PDA

View Full Version : WTF moments in the AoS rules



Pages : [1] 2

Avian
01-07-2015, 08:49
So I've had a night to chew over the rules and even tried out the rules a little. They are somewhat puzzling at times, and I thought I'd do this in a structured way:

The Armies
- Army selection restrictions are literally 'however many models you want' or 'however many models will physically fit in your deployment zone', whichever is lowest
- You are not told to agree with your opponent what size battle you want to play (unlike 8th edition)

Warscrolls & Units
- Unit sizes are either 1 or 1+. Taking a lot of 1-model units typically gives you a pile of free champion upgrades.
- Models in the same unit must be no more than 1" apart. This is measured model-to-model and not base-to-base, so it might be closer than you think.
-- I put down some Night Goblins and it turns out they have to be within 0.5" of the guy in front to be in formation.
- It says that unit that end up out of formation must reform the next turn they move, but doesn't actually explain what that means, or what happens if they can't get back in formation.

Tools of War
- You measure to and from the model, not the base. For extra reach, model your troopers with arms and weapons outstretched.
-- An extra inch from spearmen seems doable.
- Apparently, this game doesn't use templates at all.


The Battle Begins

Set-up
- The player who finishes deployment first goes first, but this has very little effect since who goes first in later rounds is randomly determined.

Glorious Victory
- Last man standing wins
- All attempts at balancing are based around model count, not abilities or power
-- So if your 10 Chaos Warriors are fighting 15 Goblins, they get a bonus
- When summoning models into existing units, you must keep track of exactly which were there initially and which were summoned later. On third thought, this doesn't seem to be necessary.

Triumphs
- If you won your last battle (as a major victory) you get a bonus in this one. It doesn't matter who you won against.
-- Trust amongst players would seem to be required.


Battle Rounds
- Half the time, you'll have two turns in a row.


Moving
- You can stand on top of another model's base, as this isn't considered part of the model.
- Because no part of the model can move further than it's Move value, pivoting on the spot costs movement.
-- Turning my Wyvern 180 degrees on the spot costs 7" of movement, and doesn't give me any advantage.


Enemy Models
- If a unit is within 3" of an enemy unit, it must either remain stationary or retreat. This means that any models in that unit who are not already within 3" of an enemy model (letting them make pile-in moves in the Combat phase) will be stuck where they are and unable to move until the enemy has chewed its way to them.
-- Tactical dying is recommended if you don't want single models tying up whole units.
-- Alternatively, bring missile weapons and fire away (see below) Nevermind, everyone gets to make pile-in moves.


Shooting Phase
- Models in close combat can still shoot with no penalty, either at the unit they are engaged with, or some other unit.
- You can shoot into close combat with no penalty.


Charge Phase
- To successfully charge, you must end up within half an inch of an enemy model. Remember that this is measured model-to-model and NOT base-to-base.
-- If you don't want your models to be charged, have them modeled with their hands behind their backs. ;)
- Yes, you CAN move, shoot with no penalty, charge and fight in melee, all in the same turn.
-- Thus, the most powerful non-character models in the AoS box seem to be the angel guys.
- You can charge models you can't see (ex: around a corner)
- Unless you have a special rule, the charge bonus is extra movement.


Combat Phase
- If you fielded your guys in neat ranks and files, they will probably break formation at this point in order to make their pile-in moves.
- Pile-in moves can leave models who haven't fought yet stranded and unable to fight as they are suddenly more than 3" from their enemies.


Battleshock Phase
- Units of 1 (including characters, who are always alone) are essentially unbreakable.
-- If you bring a pile of single-model units, you never have to worry about Bravery.
- For each ten models you have in the unit, one less guy will die from battleshock.


Attacking

Picking targets
- Melee weapons now have a range, typically 1".
-- If you make sure your models are on bases less than 1" in diameter, you can always attack in two ranks. Does anyone make 24 mm round bases? :D

Making attacks
- Previously, WS, T and armour made you more difficult to kill. Now it's only armour.

Cover
- You can shoot through woods or other terrain with no penalty.
- A model standing behind a low wall doesn't benefit from cover. A model standing on top of that wall does.
-- For a unit to benefit, they all need to be standing on top of the wall. :D


More when it comes in

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 08:58
Deployment - it's possible to choose territories such that no model can deploy. Not very useful...? OK, nudge that slightly and it's possible to choose territories such that only small models can deploy. If you happen to know your opponent only has large models, you can win the game by preventing him from putting any models on the board.

Deployment (unrelated to the above) - there's nothing to say territories have to be contiguous. Possibly by design, but shouldn't that be stated, one way or the other?

Avian
01-07-2015, 09:01
It does actually specify that the terriories have to be "two equal-sized halves".

But I DID wonder if you could do a checkerboard style split, yes. You can't.

I considered putting the "impossible to deploy anything" zones on the list, but that seemed to be in the same category as making an army list with zero models in it.

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 09:07
It does actually specify that the terriories have to be "two equal-sized halves".

But I DID wonder if you could do a checkerboard style split, yes. You can't.

Hmm.... I guess "two quarters" is not the same as "one half", even though they both cover the same area of board. So you're probably right. Still, it's unclear on first reading.


I considered putting the "impossible to deploy anything" zones on the list, but that seemed to be in the same category as making an army list with zero models in it.

Granted (still WTF mind you), but the "only possible to deploy small models" variant isn't. Oh, I see you've brought Nagash? Never mind, I'll just define the deployment territories so you can't fit him on the board.

Shifte
01-07-2015, 09:11
So I've had a night to chew over the rules and even tried out the rules a little. They are somewhat puzzling at times, and I thought I'd do this in a structured way:

The Armies
- Army selection restrictions are literally 'however many models you want' or 'however many models will physically fit in your deployment zone', whichever is lowest
- You are not told to agree with your opponent what size battle you want to play (unlike 8th edition)

There are huge problems with this. If model collection (which varies massively player to player) is potentially limitless you could get really unbalanced games. For example, Player A has the following collection: 10 spearmen, 10 swordsmen and one captain on warhorse. Player B has of 200 Longbowmen. If the 200 Longbows player wants to field at least one single unit of 40 Archers (maybe he thinks it is very cool and his rulebook says that's the most important thing) then he may as well put down all of his Longbowmen models because after passing the 33 model count the other player (with 21 models) already has Sudden Death bonuses.

So, if you are going to have 30% over your opponent's model count anyway, why not* flood the field? Moreover, 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? I think that this is a bit of a mess and will turn competitive deployment into a farce. It's why we had points limits and list-building in the first place.

*Beyond collection limitations, a desire for fairness and a sense of common decency. Not every player or opponent has those all of the time! Nor does everyone agree on what it and isn't fair! This is with the presumption that one of the players in the game wants to win and takes the game at its word when it says put down as many models as you like.

Spiney Norman
01-07-2015, 09:22
Hmm.... I guess "two quarters" is not the same as "one half", even though they both cover the same area of board. So you're probably right. Still, it's unclear on first reading.



Granted (still WTF mind you), but the "only possible to deploy small models" variant isn't. Oh, I see you've brought Nagash? Never mind, I'll just define the deployment territories so you can't fit him on the board.

I appreciate your perspective MM, but it occurs to me that this is not the biggest problem with the rules, it will be difficult enough to get the game working well between two people who are trying to work out a fun experience for both parties, someone who is just out to screw their opponent from the start is a lost cause.

Re: base shapes, it occurs to me that based on the current ino we have on army selection that square bases will actually be at a considerable advantage since they tesselate better and waste less deployment zone space.

I can't wait for GW to run their first AoS event at WHW and someone turns up with 6 5K wfb armies worth of models and starts to deploy them, who says movement trays are dead...

FuzzyOrb
01-07-2015, 09:33
Two equal-sized halves.

You know what, that might even make for an interesting shakeup, provided both players agree.

shelfunit.
01-07-2015, 09:35
Heh, that list is almost as long as the "rules" themselves...:shifty:

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 09:48
Battle Rounds
- Half the time, you'll have two turns in a row.

25% of the time, you'll get three turns interrupted by only one of your opponent's.

Avian
01-07-2015, 10:00
So I thought I'd check out how the charges actually work, and it turns out that these two models are not within half an inch of each other. In order to make a legal charge, their bases would need over overlap (which is legal, BTW).

216265

StygianBeach
01-07-2015, 10:04
I agree that the battle scrolls look incomplete at the moment.

Also I think measuring from the centre of the base is a superior way to measure movement, however I think the following covers that problem of a model having 'reach'.



Moving
- Because no part of the model can move further than it's Move value, pivoting on the spot costs movement.


....because that spear tip needs to move too.

The problem with not having a set base size is that abusers will abuse it, a similar problem presented itself with Saga.

So they changed the rules so that instead of having a support distance of 2 inches, support was measured in bases.

So, if this will be such a problem, then we can only hope that there is a update in a future White Dwarf?

Spiney Norman
01-07-2015, 10:05
So I thought I'd check out how the charges actually work, and it turns out that these two models are not within half an inch of each other. In order to make a legal charge, their bases would need over overlap (which is legal, BTW).

216265

That's one of the rules I really hate, not particularly for the retarded reason that you can have models in B2B with other models and still not be close enough to hit them (the plastic high elf dragon is going to be a particular problem here I forsee), but rather because of the practicality that games are going to entail players continually prodding their opponents beautifully painted models in the stomach with the metal ends of their tape measures.

Treadhead_1st
01-07-2015, 10:13
So I've had a night to chew over the rules and even tried out the rules a little. They are somewhat puzzling at times, and I thought I'd do this in a structured way:

The Armies
- Army selection restrictions are literally 'however many models you want' or 'however many models will physically fit in your deployment zone', whichever is lowest
- You are not told to agree with your opponent what size battle you want to play (unlike 8th edition)

This is daft. I am not convinced the "balancing" factor of Sudden Death is sufficient in extreme cases, but at least the underdog can select which Sudden Death option they want (rather than, say, it being randomly rolled) so they can tailor it as best as possible. Against 1-man units? Go for "kill a unit/kill a hero that the opponent picks". Against a durable deathstar? Go for "stay alive" or "hold this objective".


Warscrolls & Units
- Unit sizes are either 1 or 1+. Taking a lot of 1-model unit typically gives you a pile of free champions.
- It says that unit that end up out of formation must reform the next turn they move, but doesn't actually explain what that means, or what happens if they can't get back in formation.


This is my interpretation from having read the rule: The formation for all units is 1" coherency. If a unit is out of coherency then it says to reform when they move - i.e. when they move they have to try to get to 1" coherency. If they can't get back into formation at the end of the turn, then at the start of the next turn they are out of formation and must reform when they move (and this would keep going turn after turn until they are back into 1" coherency).


Tools of War
- You measure to and from the model, not the base. For extra reach, model your troopers with arms and weapons outstretched.
-- An extra inch from spearmen seems doable.
- Apparently, this game doesn't use templates at all.


The first balances out - you can reach further with a Spearman, but if the enemy can reach the tip of the spear then they can kill it too. The rules also state that "no part of the model" may move more than the M value, so you cannot game the system by (to use an example from the previous thread) marching Spearmen backwards and spinning around to gain the length of the spear, as the tip of the spear would travel more than the models M stat.

No templates? Eh. I imagine war machines/magic will do X number of "Mortal Wounds" so templates are irrelevant.


The Battle Begins

Set-up
- The player who finishes deployment first goes first, but this has very little effect since who goes first in later rounds is randomly determined.


The first turn could matter if you have a compact, swift army, or an army with ranged weapons - helps (in a very minor way) to balance out the idea of taking as many units as will physically fit if you can take a smaller force that can get an "alpha-strike" (to borrow 40K terminology).


Glorious Victory
- Last man standing wins
- All attempts at balancing are based around model count, not abilities or power
-- So if your 10 Chaos Warriors are fighting 15 Goblins, they get a bonus
- When summoning models into existing units, you must keep track of exactly which were there initially and which were summoned later.
-- This seems impractical for Undead players.


Will have to see how this works in practice. I'll talk about model power at the end.


Triumphs
- If you won your last battle (as a major victory) you get a bonus in this one. It doesn't matter who you won against.
-- Trust amongst players would seem to be required.


I really cannot see this working for typical pick-up games, but it would be fun for campaigns, tournaments and doing "best-of-3" games in an evening against the same player (if the game really is much faster now this should be doable).


Battle Rounds
- Half the time, you'll have two turns in a row.


And it is randomly determined, so it helps to prevent "gaming" the system through unexpected rules interactions (such as the old 1/8th" shuffle, 40K's "sniping" specific models in units) as you cannot guarantee your "clever" positioning will matter in your next turn. Equally, your positioning in your next turn may not matter, which sucks. No idea whether this rule idea is a positive or negative. Very odd way around the IGO-UGO stagnation.


Moving
- You can stand on top of another model's base, as this isn't considered part of the model.
- Because no part of the model can move further than it's Move value, pivoting on the spot costs movement.


Seems fair enough - prevents the issues of square-versus-round bases if you can just stand on that extra space they take up. Prevents ****** from putting a single model on a 6'x4' base, deploying first and declaring victory, whilst at the same time allowing cool basing opportunities that don't "model for advantage".


Shooting Phase
- Models in close combat can still shoot with no penalty, either at the unit they are engaged with, or some other unit.
- You can shoot into close combat with no penalty.


Seems odd and really stupid, but will be interesting to see how this actually plays out.



Charge Phase
- To successfully charge, you must end up within half an inch of an enemy model. Remember that this is measured model-to-model and NOT base-to-base.
-- If you don't want your models to be charged, have them modeled with their hands behind their backs. ;)
- Yes, you CAN move, shoot with no penalty, charge and fight in melee, all in the same turn.
-- Thus, the most powerful non-character models in the AoS box seem to be the angel guys.
- You can charge models you can't see (ex: around a corner)
- Unless you have a special rule, the charge bonus is extra movement.


The only restrictions seem to be around running/retreating. This could lead to some really tactical play, or it could just be a complete mess. Not sure yet.


Combat Phase
- If you fielded your guys in neat ranks and files, they will probably break formation at this point in order to make their pile-in moves.
- Pile-in moves can leave models who haven't fought yet stranded and unable to fight as they are suddenly more than 3" from their enemies.


The rules don't do that - you may move models up to 3", so if it would be disadvantageous you can simply not move a model (if you want to stay in formation or whatever). However, I don't see how a unit that was already within 3" of an enemy model can be left out of range from a pile-in move, as you move towards the closest enemy model.



Battleshock Phase
- Units of 1 (including characters, who are always alone) are essentially unbreakable.
-- If you bring a pile of single-model units, you never have to worry about Bravery.
- For each ten models you have in the unit, one less guy will die from battleshock.


It massively depends on if there are any spells/abilities on future scrolls that can lower the Bravery stat. Otherwise, single models don't have to worry about Bravery, but they'll be dead :P!


Attacking

Picking targets
- Melee weapons now have a range, typically 1".
-- If you make sure your models are on bases less than 1" in diameter, you can always attack in two ranks. Does anyone make 24 mm round bases? :D


Bases don't matter. You can over-lap larger bases to get a similar result, only the bulk of the physical model stops them from being able to reach. This may be good or bad, don't know yet.



Making attacks
- Previously, WS, T and armour made you more difficult to kill. Now it's only armour.


This is, I think, the major balancing factor. People were talking about 5 Bloodthirsters against 10 Goblins (hyperbole, when you consider you can literally field as many goblins as you want in one unit) - previously, 1 Bloodthirster would plough through virtually any number of Goblins and only have to worry about static combat resolution. Now, those same Goblins can actually kill the Bloodthirster as its own stats are pretty much irrelevant - they'll hit and wound on a fixed number regardless of what they are facing.



Cover
- You can shoot through woods or other terrain with no penalty.
- A model standing behind a wall doesn't benefit from cover. A model standing on top of a wall does.
-- For a unit to benefit, they all need to be standing on top of the wall. :D


The rules for shooting tell you to look at the rules for attacking. The rules for attacking have a sub-header about picking targets. Those rules say "In order to attack an enemy unit, an enemy model from that unit must...[be] visible to the attacker." Therefore if a piece of terrain physically blocks LOS you cannot shoot (or conduct melee attacks) through it. Therefore cover behind a wall does not matter either, as the unit can't be targeted if it can't be seen.

There are certainly some WTF moments, but these are my thoughts on what you have raised.

Avian
01-07-2015, 10:24
Pile-in moves and being left stranded: I'm talking about how an enemy model's pile-in move can leave your models stranded. Say that "Y" are your models and "E" are enemy models. Each dash is one inch.

Y--E---Y

Here the enemy model would pile in to the left and leave your right model outside 3".


Walls: I'm talking about low walls that don't block line of sight.

Whirlwind
01-07-2015, 10:25
With pile in moves is that you have to move towards the nearest model even if it is already engaged by a couple of models. There is no way to head towards an unengaged model or to maximise 'base' contact. If you have two units that are in a rough triangle shape so the charge move is only just enough to engage the two nearest models then from that point on all the models in that unit (unless another units charge in) has then to pile in towards these two models. However as they can't pass through other models you end up in the situation where all the supporting models cluster around the rear of the combat without being able to engage except when one model dies and another can fill the gap.

If a large unit in a line is in combat from both sides then models in the middle of the unit can't pile in either way because it is likely to split the unit (there will be more than 1" between each combat) and you are not allowed to make a move that splits a unit.

If you take casualties from this line combat from the middle of the unit then from this point on your can't make pile in moves at all as they force you to move to the nearest model but as the unit is now split you can only make moves that merges the unit again.

If you are charged from both sides then you can take any casualties from one side, pile into the side of the combat that has just engaged you leaving the other enemy (even with their pile in move) out of their striking distance of their weapons (but may still be considered stuck in the combat). Hence you have robbed the opponent of the benefit of the charge.

Pile in is not restricted to the unit you charged. As the charge move only requires you to move one model with 0.5" the other models in the unit can move how they like as long as they stay within 1" of each other. You could use this in conjunction with the pile in move to engage multiple units beyond the charge range and trap them from moving next turn by moving just within 3" of the effected unit.

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 10:27
The rules for shooting tell you to look at the rules for attacking. The rules for attacking have a sub-header about picking targets. Those rules say "In order to attack an enemy unit, an enemy model from that unit must...[be] visible to the attacker." Therefore if a piece of terrain physically blocks LOS you cannot shoot (or conduct melee attacks) through it. Therefore cover behind a wall does not matter either, as the unit can't be targeted if it can't be seen.

But if you can see the very tip of the model's plume on his hat over the wall, you can see him, and shoot him with no penalty. If the models is standing on top of the wall in full view, you can shoot him but only at a penalty. That's what's silly - not whether LOS is completely blocked or not.

Whirlwind
01-07-2015, 10:39
Moving
- You can stand on top of another model's base, as this isn't considered part of the model.
- Because no part of the model can move further than it's Move value, pivoting on the spot costs movement.

I can see why it was introduced, to avoid the 3ft spear of doom but its going to look stupid when you have to charge backwards...it just introduces another issue.

Also placing models on other models is just a crazy situation. Large monster combat with 20 enemies standing on the base and would like to flee, so all these models have to be removed, move the fleeing monster and replace the models where they were as best you can.

Avian
01-07-2015, 10:40
If a large unit in a line is in combat from both sides then models in the middle of the unit can't pile in either way because it is likely to split the unit (there will be more than 1" between each combat) and you are not allowed to make a move that splits a unit.
Heck, if a large unit is engaged by just one unit, and not everyone is within 3" of an enemy, you might not get very many pile-in moves at all.

I did a test with a unit of Orc Boyz that got charged by my Chaos Lord on Disc. Not only were there much fewer guys than you'd think within 3" (M2M), but not all could pile-in, as that would break up the unit.

What's WORSE is that in the Orc turn, the Boyz aren't allowed to move because the unit is within 3" of an enemy unit, and everyone's made all the pile-in moves they can.

Zywus
01-07-2015, 10:48
The first balances out - you can reach further with a Spearman, but if the enemy can reach the tip of the spear then they can kill it too.
Aargh! The bastard hit me right in the speartip!
...so...cold...:cries:

Bubble Ghost
01-07-2015, 10:49
I really, really like the rolling off for turn order in each round. It's the only positive thing I've read about this entire clusterfrick. I don't think it would work if you just slapped it over the top of Warhammer as it is, but it's a fine concept. Depends how the rest of the rules accomodate it.

As for the rest of it... from Avian's summary, it just reads like they had two golden rules handed down from the boardroom:

1. People must be able to use any model they want in any quantity they want; i.e., there should never be a game-based barrier to a decision on whether to purchase a model or not
2. There should not be a single occasion on which the players are called on to decide anything, even if this must come at the expense of any kind of explicable cause and effect.

And absolutely nothing else really mattered at all.




And the thing about model-to-model rather than base-to-base measuring strikes me as a little vainglorious, too. We know you think models are important, GW. We get it. The pedestal doesn't have to be quite that high.

GrandmasterWang
01-07-2015, 10:50
The model/base thing is crazy! If it was closest part of the model/base it would make sense. Currently if that's how it is like the example you brought up its nuts.

Second wtf for me is the warscrolls which seem to let you bring whatever size unit.

I don't see how this will work in a competitive game.

Using the warscroll for just the new stuff... if I bring 10 sigmar hammer shooting guys and my opponent brings the same scroll but only 5... dont I have a big advantage being able to shoot twice as much and being twice as durable? In AOS are they still worth the same?

Without points/ a system I don't see how it will work?

On the plus side these warscrolls will make it easy to bring the new units into chill hammer as ill use the shooting/attacks profile.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Avian
01-07-2015, 10:51
Actually, with spears, you probably want the first row with spears raised, and the others with spears lowered. That gives YOU more attacks, but not the enemy.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
01-07-2015, 10:53
I really, really like the rolling off for turn order in each round. It's the only positive thing I've read about this entire clusterfrick. I don't think it would work if you just slapped it over the top of Warhammer as it is, but it's a fine concept. Depends how the rest of the rules accomodate it.

It means players routinely will get two turns in a row. That can be a bit of an issue with the Sudden Death objectives, as it is certainly possible to accomplish some of them on turn 1 and quite likely to manage by turn 2....

Avian
01-07-2015, 10:59
Some of these rules can't possibly have been tested AT ALL.

"Oh, my unit is within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving in the Movement phase. Oh, I'm not personally not within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving to pile-in in the Combat phase either. I'll just sit here twiddling my thumbs until the enemy comes to me."

EDIT: Everybody gets to make pile-in moves. So just one enemy model isn't enough.

Montegue
01-07-2015, 11:05
Some of these rules can't possibly have been tested AT ALL.

"Oh, my unit is within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving in the Movement phase. Oh, I'm not personally not within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving to pile-in in the Combat phase either. I'll just sit here twiddling my thumbs until the enemy comes to me."

So much fail.

In the picture of the two models in base combat but not close enough for a successful charge, did you measure from club to halberd?

Avian
01-07-2015, 11:09
I did. I have a half inch melee gauge from WMH. It is possible to get within half an inch with these models, but base contact is no guarantee.

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 11:15
Some of these rules can't possibly have been tested AT ALL.

"Oh, my unit is within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving in the Movement phase. Oh, I'm not personally not within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving to pile-in in the Combat phase either. I'll just sit here twiddling my thumbs until the enemy comes to me."

EDIT: Everybody gets to make pile-in moves. So just one enemy model isn't enough.

Pile-in is always towards the closest model, though, which might not be the model the rest of your unit is in combat with. (There might be another enemy 4" away, while the model in combat with the rest of the unit is 5" away). In which case models would be piling in in different directions, breaking up the formation which isn't allowed. It's still broken (just slightly less broken than you first thought).

CrystalSphere
01-07-2015, 11:16
And measuring milimeters to see if you can hit is meant to be casual friendly? Come on. Also, modelling for advantage much? Having your thin spears break because they hit other minis?

Compared to this 8th was perfect.

Montegue
01-07-2015, 11:17
I'm sensing a lot of knocked over models and damaged basing schemes from minute 1/2 inch and 1" measuring conflicts as people try to eek out every "you're not close enough" "yes I am" conflict.

hobojebus
01-07-2015, 11:20
I still can't get over having to stand on cover to get the benefit.

GrandmasterWang
01-07-2015, 11:22
Haha zomg I just thought of something. That distance thing for combat doesn't specify that height doesn't count does it?

My phoenixes are on their flight stands which are about 3 inches tall.

Does that mean unless an infantry model has a really... really long stick the birds are untouchable? ?

Even an ogre bull doesn't come within half an inch of it.

I guess it makes 'fluff' sense eh Games Workshop. .. only a massive beasty or something on a flying stand can come close enough to fight....

Have at ye!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Greyshadow
01-07-2015, 11:22
I am finding it hard to read the rules because I just get depressed as soon as I start to read it. (I was so so pumped for 8th and it didn't disappoint). Thanks for doing some analysis to see if you could find anything salvageable in there Avian.

P.S. Sorry for the downbeat post everyone.

Montegue
01-07-2015, 11:23
Time to add longer flight stands on my gyros, then? Lol.

Zywus
01-07-2015, 11:25
I'm sensing a lot of knocked over models and damaged basing schemes from minute 1/2 inch and 1" measuring conflicts as people try to eek out every "you're not close enough" "yes I am" conflict.
Not to mention a bunch of models piling on top of a monster base to attack, the monster is killed and now it needs to be removed while 10 enemies is crowded on top of it's base.

At this point i'm barely upset any more. I'm just in disbelief, waiting with shocked amusement for the next reveal to see just how awful a game system can get. It really is that "can't look away from a traffic accident" syndrome now.

Avian
01-07-2015, 11:27
Pile-in is always towards the closest model, though, which might not be the model the rest of your unit is in combat with. (There might be another enemy 4" away, while the model in combat with the rest of the unit is 5" away). In which case models would be piling in in different directions, breaking up the formation which isn't allowed. It's still broken (just slightly less broken than you first thought).
Yeah.

Oddly, you can use pile-in moves to engage units without charging them. The pile-in has to be towards the closest enemy, but if you charged that turn then you will have your normal move and your charge move first, which can be in any direction. So if you have one enemy 10" away and one 7" away, you could have the closest model charge the nearest unit and then have other models move towards the furthest, provided you could keep everyone in formation.

MiyamatoMusashi
01-07-2015, 11:29
Haha zomg I just thought of something. That distance thing for combat doesn't specify that height doesn't count does it?

My phoenixes are on their flight stands which are about 3 inches tall.

Does that mean unless an infantry model has a really... really long stick the birds are untouchable? ?

Even an ogre bull doesn't come within half an inch of it.

Of course, it means they can't fight in combat themselves, either. May not be a problem for some models of course (Gyrocopters are unlikely ever to want to, for example).

Zywus
01-07-2015, 11:31
If you make sure your models are on bases less than 1" in diameter, you can always attack in two ranks. Does anyone make 24 mm round bases?
An Inch is a tiny fraction larger than 25mm so regular round bases would work.
However, since you're not supposed to measure base to base, you still might not reach through your buddy if the enemy model is placed a few mm (or cm in the case of bigger bases:rolleyes:) from the edge o his base.

swordofglass
01-07-2015, 11:36
If my orc wants to attack the enemy but he's behind another one of my orcs, why can't I push his base on top of the orc's in front of him?

Avian
01-07-2015, 11:39
I am finding it hard to read the rules because I just get depressed as soon as I start to read it. (I was so so pumped for 8th and it didn't disappoint). Thanks for doing some analysis to see if you could find anything salvageable in there Avian.
Some of it flat out doesn't work, most notably ignoring bases entirely and the lack of army/unit composition rules. And models needing to be on top of cover, instead of behind cover. The rest is salvageable, if simplisitic.




If my orc wants to attack the enemy but he's behind another one of my orcs, why can't I push his base on top of the orc's in front of him?
You can't stand on the other Orc's head, but you can stand on his base.

Montegue
01-07-2015, 11:49
OK, how *********** hard would it have been for them to simply say "Use the base the model was supplied with. All distances are measured from the base". Done. Easy. No problem. Clean and simple, everyone gets it. No worries.

GrandmasterWang
01-07-2015, 12:00
Of course, it means they can't fight in combat themselves, either. May not be a problem for some models of course (Gyrocopters are unlikely ever to want to, for example).

Indeed.... what a silly system....

A beast on a flight stand can now fight maybe 10% of the possible AOD units.

My phoenixes can only really fight pikemen now on the infantry front.

Of the new sigmarite units id say only the leader on the lizard cat can get within half an inch of it.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Montegue
01-07-2015, 12:07
So, I'm half dead from lack of sleep, having been taking care of a screaming newborn for most of the night. That aside, it took me 15 minutes to (i'm fairly certain) fix Age of Sigmar. Here you go -

Age of Sigmar

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?

Poncho160
01-07-2015, 12:08
No one would be scraping their models over my models bases, that's just going to lead to a lot of damaged bases...

The more I hear about this release the less inclined I am to buy it. Looks like I'm never going to get into fantasy!

GrandmasterWang
01-07-2015, 12:40
On the whole phoenix/flight stand thing if that's actually the rules then I reckon I could shut down certain armies/builds just with 2 phoenixes the system seems so silly.

Now I accept that I cant do any damage with them due to them not being able to fight but with the rules as I've skimmed them.....

Why not put my invincible phoenixes as close to the enemy as I can.

The enemy can't then come within 3 inches of them correct? Unless they attempt to fight them.

"Sorry mate, you can't move there I have a phoenix there so you cant come within 3 inches of it."

"Ah well ill just charge it then with my foot sigmarites to kill it and get it out the way"

"Sure you do that"

"Ok im in base to base now lets resolve combat"

"There is no combat... my untouchable phoenix is flying too high on its stand, you cant get within half an inch"

"Ok I have no shooting and no models tall enough to fight your phoenixes so how do I get passed them to fight the rest of your army"

"You don't. .. my Black Phoenix of Gnar just created an invincible 3 inch barrier around it which you cannot penetrate trapping your sigmarites in limbo forever!!!!! Muahahahaha"

"This game sucks... can we go back to Chillhammer now"

True story

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Avian
01-07-2015, 12:43
Yeah, they CAN'T move within 3" (M2M) without charging and when charging they MUST move within 1/2" (M2M).

Montegue
01-07-2015, 12:45
'sok I fixed it.

/zonk

/snore

The_Real_Chris
01-07-2015, 13:10
Heck, if a large unit is engaged by just one unit, and not everyone is within 3" of an enemy, you might not get very many pile-in moves at all.

I did a test with a unit of Orc Boyz that got charged by my Chaos Lord on Disc. Not only were there much fewer guys than you'd think within 3" (M2M), but not all could pile-in, as that would break up the unit.

You have to think literally. So all those pile in moves will pile the models up. So first row in, second row on top of their bases, thrd row under their bases, etc etc.


Haha zomg I just thought of something. That distance thing for combat doesn't specify that height doesn't count does it?

My phoenixes are on their flight stands which are about 3 inches tall.

Does that mean unless an infantry model has a really... really long stick the birds are untouchable? ?

Watch out for spearmen!

Urgat
01-07-2015, 13:17
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.

I ask for copyrights!

Col. Tartleton
01-07-2015, 13:44
This is going to be unplayable.

Daeron
01-07-2015, 13:45
A lot of funny WTF moments :) Well done.

A few points:


- Army selection restrictions are literally 'however many models you want' or 'however many models will physically fit in your deployment zone', whichever is lowest


You can also pick a single flying model that's hard to catch/kill and claim a sudden death after 6 turns. Even if the opponent fields 2 models, that's over 33% more models.



- It says that unit that end up out of formation must reform the next turn they move, but doesn't actually explain what that means, or what happens if they can't get back in formation.

It says the next "time" it moves, which would be a retreat or a regular move. Assuming a 5" move on the models, you're pointing at a scenario where the models are over 11" apart due to combat. It's possible, true, but unlikely.



Battle Rounds
- Half the time, you'll have two turns in a row.


It's a little less. On 2 turns you have 25% chance of scoring a double turn (ending last followed by going first). The chance on "your turn is part of a double" is 25% for 2 turns, 33% for 3 turns, 37.5% for 4 turns, etc.
However, there's also a chance your opponent gets a double so it's certainly bound to occur regularly.




- Yes, you CAN move, shoot with no penalty, charge and fight in melee, all in the same turn.
...
- Unless you have a special rule, the charge bonus is extra movement.

Move and shoot restrictions can be applied on the weapon still. It's explicitly noted that this combination can be done in the angel dudes rules. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that a crossbow might have limitations. Presumably the models are balanced with this mind. Well.. you know what I mean :P

Charge has to succeed, or you're not allowed to move at all.

brotherAkkyshan
01-07-2015, 13:48
This is going to be unplayable.

It already is! lol

InstantKarma
01-07-2015, 13:50
I'm thinking ignore the 'from the model' sillyness and just go back to 'from the base' and 'base to base'. These are easier to both understand and implement.

Quite simply, measuring from base to base wasn't broken, but GW, to try to differentiate from prior WHFB incarnations, went and tried to fix it and instead made it stupid. Modeling so your dudes have arms and weapons extended as far as possible to gain an advantage is just lame.

As a 40k player primarily, it is also now highly amusing that 40k is a better heir to WHFBs rules than AoS is!

Sheriff0fNottingham
01-07-2015, 13:56
> Because nopart of the model can move further than it's Move value, pivoting on the spot costs movement.

Which is better than a free pivot.


> For each ten models you have in the unit, one less guy will die from battleshock.

Actually they don't "die" - they "flee" so this makes sense.



> Previously, WS, T and armour made you more difficult to kill. Now it's only armour.

Actually:
Previously, WS, T, armour and saves made you more difficult to kill. Now it's only saves.



Combat Phase
new:

Distributing damage: While you can hit the champion of a unit (if the warscroll allows one) the owner of the unit can distribute damage as he sees fit. Meaning the champion will never take damage until he is the last guy in the unit.

Voss
01-07-2015, 14:09
> Because nopart of the model can move further than it's Move value, pivoting on the spot costs movement.

Which is better than a free pivot.

It really isn't. A model holding a weapon out can easily forfeit up to an inch of movement for pivoting, while a trooper next to him in a vertical pose wouldn't give up any movement.
At the same time, facing doesn't matter, so you just point weapons in the direction of enemies and try for least deviation, even if that means the unit advances backwards or sideways. It is wholly stupid

StygianBeach
01-07-2015, 14:23
It really isn't. A model holding a weapon out can easily forfeit up to an inch of movement for pivoting, while a trooper next to him in a vertical pose wouldn't give up any movement.
At the same time, facing doesn't matter, so you just point weapons in the direction of enemies and try for least deviation, even if that means the unit advances backwards or sideways. It is wholly stupid

In the context that you measure from the model and not the centre of the base( or base edge), pivoting costing movement is better than being free. If it were free than all those claiming Spears have an unfair advantage would be correct.

Also, (not directed at Voss) with regards to flying being out of range, the flying stands of the flying Sigmarites are part of the model.

Maybe wait and see if the flying stand of a flying model counts as part of the model before inventing crazy elaborate scenarios about how broken the flying stand actually is.

The wort case scenario in my opinion is that the model must touch the base. So all those inflexible rules debaters out there can have fun moaning about Phoenix's scratching the ground as they fly.

Bubble Ghost
01-07-2015, 14:24
OK, how *********** hard would it have been for them to simply say "Use the base the model was supplied with. All distances are measured from the base". Done. Easy. No problem. Clean and simple, everyone gets it. No worries.

Because the modern Games Workshop are about nothing if not the glorification of miniatures to the level of some sort of abstract theistic concept, as opposed to a physical product.

"Why can't we just measure from the bases, GW?"
"Because miniatures, Montegue. Because miniatures. Now go to the chapel and pray for forgiveness."

Sephillion
01-07-2015, 14:26
It really isn't. A model holding a weapon out can easily forfeit up to an inch of movement for pivoting, while a trooper next to him in a vertical pose wouldn't give up any movement.
At the same time, facing doesn't matter, so you just point weapons in the direction of enemies and try for least deviation, even if that means the unit advances backwards or sideways. It is wholly stupid

I agree that free pivoting would be better. Altough with the rules as it is, it would open up another can of worms, so there is no really easy solution.

Bloodknight
01-07-2015, 14:41
The Battle Begins

Set-up

Did you guys notice that they're talking about reserves that might come in when "fate lends a hand"? There are no game mechanics in those rules that explain how reserves are handled at all, where they come in, when they come in... Not even if you roll for them or if fate lends a hand when pigs start flying in front of a cheese moon.

Avian
01-07-2015, 14:49
*player comes back from the bathroom*

"Hey, those models weren't on the table when I left!"
"Must be fate!"

mattjgilbert
01-07-2015, 15:07
I guess some units will have reserve rules on their warscrolls.

Sephillion
01-07-2015, 15:13
I guess some units will have reserve rules on their warscrolls.

Probably, but for anyone who hasn't played another WH game, they might just wonder what the hell are reserves.

thesoundofmusica
01-07-2015, 15:14
"Now only armor makes you harder to kill."
- wounds also make you harder to kill, in that most things have more wounds now.

Also there are several mentions of modelling arms front or back to gain advantages.... But this is just a one-off gain of like a tenth of an inch... is that really something to make fun of? Once deployed and you start moving it doesnt really matter since you always measure from the model. You dont mix measure from the model and the base at your leasure.

Treadhead_1st
01-07-2015, 15:26
Pile-in moves and being left stranded: I'm talking about how an enemy model's pile-in move can leave your models stranded. Say that "Y" are your models and "E" are enemy models. Each dash is one inch.

Y--E---Y

Here the enemy model would pile in to the left and leave your right model outside 3".


Walls: I'm talking about low walls that don't block line of sight.

In the pile-in, wouldn't you then have a pile-in move to move that model 3" left as well? I assume the Ys haven't already piled in as the model is already 3" away. Although as the picture stands at the moment (no pile-in moves) none of the models can attack as all the melee weapons (on Warscrolls that I have seen anyway) have a 1" range - the units are engaged as per the Combat Phase rules, but can't hit each other. So it does not matter if E moves to the left or not, the right-hand Y cannot fight anyway.

As for the walls...yeah, that's daft. I assumed you meant full-sized building walls rather than edge-of-a-field walls. I guess now either you have to put the wall on an "area-terrain" style base (say 1/2-1" either side of the bricks) so that any model on that little lip (i.e. its base is against the wall) would get the cover benefit as the model is "within or on" a terrain feature.

The rules work nicely for forests, rivers, towers, ruined buildings, trenches and so on (with Line of Sight covering being inside buildings), but walls and any other low-level terrain feature without a base don't work well as written.


But if you can see the very tip of the model's plume on his hat over the wall, you can see him, and shoot him with no penalty. If the models is standing on top of the wall in full view, you can shoot him but only at a penalty. That's what's silly - not whether LOS is completely blocked or not.

Yeah, that is a bit daft...creative terrain modelling FTW :shifty:.


Aargh! The bastard hit me right in the speartip!
...so...cold...:cries:

Hey, I never said it makes sense - just that it is fair!

Thinking about it, it would be rather amusing to have modelled a massive 3ft long spear (to use a prior example) that takes a dozen turns to rotate then only has a 2" melee range from the tip (or whatever it will be in the new rules) and the enemy tapping it kills the wielder :D


Did you guys notice that they're talking about reserves that might come in when "fate lends a hand"? There are no game mechanics in those rules that explain how reserves are handled at all, where they come in, when they come in... Not even if you roll for them or if fate lends a hand when pigs start flying in front of a cheese moon.

I imagine it will be Warscroll based - such as how current Glade Riders have "Ambush" as a special rule, they will instead have "Arrives from reserves on D6 roll" as a rule instead.

++++

Furthermore, although it makes sense to avoid people being muppets with rules, I hate that putting one model's base over another would now appear to be part of the game. It is going to cause placement issues as mentioned (retreating Monsters) and going to look ugly, as well as potentially damaging elaborate bases.

NatBrannigan
01-07-2015, 16:03
Forgive my ignorance all but... what the hell is going on!? I've been away for two weeks and come back to read these rules for shiny new warhammer? Is there any chance this a joke on the part of someoe with too much time on their hands or has someone already seen an official copy of the rules with pictures etc...?

Because this can't be right, can it...?

swordofglass
01-07-2015, 16:08
Forgive my ignorance all but... what the hell is going on!? I've been away for two weeks and come back to read these rules for shiny new warhammer? Is there any chance this a joke on the part of someoe with too much time on their hands or has someone already seen an official copy of the rules with pictures etc...?

Because this can't be right, can it...?

White Dwarf with full rules has been leaked.

Welcome to Age of Sigmar :cries:

GrandmasterWang
01-07-2015, 16:08
In the context that you measure from the model and not the centre of the base( or base edge), pivoting costing movement is better than being free. If it were free than all those claiming Spears have an unfair advantage would be correct.

Also, (not directed at Voss) with regards to flying being out of range, the flying stands of the flying Sigmarites are part of the model.

Maybe wait and see if the flying stand of a flying model counts as part of the model before inventing crazy elaborate scenarios about how broken the flying stand actually is.

The wort case scenario in my opinion is that the model must touch the base. So all those inflexible rules debaters out there can have fun moaning about Phoenix's scratching the ground as they fly.

What flying stand?

What models have you seen?

The Flying sigmarites I have seen dont have a flying stand at all instead they are balanced on scrolls ala Astaroth the Grim from 40k Blood Angels.

My Astaroth can't get within half an inch of my Frost Phoenix (model not base obviously) or its stand and imo the flying sigmarites will be a similar size to him.

GW making a rule where the models MUST touch the base to be used (like how the flying sigmarites touch the base as they have no flight stand) would indeed be a worst case scenario as it would make any unit on a flying stand completely unplayable.

Given they have said that ALL existing models will be playable (definitely a good thing) they won't do that.

Im just saying that RAW as I have read them currently (only 4 pages remember not much room for clarification) the joke conversation I posted is actually how it would play out.

Black Phoenix of Gnar ftw!

I am much less excited (but still excited) about AOS now I have skimmed the rules leaks.

Im just hoping that the 96 page book which no one has seen yet is a good un.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Lord Dan
01-07-2015, 16:09
So the answer to the age-old question of "what base do I use" is now "ignore bases completely".

Awesome. :rolleyes:

mattjgilbert
01-07-2015, 16:14
Im just hoping that the 96 page book which no one has seen yet is a good un.

Well that's just background, some scenarios and all the warscrolls for the units in the box. Any rules in addition to the 4-page core rules are on the warscrolls per unit.

NatBrannigan
01-07-2015, 16:20
I... But... How... WHAT!? How can there be no points or any way to balance the two sides!? And i'll be spending all my time measuring half inches from different areas of all my models? This all just looks horrible!

Uh, positive, let's be positive. I guess i'll nip into GW on Monday and play a demo game but, wow...

StygianBeach
01-07-2015, 16:25
What flying stand?

What models have you seen?

The Flying sigmarites I have seen dont have a flying stand at all instead they are balanced on scrolls ala Astaroth the Grim from 40k Blood Angels.



My apologies, I guess I needed to be more explicit in my description.

Well, you see the Flying Sigmarites (Prosecutor) are given the appearance of flight.
This is ingeniously done by what appears to be hanging ribbon trailing beneath the model, this parchment is their only connected to the base allowing the Prosecutor models to soar over other models while also giving the illusion of flight.

I thought it would be obvious to most Warseer posters that the Ribbon is the flight stand, which also happens to be part of the model.

Such an obnoxious post... first time I have felt the need to use the block feature.



My Astaroth can't get within half an inch of my Frost Phoenix (model not base obviously) or its stand and imo the flying sigmarites will be a similar size to him.

GW making a rule where the models MUST touch the base to be used (like how the flying sigmarites touch the base as they have no flight stand) would indeed be a worst case scenario as it would make any unit on a flying stand completely unplayable.

Given they have said that ALL existing models will be playable (definitely a good thing) they won't do that.

Im just saying that RAW as I have read them currently (only 4 pages remember not much room for clarification) the joke conversation I posted is actually how it would play out.

Black Phoenix of Gnar ftw!

I am much less excited (but still excited) about AOS now I have skimmed the rules leaks.

Im just hoping that the 96 page book which no one has seen yet is a good un.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Ramius4
01-07-2015, 16:36
Anyone have a link to the full rules leak? I want to see this train wreck in all its glory :p

madden
01-07-2015, 16:49
To kill the phonix use the spell d3 mortal wounds its easy to cast has the range and ignores the stupidity of not reaching. Plus we dont know what the phonix scroll will say (or any others bar box sets).
As to combat pile ins the owner of the dead decides who croaks which makes a block a better bet as more will still strike back.
im actually liking these rules if you dont go all lawer on the wording there ok.

duck for cover from all the hate coming☺

Jind_Singh
01-07-2015, 16:50
Model-to-model is to make up for the fact that:

- Basing was all over the shop as lots of models changed base sizes over time - but there was never a requirement to do so (DE Hydra for e.g.)
- They will not make a system that specifies basing as 100% of their existing clients (Apart from OnG players who use Fanatics and Manglers) have square bases

Look at how much stink Space Marine players raised when they went from 25mm rounds to 32mm rounds - even though it was clearly specified that 32mm had no impact other than visual! Players still moaned like crap - so by eliminating the need for bases takes that away at least.

notts
01-07-2015, 16:53
Anyone have a link to the full rules leak? I want to see this train wreck in all its glory :p

look for lady atia on twitter, or the warhammer reddit

Sheriff0fNottingham
01-07-2015, 17:09
So I thought I'd check out how the charges actually work, and it turns out that these two models are not within half an inch of each other. In order to make a legal charge, their bases would need over overlap (which is legal, BTW).

216265

Their weapons seem to be within 1/2 inch...

Soundwave
01-07-2015, 17:12
The "weapon" rules. A hammer has 1"inch range yet you need to be with 3" to initiate combat, plus piling in what about the guys at the back more than 1" away.
And what do they all do swords,maces etc. Where are the weapon rules? Haven't seen any, yet it is of importance?
I don't know I am pretty lost.

Avian
01-07-2015, 17:15
Their weapons seem to be within 1/2 inch...

That's because the picture is flat. In reality, they're almost an inch apart.

Urgat
01-07-2015, 17:22
By the way, anybody trying to "pill" minis on the bases of my little guys will get something else pilled in his face. There's a limit to how absurdly one can behave.
What happened to the most important rule? Pretty sure it's still there in these four pages.

dwarfhold13
01-07-2015, 17:37
Yeah, it's on the bottom of page 4...

GrandmasterWang
01-07-2015, 17:43
My apologies, I guess I needed to be more explicit in my description.

Well, you see the Flying Sigmarites (Prosecutor) are given the appearance of flight.
This is ingeniously done by what appears to be hanging ribbon trailing beneath the model, this parchment is their only connected to the base allowing the Prosecutor models to soar over other models while also giving the illusion of flight.

I thought it would be obvious to most Warseer posters that the Ribbon is the flight stand, which also happens to be part of the model.

Such an obnoxious post... first time I have felt the need to use the block feature.

I accept your apology. A flying stand is a flying stand, a model with ribbons hanging off of it is a model with ribbons hanging off of it. They are completely different. A flying stand is an actual thing and Games Workshop used to sell them separately (maybe they still do?).

I thought maybe you had seen a picture/leak of a different or upcoming miniature with a flying stand.

I don't see what was so obnoxious about my post? Seemed pretty reasonable to me. In my entire time posting in Warseer I have never ever had anyone besides yourself want to 'block' me.

Mind clarifying what you found so obnoxious about my post?

Seems very very odd to both apologise to me and threaten to block me in the same post......

If I have offended anyone else in this thread please let me know. It is never my intention to offend.

Carry on

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Emperor Karl Franz
01-07-2015, 17:46
Good Lord, these rules really are amateur hour. Did somebody's cousin write these rules? I can't imagine anyone who's a professional game designer writing these. This had to have come from some guys in the accounting department who wrote this during their coffee break. I can imagine them high fiving each other for the "good job" they did, too.

Ramius4
01-07-2015, 17:46
There's a limit to how absurdly one can behave.

And this is coming from a French guy. He knows about behaving absurdly! ;)

The_Real_Chris
01-07-2015, 18:47
I think once people accept these are rules to use all your toys with and aimed at younger customers as opposed to a set of wargame rules attempting to simulate some sort of conflict things will be in a better perspective and not do comment worthy.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

hobojebus
01-07-2015, 18:55
I think once people accept these are rules to use all your toys with and aimed at younger customers as opposed to a set of wargame rules attempting to simulate some sort of conflict things will be in a better perspective and not do comment worthy.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Yeah because there's no valid reason to be upset by that is there, not like people sunk years of their life and thousands of pounds/dollars/euroes into a game that's now been dropped because the company making it is run by incompetent fools.

You dont play a game for decades and not become invested this is a kick in the nuts that may never stop hurting for alot of people.

Whirlwind
01-07-2015, 19:15
The "weapon" rules. A hammer has 1"inch range yet you need to be with 3" to initiate combat, plus piling in what about the guys at the back more than 1" away.
And what do they all do swords,maces etc. Where are the weapon rules? Haven't seen any, yet it is of importance?
I don't know I am pretty lost.

Weapon rules are on the warscroll cards. There are no specific weapon bonuses anymore like 2 handed weapons etc. It's all rolled into the card. You get a roll to hit equal to or beating the "to hit" value on the card. You then have to equal or beating the "To wound" score on your card. You opponent then rolls a dice and if he equals or beats the "save" score on his card (after adjustment from the Armour save modifier score on your card). After that the unit takes a number of damage points according to the damage value on your card. There is no longer any adjustments based on relative skill. So strictly speaking a Bloodthirster has the same chance of hitting and wounding a goblin as a dragon or hero if they both have no armour save.

Voss
01-07-2015, 19:26
By the way, anybody trying to "pill" minis on the bases of my little guys will get something else pilled in his face. There's a limit to how absurdly one can behave.
What happened to the most important rule? Pretty sure it's still there in these four pages.

Roll a d6 if you can't figure things out? Yeah, still there.

Avian
01-07-2015, 19:32
They could have kept the note on timing where they said that if two effects happen at the same time, the player whose turn it is decides which happens first.

Voss
01-07-2015, 19:32
In the context that you measure from the model and not the centre of the base( or base edge), pivoting costing movement is better than being free. If it were free than all those claiming Spears have an unfair advantage would be correct.

Nonsense. The GW range has a huge number of models with outstretched arms, swords, axes and on one notable occassion, choking out an elf. Given the 'heroic scale' these are often larger than spears.

But given
a) that a spearman holding a spear horizontally will lose random bits of his movement speed and the next model in the same unit holding his spear vertically will not;
b) pivoting is completely optional in all phases of the rules, you never have to actually do it
movement loss for pivoting for some models seems utterly stupid.

All parts of this game that measure from the miniature rather than the base are depressingly stupid.

Deadhorse
01-07-2015, 20:04
Saw this on a different forum - while the word "balanced" seems like a total joke, it's at least some semblance of army building rules

Suggestion from GW staff for creating basic army construction that is balanced.

Quick way to organize a balanced battle in Age of Sigmar for your customers who feel that they need something like this to be successful.

Warscrolls can't be duplicated more than once

1-12 Warscrolls
1-2 Hero Warscrolls
0-2 monster warscrolls
No single warscroll may contain more than X wounds (ie 24)no duplicate Heroes

Whirlwind
01-07-2015, 20:06
In the context that you measure from the model and not the centre of the base( or base edge), pivoting costing movement is better than being free. If it were free than all those claiming Spears have an unfair advantage would be correct.

The thing is it also introduces ridiculous situations. Take the Carnosaur for example. It has a long tail well over its normal base; it can charge in any direction but is long and thin. Now assume there are models to it's side and you choose to charge it in. The distance to the enemy is 8" as it stands and you roll a 10. Now if you rotate the model so it looks cool and it is charging the enemy you will not be able to reach the enemy because its long tail will have moved at least 3" because the circumference of quarter of a circle is always going to be more than radius of the model*. So instead you charge it sideways; perfectly legal but it looks ridiculous. It gets even worse if the enemy is behind you and you charge backwards. This also applies to pile in moves so you can more towards the nearest enemy but looking the wrong way. Even the new sigmarine character will have this issue. I appreciate they are trying to stop the 10ft spear of doom but there are better ways.

*Of course you could sit down an do the trigonometry to work out the actual total distance the tail has moved but these rules were meant to be simpler.

kylek2235
01-07-2015, 20:16
This thread feels a little like the End of Times: Khaine magic rules debates: the rules were clearly too incoherent to interpret real intent and yet the debates raged on.

In any game there are really three different categories of games:
-Games between friends: Friendly setting, anything goes
-Pick up games: neutral setting amongst strangers/acquaintances. Rules interpreting can lead to disagreements with no mediator to resolve them
-Tournament games: Organized setting between strangers again. Rules interpreting done by a tournament organizer.

These rules will never work for pick up games and may possibly work (and that's a stretch) in a tournament setting if the TO puts in an absurd amount of work. They're really not worth looking at in any way other than what they were designed for: at home, between good friends who agree before hand about everything and don't believe there should be winners or losers in a game.

Gorsameth
01-07-2015, 20:25
This thread feels a little like the End of Times: Khaine magic rules debates: the rules were clearly too incoherent to interpret real intent and yet the debates raged on.

In any game there are really three different categories of games:
-Games between friends: Friendly setting, anything goes
-Pick up games: neutral setting amongst strangers/acquaintances. Rules interpreting can lead to disagreements with no mediator to resolve them
-Tournament games: Organized setting between strangers again. Rules interpreting done by a tournament organizer.

These rules will never work for pick up games and may possibly work (and that's a stretch) in a tournament setting if the TO puts in an absurd amount of work. They're really not worth looking at in any way other than what they were designed for: at home, between good friends who agree before hand about everything and don't believe there should be winners or losers in a game.
They dont work for friends either.

I bring a DeamonPrince, 3 Bloodcrushers and 3x8 Warriors of Chaos.
What can you put against this for it to be balanced as an Orc? or Skaven? its a total crap shoot.

Whirlwind
01-07-2015, 20:25
Saw this on a different forum - while the word "balanced" seems like a total joke, it's at least some semblance of army building rules

Suggestion from GW staff for creating basic army construction that is balanced.

Quick way to organize a balanced battle in Age of Sigmar for your customers who feel that they need something like this to be successful.

Warscrolls can't be duplicated more than once

1-12 Warscrolls
1-2 Hero Warscrolls
0-2 monster warscrolls
No single warscroll may contain more than X wounds (ie 24)no duplicate Heroes

I'd note that if you relate this to how the contents of the box have been set up you wouldn't be able to use all the sigmarines as it appears they have designed it to include 2 units of 5 Liberators...

It's still not balanced anyway as in some ways number of attacks is more important than wounds. By far and away favours elite armies...oh wait

kylek2235
01-07-2015, 20:29
They dont work for friends either.

I bring a DeamonPrince, 3 Bloodcrushers and 3x8 Warriors of Chaos.
What can you put against this for it to be balanced as an Orc? or Skaven? its a total crap shoot.

In my defense, I think I specified, and I'm paraphrasing here, super good friends. Probably the types of people that put there kids in soccer leagues where they don't keep score and everyone gets a trophy.
:)

Col. Tartleton
01-07-2015, 20:56
Bad rules are bad rules at every level. It has nothing to do with how casual or serious you're taking it.

Voss
01-07-2015, 20:59
In my defense, I think I specified, and I'm paraphrasing here, super good friends. Probably the types of people that put there kids in soccer leagues where they don't keep score and everyone gets a trophy.
:)
So the worst kind of monsters.

Tokamak
01-07-2015, 21:00
*Tightly hugs his 8th edition book*

I'll never let you go sweety.

Voss
01-07-2015, 21:06
I appreciate they are trying to stop the 10ft spear of doom but there are better ways.

The galling thing is the 10' spear of doom is their own creation just for these rules. With 3" pile in and 1"+ range for melee weapons, the 'base issue' wasn't an issue. You've got 4" inches to work around the couple mm difference between the flat sides and corners of a square base. "Just use bases that come with the models" It would have been sane and had fewer modeling for advantage problems.

Whirlwind
01-07-2015, 21:26
The galling thing is the 10' spear of doom is their own creation just for these rules. With 3" pile in and 1"+ range for melee weapons, the 'base issue' wasn't an issue. You've got 4" inches to work around the couple mm difference between the flat sides and corners of a square base. "Just use bases that come with the models" It would have been sane and had fewer modeling for advantage problems.

Yeah I agree; bases are the most logical answer but for some reason GW decided this wasn't sensible idea and obviously want everyone spending hours measuring 1 inch between everything. 40k has so much a better principle here, not sure why they didn't just use this method.

Hawthorne
01-07-2015, 21:27
Yeah because there's no valid reason to be upset by that is there, not like people sunk years of their life and thousands of pounds/dollars/euroes into a game that's now been dropped because the company making it is run by incompetent fools.

You dont play a game for decades and not become invested this is a kick in the nuts that may never stop hurting for alot of people.

It's not like they promised to keep the game as you know it going forever. You are making it sound like all that time and money you spent on the hobby is now for nothing, like you didn't enjoy what you got out of it. They aren't taking away warhammer as you enjoy it in any way shape or form. They are just not supporting it anymore (just like countless board games in the world that eventually stop being sold; except in this case you can still buy nearly all the models).

Separate from the above quote.
Also I find half of these complaints hilarious. Like yes you can model your guys in such a way to really play the system (getting a little bit extra range from an outstretched sword, etc.) when clearly the people who are willing to do whatever it takes to win (regardless of what's fun, cool, or fluffy) are not the people they are trying to cater to anymore (the same is true for 40k in my opinion just not as extreme yet). I'm not saying the new rules are perfect, very far from it, but things that can be exploited in such a way are not faults of the system necessary when the system is designed for people who are looking to play a game (with people who aren't ******s), have fun, and relax.

Ayin
01-07-2015, 21:54
Saw this on a different forum - while the word "balanced" seems like a total joke, it's at least some semblance of army building rules

Suggestion from GW staff for creating basic army construction that is balanced.

Quick way to organize a balanced battle in Age of Sigmar for your customers who feel that they need something like this to be successful.

Warscrolls can't be duplicated more than once

1-12 Warscrolls
1-2 Hero Warscrolls
0-2 monster warscrolls
No single warscroll may contain more than X wounds (ie 24)no duplicate Heroes

Ahaha! 'Here's some rules to build armies for people that don't understand that none of it matters anymore'.

Whirlwind
01-07-2015, 21:55
Separate from the above quote.
Also I find half of these complaints hilarious. Like yes you can model your guys in such a way to really play the system (getting a little bit extra range from an outstretched sword, etc.) when clearly the people who are willing to do whatever it takes to win (regardless of what's fun, cool, or fluffy) are not the people they are trying to cater to anymore (the same is true for 40k in my opinion just not as extreme yet). I'm not saying the new rules are perfect, very far from it, but things that can be exploited in such a way are not faults of the system necessary when the system is designed for people who are looking to play a game (with people who aren't ******s), have fun, and relax.

I think you missed the point and comments on the Carnosaur. No one is suggesting that any one here plays like that. What we are highlighting is that GW thought there could be an issue with outrageous bases (which suggests they had someone who played like that) and hence they have introduced a system where re-arranging your models so they look cool in battle takes second place to the rules and introduced a similar issue in a different way but that now affects all armies differently. Another example is say I bring dwarfs to battle - by the strict definition of the rules how on earth are they ever going be able to charge to get in combat with a phoenix (and vice versa)? They can never get within 0.5" even if models are based normally as per the box (accept unless you model the miniature in a bizarre way which is what we are trying to avoid). It's worse for say swarms, they re probably never going to get into contact with any flying beasty. The only way these units can get in combat with each other is if they accidently end up within 3" of each other say through pile in moves.

duffybear1988
01-07-2015, 22:28
It's not like they promised to keep the game as you know it going forever. You are making it sound like all that time and money you spent on the hobby is now for nothing, like you didn't enjoy what you got out of it. They aren't taking away warhammer as you enjoy it in any way shape or form. They are just not supporting it anymore (just like countless board games in the world that eventually stop being sold; except in this case you can still buy nearly all the models).

Separate from the above quote.
Also I find half of these complaints hilarious. Like yes you can model your guys in such a way to really play the system (getting a little bit extra range from an outstretched sword, etc.) when clearly the people who are willing to do whatever it takes to win (regardless of what's fun, cool, or fluffy) are not the people they are trying to cater to anymore (the same is true for 40k in my opinion just not as extreme yet). I'm not saying the new rules are perfect, very far from it, but things that can be exploited in such a way are not faults of the system necessary when the system is designed for people who are looking to play a game (with people who aren't ******s), have fun, and relax.

Kids can be cutthroats when they want to be. I have a 30something year old mate who got tabled by an 8 year old the other day who knew all the tricks. Even if you cater to children they will still expect the game to be fair. Unless the GW churn and burn strategy is to just sell the starter to a new kid and then drop him/her after they attempt to play the game and find it hopelessly unfair, I'm not sure what their endgame is here?

passwordman
01-07-2015, 22:57
What people should remember is that Games Workshop recruits people based on attitude not skill.


Passwordman

Geep
02-07-2015, 00:17
A 'WTF?' thing I just discovered goes with the Sigmarine starter set formation- the one that lets you keep models in reserve and bring them on any time. You can make that a force of 6 models, so if the enemy brings 8 you can choose a 'Sudden Death' condition. All you have to do is choose a model to survive, or choose some terrain to capture, and keep a model in reserve (ideally a tough one) until the required turn. Then pop it onto the board, wherever is needed to capture the objective/keep him safe, and done! Game won!
I think working out all of the different ways to break this game will be more fun than actually playing it.

Ender Shadowkin
02-07-2015, 00:21
you can't bring Models on reserve anytime , currently their is no way to bring them on, presumably a war scroll may add some relevant rules for scouts and what not...

mattjgilbert
02-07-2015, 00:30
you can't bring Models on reserve anytime , currently their is no way to bring them on, presumably a war scroll may add some relevant rules for scouts and what not...
The rules for the thunderstrike brotherhood say you can drop from reserve in any of your movement phases you like.

Scribe of Khorne
02-07-2015, 00:33
I cannot fathom how this is a complete rules set, we must be missing stuff.

Ender Shadowkin
02-07-2015, 00:34
The rules for the thunderstrike brotherhood say you can drop from reserve in any of your movement phases you like.

ahh. lol, so any units from your massive collection you happened to bring?

logan054
02-07-2015, 00:35
The rules for the thunderstrike brotherhood say you can drop from reserve in any of your movement phases you like.

So basically you deep strike he man and his silly cat and start ripping units apart, go team fun!


I cannot fathom how this is a complete rules set, we must be missing stuff.

I think it's been said multiple times now that the vets aren't going to like it. I'n guessing the rules are bad because they are free.

Scribe of Khorne
02-07-2015, 00:39
I feel for you guys then. I'll be in 30K, hopefully safe from the reach of GW idiocy...

AmPm
02-07-2015, 00:53
Wait a minute. If I read what I saw of the rules right, I can put my archers on stands that hold them a few inches off the ground, to make them immune to melee while shooting all around them regardless of facing?

I mean it's been a long time since I bought anything from GW, and this pretty much confirms that it is just better to play other companies games, with their models...

Voss
02-07-2015, 01:26
I feel for you guys then. I'll be in 30K, hopefully safe from the reach of GW idiocy...

Ah, optimism. I look forward to the future. :evilgrin:

Brother Haephestus
02-07-2015, 01:29
AmPm,

My interpretation is that:
1) the base doesn't block movement, so my figure can climb up the base/charge up the base to engage you, hand-holds or not.
2) your figure must "move down the base, move forward, and then move up the base" in order to get to the next spot
3) depending on the height of the base, you now have given me permission to reach across the table, pick up your archer on the 6" pedestal, and commence to soundly whipping the holy **** out of you with it. It's the same approach I take to "congo line gnoblars with trappers" players too by the way, I just bring my own pummelling tools.

That's just my interpretation however ...

Bloodknight
02-07-2015, 01:53
and this pretty much confirms that it is just better to play other companies games, with their models...

Looks like it. Turns out I'm going to buy a few rulebooks very soon, even from the people who give out free rules, but offer printed ones, so that they can have some of my money.


So basically you deep strike he man and his silly cat and start ripping units apart, go team fun!

-ish. He still needs to stay away 9" to charge. So ne needs a 10+ to charge, which is 17%. Might as well have made that a rule of "on a 6 he can charge a unit", it's functionally the same.

Scribe of Khorne
02-07-2015, 01:59
Ah, optimism. I look forward to the future. :evilgrin:

The most recent HH book made clear that the primary failure of 7th (Multiple Detachments leading to no true FOC) doesnt apply, so for now any FW continues to get my time and money. ;)

inquisitorsz
02-07-2015, 02:47
AmPm,

My interpretation is that:
1) the base doesn't block movement, so my figure can climb up the base/charge up the base to engage you, hand-holds or not.
2) your figure must "move down the base, move forward, and then move up the base" in order to get to the next spot
3) depending on the height of the base, you now have given me permission to reach across the table, pick up your archer on the 6" pedestal, and commence to soundly whipping the holy **** out of you with it. It's the same approach I take to "congo line gnoblars with trappers" players too by the way, I just bring my own pummelling tools.

That's just my interpretation however ...

Yeah I don't get why people are trying to find all the ways to break the game in a stupid fashion. Must be a representation of the community...
If you turn up with 8 bloodthirsters or flying archers on 5 inch flight stands then I'm going to tell you to F-off.
It's no different than "that guy" who brings 4 wraithknights or Imperial Knights in 40k... Sure it's legal.. the rules make it ok, but he's still a ****

I have no problem with a rule set not needing 100 extra pages for rules just to specify "don't be a ****"

babyberg31
02-07-2015, 02:58
Glorious Victory
-- So if your 10 Chaos Warriors are fighting 15 Goblins, they get a bonus


Well, we don't know for sure. We don't know how a warscroll for dirt cheap infantry will work. Maybe they have a special rule stating that they count for only one body for each 10/15/20 guys. This way, even if you have goblins, you could overcome bigger foes. They will hit & Wound on 5+ for example. Which is not that bad when you consider a fight with a greater deamon...

The scenario regarding 10 bloodthrister vs 10 goblins is utterly useless because we are assuming that we play in a 8th edition setting.
But with special rules, you might discover that the 10 bloodthrister are not capable to make a ''sudden death'' shenanigan VS 150 goblins. And these 150 goblins will hit & wound on 5+. And could have bows which hit & wound on 5+ too. See where this is going?

I don't say that's all the solution though. But special rules might cover up for cheap infantry.

Scribe of Khorne
02-07-2015, 03:00
Yeah I don't get why people are trying to find all the ways to break the game in a stupid fashion. Must be a representation of the community...
If you turn up with 8 bloodthirsters or flying archers on 5 inch flight stands then I'm going to tell you to F-off.
It's no different than "that guy" who brings 4 wraithknights or Imperial Knights in 40k... Sure it's legal.. the rules make it ok, but he's still a ****

I have no problem with a rule set not needing 100 extra pages for rules just to specify "don't be a ****"

And your problem is that you dont acknowledge that without said rules, its up to the community (full of idiots who will bring 8 bloodthirsters) to police itself.

I tried doing that in my VERY mellow group when 7th came out. One guy told me straight up 'I need unbound, I cant play my army otherwise' like he hadnt been playing legit lists for 4 years prior.

This is how games and communities die. :p

Brother Haephestus
02-07-2015, 03:11
And your problem is that you dont acknowledge that without said rules, its up to the community (full of idiots who will bring 8 bloodthirsters) to police itself.

I tried doing that in my VERY mellow group when 7th came out. One guy told me straight up 'I need unbound, I cant play my army otherwise' like he hadnt been playing legit lists for 4 years prior.

This is how games and communities die. :p
Then form better communities. This is a problem with the player, not with the rules.

Chikout
02-07-2015, 03:21
A quick thing about cover. You need line of sight to shoot so you can't shoot through trees. These rules seem to need a lot of common sense to work, which I am fine with. P.s. All the 8th edition stuff is still on iTunes. I am curious if it will stay after next week.

babyberg31
02-07-2015, 03:28
Another way to break the wheel:

Take the tunderstorm brotherhood. Lightningstrike with a 100 man unit formation. Doesn't count for the outnumber rule since they don't start on the table.

forseer of fates
02-07-2015, 03:41
Not suffering -, for long range and stuff for shooting..... being able to move, shoot and charge. If you pin a unit in combat, you can just shoot them to ribbons if units don't block line of sight....

Scribe of Khorne
02-07-2015, 03:53
Then form better communities. This is a problem with the player, not with the rules.

No, its not. Who are we to decide what is or is not allowed when the action is permitted in the framework of the game?

Ender Shadowkin
02-07-2015, 04:00
it's so obvious they didn't try to ballance things... is it really useful to come up with the infinite ways to break it?

what about ways to fix it?

How about setting a min and max model count for each scroll/unit and for each game ?

Agreeing on a set # of scrolls before a game?

How would you simply ballance monsters/single model scrolls of Differnt strength...

I think it's too much to just build a new point system, but tiers? say you can have 3 tiers of monster scrolls and assign a tier lever for each scroll ... so eagle 1 tier, dragon tier 3, do you could take 3 eagles for 1 dragon?

Its such a simple game, I can see the benefit of not layering false complexity with a complex point system, plus no one would agree to it ...

Thoughts?

Montegue
02-07-2015, 04:10
it's so obvious they didn't try to ballance things... is it really useful to come up with the infinite ways to break it?

what about ways to fix it?


I already did. Go back a few pages. I fixed AoS. :P It took me less than 30 minutes while dealing with a newborn and being up all night. Which just goes to show you how *easy* it would have been for a professional game designer to *not* put this POS out into the public sphere for it to be rightfully shredded within moments of it's leak to the public.

Scribe of Khorne
02-07-2015, 04:11
And here we have 40K 7th behavior "How can we fix an obviously broken game?"

Voss
02-07-2015, 04:15
A quick thing about cover. You need line of sight to shoot so you can't shoot through trees.
That isn't how line of sight or cover works.
Line of sight is 'target model is visible to the attacker, if unsure, bend down and look'. Unless it is a _really_ big tree (ie, wider than the models) this will almost never be an issue. Barring buildings or other terrain specifically designed to block line of sight, it will rarely be an issue.

cover is 'in or on' a terrain feature. The end.

Geep
02-07-2015, 06:33
Then form better communities. This is a problem with the player, not with the rules.
The problem is very much with the rules. The people on here ripping the rules apart aren't being jerks- we're just having fun with the obviously stupid thing. These rules deserve no respect.
It's like the movie 'The Room'. It's bad. The only possible saving grace is that it unites people in making fun of it. You may be able to try and argue that it has amazing, obscure insight/tactics or some other nonsense, but it's a real stretch to get past the fact that it's just a bad product.


Well, we don't know for sure. We don't know how a warscroll for dirt cheap infantry will work. Maybe they have a special rule stating that they count for only one body for each 10/15/20 guys. This way, even if you have goblins, you could overcome bigger foes. They will hit & Wound on 5+ for example. Which is not that bad when you consider a fight with a greater deamon...

Needing 5's for weak infantry vs a big monster may be fine as they slowly chip away at it (I actually expect 6's to be needed), but weak infantry vs weak infantry will be amazingly dull if units get too big. 'Battleshock' will probably cause more casualties than are actually inflicted in the combat, and I'd say it more represents both sides getting bored of the fact they can't hurt each other and wandering off...

Treadhead_1st
02-07-2015, 08:44
Not suffering -, for long range and stuff for shooting..... being able to move, shoot and charge. If you pin a unit in combat, you can just shoot them to ribbons if units don't block line of sight....

They do, it is in the Picking Targets rule:

"For the purposes of determining visibility, an attacking model can see through other models in its unit."

With no other exceptions, enemy models and friendly models that are not from the same unit block line of sight. So as far as I can tell a shooting unit can fire into combat, but line of sight is going to be heavily restricted - each individual model involved in a combat is going to be blocked by the enemy models it is fighting (so in practical terms you are likely only going to be able to shoot the closest enemy model), whilst those outside of combat will have line of sight blocked by friendly models engaging the enemy - which will prevent shooting into combat from being too much of a problem. Does give an advantage to smaller models fighting larger ones. Goblins with bows will be able to shoot a Bloodthirster fighting goblins with spears, as the Bloodthirster is so much larger, for example.

Huh. I was actually really worried about shooting units being too powerful, but on reflection I think it balances out quite nicely. Being able to shoot whilst engaged is similar to the old Stand-and-Shoot reaction, you can only hit what you can see so engaged friendly models limit how much damage can be done, and it helps to balance out the whole monsters-vs-infantry thing.

Still don't like the fact you seem to be able to shoot and then charge (assuming ranged models have combat weapons, which seems likely).

Avian
02-07-2015, 08:51
Realistically, you won't be able to completely block LOS to everyone in the target unit, even if they are in melee. There is always going to be some body part visible somewhere. You also only need to see one model, as casualties can be taken from outside LOS and outside of range.

MiyamatoMusashi
02-07-2015, 08:51
With no other exceptions, enemy models and friendly models that are not from the same unit block line of sight. So as far as I can tell a shooting unit can fire into combat, but line of sight is going to be heavily restricted - each individual model involved in a combat is going to be blocked by the enemy models it is fighting (so in practical terms you are likely only going to be able to shoot the closest enemy model), whilst those outside of combat will have line of sight blocked by friendly models engaging the enemy - which will prevent shooting into combat from being too much of a problem.

Not really. Can you see the feather sticking out of the enemy's cap? You can see the enemy model, fire away.

You have to have a really, really dense unit of quite bulky models to completely block line of sight through them.

duffybear1988
02-07-2015, 10:43
Could you not just take one giant unit of archers that spreads across the table and then ignore LOS almost entirely? For instance say you've got a block of Wood Elf Waywatchers 20 miniatures wide and 5 deep. You can shoot through your own men without penalty and any enemy that does make it into combat with you get's shot at by the rest of the unit behind as well. Enemies and terrain will still cause problems, but it'll still be like running into machine gun fire.

I'm already imagining my force being one massive block of archers, a hero hiding behind them for support and then one unit of fast cavalry/flyers for scenario play (because objectives seem likely in the long run).

swordofglass
02-07-2015, 10:57
Could you not just take one giant unit of archers that spreads across the table and then ignore LOS almost entirely? For instance say you've got a block of Wood Elf Waywatchers 20 miniatures wide and 5 deep. You can shoot through your own men without penalty and any enemy that does make it into combat with you get's shot at by the rest of the unit behind as well. Enemies and terrain will still cause problems, but it'll still be like running into machine gun fire.

I'm already imagining my force being one massive block of archers, a hero hiding behind them for support and then one unit of fast cavalry/flyers for scenario play (because objectives seem likely in the long run).

Except that they'll probably make bowfire awful, since I imagine the new units won't have it (except the new elves who will have special space-bows with extra rules to overcome this problem). They don't want you to use your dusty decade-old archers.

duffybear1988
02-07-2015, 11:02
Except that they'll probably make bowfire awful, since I imagine the new units won't have it (except the new elves who will have special space-bows with extra rules to overcome this problem). They don't want you to use your dusty decade-old archers.

Ah well, I was trying to be positive and you shot me down :)

I'll just dust off my old Kossars, Gryphon Legion and Boyar (using Empire counts-as) and put them on the table and then when I lose at least I know my army didn't look like crap. :D

#oldhammer #veteran #blewfartoomuchmoneyongwandnowhatesthem #youcantstopmeplayingkislevites

Avian
02-07-2015, 11:03
Old archer units will certainly have rules, and it's not unlikely (to put it mildly) that whoever writes these rules 1) won't realise the impact Ability X will have, and 2) won't play test much of anything. I would be very surprised if there weren't at least some missile units that were completely borked.

Bloodknight
02-07-2015, 11:22
You have to have a really, really dense unit of quite bulky models to completely block line of sight through them.

And then you shoot through their legs or under their arms. LOS blocking doesn't work on a model basis unless you have huge blocky models without any holes, like tanks, involved. In a game like WFB with mostly dudes on foot, on horseback or on monsters, you'd need a LOS-Cylinder solution (i.e. a model blocks LOS according to the size of its base up to its height, no matter the holes in the miniature, so that a row of minis forms a solid LOS blocker) to block LOS with other units.

Avian
02-07-2015, 11:34
I just measured my Wyvern and it turns out that turning 180 degrees on the spot costs 7" of movement. Darn tails. :eyebrows:

Graeme
02-07-2015, 11:37
you'd need a LOS-Cylinder solution (i.e. a model blocks LOS according to the size of its base up to its height, no matter the holes in the miniature, so that a row of minis forms a solid LOS blocker) to block LOS with other units.

And then you could come up with a system to show how hard your leader is concentrating his powers on certain things. It might let them buy more attacks, or do extra damage. And maybe there could be some big steam-powered robot monsters. And perhaps they could sort out all this silly '10ft spear of doom' nonsense by just giving some models an ability to represent their long reach called 'distance', or 'range' or something that lets them fight guys 2" away.

Sounds like the beginnings of a great game :-D

HereComesTomorrow
02-07-2015, 12:58
Then form better communities. This is a problem with the player, not with the rules.

I love this attitude because it shows a complete ignorance to people who live in small/isolated/rural communities.

I have a group with members who have an hours drive to get to use because there is no one else nearer. Should they just form a community put of nothing somehow?

forseer of fates
02-07-2015, 13:12
Why would it have to pivot, surly now models have a 360 line of sight.

Shifte
02-07-2015, 13:15
Why would it have to pivot, surly now models have a 360 line of sight.

Who wants to charge their Wyvern **** first into a block of spearmen? :P

Stoss
02-07-2015, 13:25
Wow, GW really outdid themselves this time. I take a sabbatical because people said 'wait and see' for Fantasy and this is what I come back to.

So let me get this straight. If I want to use my DoW models as some stand-in to Empire and whatever non-suped-up Humans get from the leftovers in this new world (the Red Slayers?), I wind up looking like a dick because I am trying to use models like this 216358 that I still want to play with but now look like I am modelling to advantage because now we don't use something simple and that everyone can agree on in the form of bases anymore?

How does this work with customizing GW's models? Is it illegal now to try to modify the model in any way that somehow gets construed as modelling for advantage or more just now considered bad among the community? I am really trying to wrap my head around this since we can't seem now to agree on a universal medium like oh I don't know bases to solve simple issues anymore.

NatBrannigan
02-07-2015, 13:37
Well it won't actually be an advantage to have a long spear. You're closer to the enemy but they're also "closer" to you. Having said that… I guess you could make a unit where the front rank have spears held vertically, the second rank have little spears held horizontally, the third rank have regular spears and the fourth rank have big ole’ pikes… If you were careful all the weapon tips would be in the same place so you’d be fighting in four ranks…

Ugh… I don’t know why I try and make sense of these rules, they’re just dreadful. I don’t know why GW haven’t adopted another companies rule set and just continue to sell they’re miniatures to be honest. “Here’s Kings of War! It’s a good game but they miniatures suck so buy ours instead!”

Kaptajn_Congoboy
02-07-2015, 13:38
So let me get this straight. If I want to use my DoW models as some stand-in to Empire and whatever non-suped-up Humans get from the leftovers in this new world (the Red Slayers?), I wind up looking like a dick because I am trying to use models like this 216358 that I still want to play with but now look like I am modelling to advantage because now we don't use something simple and that everyone can agree on in the form of bases anymore?

Well...you are handicapping your movement to some extent. If you have a 4" pike it will cost you around 5" og movement to turn 90 degrees to the right...this is somewhat "realistic" (well, not really) for your model carrying an ungainly long spear around, but the same applied to your 6" long dragon. It won't be turning much if it wants to move anywhere but forwards. So you'd better model your dragons sitting on its hind legs with its wings folded in if you want it to be mobile.

Avian
02-07-2015, 13:45
Why would it have to pivot, surly now models have a 360 line of sight.

Because it LOOKS cooler facing the enemy.

However, the rules punish you for doing what looks good.

swordofglass
02-07-2015, 14:33
Well it won't actually be an advantage to have a long spear. You're closer to the enemy but they're also "closer" to you. Having said that… I guess you could make a unit where the front rank have spears held vertically, the second rank have little spears held horizontally, the third rank have regular spears and the fourth rank have big ole’ pikes… If you were careful all the weapon tips would be in the same place so you’d be fighting in four ranks…


Also don't forget, that if a model is holding out a spear, it is now essentially 'concentrated' down into one point at the tip of the spear - so yes the enemy can strike them just the same, but you should be able to arrange your spear-wielding models in such a way that their now-tiny concentrated points of focus can be used much more efficiently (e.g. it's easier to gang up on an enemy model) than a normal model, even without the multiple ranks shenanigans you describe. But then there's the pivot problem.

Avian
02-07-2015, 17:12
So here are my quick fixes:

1) Units out of formation have a penalty to Bravery.
2) Replace measuring to and from models with to and from bases. Bases can't overlap.
3) Triumph rule is only if both players agree.
4) Remove Sudden Death rule.
5) The player who goes first in round 1 goes first in every round.
6) When running, roll two d6 and discard the lowest.
7) Units in combat can't shoot or be shot at.
8) When charging, at least one model must end up within melee range of an enemy.
9) Models behind terrain are also in cover.


And one non-quick fix:
10) Have army selection rules.

Bloodknight
02-07-2015, 17:39
IMO they just expected people to ignore what the model looks like for movement. They just did not say so in the rules, which means that technically a giant can't turn around in one turn.

Gorsameth
02-07-2015, 17:45
IMO they just expected people to ignore what the model looks like for movement. They just did not say so in the rules, which means that technically a giant can't turn around in one turn.

But if a model does not have a front then their is no gameplay reason for a model to turn.

Avian
02-07-2015, 17:51
That's not very narrative of you! :p

Voss
02-07-2015, 18:20
And then you could come up with a system to show how hard your leader is concentrating his powers on certain things. It might let them buy more attacks, or do extra damage. And maybe there could be some big steam-powered robot monsters. And perhaps they could sort out all this silly '10ft spear of doom' nonsense by just giving some models an ability to represent their long reach called 'distance', or 'range' or something that lets them fight guys 2" away.

That is the confusing bit- melee weapons have a range, so I fully expect spears to have a longer range characteristic anyway. Every single part of 'measure from the model' is gibberish, and works against the simple fast rules they're trying to write.

IronLichRich
02-07-2015, 18:27
Yeah I don't get why people are trying to find all the ways to break the game in a stupid fashion. Must be a representation of the community...
If you turn up with 8 bloodthirsters or flying archers on 5 inch flight stands then I'm going to tell you to F-off.
It's no different than "that guy" who brings 4 wraithknights or Imperial Knights in 40k... Sure it's legal.. the rules make it ok, but he's still a ****

I have no problem with a rule set not needing 100 extra pages for rules just to specify "don't be a ****"


If the company doesn't care enough to write some decent rules, these people aren't trying to break the gam, it's already broken.

I would much rather have extra pages of rules to cover various situations because everyone's definition of being a **** is different.

Avian
02-07-2015, 18:29
That is the confusing bit- melee weapons have a range, so I fully expect spears to have a longer range characteristic anyway. Every single part of 'measure from the model' is gibberish, and works against the simple fast rules they're trying to write.
I also though about that. A sword has a reach of 1" and a spear will likely have a reach of 2", but effectively it's probably going to be 3" if you assemble them the right way.

sasheep
02-07-2015, 19:05
So if a model with a weapon reach of 2" ends up 1" away from an enemy model the charge is failed despite having enough reach granted by his weapon? Is this right? Surely it would make more sense to say a charge is failed if your model is not in weapon range of the enemy rather than forcing you to be within half an inch.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Avian
02-07-2015, 19:08
So if a model with a weapon reach of 2" ends up 1" away from an enemy model the charge is failed despite having enough reach granted by his weapon? Is this right?
That is exactly right.

Though it must be said that in AoS charge distances are ever so slightly longer than in 8th (M + 2d6 + 1/2 vs M + 2d6). That model wouldn't have succeeded with his charge in 8th edition either.

Whirlwind
02-07-2015, 19:10
Well...you are handicapping your movement to some extent. If you have a 4" pike it will cost you around 5" og movement to turn 90 degrees to the right...this is somewhat "realistic" (well, not really) for your model carrying an ungainly long spear around, but the same applied to your 6" long dragon. It won't be turning much if it wants to move anywhere but forwards. So you'd better model your dragons sitting on its hind legs with its wings folded in if you want it to be mobile.

No this is incorrect. You are assuming you have to turn and face your opponent which you don't - just move your model sideways or backwards without changing its orientation. It looks silly but a lot of these rules are 'silly'. All the pike does is make your reach in the front arc longer.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
02-07-2015, 19:13
No this is incorrect. You are assuming you have to turn and face your opponent which you don't - just move your model sideways or backwards without changing its orientation. It looks silly but a lot of these rules are 'silly'. All the pike does is make your reach in the front arc longer.

Well... In that example, yes. But sometimes you want that long front arc to get into engagement range. Having messed around with some models, I see many ways to block the enemy from engaging other units or heroes, for example.

Mawduce
02-07-2015, 19:24
So here are my quick fixes:

1) Units out of formation have a penalty to Bravery.
2) Replace measuring to and from models with to and from bases. Bases can't overlap.
3) Triumph rule is only if both players agree.
4) Remove Sudden Death rule.
5) The player who goes first in round 1 goes first in every round.
6) When running, roll two d6 and discard the lowest.
7) Units in combat can't shoot or be shot at.
8) When charging, at least one model must end up within melee range of an enemy.
9) Models behind terrain are also in cover.


And one non-quick fix:
10) Have army selection rules.


All but 1 sounds good. A unit that is considered in loose formation would be more disorganized therefore less brave unless locked in close combat where each man is fighting for his life.

EDIT: It sounds like turning is more like the turning of say a tank in 40k. You pivot on your center point with no cost to movement, but I could be wrong.

Whirlwind
02-07-2015, 19:28
> I have found another WTF moment that I'm not sure has been mentioned in this forum.

You can get almost an automatic win with the Sigmarines if your opponent takes 8 or more models (assuming no scenario special conditions)

This is by using the Thunderstrike Brotherhood formation. You choose one Lord Celestant; one Lord Relictor; one unit of one Retributors; one unit of one Prosecutors; 2 units of 1 Liberators. Obviously if your enemy deploys more than 8 models then you can start to think about increasing your model count.
They all get Lightning Strike (i.e. they don't have to deploy on the board but can come on in any movement phase anywhere on the board but not within 9" of an enemy but are classed as in play in the Celestial Realm).
Choose Endure as your sudden death victory conditions.
Deploy your units as you wish except NEVER deploy one of the units of Liberators until round six.
Deploy the last unit of Liberators at the furthest distance from your enemy (and preferably behind some scenery). At the end of turn six you win.
The only way round this is if the enemy brings so many troops that he can cover most of the board with models stopping you from deploying (or always being in range for a charge). At worst you can drag it out for a draw by never deploying the model as there are no rules forcing you to deploy.

Doesn't work, my bad....:rolleyes:

InstantKarma
02-07-2015, 19:29
So here are my quick fixes:

1) Units out of formation have a penalty to Bravery.
2) Replace measuring to and from models with to and from bases. Bases can't overlap.
3) Triumph rule is only if both players agree.
4) Remove Sudden Death rule.
5) The player who goes first in round 1 goes first in every round.
6) When running, roll two d6 and discard the lowest.
7) Units in combat can't shoot or be shot at.
8) When charging, at least one model must end up within melee range of an enemy.
9) Models behind terrain are also in cover.


And one non-quick fix:
10) Have army selection rules.

So in other words, take existing rules (or prior rules) and insert where needed? Makes more sense than what has been given out.

Turgol
02-07-2015, 19:32
So here are my quick fixes:

1) Units out of formation have a penalty to Bravery.
2) Replace measuring to and from models with to and from bases. Bases can't overlap.
3) Triumph rule is only if both players agree.
4) Remove Sudden Death rule.
5) The player who goes first in round 1 goes first in every round.
6) When running, roll two d6 and discard the lowest.
7) Units in combat can't shoot or be shot at.
8) When charging, at least one model must end up within melee range of an enemy.
9) Models behind terrain are also in cover.


And one non-quick fix:
10) Have army selection rules.

I would add: some kind of overwatch/stand and shoot rule; BUT, you cannot charge and shoot. Sorry if these have been discussed, couldn't read all of this thread.

Whirlwind
02-07-2015, 19:33
Well... In that example, yes. But sometimes you want that long front arc to get into engagement range. Having messed around with some models, I see many ways to block the enemy from engaging other units or heroes, for example.

Then deploy him with the pike parallel to the deployment line to maximise the chances of this; or buy four of them and put them in square base to base contact so that each pike is pointing at 90 degrees to the adjacent one. That way you can block in all directions without ever rotating them.

Avian
02-07-2015, 19:33
I have found another WTF moment that I'm not sure has been mentioned in this forum.

You can get almost an automatic win with the Sigmarines if your opponent takes 8 or more models (assuming no scenario special conditions)

This is by using the Thunderstrike Brotherhood formation. You choose one Lord Celestant; one Lord Relictor; one unit of one Retributors; one unit of one Prosecutors; 2 units of 1 Liberators. Obviously if your enemy deploys more than 8 models then you can start to think about increasing your model count.
They all get Lightning Strike (i.e. they don't have to deploy on the board but can come on in any movement phase anywhere on the board but not within 9" of an enemy but are classed as in play in the Celestial Realm).
Choose Endure as your sudden death victory conditions.
Deploy your units as you wish except NEVER deploy one of the units of Liberators until round six.
Deploy the last unit of Liberators at the furthest distance from your enemy (and preferably behind some scenery). At the end of turn six you win.
Doesn't work. The rule says that it has to be a unit that was on the battlefield at the start of the game, and the battalion rule says, "instead of setting a unit on the battlefield..."

Kaptajn_Congoboy
02-07-2015, 19:43
Then deploy him with the pike parallel to the deployment line to maximise the chances of this; or buy four of them and put them in square base to base contact so that each pike is pointing at 90 degrees to the adjacent one. That way you can block in all directions without ever rotating them.

Well...yes. Until they start dying. And if you deploy a single model him sideways you can have the same problem 90 degrees in the other direction.

Whirlwind
02-07-2015, 19:57
Doesn't work. The rule says that it has to be a unit that was on the battlefield at the start of the game, and the battalion rule says, "instead of setting a unit on the battlefield..."

Ok yeah fair point didn't read it like that. Thanks I'll edit the post. Conversely then don't choose Endure as sudden death and put all your units into reserve :D. I suppose seize ground would be the next easiest then deploy in round three and then move them up in round 4 but it's a lot more risky.

Avian
02-07-2015, 20:00
Ok yeah fair point didn't read it like that. Thanks I'll edit the post. Conversely then don't choose Endure as sudden death and put all your units into reserve :D. I suppose seize ground would be the next easiest then deploy in round three and then move them up in round 4 but it's a lot more risky.
I keep thinking, "Just pick Assassinate, then drop Sternguard in next to the target and vaporize it with meltas and combi-meltas". Not quite the right game. ;)

Whirlwind
02-07-2015, 20:16
I keep thinking, "Just pick Assassinate, then drop Sternguard in next to the target and vaporize it with meltas and combi-meltas". Not quite the right game. ;)

Just wait I'm sure it won't be long until they arrive in AoS. In the meantime just take a large squad of Prosecutors that should do the trick...


Well...yes. Until they start dying.

I'm not sure what to say to this - I don't think I can recommend a model that can't die? :)

forthegloryofkazadekrund
02-07-2015, 21:38
Is it being an ass to have all your army flyers on a 50" high bases? if the new rules are model to model..... just have to watch out for 50" pikes lol

They could not see a problem with model to model...

swordofglass
02-07-2015, 21:43
Is it being an ass to have all your army flyers on a 50" high bases.

No that's fine

Col. Tartleton
02-07-2015, 21:47
Is it being an ass to have all your army flyers on a 50" high bases? if the new rules are model to model..... just have to watch out for 50" pikes lol

They could not see a problem with model to model...

Just get telescoping flight stands. Once you're past the tip they can't attack you any more.

forthegloryofkazadekrund
02-07-2015, 21:49
Just get telescoping flight stands. Once you're past the tip they can't attack you any more.

Im just thinking of bow range when i said 50" allthough telescopic stands would be good lol

Avian
02-07-2015, 21:49
Is it being an ass to have all your army flyers on a 50" high bases? if the new rules are model to model..... just have to watch out for 50" pikes lol
Provided you can't mount cannons on them, that is probably not that useful.

Shadeseraph
02-07-2015, 21:53
Provided you can't mount cannons on them, that is probably not that useful.

At the very least, you can win the "one remaining unit" sudden death objective.

Avian
02-07-2015, 21:54
Yeah. Thankfully normal bow range is longer than any practical flight stand. :D

forthegloryofkazadekrund
02-07-2015, 21:55
Would be funny though, turn up at GW with a telescopic base and play a staffer and extend it all the way to the ceiling, and say, "thats my flyer sorted, hes at the top and thats all im deploying"

cracou2
02-07-2015, 21:56
Thou shall all be happy...

You just don't imagine the nightmare in other countries

In France for example they decided to translate the game (they did that in the past) but , as far I know, they don't translate any more the unit name, the army name,the keywords nor the statistics...

Now just imagine that you have to play with warscrolls written in French and that, as you don't speak French you don't really understand what is what (while it's obvious for English speaking people). What would you read: I'm going to play gibberish this Saturday. We play with 15 gibberish and I will take 10 gibberish, 20 gibberish and my lord is gibberish as his main gibberish stat is 8 and it will prevent the gibberish effect. Bok bork boooorki booorkkk

At least I've been able to find a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY_Yf4zz-yo

And they hope to sell to young people? (above 15 for example your may know some English but before...).

Whirlwind
02-07-2015, 22:05
Im just thinking of bow range when i said 50" allthough telescopic stands would be good lol

It's one of those weird rules where yeah you could do this 50" might be a bit much though, not very balanced. Be careful though you might start an arms race of epic proportions as to who can build the tallest tower...

jet_palero
02-07-2015, 22:06
Thou shall all be happy...

You just don't imagine the nightmare in other countries

In France for example they decided to translate the game (they did that in the past) but , as far I know, they don't translate any more the unit name, the army name,the keywords nor the statistics...

Now just imagine that you have to play with warscrolls written in French and that, as you don't speak French you don't really understand what is what (while it's obvious for English speaking people). What would you read: I'm going to play gibberish this Saturday. We play with 15 gibberish and I will take 10 gibberish, 20 gibberish and my lord is gibberish as his main gibberish stat is 8 and it will prevent the gibberish effect. Bok bork boooorki booorkkk

At least I've been able to find a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY_Yf4zz-yo

And they hope to sell to young people? (above 15 for example your may know some English but before...).

That's absolutely hilarious. This whole thing just reeks of amateur hour. Did they lay off the entire game writing division or something?

forthegloryofkazadekrund
02-07-2015, 22:09
It's one of those weird rules where yeah you could do this 50" might be a bit much though, not very balanced. Be careful though you might start an arms race of epic proportions as to who can build the tallest tower...

Balance be damned lol, a friend of mine just suggested car ariels to use.

I know it would be waac and gittish to the extreme but apart from a good kicking out back theres nothing to stop you if you have a stable base with the rules

Shadeseraph
02-07-2015, 22:11
Balance be damned lol, a friend of mine just suggested car ariels to use.

I know it would be waac and gittish to the extreme but apart from a good kicking out back theres nothing to stop you if you have a stable base with the rules

And it makes sense. Technically, the sudden death rule just means "that guy must survive no matter what". IRL, someone under those conditions with the ability to fly would just fly as high as possible.

Bloodknight
02-07-2015, 22:13
It's one of those weird rules where yeah you could do this 50" might be a bit much though, not very balanced.

Not that you need that. It will be hilarious enough when Dwarfs can't fight units on normal flight stands.


hat's absolutely hilarious. This whole thing just reeks of amateur hour. Did they lay off the entire game writing division or something?

They're probably going to do that with the German version, too. They'Ve been doing that for a while now and it makes reading the fluff exhausting, because it kills the immersion. The Astra Militarum codex is an absolutely terrible read in German. On the other hand, with skeletons being called Deathrattlers now, I'm glad they don't translate the names anymore. Todesklapperer does not in the slightest way invoke a feeling of awe or at least a little chill. It sounds absolutely stupid. In fact, it sounds like a Halloween skeleton. At best.


a friend of mine just suggested car ariels to use.

Heh. That's not uncommon with people who play Blue Max/Canvas Eagles at bigger scales.

Whirlwind
02-07-2015, 22:20
And it makes sense. Technically, the sudden death rule just means "that guy must survive no matter what". IRL, someone under those conditions with the ability to fly would just fly as high as possible.

Hmmm there used to be flying high rules in the 4th edition, maybe this is what they mean by extra rules. We'll get flying battles in mid air because everything is being place don ridiculous bases.


Not that you need that. It will be hilarious enough when Dwarfs can't fight units on normal flight stands.

I think putting the Dwarfs on flying stands would be more useful. They should be able to shoot, but not get into close combat. Flying organ gun here we come.

cracou2
02-07-2015, 22:25
That's absolutely hilarious. This whole thing just reeks of amateur hour. Did they lay off the entire game writing division or something?

My little birds thing that its related to... copyright or something like that.

Something is funny: in France the law asks you to translate in French as soon as basic customers need to read it to use the product (basically a good idea is you purchase electrical products). You can keep the original name for things, people and so on (the reason is obvious too)... but you have to translate (http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/contrats-et-noticesl-emploi-obligatoire-de-la-langue-francaisela-loi-du-4-aout-1994-dite-loi-toubon-a-pour-objectif-a-la-fois-de-sauvegarder-la-langue-francaise-mais-egalement-de-proteger-le-consommat.N76930 ) and they don't...

MusingWarboss
03-07-2015, 02:03
So, possibly going back in the thread a bit, but with this base thing...

Is it right to say the rules suggest you measure from the model's most extended bits to another model's most extended bits? Because that's what it sounds like. Which if true is insane.

I can get behind "measure from the models head/torso" because, y'know, they're kind of critical hit locations. Someone whacking my spear tip isn't exactly a massive threat to safety.

Also, models mounting other models bases is ... well, very odd. No-doubt movement trays have been mentioned by some somewhere but how would they work? And is it classed as a models base! Would GW be so devilish as to suggest so? How feasible is it that you'll see someone's Chaos Lord crowd surfing across a movement tray of goblins just to whack one in the middle for devilment? (Because their movement permitted it, you can walk over and stand on other models bases and presumably models are individuals and not a group even if you group them up?)

Disclosure: I've not seen these warscrolls yet so I've no idea if these are answered in the there.

Also, if you can take round and square bases and there's no mention of "on the bases it came with" (did I get that right) could I use hexagonal bases? I have an old goblin on one.

Avian
03-07-2015, 06:26
Not sure quite what you mean by the Goblin example. The Lord couldn't move over the actual gobbos themselves, but bases are treated as not being there. Any shape is fine.

Flipmode
03-07-2015, 07:04
So here are my quick fixes:

1) Units out of formation have a penalty to Bravery.
2) Replace measuring to and from models with to and from bases. Bases can't overlap.
3) Triumph rule is only if both players agree.
4) Remove Sudden Death rule.
5) The player who goes first in round 1 goes first in every round.
6) When running, roll two d6 and discard the lowest.
7) Units in combat can't shoot or be shot at.
8) When charging, at least one model must end up within melee range of an enemy.
9) Models behind terrain are also in cover.


And one non-quick fix:
10) Have army selection rules.

Regarding 8.)

This could lead to a charge by a unit with 2" range shuffling up to a unit with 1" range. They then choose to not pile in, to minimise the number of enemy who can retaliate.

I think the existing rule is better.

The general things that would resolve most issues for me:
a.) Bases cannot exceed a certain height (though it is sad that this even needs to be mentioned)
b.) pivoting a model 90 degrees is free movement
c.) 'model' does not include weapons (still not sure about this one as I know it would cause different arguments, arguments that I have seen in many editions of GW games!)

mattjgilbert
03-07-2015, 07:42
@musingwarboss yes you can use hexagonal bases. Any size and shape is allowed.

Spiney Norman
03-07-2015, 08:28
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, regarding the sudden death objectives, it doesn't say anywhere where they get activated, so do you only gain access to SD objectives at the start of the game if your force is 2/3 the size of your opponent or less, OR do you get to activate a SD objective at any point in the game when your model count drops below the required number relative to your opponents?

Treadhead_1st
03-07-2015, 08:43
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, regarding the sudden death objectives, it doesn't say anywhere where they get activated, so do you only gain access to SD objectives at the start of the game if your force is 2/3 the size of your opponent or less, OR do you get to activate a SD objective at any point in the game when your model count drops below the required number relative to your opponents?

I have seen this come up a couple of times but I think it is relatively clear. The Sudden Death rules say "...the outnumbered player can choose one objective from the sudden death table after generals are nominated." I know it has previously suggested that "after" is vague (as any point in the battle would be after generals are nominated), so if someone is thinking like that then look at the context - the rules are in the section "The Battle Begins" and before "Pre-Battle Abilities", so therefore the Sudden Death objectives are chosen after generals are selected but before any pre-battle abilities are used.

MiyamatoMusashi
03-07-2015, 08:51
I know it has previously suggested that "after" is vague (as any point in the battle would be after generals are nominated), so if someone is thinking like that then look at the context

Yeah, you're right that a couple of people have tried to say it isn't clear, but it really is, and I'm not exactly one to leap to the defence of these awful new rules. I've seen the same argument in other cases too (Riptides must decide on their power-up ability "after" rolling for over-charge "...which means I can wait till later in the turn!"), but it's a nonsense argument.

Someone in one of the other threads explained it very nicely: when you're told to wash your hands after going to the toilet, that doesn't mean you can wait until tomorrow. It means do it right away.

Geep
03-07-2015, 08:51
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, regarding the sudden death objectives, it doesn't say anywhere where they get activated, so do you only gain access to SD objectives at the start of the game if your force is 2/3 the size of your opponent or less, OR do you get to activate a SD objective at any point in the game when your model count drops below the required number relative to your opponents?
It's not well written, but it states 'after general are chosen', so that indicates that it's at the start of the game only.


And shooters? Also, if they don't have ranged attacks of their own, big deal for them
It's still a near instant-win, even if it plays no part in the battle. Mount a single model on a car aerial, extend it up high enough (past 36" is near immunity), and rely on your lone model surviving to claim a Major Victory. Anyone who actually wants to play a proper game may need to mount a shooting model this way, just to chase down opponents who try this trick :p

cptcosmic
03-07-2015, 09:10
I hope the lack army composition system is because it is a starter box, just like in the IoB set.

is there no bonus if you outmaneuver your opponent with e.g. flank charges etc? and I can shoot plus fight? one "I swing a sword in your face", the other one "hold on, I just pull out my bow to shoot you while youre hitting me in the face* dat logic

herp derp, you might aswell do a coin toss who wins... so much simplified, even a retard could play! free rules too, you do not even need to download them!

cptcosmic
03-07-2015, 09:11
I hope the lack army composition system is because it is a starter box, just like in the IoB set.

is there no bonus if you outmaneuver your opponent with e.g. flank charges etc? and I can shoot plus fight? one "I swing a sword in your face", the other one "hold on, I just pull out my bow to shoot you while youre hitting me in the face* dat logic

herp derp, you might aswell do a coin toss who wins... so much simplified, even a retard could play! free rules too, you do not even need to download them!

Spiney Norman
03-07-2015, 09:57
It's not well written, but it states 'after general are chosen', so that indicates that it's at the start of the game only.


It's still a near instant-win, even if it plays no part in the battle. Mount a single model on a car aerial, extend it up high enough (past 36" is near immunity), and rely on your lone model surviving to claim a Major Victory. Anyone who actually wants to play a proper game may need to mount a shooting model this way, just to chase down opponents who try this trick :p

I think mounting a blood thirster on a remote-controlled, extendable robotic armature might be the answer, using his flying movement vertically ought to get him into charge range by T3-4. :rolleyes:


I hope the lack army composition system is because it is a starter box, just like in the IoB set.

is there no bonus if you outmaneuver your opponent with e.g. flank charges etc? and I can shoot plus fight? one "I swing a sword in your face", the other one "hold on, I just pull out my bow to shoot you while youre hitting me in the face* dat logic

herp derp, you might aswell do a coin toss who wins... so much simplified, even a retard could play! free rules too, you do not even need to download them!

I guess that is possible, but there have been rumours, allegedly from LGS owners who have been told by their GWs that there is no points system. It's also a little different from previous editions, for example if you had IoB all you needed was the HE army book to use your HE models, if you have to go out and buy a box of Sigmarines just to get the full rules to use your models from the starter set that would be a pretty colossal derp.

Having said that they did release the Hobbit SBG starter set with the full game rules minus unit points values which were only printed in the hardback rule book, so you effectively had to buy a second rule book to use the contents of the starter set. :rolleyes:

Chikout
03-07-2015, 10:25
About the car ariel thing models can move in any direction including vertically so i could just run up the ariel and then charge into combat. A more realistcly crazy rule is that to turn a dragon round takes movement but i could just charge it into combat backwards as i dont have to see the target.

Cheeslord
03-07-2015, 10:35
The more I read about these rules, the more excited I am to see them work... I will definitely give this a go if the rules are, as rumored, going to be free. (BTW, everyone else on this forum seems to already have them; am I missing a download link??)

Mark.

NatBrannigan
03-07-2015, 10:46
I've heard good things about the LOTR rules, but have never played myself. Are these AoS rules recognisiably based on the LOTR rules and if not, does anyone now why not? If they were indeed good rules canabilising them seems like a no brainer to me.

Spiney Norman
03-07-2015, 10:49
The more I read about these rules, the more excited I am to see them work... I will definitely give this a go if the rules are, as rumored, going to be free. (BTW, everyone else on this forum seems to already have them; am I missing a download link??)

Mark.

They're just scans from someone who got their boxed set early, so they're still technically an illegal download, the official GW ones should be available sometime tomorrow morning from their site.

Haravikk
03-07-2015, 11:25
The whole emphasis on measuring from the model is by far the biggest WTF of the rules; I thought the whole point of the bases was to give a standard, simple and consistent point to measure from? Okay, so old models will have square bases, but it's not like that's such a huge advantage, and they could have just said "treat square/rectangular bases as if they had a circle/oval drawn through all of the corners", simple.

While you can argue that modelling for advantage will cut both ways (if a spear makes you closer to an enemy, it also makes them closer to you) but this doesn't hold for many models, especially for those that excel at combat and simply want to get there as quickly as possible; what's that, my combat monster with a 24" neck can charge you on the first turn with a 50% chance of getting that turn? Don't mind if I do!


The deployment also seems strange; alternating units and choosing as you go is a neat idea, but it kind of means you could just hold back your most broken characters and models to the end, and wait for your opponent to declare they've finished deploying. Since it's only one more model it probably won't cause you to outnumber them by any significant amount, but could wildly tip the balance. I've only quickly skimmed the rules so maybe I misunderstood, but it seems like one of many things that it's open to abuse.

I dunno, simple rules are great in theory, but they need to be tight, consistent rules and I'm not sure Age of Sigmar is shaping up that way.

hobojebus
03-07-2015, 11:34
Even having 30% more models is a big concern I don't get why the threshold is so high.

I know it's a skirmish game but I doubt people will be taking just 10 models as the norm.

cracou2
03-07-2015, 11:56
Well, another stupid problem is... measuring. It was also a problem in the past but nothing has changed: 3", 5", 24"... Oups, for 98% of the world there is no such unit. They use cm. In the past people were rounding the value: 1" = 2.5 cm.

I just tried a battle to have a look... Well, the smaller the base, the more miniatures you can pile in. Ranks are perfect to pile in a large number of models (assuming that you can't jump on the base). The smaller your base is, the less minuatures can pile on you too.

Just imagine sigmarines on 5mm bases :p

Cheeslord
03-07-2015, 12:44
I think the rules are SUPPOSED to be infinitely abusable.

I do not thing there is SUPPOSED to be any form of balance.

Given that people will always complain about the game balance, and it takes a huge amount of playtesting and careful design effort to get a game even close to balance, I think that GW are simply sidestepping the issue and leaving it up to the players to decide on balance for their own groups and communities.

Also there are a surprising number of abuse countermeasures hidden in it, for example the fact that if you model your army to have each 24" long arms (say), you still have to fit them in your deployment zone (which may be impossible) and it would take them several turns of movement to turn through 90 degrees...

Mark.

Lord Dan
03-07-2015, 13:35
Given that people will always complain about the game balance, and it takes a huge amount of playtesting and careful design effort to get a game even close to balance, I think that GW are simply sidestepping the issue and leaving it up to the players to decide on balance for their own groups and communities.
That sounds like a phenomenal way of killing interest in a game.

HereComesTomorrow
03-07-2015, 13:38
I think the rules are SUPPOSED to be infinitely abusable.

I do not thing there is SUPPOSED to be any form of balance.

Given that people will always complain about the game balance, and it takes a huge amount of playtesting and careful design effort to get a game even close to balance, I think that GW are simply sidestepping the issue and leaving it up to the players to decide on balance for their own groups and communities.

Also there are a surprising number of abuse countermeasures hidden in it, for example the fact that if you model your army to have each 24" long arms (say), you still have to fit them in your deployment zone (which may be impossible) and it would take them several turns of movement to turn through 90 degrees...

Mark.

"Waiter, I asked for steak and you brought me a live cow."
"You were just going to complain about it anyway, we thought we'd let you decide how to make it."

Deadhorse
03-07-2015, 13:45
Given that people will always complain about the game balance, and it takes a huge amount of playtesting and careful design effort to get a game even close to balance, I think that GW are simply sidestepping the issue and leaving it up to the players to decide on balance for their own groups and communities.

Oh, it's not just balance they sidestepped, but also rules writing, making the next edition of a R&F wargame, communicating with customers and a few other things.

All of the above will be done by the community or the competition, while AoS attracts the less refined of the 40k players, is accused of cannibalising 40k sales and gets axed in approximately 18 months.

forthegloryofkazadekrund
03-07-2015, 13:51
Just reading through the rules atm, does that mean i cant go through a house or building but i can go over it?

Deadhorse
03-07-2015, 14:01
"Whatever you think is fair" seems to be the correct answer.

TheFang
03-07-2015, 14:24
"Waiter, I asked for steak and you brought me a live cow."
"You were just going to complain about it anyway, we thought we'd let you decide how to make it."

AoS at the minute is more egg and sperm than actual beef.

Ayin
03-07-2015, 14:26
I think the rules are SUPPOSED to be infinitely abusable.

I do not thing there is SUPPOSED to be any form of balance.

Given that people will always complain about the game balance, and it takes a huge amount of playtesting and careful design effort to get a game even close to balance, I think that GW are simply sidestepping the issue and leaving it up to the players to decide on balance for their own groups and communities.

Mark.

GW certainly appears to have sidestepped building a solid, well made game, and have sidestepped the need to do so as the game itself has no cost (free download, ect) and supports their "we're a miniatures company, not a game company" stance.


By producing a minimalist rules framework through which players can use their models in nearly any way they choose and making that framework freely available, they certainly have taken a step in favour of not even pretending to try.

swordofglass
03-07-2015, 15:32
I've another gripe with AoS, one which has just occurred to me after watching the start of 'Cool Guys Nation's battle report.
He quickly states that they will try out two forces, then if one side seems to dominate too much they will know for next time that the forces may be unbalanced and to shift things in the other side's favour. Say, take out a powerful model, or give the other side another unit or another more powerful model. Presumably you repeat this until the forces feel balanced. This sentiment has been echoed by supporters of AoS on here too.

Wtf?

So you're trying to design two forces which stagnate against each other? In 8th edition, if my Blood Knights get into position and get a flank charge off on your horde, comboing with some grave guard, and you lose the game, we don't say "Oh the vampire army was too strong, we need to change it up so the end result of the game is closer next time". If a player wins the battle they shouldn't be looking to gimp themselves next time to make the result 'fairer'. What if the person who wins, wins because they're a better player? And how can you account for that in AoS, when you're looking to 'balance' the armies?

MiyamatoMusashi
03-07-2015, 15:39
If a player wins the battle they shouldn't be looking to gimp themselves next time to make the result 'fairer'. What if the person who wins, wins because they're a better player?

In all seriousness, this is why designing games, balancing them, and playtesting them is difficult (and why genuinely good games designers are much rarer than people claiming to know something about game design on web forums).

Did you win because you played better, and the game rewarded you for doing so? That's a good thing. Or did you win because the game imbalance gave you an unfair advantage? That's a bad thing.

It's intensely difficult to get right. It takes experience, analytical thinking, and the ability to step back from the game you just played and consider it critically and dispassionately. Not to mention intense familiarity with the rules; an in-depth understanding of statistics, game theory and logic; and a clearly-defined, well-understood vision of what "playing well" even means within the context of the game.

...and GW have washed their hands of that responsibility and expect the players (all players) to do it for them. Hmm.

hobojebus
03-07-2015, 17:49
Oh, it's not just balance they sidestepped, but also rules writing, making the next edition of a R&F wargame, communicating with customers and a few other things.

All of the above will be done by the community or the competition, while AoS attracts the less refined of the 40k players, is accused of cannibalising 40k sales and gets axed in approximately 18 months.

That long! Man I figure if AoS fails to raise flagging profits it's gone in 12 myself.

Urgat
03-07-2015, 17:53
Well, another stupid problem is... measuring. It was also a problem in the past but nothing has changed: 3", 5", 24"... Oups, for 98% of the world there is no such unit. They use cm. In the past people were rounding the value: 1" = 2.5 cm.

We had cm during 4th/5th ed, but GW just made up a new unit for us after that, which was just an inch renamed (a "step", in french). Nobody had any problem with that, as far as I know.
I assumed they did the same everywhere else?


Just imagine sigmarines on 5mm bases :p

And how do you do that? You're better off not using bases at all, at least, it's, you know, physically possible, at the very least.


I've another gripe with AoS, one which has just occurred to me after watching the start of 'Cool Guys Nation's battle report.
He quickly states that they will try out two forces, then if one side seems to dominate too much they will know for next time that the forces may be unbalanced and to shift things in the other side's favour. Say, take out a powerful model, or give the other side another unit or another more powerful model. Presumably you repeat this until the forces feel balanced. This sentiment has been echoed by supporters of AoS on here too.

Wtf?

So you're trying to design two forces which stagnate against each other? In 8th edition, if my Blood Knights get into position and get a flank charge off on your horde, comboing with some grave guard, and you lose the game, we don't say "Oh the vampire army was too strong, we need to change it up so the end result of the game is closer next time". If a player wins the battle they shouldn't be looking to gimp themselves next time to make the result 'fairer'. What if the person who wins, wins because they're a better player? And how can you account for that in AoS, when you're looking to 'balance' the armies?

They take avergaes. I assume if in one game the winner obviously outplayed the loser, they- wouldn't use that battle in the balancing process.

MusingWarboss
03-07-2015, 18:21
Well, another stupid problem is... measuring. It was also a problem in the past but nothing has changed: 3", 5", 24"... Oups, for 98% of the world there is no such unit. They use cm. In the past people were rounding the value: 1" = 2.5 cm.

That's the first time I've heard anyone moan over the unit of measurement!! So they used Imperial... They could have used any term but it's at least a standard, even if most places like metric. Are you bothered by table sizes given in feet too??


We had cm during 4th/5th ed, but GW just made up a new unit for us after that, which was just an inch renamed (a "step", in french). Nobody had any problem with that, as far as I know.
I assumed they did the same everywhere else?

That makes perfect sense. As far as I know they've been using Imperial (kinda fitting) measurements forever. So inches are in, centimetres are out.

I've not purchased a boxed starter set for a long time but I'm pretty sure ever since Necromunda in 1995 they've included pointy measuring sticks marked with inches on them. Also they sell tape measures with appropriate measurements on also, along with selling/including appropriate sized templates!!

Doesn't Sigmar have two blue pointy measuring sticks in? Or was that photo lying??


...on 5mm bases
Or just take them off bases. It sounds like they're not necessary except to make a model stand up.

Gorsameth
03-07-2015, 19:43
Or just take them off bases. It sounds like they're not necessary except to make a model stand up.
Do the rules actually require a model to be standing? :p

forthegloryofkazadekrund
03-07-2015, 20:48
Do the rules actually require a model to be standing? :p

Could be reclining in a deck chair lol, or even handstanding

MusingWarboss
03-07-2015, 21:37
Do the rules actually require a model to be standing? :p

Err ... I don't know! I assume not! I know in Necromunda they do as lying down either facing up or down has specific in game meanings. In AoS... Maybe they're all really chilled about the battles? Or dead.

Treadhead_1st
03-07-2015, 23:58
Thought I would let you know (if it hasn't been seen yet) but the Scenery Warscrolls fixes the "WTF" with walls.

If all the models in a unit are within 3" of a wall or fence and are all on the same side of it then you get cover from attacks made by models on the other side of it.

Still a tiny bit of a WTF in that having even one model out of place (wrong side of the wall or too far away) makes the whole unit lose the benefit, but the big issue was at least addressed.

MiyamatoMusashi
04-07-2015, 00:28
Thought I would let you know (if it hasn't been seen yet) but the Scenery Warscrolls fixes the "WTF" with walls.

If all the models in a unit are within 3" of a wall or fence and are all on the same side of it then you get cover from attacks made by models on the other side of it.

Still a tiny bit of a WTF in that having even one model out of place (wrong side of the wall or too far away) makes the whole unit lose the benefit, but the big issue was at least addressed.

Not really, as the use of walls was just an example to illustrate the bigger problem.

99% hidden behind a wall? OK, maybe now there's cover. 99% hidden by a tree? No cover. 99% hidden by an intervening model? No cover.

The specific case of standing on a wall might be sorted, but the cover rules are still fundamentally dissociated.

Treadhead_1st
04-07-2015, 00:34
Not really, as the use of walls was just an example to illustrate the bigger problem.

99% hidden behind a wall? OK, maybe now there's cover. 99% hidden by a tree? No cover. 99% hidden by an intervening model? No cover.

The specific case of standing on a wall might be sorted, but the cover rules are still fundamentally dissociated.

From how the Sylvaneth Wyldwood rules are written it seems that any forest/wood you deploy is supposed have a defined "area" - I would suggest the base but the rules also say to ignore bases ;) - therefore if you are 99% hidden behind a tree and within the "area" you'd get cover.

As to seeing 1% of a model poking out from behind another, that is just a ****** consequence of true LOS to every physical part of the model.

To be honest, this thread was way too early.

See: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?410773-Humorous-AoS-Rules

Biggest pile of :wtf:.

hobojebus
04-07-2015, 00:40
I haven't played warhammer in a long time so it's loss didn't hit me as hard as others, but seeing some of this stuff is real and it's what killed wfb sickens me now.

Dance while rolling to get a bonus...I...words fail.

Tau_player001
04-07-2015, 00:48
GW really outdid themselves. I never thought they could manage to make such a cluster****, but man, when it comes to ****** rules, GW is your company.

stonehorse
04-07-2015, 00:57
Age of Sigmar, more like Age of School play ground comedy.

This is a poor product, the special rules we have seen that are trying to be funny will only be found funny by 10 year old's at best. This game is going to fail, big time. The established community are not going to welcome it in with open arms. Which is a shame as the new models are really nice, the rules are so badly written that it is painful to watch GW produce this. I'm reminded of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw9gaEiQAxY

roperpg
04-07-2015, 01:17
WFB was already a failure for the company, so why not try something different?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

MiyamatoMusashi
04-07-2015, 01:32
WFB was already a failure for the company, so why not try something different?

Fine.

But why this?

stonehorse
04-07-2015, 01:43
This isn't even a game!

roperpg
04-07-2015, 01:47
This isn't even a game!
Of course not, it's much more important than that.

It could fall flat on it's ****, but I don't think it will.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

stonehorse
04-07-2015, 01:49
Of course not, it's much more important than that.

It could fall flat on it's ****, but I don't think it will.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

What makes you sure it won't fail?

Scribe of Khorne
04-07-2015, 01:51
It will fall flat on its face. Nobody wants to stand around with people acting like idiots for 4 hours of senseless rolling (and based on the rules MASSED rerolling) while putting their models in a pile (to get wrecked?).

This sure as **** isnt going to make the fantasy side of GW profitable, I'm FLOORED they would think this would succeed.

taurus-marstein
04-07-2015, 01:53
Hey guys, has anyone realized how insanely powerful regular character abilities are compared to wizards? Wizards have to ROLL to cast, and can get dispelled, but heroes just auto use there abilities each turn.

Not only that, but every single hero ability seems to be WAY better than any spell I have seen thus far. So literally just spam heroes and one unit of infantry that you can buff with all those abilities at the same time (can even be core troops. Heck, clanrats are barely different than white lions in this game).

Drakkar du Chaos
04-07-2015, 01:53
WFB was already a failure for the company, so why not try something different?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

I dont understand how a result like this can come out.

Did they smoke pot while making AoS rules ? The result sounds like a middle finger to me. 4 pages of rules okay why not. For skirmish. With a big book of rules one month after. For big battles. But these warscrolls... is this a joke ?

CAN I WOKE UP PLEASE ?

*all hopes crushed*

Izzinatah
04-07-2015, 01:55
There doesn't seem to be much distinction between unit warscrolls and scenery warscrolls. I could be wrong but it looks like you can deploy a chapel as your sole model, choose the 'Endure' sudden death rule and win by default.

roperpg
04-07-2015, 01:55
What makes you sure it won't fail?
Because it's new. Because it's a lower buy in. Because they modular rule system is actually a better idea. Because I would wager the minis will be ace.
And most of all, its' very existence will have (judging by a lot of these threads) ensured that the soft of person I don't want to play against has gone off to rub themselves on Kings of War, so they can't put off other people.
There are a lot of people on here who take toy soldiers waaaaay too seriously. It *is* a game. It doesn't pretend to be chess. A week ago, I was still sceptical about the whole endeavour.
Now, I'm completely sold.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Izzinatah
04-07-2015, 02:06
I see people throwing the 'its only toy soldiers anyway' line about a lot. Maybe to you these games are only throwing plastic toys at each other and making stupid noises and daft jokes, but some people in this hobby are actually adults.

stonehorse
04-07-2015, 02:06
Remember that there is a difference between being Childlike and Childish... the forced attempt at humour the game encourages is bad, I say that not because I take my games way too seriously, but because that level of humour is less than juvenile, it is has the feel of all the officially sanctioned "fun" of an office Christmas party.

The entry level is unchanged, as there is no maximum or minimum on number of models needed.

New will mean people talk about it, investigate it, and will see that the system is flawed, and as GW are asking for quite a bit of cash, will decide to spend their money elsewhere.

The modular rule system is poorly thought out.

Yes the new models do look good, which is a shame as the game is far from being that.

taurus-marstein
04-07-2015, 02:09
Has anyone found out just how many rediculous synergies you can combine together with all of those automatic hero cast abilities? seriously, screw wizards, just take a full army of heroes and one big block of core troops and make them rediculous.

Thorin
04-07-2015, 02:12
I certainly love these "interactive" rules. Play out an argument between yourself and Konrad von Carstein to power him up, shout "Waaaagh!" to start the rule's effect, get your opponent dancing while the Masque is in cmbat and attacks to make her hit harder (or just dance yourself)...
And that's only a few. Awesome!

Voss
04-07-2015, 02:17
Because it's new. Because it's a lower buy in. Because they modular rule system is actually a better idea
The rules aren't modular though. :shifty:
Modular implies you can take bits out and replace them with something else, and that both are functional. What removes the combat module and replaces it with a new combat module? Or movement, or scenery? Those are fixed, vague, and poorly written. But they aren't modular.

And it won't always be new. The new shiny smell can rub off awfully fast. I suspect for most, the 'wow, new' factor will be gone by monday.



Hey guys, has anyone realized how insanely powerful regular character abilities are compared to wizards? Wizards have to ROLL to cast, and can get dispelled, but heroes just auto use there abilities each turn.
Some. But some wizards get those too.


Not only that, but every single hero ability seems to be WAY better than any spell I have seen thus far. So literally just spam heroes and one unit of infantry that you can buff with all those abilities at the same time (can even be core troops. Heck, clanrats are barely different than white lions in this game).
Eh. Daemons get lots of summoning spells by including daemons. That runs to absurd fairly quickly. if you have a bloodthirster and a pile of wizards (note: pink horrors, tzeentch heralds and daemon princes and non-BT greater daemons all count as chaos wizards), each one of those 'wizards' can try to summon a bloodthirster. Every turn. Or another copy of themselves or other daemon model/unit you've included in the army.

Geep
04-07-2015, 05:32
There doesn't seem to be much distinction between unit warscrolls and scenery warscrolls. I could be wrong but it looks like you can deploy a chapel as your sole model, choose the 'Endure' sudden death rule and win by default.
Lol, that's Brilliant.
"I deploy my chapel, and I'm done! Try to beat that!"
"I deploy a gazebo, and am done! Ha! No Sudden Death for you, and your mum is back to pick you up at 4, while mine comes at 5! I win!"

Scribe of Khorne
04-07-2015, 05:38
Because it's new. Because it's a lower buy in. Because they modular rule system is actually a better idea. Because I would wager the minis will be ace.
And most of all, its' very existence will have (judging by a lot of these threads) ensured that the soft of person I don't want to play against has gone off to rub themselves on Kings of War, so they can't put off other people.
There are a lot of people on here who take toy soldiers waaaaay too seriously. It *is* a game. It doesn't pretend to be chess. A week ago, I was still sceptical about the whole endeavour.
Now, I'm completely sold.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

All of this could have been done with a tight, balanced, deep, rules system. Instead, GW took a ****, divined the truth of their worth out of what they saw, and assigned a price to the rules provided.

AngryAngel
04-07-2015, 06:17
Lol, that's Brilliant.
"I deploy my chapel, and I'm done! Try to beat that!"
"I deploy a gazebo, and am done! Ha! No Sudden Death for you, and your mum is back to pick you up at 4, while mine comes at 5! I win!"

I can just feel the narrative ooze from such a cinematic battle.

hobojebus
04-07-2015, 11:17
I can just feel the narrative ooze from such a cinematic battle.

Don't swear the c words been banned since 6th ed came out.

MusingWarboss
04-07-2015, 14:26
Remember that there is a difference between being Childlike and Childish... the forced attempt at humour the game encourages is bad, I say that not because I take my games way too seriously, but because that level of humour is less than juvenile, it is has the feel of all the officially sanctioned "fun" of an office Christmas party.

My thoughts exactly. Forced fun... Isn't. If some dude turned up in a false nose, with an old car horn and a novelty spinning bow tie - I wouldn't be keen on playing them. I certainly wouldn't be expecting them to get in-game bonus's!!

There used to be vein of dry, occasionally quite dark humour in GWs games. This is the complete opposite. It's like party games at a kids birthday. Can't wait for "pin the tail on the Bloodthirster to summon him" or "stick a pickle up your nose while saying Ba Ba Black Sheep backwards to cast your spell". :rolleyes:


Lol, that's Brilliant.
"I deploy my chapel, and I'm done! Try to beat that!"
"I deploy a gazebo, and am done! Ha! No Sudden Death for you, and your mum is back to pick you up at 4, while mine comes at 5! I win!"


I can just feel the narrative ooze from such a cinematic battle.

Gah! Why did they discontinue the Garden of Morr??

Hey, never mind we're playing on my table so... I've deployed that! Ha!! I win!!!! Loooozzzzzerrrrr.* Hey it is a Realm of Battle board so totally counts!!


*I'm not being serious. Also I don't own a RoBB.

Abisbowa
04-07-2015, 23:32
I didn't see anything about restrictions on what warscrolls can be fielded together.

Take a Screaming Bell, and Kairos and auto-win turn one.

Commissar Davis
04-07-2015, 23:49
There is some kind of formation near the end of each races rule pack, I am guessing that those are the basic builds you are expected to use, just add in/out a unit or two.

Azaireal
05-07-2015, 00:19
Age of Sigmar rules would work great with Lego model kits. The Lego guys can move freely on the peg ground, removing the need for bases altogether.

That, and some Lego kits are cheaper than Warhammer kits.

DVeight
05-07-2015, 01:50
I didn't see anything about restrictions on what warscrolls can be fielded together.

Take a Screaming Bell, and Kairos and auto-win turn one.

There are no restrictions on the scrolls you can take with the exception they need to be off the same Grand Alliance.

Your second statement is totally wrong. Many of you are totally missing this one. Its a classic case of "cant see the tree's for the forest".

GW were only trying to put in some levity amongst the scrolls, its not meant to work in any way or form. Mathematically it cannot work yet your trying to ram down a square peg into a round hole.

There are other issues with the game and rules, this one though is non-existent.

LGD
05-07-2015, 02:00
Your second statement is totally wrong. Many of you are totally missing this one. Its a classic case of "cant see the tree's for the forest".

GW were only trying to put in some levity amongst the scrolls, its not meant to work in any way or form. Mathematically it cannot work yet your trying to ram down a square peg into a round hole.

There are other issues with the game and rules, this one though is non-existent.

Nah, the combo absolutely works, RAW. Everyone saying it doesn't relies on completely unsupported assertions about how the game works, because they want to believe it can't possibly be that silly and unplaytested. But it is, and basically every facet of the game reveals how little work and oversight went into this release.

Where you're correct is in suggesting that they were trying to inject levity into the scrolls, and that they (barring sabotage, which I wouldn't rule out) weren't intending for that to be an effect that could be activated. Unfortunately bad rules design accidentally introduced a slightly more egregiously game breaking issue into a game that was already full of them. Whoops! Some may look at this as a terrible failure of game design, but I prefer to view it as GW succeeding beyond their intentions at introducing humor to this release. I mean, how can you not laugh?

Kisanis
05-07-2015, 03:58
as I've said before on the kairos/Screaming bell issue;
The rules explicitly state that if you manage the 13 you're cheating.
Full Stop.
THe main rule in the 4page leaflet is for everyone to have fun. 1 player cheating to beat another player isn't fun.
RAW the 13 breaks the rules.

There. Done.