

Norse
01-07-2015, 13:42
Ah. I'm not used to just plonking random walls down... I'm used to having them as part of a terrain feature. Age of Sigmar seems to be going towards a bizarre combination of terrain 'areas' as per traditional wargaming, and defined obstacles.

mattjgilbert
01-07-2015, 13:48
Low walls and hedges are pretty common though in tabletop games (and defined as obstacles rather than area terrain).

bobix
01-07-2015, 13:53
Then you need to read it again.

X <--- model, |-| <---wall

.X
|-| OR |-|X

One of the two scenarios above gives a cover bonus. It isn't the one it should be.


if all model in a unit are within or on a terrain feature

within a terrain feature ...look like you need to base you wall, that's all. You could even argue that if a model is behind a wall, he is within the terrain feature

Voss
01-07-2015, 13:54
Ah. I'm not used to just plonking random walls down... I'm used to having them as part of a terrain feature. Age of Sigmar seems to be going towards a bizarre combination of terrain 'areas' as per traditional wargaming, and defined obstacles.

Actually, it doesn't assume anything, or at least if it does, it doesn't tell anyone. It does say you have to care about each individual tree,* at least, you can't move through them, but I guess if you have a forest 'area terrain', you'd get cover regardless if the model is obscured by a tree or not. Which is a really weird way to do area terrain, ignoring the general situation and dealing with specifics in the movement phase, but ignoring the specifics and dealing with the piece as an area when it comes to attacks.

*which you can climb... for whatever that does for you.


within a terrain feature ...look like you need to base you wall, that's all. You could even argue that if a model is behind a wall, he is within the terrain feature

Why would a wall need a base? Particularly in a system that tells you to ignore bases? And if at any point you find yourself arguing that next to is the same as within, you need to check your logic. Try it with a car. Specifically, try driving while next to it.

bobix
01-07-2015, 14:00
Actually, it doesn't assume anything, or at least if it does, it doesn't tell anyone. It does say you have to care about each individual tree,* at least, you can't move through them, but I guess if you have a forest 'area terrain', you'd get cover regardless if the model is obscured by a tree or not. Which is a really weird way to do area terrain, ignoring the general situation and dealing with specifics in the movement phase, but ignoring the specifics and dealing with the piece as an area when it comes to attacks.

*which you can climb... for whatever that does for you.



Why would a wall need a base? And if at any point you find yourself arguing that next to is the same as within, you need to check your logic. Try it with a car. Specifically, try driving while next to it.

yea, whatever :)

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 14:07
yea, whatever :)

Thanks for your mature and insightful contribution to this thread.

For future reference, a better response would have been "Good point. Sorry, I was wrong."

It's OK to be wrong.

Soulless
01-07-2015, 14:14
Why would a wall need a base? Particularly in a system that tells you to ignore bases? And if at any point you find yourself arguing that next to is the same as within, you need to check your logic. Try it with a car. Specifically, try driving while next to it.

I guess GW wants to sell terrein with warscroll cards and Im pretty sure it will come on bases.

bobix
01-07-2015, 14:29
Thanks for your mature and insightful contribution to this thread.

For future reference, a better response would have been "Good point. Sorry, I was wrong."

It's OK to be wrong.

unless i am not.

rules make reference to abstract terrain feature [FEATURE], not zone, object or anything. A wall feature is protecting you from missile going through it :) so behind a wall you are protected ;) .
The best solution is still to base the wall section.

But yea you are right i should have responded something like : you ! check your logic, and stop being so nitpicky about rules designed to play a fun game (= not serious or competitive)
game for small kids or old player who just don't give a ****. :rolleyes:

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 14:49
rules make reference to abstract terrain feature [FEATURE], not zone, object or anything. A wall feature is protecting you from missile going through it :) so behind a wall you are protected ;) .

Except that's not what the rules say.


The best solution is still to base the wall section.

Except that's not what the rules say.

We're discussing the AoS rules (and pointing out how hopeless they are). You're now making up your own rules. Which are sensible, but they're not the AoS rules. And by saying "yeah, whatever" you tacitly acknowledge that, though without the maturity to do so explicitly.

bobix
01-07-2015, 15:15
yea the rules say : "on or within a terrain feature" enough to play if you don't over analyse everything like a RAW machine.

ps: thx for all the constant reminder about my logic or maturity :rolleyes:

nosebiter
01-07-2015, 15:23
yea the rules say : "on or within a terrain feature" enough to play if you don't over analyse everything like a RAW machine.

ps: thx for all the constant reminder about my logic or maturity :rolleyes:


Don't bother. They are busy on their high horses. It is pointless to debate with them.

brotherAkkyshan
01-07-2015, 15:34
The Oxford Dictionary definition of a rule or rules -"One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity." As it's impossible to stipulate regulations to cover all possible aspects of a simulated war between two opposing factions, many rule sets will go as far as the authors see fit and then try and add in some way of allowing players to decide fairly between themselves, usually advising some randomised element. Some rule sets are a few pages. Some rule sets are a few hundred pages.

What worries me with the Age of Sigma rules is that people are already arguing whether a model behind a wall is in cover or not. If something as simple as this is not covered in the rules (unless the system uses no form of cover and games are played on an empty tabletop) the whole sorry mess will descend into anarchy the first time two over-excited, hormone fuelled twelve year olds face each other! It's the guys in the stores I feel sorry for! :/

Whirlwind
01-07-2015, 15:59
Actually, it doesn't assume anything, or at least if it does, it doesn't tell anyone. It does say you have to care about each individual tree,* at least, you can't move through them, but I guess if you have a forest 'area terrain', you'd get cover regardless if the model is obscured by a tree or not. Which is a really weird way to do area terrain, ignoring the general situation and dealing with specifics in the movement phase, but ignoring the specifics and dealing with the piece as an area when it comes to attacks.

*which you can climb... for whatever that does for you.

Yeah this bit is just weird. Yes I would like my model to climb a tree, that's helpful of the rules. Also to be fair the rules do specifically talk about a wall so trying to work out when a model is within or on a wall is valid. Again this issue really arises because bases are no longer considered.

However if you want to be really pedantic you can argue that you are always in a terrain feature as it is not specified in the rules what a terrain feature is. So does it include a hill, a pile of cracked skulls on the board; an open plain is a terrain feature so hence all of a battle board is a terrain feature to some extent. Maybe this just allows you simplify the rules again to "You always get a +1 bonus to your save as long as you didn't charge".

StygianBeach
01-07-2015, 16:11
The Oxford Dictionary definition of a rule or rules -"One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity." As it's impossible to stipulate regulations to cover all possible aspects of a simulated war between two opposing factions, many rule sets will go as far as the authors see fit and then try and add in some way of allowing players to decide fairly between themselves, usually advising some randomised element. Some rule sets are a few pages. Some rule sets are a few hundred pages.

What worries me with the Age of Sigma rules is that people are already arguing whether a model behind a wall is in cover or not. If something as simple as this is not covered in the rules (unless the system uses no form of cover and games are played on an empty tabletop) the whole sorry mess will descend into anarchy the first time two over-excited, hormone fuelled twelve year olds face each other! It's the guys in the stores I feel sorry for! :/

This shouldn't worry you, because these posters are just finding holes for fun, then others are helping to dig it without actually checking to see if the hole is in the right place.

GrandmasterWang
01-07-2015, 16:20
Given unless it's a fat wall it's hard to balance a model on top of it I'd say it's a fair call that a model behind a wall is 'within' the wall terrain feature. My guess is this is RAI but who knows.

Id immediately house rule walls to have an area going back as far behind them as far as they are tall.... the 'shade' if you like

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Norse
01-07-2015, 16:30
I think the key here could be that Games Workshop won't be producing walls. And they want you playing with their special terrain.

brotherAkkyshan
01-07-2015, 16:38
I think the key here could be that Games Workshop won't be producing walls. And they want you playing with their special terrain.

From now on they'll be referred to as Skull WallzTM and trees shall be know as Battle FoilageTM and each will come with it's own Terra-ScrollTM containing Key WordsTM as well as an extensive FAQ (which unfortunately GW can't prove is their Intellectual Property so will also be re-named eventually!) :p

Norse
01-07-2015, 16:44
From now on they'll be referred to as Skull WallzTM and trees shall be know as Battle FoilageTM and each will come with it's own Terra-ScrollTM containing Key WordsTM as well as an extensive FAQ (which unfortunately GW can't prove is their Intellectual Property so will also be re-named eventually!) :p

Unfortunately I fear you won't be that far from the truth...

brotherAkkyshan
01-07-2015, 17:04
Unfortunately I fear you won't be that far from the truth...

I was only half-joking to be honest! IP is everything, they have said as much. The reason they have re-booted (I hate that word so much!) is that they couldn't trade mark generic fantasy names and races, or their images. Games Workshop for years now has been desperately pushing their 'GW IS the hobby' philosophy, much to the delight of all their critics. Want paint brushes to paint your Space Marines? Here are official GW paintbrushes that cost 25% more than other paintbrushes. Want to put a forest on your gaming table? Here have a box of three plastic trees at an extortionate price rather than going to your local modelling supplies store and buy ten times as many generic railway terrain trees.

Games Workshop seems to want a business set up similar the video games industry where you buy into their product and are limited to using only their peripherals and games. One of the biggest selling points of Age of Sigma (from their point of view) seems to be "buy a box of miniatures and play straight away!" I could do that now. 20 for a box of dwarves and a quick trip to Scribd to download any number of older versions of Fantasy Battle (other games ARE available despite what they try to tell you!), couple of yards of green cloth and a couple books underneath for hills... Viola!

mattjgilbert
01-07-2015, 17:09
I suspect that the real reason they rebooted (refreshing the IP is an added goal) is because, as sad as it might sound, the WHFB players don't collectively average enough consistent spend on GW product to satisfy the accountants and sales targets. The structure of AoS looks very much to be geared to making sure the product line delivers consistent (and increased) revenue. It's a bold and risky move to be sure but commercially makes sense if whfb wasn't working they way they needed it to.

Norse
01-07-2015, 17:12
Games Workshop seems to want a business set up similar the video games industry where you buy into their product and are limited to using only their peripherals and games. One of the biggest selling points of Age of Sigma (from their point of view) seems to be "buy a box of miniatures and play straight away!" I could do that now. 20 for a box of dwarves and a quick trip to Scribd to download any number of older versions of Fantasy Battle (other games ARE available despite what they try to tell you!), couple of yards of green cloth and a couple books underneath for hills... Viola!

Indeed you can. In fact, I still do. I have original copies of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th editions, all of which I still play. But it'll be nice to see GW actually supporting being able to play with only a few models. The buy in cost and amount of work required to build an 8th edition army was ridiculous.

brotherAkkyshan
01-07-2015, 17:21
I suspect that the real reason they rebooted (refreshing the IP is an added goal) is because, as sad as it might sound, the WHFB players don't collectively average enough consistent spend on GW product to satisfy the accountants and sales targets. The structure of AoS looks very much to be geared to making sure the product line delivers consistent (and increased) revenue. It's a bold and risky move to be sure but commercially makes sense if whfb wasn't working they way they needed it to.

I'm not so sure matt. Specialist games weren't making money and they just ceased supporting them. As much as saying so is going to upset some people I think that this (replacing FB with AoS) is just a test run for tying up all the IP loose-ends in 40K. Whether or not this works the same thing will happen next year with 40K. GW really, really hate not being able to legally hammer into the ground anyone that in their eyes infringes on their copywrite and therefore their profit margin. 40K has a little less to worry about as less of it seems 'generic', though the rules issue would still be a worry.

brotherAkkyshan
01-07-2015, 17:24
Indeed you can. In fact, I still do. I have original copies of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th editions, all of which I still play. But it'll be nice to see GW actually supporting being able to play with only a few models. The buy in cost and amount of work required to build an 8th edition army was ridiculous.

Not sure what you consider as 'support' Norse. Do you just mean new models? Most editions of Warhammer can be played with just a few models already. You just need to make small adjustments to the rules which you and your opponent can agree on... A bit like the Age of Sigma rules from what I've seen so far!

Norse
01-07-2015, 17:28
Not sure what you consider as 'support' Norse. Do you just mean new models? Most editions of Warhammer can be played with just a few models already. You just need to make small adjustments to the rules which you and your opponent can agree on... A bit like the Age of Sigma rules from what I've seen so far!

You're right, most editions can be played with small numbers of figures. But Games Workshop had been discouraging that style of play in recent editions in favour of bigger and bigger games requiring bigger and bigger units. Now they are encouraging people to start small and work up - which is exactly how most people have played Warhammer until the very recent past. That's what I meant.

Whirlwind
01-07-2015, 17:32
I'm not so sure matt. Specialist games weren't making money and they just ceased supporting them. As much as saying so is going to upset some people I think that this (replacing FB with AoS) is just a test run for tying up all the IP loose-ends in 40K. Whether or not this works the same thing will happen next year with 40K. GW really, really hate not being able to legally hammer into the ground anyone that in their eyes infringes on their copywrite and therefore their profit margin. 40K has a little less to worry about as less of it seems 'generic', though the rules issue would still be a worry.

Specialist games weren't making as much money as the core games they were still making money (except maybe Inquisitor). No they got abandoned because they it was deemed they were eating into Warhammer and 40k too much (hence depriving GW of the greater profits). For example you want to play a small Warhammer game, Mordheim/Necromunda was the key. GW wanted to promote large scale battles in 40k (apocalypse) and to an extent Warhammer but you could represent these much cheaper and gamewise effectively in Warmaster/Epic 40k. Hence you could spend couple of hundred /$ etc on one of these armies whereas it would get you two baneblades or a handful of tanks in 40k or a unit or two in Warhammer and you'd be nowhere near the large battle size.

Sephillion
01-07-2015, 17:35
It doesn't even work for garage gamers and narrative gamers. In fact, it's even harder for them. We can't measure a decent game. Why the hell would anyone waste a night playing a game they cannot even remotely ensure is balanced? How many failed games will you have to play before you even start getting a rough idea of what units balance each other out?

And then, you still have to deal with the amazingly vague rules. Quick - using just the 4 page rule book, someone explain to me very clearly when you are allowed to pick a Sudden Death objective? After setup? During the game when you have taken casualties? At *any time* during the game when they are up by 1/3 models?

It's amazing - it's a tour-de-force how they managed to make simple rules, make them unclear and clunky (measuring from models...) and still make place for the random tables. I'd have taken examples and longer explanations over this stupid table any day.

hobojebus
01-07-2015, 19:15
It's amazing - it's a tour-de-force how they managed to make simple rules, make them unclear and clunky (measuring from models...) and still make place for the random tables. I'd have taken examples and longer explanations over this stupid table any day.

Welcome to the wonderful world of modern GW rules.

Voss
01-07-2015, 19:19
This shouldn't worry you, because these posters are just finding holes for fun, then others are helping to dig it without actually checking to see if the hole is in the right place.
Really? OK, you've got a forest 'area terrain'. You have to walk around each individual tree (because the rules say that), but if you stand within the area of the forest you get a cover bonus (because the rules say that). If you stand 1/2" outside the forest opposite a shooting unit who is also not in the forest, you do not get a cover save, despite them shooting directly through the forest between the two models. But if you stand right in front of the shooter with the back leg of your model slightly overlapping with the 'area' of the forest you *do* get a cover save, despite the fact that all the trees are behind you, and there is, in fact, no forest between the two models. Does *any* that make sense to you?



I think the key here could be that Games Workshop won't be producing walls. And they want you playing with their special terrain.

But GW does produce walls. Walls & Fences, $24.75.

Silent Surrender
01-07-2015, 19:35
I suspect that the real reason they rebooted (refreshing the IP is an added goal) is because, as sad as it might sound, the WHFB players don't collectively average enough consistent spend on GW product to satisfy the accountants and sales targets. The structure of AoS looks very much to be geared to making sure the product line delivers consistent (and increased) revenue. It's a bold and risky move to be sure but commercially makes sense if whfb wasn't working they way they needed it to.

Yes, a Beautiful World created from nothing was in the end torn down by these pigs because of greed. Our World is next

dreamspirit
01-07-2015, 22:01
the more I think about this, the more promising it looks to me. let's face it, GW knows that lame 4pg ruleset just won't work in the long run, most of just panicked (I don't even play the game, stopped with the 8th) because of the rumor that there won't be any rules after this pamphlet. this isn't going to be the whole truth even if we don't get classical rulebook. Realms in which battles are fought is going to be important, yet we don't know anything on how will it affect things. What does this mean, if you won last game, you get to do this and that? I doubt that this will actually matter outside playing actual game. In which way, that I don't know. perhaps we should look at these rules as a teaser of what's to come, and a good guide for 12 year olds. if the game is scenario based with predetermined number of warscrolls, this might be the good way of actually balancing things out. there are more thing that we don't know than those that we know at this point.
GW won't let all this hype they created backfire on them. they know that they can count on us supporting them even after whining and cursing at them. because that's what we do, we're junkies after all. 2 years after one edition, they made another one, people cursed and yelled and cursed and yelled and then stopped and continued like 6th never was.
Having the set made so that both 40k and fantasy players see potential in it is a very good move, I think following months will hold more surprises, and definitely good rules that will be playable.

swordofglass
01-07-2015, 22:51
Nah, this is a company which still produces Warhammer Visions and touted Failcast as the best thing ever. Put nothing past them.

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 23:32
So you're saying... this is terrible, but it can't possibly really be terrible, so it must be about to be good?

Seems legit.

The_Real_Chris
02-07-2015, 00:02
I suspect that the real reason they rebooted (refreshing the IP is an added goal) is because, as sad as it might sound, the WHFB players don't collectively average enough consistent spend on GW product to satisfy the accountants and sales targets. The structure of AoS looks very much to be geared to making sure the product line delivers consistent (and increased) revenue. It's a bold and risky move to be sure but commercially makes sense if whfb wasn't working they way they needed it to.

In general if a company blames its customers, it has problems... GW was running WFB, the performance fall wasn't the players fault... The fact remains they took the premier fantasy miniatures game they had built up and pulled it down.

mattjgilbert
02-07-2015, 00:11
I didn't say the players were to blame. More the structure of the product and the way it was marketed and released. If the majority of the player base were long time players who only bought the odd new unit in the first few weeks of an army relaunch, the revenue stream is low and erratic. That's speculation of course.

The_Real_Chris
02-07-2015, 00:14
Specialist games weren't making money and they just ceased supporting them.


No they got abandoned because they it was deemed they were eating into Warhammer and 40k too much (hence depriving GW of the greater profits).

The latter point apparently came out of the US experience with a soft re-launch of BFG and a drop in 40k sales... SG's didn't make a loss when they were direct only, but they were a worse return on costs than the core games. No doubt at the time GW saw the overall return for the company better without them. Just be glad they didn't get an AoS re-launch!

dreamspirit
02-07-2015, 12:13
So you're saying... this is terrible, but it can't possibly really be terrible, so it must be about to be good?

Seems legit.

:) in a way, yes. It seems terrible to us now, and we are overreacting without knowing everything there is to know about AoS. They do need this to succeed if they want to keep the boat floating in the fantasy realm, so I think they have to make it right. One thing they did for sure, every man, woman and child in the warhammer community is talking about it and expecting the release to see what will happen. as they already marketed it, it si the biggest thing they ever did, so I doubt it'll have 4pg rule set to go around. in either case, time will tell

The_Real_Chris
02-07-2015, 16:53
While you can say their is no such thing as bad publicity, most companies do try and have a positive buzz about things.

Snake1311
02-07-2015, 17:06
And then, you still have to deal with the amazingly vague rules. Quick - using just the 4 page rule book, someone explain to me very clearly when you are allowed to pick a Sudden Death objective? After setup? During the game when you have taken casualties? At *any time* during the game when they are up by 1/3 models?

The Sudden Death thing in particular is actually very clear: its picked after Generals are selected, before the Triumph table kicks in - both of which occur before the start of turn 1.

Mr_Foulscumm
02-07-2015, 17:13
While you can say their is no such thing as bad publicity, most companies do try and have a positive buzz about things.

This is what people say to protect their egos when they **** up. Ask Bill Cosby if the statement holds true. ;)

Tokamak
02-07-2015, 17:18
Ok. A crazy thought about balancing. What if, in a tournament, you play twice. Once with your army and once with theirs. Then the onus will be to build a list that you know well but the other person would struggle with. Thoughts?

Good thinking, that's how all inherently asymmetrical games are balanced. Like Enemy Territory, with attackers and defenders.

For war-gaming however it's a cop-out. It puts the whole focus in the game (and conversely in the dice-rolls) and it takes all the weight out of army-building.

mattjgilbert
02-07-2015, 17:27
You're going to have to have pretty small and quick games in a tournament if you are playing everyone twice. You have to now play double the number of games in the same time to the tournament schedule. I can't see that being practical.

Gorsameth
02-07-2015, 17:36
Your also having several other people touching and potentially breaking your stuff.
Not that anyone would purposefully do anything but things break during play and I certainly don't wanne be banging around your award-winning army.

mattjgilbert
02-07-2015, 17:40
Also, you don't have to deploy the whole army. You stop deploying when you want to. Or in the second game, are you compelled to play with exactly what the other player chose to in the previous game?

swordofglass
02-07-2015, 18:04
I made the suggestion some time ago that playing every battle twice, but swapping armies, and only 'winning' if you win both battles, is probably the only way to balance this thing and ensure that the person who wins does so through playing well. mattjgilbert, you would have to deploy the same models in the 2nd battle as in the first, or it does not work.
That's how bad the rules are.

Kelesis
02-07-2015, 18:10
1.- You have to play with X Warscrolls (i.e.7 warscrolls). 2.- Max 0-1 Hero. 3.- Max 0-2 of each War Scroll. 4.- Max unit size: Box Miniatures (i.e. a clan rats maximum size is 20 models, a Black Guard, 10 models). 5.- Maximum WOUNDS per ARMY X wounds (i.e. 50 wounds). End.

Col. Tartleton
02-07-2015, 18:22
I made the suggestion some time ago that playing every battle twice, but swapping armies, and only 'winning' if you win both battles, is probably the only way to balance this thing and ensure that the person who wins does so through playing well. mattjgilbert, you would have to deploy the same models in the 2nd battle as in the first, or it does not work.
That's how bad the rules are.

Although that'd be kind of fun. :p

mattjgilbert
02-07-2015, 18:53
1.- You have to play with X Warscrolls (i.e.7 warscrolls). 2.- Max 0-1 Hero. 3.- Max 0-2 of each War Scroll. 4.- Max unit size: Box Miniatures (i.e. a clan rats maximum size is 20 models, a Black Guard, 10 models). 5.- Maximum WOUNDS per ARMY X wounds (i.e. 50 wounds). End.
That doesn't work either. Play As models could still all be twice as powerful as Player Bs. You'd fill slots with models that had lowish wounds but high damage (especially mortal wound killers) output and great armour. Nobody would field anything but elite killers because that also boosts their chances of getting SD for having less models.

Kelesis
02-07-2015, 19:40
That doesn't work either. Play As models could still all be twice as powerful as Player Bs. You'd fill slots with models that had lowish wounds but high damage (especially mortal wound killers) output and great armour. Nobody would field anything but elite killers because that also boosts their chances of getting SD for having less models.It's not perfect, but its imposible to balance something that not has points values. This way is a simple manner to TRY to play a semi balanced game. Remeber that any balance system have problems. The alternative is to assig points to each unit, which is imposible from my point of view.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 19:42
I don't think points are impossible to assign - it just requires sitting down and coming up with the formula to do so.

I am willing to bet someone will do just that very soon for tournaments...

Avian
02-07-2015, 19:43
Surely it would be less work to translate the Sigmardudes' rules to normal Warhammer? There are far fewer of them.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 19:44
That was something else discussed with our group, to let you use them in the 8th edition campaigns.

Voss
02-07-2015, 20:22
It's not perfect, but its imposible to balance something that not has points values. This way is a simple manner to TRY to play a semi balanced game. Remeber that any balance system have problems. The alternative is to assig points to each unit, which is imposible from my point of view.

Not at all. They used to do it for all the things they're making warscrolls of (the ones going up this weekend). It just requires work, playtesting and more work.

Farseer Emrys
04-07-2015, 12:51
I've been studying these war scrolls for my high elves. I've noticed several scroll have stats that are an * (asterix or blak star or whatever) it is mostly the movement score of flying creatures an a to hit OR to wound or attack score on some monsters. what do they mean? auto hit? auto wound, unlimited movement? what about an attack score of * what does that mean?

Gorsameth
04-07-2015, 13:36
I've been studying these war scrolls for my high elves. I've noticed several scroll have stats that are an * (asterix or blak star or whatever) it is mostly the movement score of flying creatures an a to hit OR to wound or attack score on some monsters. what do they mean? auto hit? auto wound, unlimited movement? what about an attack score of * what does that mean?
That some rule determines it. Read the rest of the war scroll to find out.

KariP
04-07-2015, 13:40
I'll keep playing my bretonnians with 8th edition.

This is just retarded.

Nightfall Shimmer
04-07-2015, 14:53
I've been studying these war scrolls for my high elves. I've noticed several scroll have stats that are an * (asterix or blak star or whatever) it is mostly the movement score of flying creatures an a to hit OR to wound or attack score on some monsters. what do they mean? auto hit? auto wound, unlimited movement? what about an attack score of * what does that mean?

Typically it means they have some special rule or other that governs what effect that stat actually has elsewhere on the Warscroll.

For example, the Skaven Verminlord variations have several * stats. each is tied to how many wounds it has remaining and are listed in a table underneat the weapon stats.

lowlylowlycook
04-07-2015, 16:06
Ok. A crazy thought about balancing. What if, in a tournament, you play twice. Once with your army and once with theirs. Then the onus will be to build a list that you know well but the other person would struggle with. Thoughts?


I had exactly this thought but, on reflection, it doesn't work at all. Since there is no way to communicate the overall power level for lists to be aimed at, you'll just end up playing two unbalanced games.

The more I think about it, the more sense the official deployment rules make to me. Well they are insane but that's the only proper way to deal with an insane game. If you combine them with your idea of switching armies for a second battle, then at least each person can strive for balance as the deployment unfolds. Still utter madness because if all the synergies have made coming up with a point system impractical then players will never be able to get balance right by "feel".

Sithlord
04-07-2015, 16:25
Suggestion balancing.
- count the wounds NOT models for purpose of point cost (small game 50 wounds, mid game 100 wounds, and else).
- you may make limit to wounds (say 50) and for purpose sudden death, you can put less than this to give sudden death advantage.
- sudden death can happen any turn not just at the deployment. Calculate wound worth model at the beginning of the turn. this give advantage to losers or enemies of death faction.
- limit turn to 6 (8 or 10, depending on how large the games)
- name character limit to only ONE (you cannot bring 3 nagash)
- on roll to hit, to wound and to save, a roll of 1 always fail while roll of 6 always success (unless that profile is '-', in which case always fail)
- no more than 50 % wound worth models on deployment may be spend on hero
- no more than 25 % wound worth models on deployment may be spend on warmachine
- no more than 25 % wound worth models on deployment may be spend on monster.
- All 'comedic' rules allowed, so long you can achieve it :)

HOPE THAT HELPS

lowlylowlycook
04-07-2015, 16:37
Suggestion balancing.
- count the wounds NOT models for purpose of point cost (small game 50 wounds, mid game 100 wounds, and else).
- you may make limit to wounds (say 50) and for purpose sudden death, you can put less than this to give sudden death advantage.
- sudden death can happen any turn not just at the deployment. Calculate wound worth model at the beginning of the turn. this give advantage to losers or enemies of death faction.
- limit turn to 6 (8 or 10, depending on how large the games)
- name character limit to only ONE (you cannot bring 3 nagash)
- on roll to hit, to wound and to save, a roll of 1 always fail while roll of 6 always success (unless that profile is '-', in which case always fail)
- no more than 50 % wound worth models on deployment may be spend on hero
- no more than 25 % wound worth models on deployment may be spend on warmachine
- no more than 25 % wound worth models on deployment may be spend on monster.

HOPE THAT HELPS

It doesn't help if you want to play with clan rats or goblins.

Anyway, even if you made a points system that covered the basic stats and special rules, you'll never be able to balance all the built in synergies. AoS is basically Magic the Gathering without land costs.

Sithlord
04-07-2015, 16:44
seems okay for clanrats, they have advantage of speed and shield. otherwise you will horde them anyway, just like i will horde my peasants :/