PDA

View Full Version : Age of Sigmar: Army Building/Composition



Shifte
02-07-2015, 11:07
I think that despite all of the myriad topics in response to the leaked Age of Sigmar rules, this particular issue deserves its own thread. Before you read my post I'd like to say that I am someone who was very optimistic about Age of Sigmar, thought the models looked nice and didn't mind what I knew of the new lore/fluff. I have, however, been hugely disappointed by the leaked rules. I am now no longer sure that I will buy the game. That should let you know where I am coming from and the context of this post.

I believe that the biggest issue is the lack of points/unit limitations/control over what scale a game is going to be. The rules suggest that you can use however many models you like, the implication being that the game should still be playable and fun. I take issue with this and think that this leads to numerous issues. I can summarise what I consider to be the most problematic of these issues as:

1) The system can be easily abused.

2) It requires all players to be able to exercise good judgement. Given that balance, fairness and fun are all subjective I think this is a recipe for disaster.

3) It is a nightmare for those seeking competitive play.

*****

To go into a bit more detail regarding #1 and #2 for those interested:

1) If you can easily outnumber your opponent (maybe they aren't as wealthy as you are and only own 40-50 models) then one single Warscroll of ranged troops with 100s of guys and no characters or monsters is basically the way to automatically win. Your unit can split fire, is highly manoeuvrable and can shoot every turn. You are basically immune to Sudden Death as they can't kill your massive unit, you have no heroes/monsters to assassinate and you should be able to wipe out the enemy before Turn 6 (or their advancing units by Turn 4). If the Archer player, when coming up against at most 50 foes, is putting down 150 Archers then he may as well put down 200 if he can. He would gain no material disadvantage for taking 200 instead of 150. In fact, the only consequence would be that he would benefit from an extra 50 potential shots per turn. Similarly for 250 Archers, 300 Archers, 450 Archers, etc. There comes a point (after Sudden Death, specifically) at which adding more guys just gives you a better army for absolutely no additional disadvantage. This is a nightmare for competitive play and can be easily abused in more casual play by more subtle players.

2) If we apply some of that basic principle to more reasonable scenarios then we can see common problems that might arise. For example:

Janet agrees to play against her friend Bob. His army is 15 Black Guard, 10 Executioners and 10 Shades. How does Janet decide how many Night Goblins she should take to combat that? Does she take 35 and equal his number of elite warriors with her pathetic little green-skins? Does she take 45 and outnumber him a little (though probably nowhere near enough to win)? Does she take 55 and give Bob the ability to make use of Sudden Death? If Bob is going to get Sudden Death anyway then should she go up to 65 Goblins and make the most out of it? Maybe 70 actually, since two Goblins aren't worth one elite Elf anyway. Or maybe 100, which is all of her Night Goblins and is a bit closer to the old points difference. They would look so cool outnumbering him that much anyway, like in the old edition! In fact why not put down all 100 Goblins and 50 of her Orcs? That's a proper Greenskin Horde and would look immense against the tiny elite Elf army. Plus he'd never wipe out two units that big so he wouldn't be able to just Sudden Death assassinate her in Turn 2/3.

There are too many subjective questions that arise when trying to work out what a balanced army is. In the thought process I described above many different people would have stopped when they reached different points. Some would have stopped at 35 Goblins so as to have equal models. Some would go to 45 so as to avoid Sudden Death but still outnumber the foe a bit. Some would have stopped at 70 because it is two-to-one and anything above that "seems unfair". Some would have put down 100 because "Elves are so much better than Goblins but adding in the Orcs seems unfair". Some will have went for all 150 and then thought; "Now where did I put my Trolls?" because the game rules say that it is fine to use as many models and warscrolls as you like.

If you think about it, why should a player have to decide whether 65 or 70 Goblins is more balanced? Or, potentially, 69 or 70? 70 or 71? Even when you zoom right in it is still very messy.

*****

We need points values, unit limitations and attempted balance by rules writing professionals. We can't assume that every player is knowledgeable enough to judge what is and isn't balanced. Besides that, balance is subjective and lots of players currently enjoy trying to squeeze every bit of power out of army building as they can. You can't always tell who is who when you're playing a pick up game at a club. :)

If your immediate urge is to post a reply about people needing to "talk before the game"/"stop being a dick"/"I am the Mother Teresa of Tabletop Miniatures and think that there is no issue with a hugely unbalanced game. Why aren't you as altruistic and laid back as I am you monster?" then you have entirely missed the point and I invite you to not reply to this thread! :chrome:

Garrtok
02-07-2015, 11:15
Calm down and wait until saturday.

Shifte
02-07-2015, 11:17
Calm down and wait until saturday.

No? I've read the rules. I've seen the Warscrolls. What will Saturday change about the above issues? What additional information will I have beyond stats for every single unit?

If I hadn't read the leaked rules then I'd agree with you, but I don't see much of a difference between Thursday and a few .jpegs or Saturday and a physical White Dwarf.

swordofglass
02-07-2015, 11:24
I agree (obviously, if you have seen any of my other posts). I have just watched Vince Venturella's 'Age of Sigmar Spectacular video' and although the three guys make a pretty good go of defending the rule-set, it's just built on sand. The 'tactics of the deployment phase' they tout is a complete joke. It just comes down to who has bought the most (and most expensive) models - of course it does! GW wants you to think 'damn, I didn't own enough Sigmarines in that last battle to deploy 32% more models than the other guy, guess I'll get another box'. 8th edition was expensive, but if you set your sights on playing a certain points value (say, oh I don't know, 2400!) it was feasible. I can't believe people are jumping to the defence of a rule-set that just says 'deploy whatever you want'. The fact that back-breaking work would be required by the community to literally make up a points system from scratch in order for the game to even start being balanced makes it absolutely indefensible.
I suppose it really does come down to - this is a completely new game, with new (absolutely terrible) rules, which will appeal to some people (although I can't fathom why), but I certainly cannot see it appealing to me.

Deadhorse
02-07-2015, 11:24
Batallion warscrolls. I.e. ready to play armies. These might come out for "old" armies. We've already seen them for the AoS box.

Then battles would be 1 batallion vs 1 batallion, 2v2, and so forth.

Mind you, I think this is a boring approach (can't tailor lists much), severely limiting and might require you to buy additional miniatures rather than play with the ones you have. Also, if this is GW design then no way in hell will it be close to balanced.

But it seems the only possible option outside of points values backed up by an FC chart.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 11:26
I also have read the boxed contents now. From an event organizer perspective, they have given us a framework. We use the framework however we want. I'm demoing this on Saturday and my thoughts are that it will be up to the event organizers to create scenarios. Period. The game is scenario driven, and the scenarios in the bigger book layout what forces to take.

That is also what events must do.

Swirling in my head right now for an escalation type thing are five unit scrolls and one hero scroll per player.

You can escalate that up to two heroes to ten units, etc... all the way as high as you want to go.

The game is very much scenario driven now and I suspect by the end of the year that there will be tournament scenarios created by the bigger tournaments that will become community standard.

someone2040
02-07-2015, 11:29
My thoughts on the topic:
I'm a bit disappointed that GW have thrown any concept of a balanced and fair game out the window other than "If you're outnumbered, you might get a sudden death condition". It also seems (without seeing what comes out saturday re: legacy armies), that it's unlikely that there will be some advantage to taking goblins over say orcs (or even black orcs).

My personal thoughts are that there'll likely be in the future a layer of house rules on top to make competitive games. I actually think the largest burden is that they didn't put a maximum number of models onto the scrolls, and it's basically "Choose 1 to infinite". If they had done so, we easily could've had 'balanced' games by saying "Well, we can take 10 scrolls and up to 3 Hero/Monster scrolls" or something like that. Because then at least, if your Goblin scroll had a maximum of 30 models while your chaos warrior warband scroll has a max of 10, it's somewhere in the ballpark that a "Warscroll" might be somewhat equivalent.

The first balancing is likely to just assign a number of wounds games, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the next iteration at balancing the game by imposing maximum models/wounds per scroll, and then arranging X number warscroll games.

Smarter people than me might attempt to actually houserule a points system back into the game. I'm sure it's very possibly to like in older versions, come up with a system that allocates points based on the statline, weapons and special rules of models. It is unlikely to be exact, but probably a good enough approximation for people to play balanced games.


I guess at the end of the day, at least we can't complain about how under-priced or overpriced models are. However, as a first glance without a bigger picture, Age of Sigmar certainly looks like it could turn into elite-hammer, where lesser powered models don't really come into play except to make up the bigger Formations that give you advantages. Formations irk me a bit, because being cheap and plentiful should be a good enough reason to take models under certain situations, I shouldn't want to take them only to fill in to get Formation bonuses.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 11:31
That will depend on the warscrolls. The warscrolls in the boxed set are pretty well balanced off of each other for the units there, and each unit has special abilities that you can combo (like warmahordes). Without seeing or knowing what the other scrolls look like for the existing models its hard to say how bad off things like skaven grunts and goblins are.

Kerrahn
02-07-2015, 11:31
We may see more army composition and/or limitations introduced at a later stage, there was afterall rumours of this being split into 2 or 3 releases, and other stating there would be 2 - 3 books released per year to add new rules and models (similar to Warmahordes), so this might be a 'stop-gap' release just to easy everyone into the new rules before releasing the proper rules.

On the other hand, I personally see the best way to 'balance' 2 player's forces is to base your army on purchases; that is, I might decide to use 2 boxes of Chaos Warriors (giving my 24 Warriors to field in however many units I want), 1 box of Chaos Knight (giving me 5 Knights), a Chaos Lord, and a Chariot, while my opponent would take 4 boxes and a character blister as well. The balance wouldn't be perfect, but seeing as you can still get a lot of 16 - 20 model boxes for the 'standard' units (Skeletons, Ghouls, and Dark Elf Warriors being some of the exceptions) it could help balance my fairly powerful unit choices, since I would have less models but probably not low enough to cause Sudden Death.

Afterall, Age of Sigmar so far seems like it wants to bring the new players in, and if 2 players can buy 2 - 4 boxes and a character, or 1 battalion box and a character, and start playing with that, maybe that was the plan.

duffybear1988
02-07-2015, 11:35
I also have read the boxed contents now. From an event organizer perspective, they have given us a framework. We use the framework however we want. I'm demoing this on Saturday and my thoughts are that it will be up to the event organizers to create scenarios. Period. The game is scenario driven, and the scenarios in the bigger book layout what forces to take.

That is also what events must do.

Swirling in my head right now for an escalation type thing are five unit scrolls and one hero scroll per player.

You can escalate that up to two heroes to ten units, etc... all the way as high as you want to go.

The game is very much scenario driven now and I suspect by the end of the year that there will be tournament scenarios created by the bigger tournaments that will become community standard.

I agree that it will be scenario driven gaming from now on (to be honest that's the only redeeming feature I can come up with), but it only works if the scrolls themselves are balanced. I feel that Saturday and the release of the warscrolls will make or break AoS. Imposing some sort of limitation on scrolls like 1 hero, 2 core, 1 monster etc doesn't work if my goblin captain is far weaker than Nagash.

Avian
02-07-2015, 11:36
The first balancing is likely to just assign a number of wounds games, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the next iteration at balancing the game by imposing maximum models/wounds per scroll, and then arranging X number warscroll games.
Max number of guys per scroll: to-hit score x to-wound score / wounds per model

Unless single model

Sephillion
02-07-2015, 11:38
My personal thoughts are that there'll likely be in the future a layer of house rules on top to make competitive games. I actually think the largest burden is that they didn't put a maximum number of models onto the scrolls, and it's basically "Choose 1 to infinite". If they had done so, we easily could've had 'balanced' games by saying "Well, we can take 10 scrolls and up to 3 Hero/Monster scrolls" or something like that. Because then at least, if your Goblin scroll had a maximum of 30 models while your chaos warrior warband scroll has a max of 10, it's somewhere in the ballpark that a "Warscroll" might be somewhat equivalent.


When I first ehard of warscrolls, I thought they would essentially work that way -a scroll of 20 goblins, a scroll of 15 orcs, a scroll of 10 chaos warriors, a scroll of a wizard character... you and your opponent pick a number of scrolsl to play, and voila. The lack of limit to unit size is much more problematic than the number of warscrolls (since players can easily agree to a number of warscrolls instead of points), since it's much harder to agree to a reasonable limit. Player A might feel that this unit is elite enough to be limited to 10, another thinks it's too vulnerable and should have a limit of 15, another thinks it would be fluffy to limit it to 8...

Col. Tartleton
02-07-2015, 11:41
Basically they've taken out half the information we need to have a fair match and replaced it with nothing.

They give us unit entries without an army building context. We get the stat line and some special rules and a nice picture and we're told to go play. What about unit load outs? Point costs? Unit limits?

Like everyone else I assumed the War Scrolls would be set points. Say 60 points of the old system. Then a normal game would be 30 or 40 scrolls or what was 1750 or 2500 points. More akin to Warmachine where you generally do 30-50 points.

60 points would give you 30 Skaven Slaves, 20 Goblins, 15 Orcs, 10 Humans, or 5 Dwarfs or Elves or 1 Hero.

Deadhorse
02-07-2015, 11:43
Swirling in my head right now for an escalation type thing are five unit scrolls and one hero scroll per player.


That, unfortunately, does nothing to account for troop quality.

In the starter box, barring heroes, the angel guys are much better than anything else. Specifically, they're pretty much as good as other units in combat, but are much faster, flying, charge 3D6 and (perhaps most importantly) shoot insanely well.

So unless we accept that every player will simply take an army full of the most elite unit available, the tournament scene will have to come up with army composition rules much more detailed than the current 8th ed. comp. A quick fix (such as: you can take only one warscroll of each unit) might sound good at this early stage, but will most likely be completely insufficient to provide balance for the different factions and cards, as some might have several good units, while others will have fewer options.

In addition, TO's will have to write scenarios that are balanced nad interesting (which is pretty difficult).

Sounds like GW should be paying the TOs, because that seems like tons more work (and more difficult) than putting together the 4 pages of rules they did release.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 11:43
I agree that it will be scenario driven gaming from now on (to be honest that's the only redeeming feature I can come up with), but it only works if the scrolls themselves are balanced. I feel that Saturday and the release of the warscrolls will make or break AoS. Imposing some sort of limitation on scrolls like 1 hero, 2 core, 1 monster etc doesn't work if my goblin captain is far weaker than Nagash.

I fully agree with you. The balance of the scrolls is the key, otherwise houserules will have to come into play (and I fully expect to have to houserule events)

I think the first step is fully disassociating with the concept of points etc. The game is much simpler now. There are only four core stats, so the thing we know as Nagash right now is going to be totally different from the thing that will be Nagash on Saturday.

swordofglass
02-07-2015, 11:44
What about unit load outs? Point costs? Unit limits?

Well, just like all the players, they are gone.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 11:45
That, unfortunately, does nothing to account for troop quality.

In the starter box, barring heroes, the angel guys are much better than anything else. Specifically, they're pretty much as good as other units in combat, but are much faster, flying, charge 3D6 and (perhaps most importantly) shoot insanely well.

So unless we accept that every player will simply take an army full of the most elite unit available, the tournament scene will have to come up with army composition rules much more detailed than the current 8th ed. comp. A quick fix (such as: you can take only one warscroll of each unit) might sound good at this early stage, but will most likely be completely insufficient to provide balance for the different factions and cards, as some might have several good units, while others will have fewer options.

In addition, TO's will have to write scenarios that are balanced nad interesting (which is pretty difficult).

Sounds like GW should be paying the TOs, because that seems like tons more work (and more difficult) than putting together the 4 pages of rules they did release.

Having not actually played yet I cannot comment on if the Sigmarites are heads and shoulders better. I'm going to try to get a quick game in friday evening so that i at least have an idea what I'm doing on saturday, so I'll have a more informed opinion then.

The concept of elite units is dead to me with this game. There is no more core tax, elite, etc. Its just a unit and a hero classification or a monster. The key comes in with how the untis are balanced on the scrolls.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 11:46
What about unit load outs? Point costs? Unit limits?

None of these exist anymore.

Load outs are gone. Points costs are gone.

Unit limits are dictated by the scenario.

Avian
02-07-2015, 11:49
I think the first step is fully disassociating with the concept of points etc. The game is much simpler now. There are only four core stats, so the thing we know as Nagash right now is going to be totally different from the thing that will be Nagash on Saturday.
That's not actually true. The only stat actually lost is Initiative, and instead models gained Rend, plus Range and Damage on all weapons (instead of reach and multiple wounds for some weapons). So it's actually more numbers to remember than before.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 11:53
Going off of the book in front of me:

There is a little compass icon with four stats for the models on each scroll (also visible on the images on the net)

The weapons themselves also have stats (thats where rend etc are at)

They have Move, Save (armor), Wounds, and Bravery (leadership) now as their core stat. Thats what I was referring to with the models' core stats.

Weapons have a range, attacks, the flat number to hit, the flat number to wound, Rend (save modifier) and Damage (how many wounds you inflict with a successful hit)

Then they have their abilities which are powers that they can pop off whenever the ability says they are allowed. Some units only have one ability. Others have multiple abilities.

Col. Tartleton
02-07-2015, 11:59
None of these exist anymore.

Load outs are gone. Points costs are gone.

Unit limits are dictated by the scenario.[/COLOR]

It just seems unplayable. I have no problem playing an asymmetric scenario. Say 1000 points against 1750 points where each side has different objectives can still be balanced. But I still need to know what resources I have to work with.

I can deal with getting rid of core, special, and rare requirements/limitations. Not every game uses those sorts of limitations. If they're pointed appropriately I can do unbound.

So I can do unbound and asymmetric. But this is "Put down whatever models you want and start chucking dice." That isn't going to be a strategy game. That's not a game I want to play. It's barely a game at all.

There's nothing about this that makes me want to try it.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 12:03
Its not really put down whatever models you want and start chucking dice. Well I suppose it *could* be that, but thats not how my group or store is using it.

We're starting with an escalation where its one hero scroll and five unit scrolls for each player.

The first page of the four page rules pamphlet says that they are providing a framework. Thats really all this is - a very basic framework. If they were in the business of tournaments they'd have a tournament pack with what a tournament would look like - and then that would be the community standard. The community has to define the tournament, and therefore community, standard.

Avian
02-07-2015, 12:08
They have Move, Save (armor), Wounds, and Bravery (leadership) now as their core stat. Thats what I was referring to with the models' core stats.

Weapons have a range, attacks, the flat number to hit, the flat number to wound, Rend (save modifier) and Damage (how many wounds you inflict with a successful hit)
Yes, and while they aren't in the little circle, they are just as important. That was my reasoning for saying it's not simplified.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 12:11
1) The system can be easily abused.

2) It requires all players to be able to exercise good judgement. Given that balance, fairness and fun are all subjective I think this is a recipe for disaster.

3) It is a nightmare for those seeking competitive play.


It's actually worse than that, AoS is a brand new game, right now nobody know how the new stat lines will interact or what the game play will be like, GW have given us zero frame of reference to judge how to compare different models across the game, there is literally no way to know how many 'points' any model should be worth as a base of comparison without literally spending hours and hours exhaustively play testing the game to create a large enough base sample to create a meaningful comparison and even out random interference.

I honestly can't see how even gamers with the very best of attitudes will be able to figure out what makes a roughly balanced gamestate without hours and hours of extensive playtesting, it boggles my mind to think what a lazy way out this has been for them, it looks like they've literally done no playtesting on it what so ever.

Comparing warscrolls doesn't work either because not all characters are equal (blood thirster vs goblin bigboss) and unit warscrolls have no upper limit on unit size, so 100 Blood nights is equal to 20 night goblin warriors apparently.

Gorsameth
02-07-2015, 12:11
Batallion warscrolls. I.e. ready to play armies. These might come out for "old" armies. We've already seen them for the AoS box.

Then battles would be 1 batallion vs 1 batallion, 2v2, and so forth.

Mind you, I think this is a boring approach (can't tailor lists much), severely limiting and might require you to buy additional miniatures rather than play with the ones you have. Also, if this is GW design then no way in hell will it be close to balanced.

But it seems the only possible option outside of points values backed up by an FC chart.
Do we have any reason to believe batallions will be balanced agains another? 40k's certainly aren't.
And even if they would be roughly balanced the scrolls themselves have no fixed number so while you could for example only bring 2 units of X they can be any size. Again defeating any attempt at balance

Age of Sigmar would require the community to develop a balance system from the ground up through trait and error and somehow defeating bias while doing so.

Is it possible? Sure but its also possible the sun exploded 7 minutes ago.

HereComesTomorrow
02-07-2015, 12:12
Its not really put down whatever models you want and start chucking dice. Well I suppose it *could* be that, but thats not how my group or store is using it.

We're starting with an escalation where its one hero scroll and five unit scrolls for each player.

The first page of the four page rules pamphlet says that they are providing a framework. Thats really all this is - a very basic framework. If they were in the business of tournaments they'd have a tournament pack with what a tournament would look like - and then that would be the community standard. The community has to define the tournament, and therefore community, standard.

A skaven chieftan is not the equivelant of a Ogre Bruiser.

Unit scrolls have no upper limits.

A unit of 40 skaven clanrats is not the equivelant of 40 ogre man eaters.

This is the big problem with the warscrolls and trying to limit things on a "1 warscroll = 1 warscroll" basis.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 12:16
right now I have not see the warscrolls for slaves, clan rats, or ogres to know enough to be able to comment, I only know whats in the box.

The scrolls in the box don't give a min or a max. However there is a picture of the unit which shows how many are in the unit.

To me - that means that is the unit and you can't take 40 ogres in one one scroll.

Shifte
02-07-2015, 12:20
To me - that means that is the unit and you can't take 40 ogres in one one scroll.

That's just wrong, though? No war scroll thus far has set a unit cap. Until they start doing that I have no idea how you can come to that conclusion. Right now they specifically state units are limitless (unless they are a character).

I don't think your box-worth-of-dudes idea works, either. High Elf spearmen are sold in sets of 16. Dark Elf spearmen are sold in sets of 10. They're basically the same units, so what do you consider their respective limits to be?

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 12:21
That will depend on the warscrolls. The warscrolls in the boxed set are pretty well balanced off of each other for the units there, and each unit has special abilities that you can combo (like warmahordes). Without seeing or knowing what the other scrolls look like for the existing models its hard to say how bad off things like skaven grunts and goblins are.

I'm not seeking to cause an argument, but how do you know that the forces in the box are balanced? Dark vengeance was not, neither was IoB or B4SP. How many times have you playtested the warscrolls from the box, enough to get a good grasp of the balance without the results being skewed by the randomness of dice, say 20 games, 50, 100?

This all feels like we're trying to compare the fighting ability of an apple to a banana just by looking at their weight.


right now I have not see the warscrolls for slaves, clan rats, or ogres to know enough to be able to comment, I only know whats in the box.

The scrolls in the box don't give a min or a max. However there is a picture of the unit which shows how many are in the unit.

To me - that means that is the unit and you can't take 40 ogres in one one scroll.

Errr no, the scroll explicitly says you may take as many models in a unit as you want, so you could field the box contents with the ten Sigmarines as one unit rather than two, I expect as a bare minimum most sigmar players will throw their free WD sigmarine in with one off the units, because why not?

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 12:23
Nothing states that is wrong or right, and also high elf spearmen are sold in sets of 16 etc with the old system.

We have no idea how units are going to be packaged going forward.

Again without seeing a scroll for high elf spearmen and dark elf spearmen I cannot give anything but speculation. It could easily be that a unit of elf spearmen have 10 in the picture, much like the marauders in the AoS box.

That could be totally wrong as well. However I know for our organized play that there will be unit caps on the scrolls to prevent people from dropping 50 ogres in one scroll and going "lololololol".

Col. Tartleton
02-07-2015, 12:23
There's nothing that says that though.

You may as well just make up your own game, they certainly haven't provided one.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 12:25
I'm not seeking to cause an argument, but how do you know that the forces in the box are balanced? Dark vengeance was not, neither was IoB or B4SP. How many times have you playtested the warscrolls from the box, enough to get a good grasp of the balance without the results being skewed by the randomness of dice, say 20 games, 50, 100?

This all feels like we're trying to compare the fighting ability of an apple to a banana just by looking at their weight.



Errr no, the scroll explicitly says you may take as many models in a unit as you want, so you could field the box contents with the ten Sigmarines as one unit rather than two, I expect as a bare minimum most sigmar players will throw their free WD sigmarine in with one off the units, because why not?

Yeah you're right it does say any number of models. Cest la vie.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 12:26
Nothing states that is wrong or right, and also high elf spearmen are sold in sets of 16 etc with the old system.

We have no idea how units are going to be packaged going forward.

Again without seeing a scroll for high elf spearmen and dark elf spearmen I cannot give anything but speculation. It could easily be that a unit of elf spearmen have 10 in the picture, much like the marauders in the AoS box.

That could be totally wrong as well. However I know for our organized play that there will be unit caps on the scrolls to prevent people from dropping 50 ogres in one scroll and going "lololololol".

I'm fairly sure the marauders (blood Reavers?) in the box are a unit of 20 rather than 2 units of ten, mostly based on there only being one standard and musician in the picture we've seen and the leaked formation warscroll only containing one unit of blood Reavers rather than two.

Shifte
02-07-2015, 12:26
Nothing states that is wrong or right, and also high elf spearmen are sold in sets of 16 etc with the old system.

We have no idea how units are going to be packaged going forward.

Again without seeing a scroll for high elf spearmen and dark elf spearmen I cannot give anything but speculation. It could easily be that a unit of elf spearmen have 10 in the picture, much like the marauders in the AoS box.

That could be totally wrong as well. However I know for our organized play that there will be unit caps on the scrolls to prevent people from dropping 50 ogres in one scroll and going "lololololol".

We have more of an idea about how units will be packaged than we do about unit caps. There is a precedent for the former, whilst the latter directly contradicts the game rules.

What you are talking about is a house rule. It's a fair enough suggestion, but it is ultimately just one player's idea about how to try and balance units. I don't think it is particularly reliable, either. One box of Orcs has 10 guys. One box of Black Orcs has 10 guys. One unit is directly superior to the other (unless something drastic changes), so to have the same cap is not going to work.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 12:27
There's nothing that says that though.

You may as well just make up your own game, they certainly haven't provided one.

I think thats the point. They say they provide you with a framework and you do what you want with it. (p.1 of the rule pamphlet)

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 12:27
We have more of an idea about how units will be packaged than we do about unit caps. There is a precedent for the former, whilst the latter directly contradicts the game rules.

What you are talking about is a house rule. It's a fair enough suggestion, but it is ultimately just one player's idea about how to try and balance units. I don't think it is particularly reliable, either. One box of Orcs has 10 guys. One box of Black Orcs has 10 guys. One unit is directly superior to the other (unless something drastic changes), so to have the same cap is not going to work.

I was mistaken I saw where it says there are no unit caps.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 12:28
There's nothing that says that though.

You may as well just make up your own game, they certainly haven't provided one.

This really is nothing new though, they've been progressively abrogating responsibility for making their game work over to the player for the last couple of editions of 40k, this just seems to be the final "here, you hold the baby", which makes it just as well they're not charging people for a copy of their non-rules.

Shifte
02-07-2015, 12:29
I was mistaken I saw where it says there are no unit caps.

Ahh cool. Happens to all of us.

Col. Tartleton
02-07-2015, 12:32
This really is nothing new though, they've been progressively abrogating responsibility for making their game work over to the player for the last couple of editions of 40k, this just seems to be the final "here, you hold the baby", which makes it just as well they're not charging people for a copy of their non-rules.

We're basically seeing the point where they actually deny being "Games Workshop" and revert to being "Citadel Miniatures".

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 12:43
From the discussion with the gw management yesterday - that is indeed correct. They want to focus on selling models and give the rules away and divorce themselves from rulebooks. (thats allegedly from the new CEO and what he told the staff over the weekend at their meeting)

nosebiter
02-07-2015, 12:46
From the discussion with the gw management yesterday - that is indeed correct. They want to focus on selling models and give the rules away and divorce themselves from rulebooks. (thats allegedly from the new CEO and what he told the staff over the weekend at their meeting)


So meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Sad stuff really.

Gorsameth
02-07-2015, 12:52
From the discussion with the gw management yesterday - that is indeed correct. They want to focus on selling models and give the rules away and divorce themselves from rulebooks. (thats allegedly from the new CEO and what he told the staff over the weekend at their meeting)
And that would be more or less acceptable but it would require GW to accept that their income will get slashed hard because it is an entirely different market. (see the interview with Rick Priestly who says the same thing)

And yet WHFB was killed off because it didnt make enough money.
Kinda contradicts itself.

MiyamatoMusashi
02-07-2015, 12:53
From the discussion with the gw management yesterday - that is indeed correct. They want to focus on selling models and give the rules away and divorce themselves from rulebooks. (thats allegedly from the new CEO and what he told the staff over the weekend at their meeting)

This just seems such a strange thing to do. (But it is clearly what they are doing, so it's a believable report).

Some people buy models just to paint, or "collect". Some people buy them to play with. I'm not going to make any attempt to guess which group is larger; it doesn't matter. They're now saying, they're only bothered by selling to the first group. Why? It's a sale either way.

I find it intensely difficult to believe that rules development is so expensive for GW (what's the studio, about ten people? Each paid probably less than double a store manager?) that they expect to save more in costs from simplifying rules development, than they lose in sales of models to people who are mainly interested in gaming with them.

If developing rules was costing them millions for nothing in return, I could understand it, but it can't be.

HereComesTomorrow
02-07-2015, 12:58
This just seems such a strange thing to do. (But it is clearly what they are doing, so it's a believable report).

Some people buy models just to paint, or "collect". Some people buy them to play with. I'm not going to make any attempt to guess which group is larger; it doesn't matter. They're now saying, they're only bothered by selling to the first group. Why? It's a sale either way.

I find it intensely difficult to believe that rules development is so expensive for GW (what's the studio, about ten people? Each paid probably less than double a store manager?) that they expect to save more in costs from simplifying rules development, than they lose in sales of models to people who are mainly interested in gaming with them.

If developing rules was costing them millions for nothing in return, I could understand it, but it can't be.

To be fair, making books that don't sell would be expensive in terms of manufacturing costs.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 12:59
From the discussion with the gw management yesterday - that is indeed correct. They want to focus on selling models and give the rules away and divorce themselves from rulebooks. (thats allegedly from the new CEO and what he told the staff over the weekend at their meeting)

Because clearly the thing to do when your profits are continuing to fall is to ditch a profitable subsidiary line that is the principal driving force for sales in your primary line. Are they completely unaware that they have market place competition from companies that actually have working game rules? Look, I still happen to think that GW do make the best toy soldiers out there, but in all honesty if they become completely non-functional as gaming pieces and are essentially reduced to *just* being toy soldiers I really think their sales will fall through the floor.

Gorsameth
02-07-2015, 13:04
Because clearly the thing to do when your profits are continuing to fall is to ditch a profitable subsidiary line that is the principal driving force for sales in your primary line. Are they completely unaware that they have market place competition from companies that actually have working game rules? Look, I still happen to think that GW do make the best toy soldiers out there, but in all honesty if they become completely non-functional as gaming pieces and are essentially reduced to *just* being toy soldiers I really think their sales will fall through the floor.
Again I point to the CEO pre-amble to explain GW's action.


Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants
Source (http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-14-Press-statement-final-website.pdf)

This beautifully ignorant line explains everything that GW is doing with Age of Sigmar

Bubble Ghost
02-07-2015, 13:05
In a sense, GW are to be congratulated, because it would seem (from early impressions at least) that they have finally achieved their endgame: AoS is a wargame for people who don't know what wargames are. It finally, actually reduces the game to what those people (and GW execs) think gaming is anyway, i.e. piling your army men onto a table and pushing them around making pewpew noises and saying "aren't they pretty?" For GW, the moment they realised they really could take it this far must have been akin to the moment in the Matrix when Neo starts seeing all the green code all around him.

The thing is, the fact that they don't give two flying s***ts about the rules and story is evident all over the whole project, and if they don't care about it, how do they expect customers to? Do they think every customer for this stuff will be an entirely new one who will seriously want to buy GW's generic pop fantasy figures instead of some other equally good ones, for no reason other than they look pretty? I guess they have always been good at using people's ignorance that any alternatives exist - are they now banking everything on this? Or do they think sales among existing customers will be sustained entirely by habit? Maybe that's their plan - after all it only takes one such customer to support this model, because all that has to happen is for that customer to bite another customer, and there's a pandemic.

swordofglass
02-07-2015, 13:18
In a sense, GW are to be congratulated, because it would seem (from early impressions at least) that they have finally achieved their endgame: AoS is a wargame for people who don't know what wargames are. It finally, actually reduces the game to what those people (and GW execs) think gaming is anyway, i.e. piling your army men onto a table and pushing them around making pewpew noises and saying "aren't they pretty?" For GW, the moment they realised they really could take it this far must have been akin to the moment in the Matrix when Neo starts seeing all the green code all around him.


That's very well put. You've put into words my own thoughts better than I ever could.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 13:57
Indeed its target audience are casuals that do not take themselves or the game itself too seriously.

There is still a market for those people, but GW may realize that PP etc already fill that niche.

I'm interested to see if Kings of War takes off here now.

Ender Shadowkin
02-07-2015, 14:07
Max number of guys per scroll: to-hit score x to-wound score / wounds per model

Unless single model

nice, what about armor saves? normalize the above to a 5+ save ? So x armor save /5 ?

rmeister0
02-07-2015, 14:33
Indeed its target audience are casuals that do not take themselves or the game itself too seriously.

There is still a market for those people, but GW may realize that PP etc already fill that niche.

I'm interested to see if Kings of War takes off here now.

GW hasn't been interested in a competitive tournament scene for a long while now. If that's the kind of game a person wants, they really need to look elsewhere.

It seems the conversation is stuck in a circle: GW makes sucky rules. GW stops making rules. How dare GW stop doing something they suck at? They're damned if they do, damned if they don't, and damned if they try to find a middle path.

Personally I think it's great if I no longer have the tax of an $85 rulebook and $50 army book on top of the high price of the models. Then again, I don't play Warhammer at all even though I've bought plenty of the plastic kits for Song of Blades and Heroes and some of the Osprey Wargames stuff.

The free form nature of the game harkens back to Rogue Trader, or Inquisitor. It's legitimate to say "This game isn't for me because it doesn't support tournament play", but not to say "this game sucks at tournament play" because it was never intended for that purpose.

Unfortunately, the people who dislike the "dumbing down" of GW games will probably not like Kings of War, unless the second edition ramps up the complexity. I think it's a great ruleset, but then again I'm not a competitive player.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 14:37
Indeed its target audience are casuals that do not take themselves or the game itself too seriously.

There is still a market for those people, but GW may realize that PP etc already fill that niche.

I'm interested to see if Kings of War takes off here now.

Isn't one of the hallmarks of a casual gamer one who is prepared to put less effort into their gaming experience? I can't really see many casual gamers (my group included) being willing to design a full blown points system just to get AoS working, we rarely even house rule the rules GW put out before. Imo AoS requires to much effort just to make it usable, let along to make it good.

If a question as simple as 'how many models should I bring' cannot be answered without months of development and playtesting I can't see AoS working for anyone out of the gate, a dedicated TO might put the time into developing a point system to really get the game working, but I honestly can't see it being worth their while.

Montegue
02-07-2015, 14:44
And honestly, why should they? Better to just keep playing 8th edition at events until a company moves in to fill the void GW just left behind.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 15:01
GW hasn't been interested in a competitive tournament scene for a long while now. If that's the kind of game a person wants, they really need to look elsewhere.

It seems the conversation is stuck in a circle: GW makes sucky rules. GW stops making rules. How dare GW stop doing something they suck at? They're damned if they do, damned if they don't, and damned if they try to find a middle path.

Personally I think it's great if I no longer have the tax of an $85 rulebook and $50 army book on top of the high price of the models. Then again, I don't play Warhammer at all even though I've bought plenty of the plastic kits for Song of Blades and Heroes and some of the Osprey Wargames stuff.

The free form nature of the game harkens back to Rogue Trader, or Inquisitor. It's legitimate to say "This game isn't for me because it doesn't support tournament play", but not to say "this game sucks at tournament play" because it was never intended for that purpose.

Unfortunately, the people who dislike the "dumbing down" of GW games will probably not like Kings of War, unless the second edition ramps up the complexity. I think it's a great ruleset, but then again I'm not a competitive player.

K.o.W is still pretty simple in its rules (you can download the 2nd edition beta).

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 15:05
Isn't one of the hallmarks of a casual gamer one who is prepared to put less effort into their gaming experience? I can't really see many casual gamers (my group included) being willing to design a full blown points system just to get AoS working, we rarely even house rule the rules GW put out before. Imo AoS requires to much effort just to make it usable, let along to make it good.

If a question as simple as 'how many models should I bring' cannot be answered without months of development and playtesting I can't see AoS working for anyone out of the gate, a dedicated TO might put the time into developing a point system to really get the game working, but I honestly can't see it being worth their while.

Based on your stories about your group I would not classify you guys as casual gamers. Casual gamers are players that play for fun and don't really sweat the rules or who wins or loses, so long as fun was had. A good portion of my GW store are those players, where if I were to transcribe their games and post them online a lot of people would be like :WTF: because they basically do all kinds of stuff that is not balanced and love playing games like apoc etc. (in fact they have an 18 person apoc game set up with the winner getting a realm of battle board in a couple weeks) and their rules are quite literally "bring 3000 points of whatever you want" and they are all fine with that. Those are casual gamers.

Once you cross into one upsmanship in army construction, needing to have comp rules because players are being hyper competitive and others are getting upset at the lack of balance by the hyper competitive, etc, even if you are not technically at a tournament, you have crossed beyond a casual gamer into a form of a competitive player.

I personally am a combination of the two. I want some balance but at the same time I also love unbalanced scenarios.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 15:13
Based on your stories about your group I would not classify you guys as casual gamers. Casual gamers are players that play for fun and don't really sweat the rules or who wins or loses, so long as fun was had. A good portion of my GW store are those players, where if I were to transcribe their games and post them online a lot of people would be like :WTF: because they basically do all kinds of stuff that is not balanced and love playing games like apoc etc. (in fact they have an 18 person apoc game set up with the winner getting a realm of battle board in a couple weeks) and their rules are quite literally "bring 3000 points of whatever you want" and they are all fine with that. Those are casual gamers.

Once you cross into one upsmanship in army construction, needing to have comp rules because players are being hyper competitive and others are getting upset at the lack of balance by the hyper competitive, etc, even if you are not technically at a tournament, you have crossed beyond a casual gamer into a form of a competitive player.

I personally am a combination of the two. I want some balance but at the same time I also love unbalanced scenarios.
I'd say the wfb players at my group are a fairly casual bunch, more so than the 40kers at any rate

Intentionally designing unbalanced scenarios is rather a different situation to have absolutely no idea where the balance of the game lies, even apocalypse, as crazy as it is, has a way of equalising the forces at the start of the game.

I mean if I were to say 'let's have a game, I'll bring my Daemonic legion of Khorne, it has a blood Thirster, three units of blood letters, one unit of flesh hounds, one unit of 6 blood crushers and a soul crusher', you've got a lizardmen army and you're suddenly thinking 'how much stuff should I bring so that we have a good game?'

Is a Carnosaur Lord equivalent to a blood thirster?
Is a Saurus warrior equivalent to a blood letter?
What are skinks worth?
What's the nearest thing in the lizardmen army to a blood crusher?

What are you going to do, base your force of 8th edition pts values and hope it all shakes out? Because that is really all we have to go on currently.

MiyamatoMusashi
02-07-2015, 15:14
It seems the conversation is stuck in a circle: GW makes sucky rules. GW stops making rules. How dare GW stop doing something they suck at? They're damned if they do, damned if they don't, and damned if they try to find a middle path.

Maybe they could, I dunno, do it well.


Personally I think it's great if I no longer have the tax of an $85 rulebook and $50 army book on top of the high price of the models.

A vanishingly small number of people (possibly no-one at all) are complaining about the rules being free. Free is good. But free doesn't mean the rules are good.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 15:17
Maybe they could, I dunno, do it well.



A vanishingly small number of people (possibly no-one at all) are complaining about the rules being free. Free is good. But free doesn't mean the rules are good.

Indeed, it's like being asked to choose between a teapot made of folded paper which you get for free or one made of China which costs money, obviously it would be great to get a China teapot for free, but however much you are paying for the paper tea pot it's still going to be useless for making tea in.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 15:21
I'd say the wfb players at my group are a fairly casual bunch, more so than the 40kers at any rate

Intentionally designing unbalanced scenarios is rather a different situation to have absolutely no idea where the balance of the game lies, even apocalypse, as crazy as it is, has a way of equalising the forces at the start of the game.

I mean if I were to say 'let's have a game, I'll bring my Daemonic legion of Khorne, it has a blood Thirster, three units of blood letters, one unit of flesh hounds, one unit of 6 blood crushers and a soul crusher', you've got a lizardmen army and you're suddenly thinking 'how much stuff should I bring so that we have a good game?'

Is a Carnosaur Lord equivalent to a blood thirster?
Is a Saurus warrior equivalent to a blood letter?
What are skinks worth?
What's the nearest thing in the lizardmen army to a blood crusher?

What are you going to do, base your force of 8th edition pts values and hope it all shakes out? Because that is really all we have to go on currently.

I think at its base that again the type of player that is worried about balance is not the core audience that they are marketing to.

I think that for those that want balance we are going to have to work to make it balanced. Some are ok with that. Others are not and will leave because of it.

This is why I will be playing 8th edition fantasy and Kings of War in addition to AoS.

Gorsameth
02-07-2015, 15:21
Indeed, it's like being asked to choose between a teapot made of folded paper which you get for free or one made of China which costs money, obviously it would be great to get a China teapot for free, but however much you are paying for the paper tea pot it's still going to be useless for making tea in.
Exactly, People were not complaining that the rules were free. They complained the rules were terrible and being free doesn't make terrible rules acceptable.

swordofglass
02-07-2015, 15:27
I guess one of the things I dislike most about the 'take anything you want - but don't you dare be a d*ck!' mentality which will be inescapable in AoS (and seems to be actually embraced by some) is that it will force this sort of awkward, shuffling semi-paralysis and render victories (and likewise defeat) all but meaningless.

('OK, they've deployed all their troops now, I think I can get away with deploying this dragon, but they might think that's too much, they might refuse to play me, oh but if I don't take it I'm kind of shooting myself in the foot, well if I take it and they refuse to play then they're being a d*ck because I should be allowed to use this, anyway I only just finished painting it and it looks awesome, but wait if I do take it that might give me too much of an unfair advantage and if I win it will be kind of meaningless, oh but wait that's all part of the game anyway, oh but..." and so on. Absolutely ridiculous, and it applies to pretty much anything, not just powerful creatures like dragons).

You shouldn't have to self-comp every game in order to even play the game. Sometimes I play specific scenarios or agree to use or not use certain units - but that's a deviation from the rules which I occasionally agree to - not the core of the game itself!!

Mr_Foulscumm
02-07-2015, 15:31
To be fair, making books that don't sell would be expensive in terms of manufacturing costs.

Surely not as expensive as making a box full of useless miniatures that won't sell.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 15:35
I guess one of the things I dislike most about the 'take anything you want - but don't you dare be a d*ck!' mentality which will be inescapable in AoS (and seems to be actually embraced by some) is that it will force this sort of awkward, shuffling semi-paralysis and render victories (and likewise defeat) all but meaningless.

('OK, they've deployed all their troops now, I think I can get away with deploying this dragon, but they might think that's too much, they might refuse to play me, oh but if I don't take it I'm kind of shooting myself in the foot, well if I take it and they refuse to play then they're being a d*ck because I should be allowed to use this, anyway I only just finished painting it and it looks awesome, but wait if I do take it that might give me too much of an unfair advantage and if I win it will be kind of meaningless, oh but wait that's all part of the game anyway, oh but..." and so on. Absolutely ridiculous, and it applies to pretty much anything, not just powerful creatures like dragons).

You shouldn't have to self-comp every game in order to even play the game. Sometimes I play specific scenarios or agree to use or not use certain units - but that's a deviation from the rules which I occasionally agree to - not the core of the game itself!!

On one level you're over thinking it, no-one has the slightest idea how units compare to each other, as such 'being a dick' is presently impossible to define (which in my experience it will normally be defined after the game and will be equal to 'person who beat me'). A dragon might be equal to a chaos spawn in AoS or it might be equal to a greater daemon, or a griffon, or a mangler Squig, we literally have zero frame of reference other than the old points system of a now-defunct game which has no relation to this one.

About the only way to do anything positive with this is pick a couple of armies at random, then whoever wins brings less stuff next time until you reach the point where your win-loss ratios are about equal, but it feels like we could end up with a lot of negative game experiences until we reach that point.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 15:35
I guess one of the things I dislike most about the 'take anything you want - but don't you dare be a d*ck!' mentality which will be inescapable in AoS (and seems to be actually embraced by some) is that it will force this sort of awkward, shuffling semi-paralysis and render victories (and likewise defeat) all but meaningless.

('OK, they've deployed all their troops now, I think I can get away with deploying this dragon, but they might think that's too much, they might refuse to play me, oh but if I don't take it I'm kind of shooting myself in the foot, well if I take it and they refuse to play then they're being a d*ck because I should be allowed to use this, anyway I only just finished painting it and it looks awesome, but wait if I do take it that might give me too much of an unfair advantage and if I win it will be kind of meaningless, oh but wait that's all part of the game anyway, oh but..." and so on. Absolutely ridiculous, and it applies to pretty much anything, not just powerful creatures like dragons).

You shouldn't have to self-comp every game in order to even play the game. Sometimes I play specific scenarios or agree to use or not use certain units - but that's a deviation from the rules which I occasionally agree to - not the core of the game itself!!

I think the main reason why it doesn't bother me as much is simply because I got into historicals first and thats how it was then. When I shifted to battletech in the early 90s thats also how it was then. So I've been through years of this mentality already before I played my first system that used points to balance things.

That being said - i'm still using 8th and K.o.W for campaigns as well because sometimes I want points.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 15:38
I think the main reason why it doesn't bother me as much is simply because I got into historicals first and thats how it was then. When I shifted to battletech in the early 90s thats also how it was then. So I've been through years of this mentality already before I played my first system that used points to balance things.

That being said - i'm still using 8th and K.o.W for campaigns as well because sometimes I want points.

Umm I've played historicals before, and while most of them don't have points values they do generally have a way of limiting forces, usually in the form of completely scripted forces (based on the actual historical battle) for any given scenario, you literally have no choice at all in what you field. That's a little different to what we have here.

Mr_Foulscumm
02-07-2015, 15:41
I think the main reason why it doesn't bother me as much is simply because I got into historicals first and thats how it was then. When I shifted to battletech in the early 90s thats also how it was then. So I've been through years of this mentality already before I played my first system that used points to balance things.

That being said - i'm still using 8th and K.o.W for campaigns as well because sometimes I want points.

I love historicals. But there is a huge difference between say Blackpowder and AoS, and that is that the former is made by people that wanted to and were allowed to make a good game. AoS wasn't which you said yourself. So why is it worth our time and effort making this work, when there are so many games out there that already play as a proper game?

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 15:46
Umm I've played historicals before, and while most of them don't have points values they do generally have a way of limiting forces, usually in the form of completely scripted forces (based on the actual historical battle) for any given scenario, you literally have no choice at all in what you field. That's a little different to what we have here.

Once you see the scenarios in the bigger book that comes with the box you'll see. The scenarios talk about what forces to use. It is 100% exactly like the historicals and battletech missions that I played as a kid.

Now thats just for the box contents. But that can easily be transcribed into any scenario with any forces where the scenario will limit what you are allowed to use.

HereComesTomorrow
02-07-2015, 15:47
Surely not as expensive as making a box full of useless miniatures that won't sell.

I'm sure if you go to the 40k boards there will be a lot of very happy Blood Angels players.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 15:47
So why is it worth our time and effort making this work

That answer will be subjective to each individual making that judgement.

Mr_Foulscumm
02-07-2015, 15:51
That answer will be subjective to each individual making that judgement.[/COLOR]

Dude, can you please stop colouring the text?

swordofglass
02-07-2015, 15:51
Once you see the scenarios in the bigger book that comes with the box you'll see. The scenarios talk about what forces to use.

Are you saying that the scenarios limit how many models you can use in each unit. If so, at least that's something I guess (although too boring to be of interest to me). If not, then, as you know, players are not limited in how many models they use in each 'unit' so the restrictions are illusory.

brotherAkkyshan
02-07-2015, 16:00
Again I point to the CEO pre-amble to explain GW's action.


Source (http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-14-Press-statement-final-website.pdf)

This beautifully ignorant line explains everything that GW is doing with Age of Sigmar

Thanks for sharing that Gorsameth. My only question is... What the *5$ was that? Has anyone actually read it? I know for a fact if I was a serious investor with a financial stake in a company and the CEO presented me with that six page progress report I would actually be offended! It reads like it's been written by an over enthusiastic twelve year old! Never mind the quote about it's target market and proudly boasting that it doesn't listen to it's customers, what about... "External events that may affect us are only those things that bother everyone: interest rates, tax rates, exchange rates, directives from Brussels, war, pestilence and disease. What will not change is the eternal desire for some always to want yet more of the small, jewellike [sic] objects of magic and wonder that we call Citadel miniatures."

Really? If you needed any further proof that the senior management at Games Workshop are divorced from the same reality that most other businesses exist in this document is surely it!

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 16:19
Are you saying that the scenarios limit how many models you can use in each unit. If so, at least that's something I guess (although too boring to be of interest to me). If not, then, as you know, players are not limited in how many models they use in each 'unit' so the restrictions are illusory.

Yes the scenarios in the box limit what you take.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Avian
02-07-2015, 16:23
Yes the scenarios in the box limit what you take.
Are you talking about intro scenarios specifying which models from the starter set is used in each of them?

MiyamatoMusashi
02-07-2015, 16:25
I think the main reason why it doesn't bother me as much is simply because I got into historicals first and thats how it was then.

Right, but in historicals, if I take five regiments of infantry and a cannon, and you take four regiments of infantry and two regiments of cavalry, it may not be "perfectly balanced" but we can figure out pretty quickly between us that it won't be too far apart... if nothing else, all the models involved represent humans.

In AoS, we know that Dragons are harder than Goblins, but by how much? Are Sigmarines equivalent to Chaos Warriors... or more like Chosen? If I take lots of Wizards and you take no magic defence at all, will that not matter too much (like 8th Ed) or give me a trivial walkover (like 6th Ed)? We just don't know - at least not without playing a bunch of (probably unsatisfactory) experimental games to work it out first.

duffybear1988
02-07-2015, 16:27
Thanks for sharing that Gorsameth. My only question is... What the *5$ was that? Has anyone actually read it? I know for a fact if I was a serious investor with a financial stake in a company and the CEO presented me with that six page progress report I would actually be offended! It reads like it's been written by an over enthusiastic twelve year old! Never mind the quote about it's target market and proudly boasting that it doesn't listen to it's customers, what about... "External events that may affect us are only those things that bother everyone: interest rates, tax rates, exchange rates, directives from Brussels, war, pestilence and disease. What will not change is the eternal desire for some always to want yet more of the small, jewellike [sic] objects of magic and wonder that we call Citadel miniatures."

Really? If you needed any further proof that the senior management at Games Workshop are divorced from the same reality that most other businesses exist in this document is surely it!

And that folks, is why people have no hope. :D

HereComesTomorrow
02-07-2015, 16:33
And that folks, is why people have no hope. :D

To be fair, Kirby isn't CEO anymore.
Though as everyone thought, nothing has changed. The new boss offered some hope when rumours surfaced of him being a player when he was younger and saying he never would have started if the game was as it was in 8th.

He just went waaaaaaaaaay too far in the other direction. Probably under Kirby's advice

Gorsameth
02-07-2015, 16:38
Thanks for sharing that Gorsameth. My only question is... What the *5$ was that? Has anyone actually read it? I know for a fact if I was a serious investor with a financial stake in a company and the CEO presented me with that six page progress report I would actually be offended! It reads like it's been written by an over enthusiastic twelve year old! Never mind the quote about it's target market and proudly boasting that it doesn't listen to it's customers, what about... "External events that may affect us are only those things that bother everyone: interest rates, tax rates, exchange rates, directives from Brussels, war, pestilence and disease. What will not change is the eternal desire for some always to want yet more of the small, jewellike [sic] objects of magic and wonder that we call Citadel miniatures."

Really? If you needed any further proof that the senior management at Games Workshop are divorced from the same reality that most other businesses exist in this document is surely it!
This is why a portion of the GW (former) customers is so dis-disillusioned at the company and why we have no faith in them at all.

BramGaunt
02-07-2015, 16:44
Since I want as much feedback on this as I can get my hands on (even though it's to early to actually test it)



To determine a models point value:

5 pts base cost for each model.

5 pts per wound if wounds are 3 or less
10 pts per wound if wounds are 4+

(reasoning behind this is that heroes and monsters are a lot stronger, and I assume that wounds for units will range inbetween 1 and 3.)

1 pt for each inch of movement, 2 pts if wounds are bigger than 4.

1 pt for each point of bravery above 5
- 1 pt for each point of bravery below 5

If wounds are 3 or less, 1 pt per save.
If they are more then 3, 3 pts per save.

Attacks; melee: Each attack is 2 pts base for models with 3 or less wounds, and 5 pts base for models with more than 3 wounds.
Then, for each attack, add:
1 pt for each inch of range > 1;
1 pt for each to hit better then 4+/-1 for each to hit worse than 4+.
1 pt for each to wound better than 4+, -1 pt for each to wound roll of worse than 4+.
2 pts for each level of rend.
1 point for each point of damage; +2 for each D3 the attack may have, +4 for each D6 it may have.
+5 points if the attack has the Mortal Blow characteristic.

Ranged attacks use the same formula, but add 1 pt for each 6 inch range they have, and are 4/8 points base.

Abilities: (This, of course, is completly unfair, because it assumes that all abilities are beneficial and equal in strentgh, but unless we know more of them, this is the best I can do.)
1 pt per wound per ability
if wounds are more than 3, 2 pts per wound per ability.

20 points for each spell a model has.
12 points for each prayer a model can 'cast' per round.

15 points if the model has a command ability

10 points if the model can fly and has 3 or fewer wounds; 20 points if it can fly and has more than 3 wounds.

Army composition

Units can have 24/25 wounds maximum; For each point of bravery above 5, substract 4 wounds; for each point bravery below 5, add 4 wounds.
You may not have a warscroll with the same keywords twice, unless the first warscroll is at least half of it's maximum wounds strong.
You may not have more warscrolls with the hero keyword than you have units without it, unless you field only a singe warscroll.
Models need to be assembled with the base they were supplied with, or one slightly bigger.

brotherAkkyshan
02-07-2015, 16:46
What is more worrying is that an actual bona fide company in the business of making money would actually release that report to the press and not expect to be shown up as rank amateurs! It's OK having a 'wacky' or 'alternative' corporate culture (as companies like Apple, Lego, and Google are reported to have) but you don't let this bleed over into your financial reports! These are serious documents that are supposed to reassure the people who have given you money that you're doing your very best to give them some kind of return. Kirby seemed to miss this point entirely and took it as an opportunity to showcase his 'sense of humour'!

Also I swear to god (though I can't be bothered to re-read it to find a quote) that at one point he states one of the reasons going to single manned stores is a sound idea is that it allows them to replace all their staff in a cost efficient way. Blimey! Nothing like a bit of job security is there?

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 16:51
Are you talking about intro scenarios specifying which models from the starter set is used in each of them?

I am but I was also told that scenarios in general can be used to limit what is being taken and used. You aren't going to get an official set of core scenarios like we're used to.

Banville
02-07-2015, 16:54
Right. I'm going to weigh in, here. First of all I have been playing wargames since about 1994. The amount of money and time I've invested in my six WHFB armies is verging on the obscene. I once added up the amount of time I spent painting just the leather on the straps of Bretonnian cavalry, assuming five minutes a model. I had to go and have a cup of tea and lie down after I saw the figure.

I've also had a few historical novels published and am a bit of a military history geek.

Therein lie my two issues with Army Composition in AoS.

1. This is not a pseudo historical world embellished with a few dragons and magic spells. The setting is science fiction, not the low fantasy we've all come to love. When it comes to high fantasy, the lines blur a bit but let's not digress. Army composition in AoS will look a hell of a lot like WM. It represents warrior bands, not armies. The trouble with this is that Privateer Press did a terrific job in setting up the context for this sort of game and gave a real depth to the characters involved. The player is invested in the narrative and any suspension of disbelief when it comes to the "look" of the "armies" comes almost reflexively. The AoS fluff, however, is awful. Head-scratchingly, laughably awful. If I wanted to play a skirmish game, I'd play Warmahordes. And what's more, I'd enjoy it, because of the tight rules and snug-fitting fluff jacket that wraps the game about. To be frank, and I know how subjective this is, without the support (online, official forums, magazine, short-stories etc etc) AoS armies just look silly.

In saying that however, there is one canard going about that needs to be shot down in pretty short order. In AoS there is nothing stopping you taking a thousand marauders or ten thousand sigmarines. In 8th there was nothing stopping you taking a thousand Skaven slaves or Skellies or ghouls or Men-at-Arms. We could always take a vast amount of stuff if we wanted to. Nobody did, though. Because it'd be ridiculous thing to do to your opponent.

2. The rules are shambolic. I've played every game released by GW since 1994 and a hell of a lot of games from other companies, too. This one, though is a brand new experience for me. Reading and re-reading the leaked jpegs I keep thinking that this thing is going to need patches. And some more patches. And a few patches more. They start off badly, slump in the middle and the less said about the ending, the better. From set-up to victory conditions, I just don't see how a decent game can be extracted from it. If there are add-ons and expansions I can only see a tidal wave of special rules bloat and exceptions to what little core rules there are.

I'm honestly gobsmacked at how ineptly this whole thing has been handled.

A change in aesthetics of this magnitude needed at least a year lead-in with constant statements and design sketches up on GW's website along with reassuring noises to keep us old-timers mollified until the thing actually hit. Then when it was released the core rules should have been water-tight, leaving the marketing types to crow about the interactions and synergies that, I suppose and hope, will make this game a rewarding tactical experience rather than, as someone has already said, an exercise in pushing vulgarly-proportioned toys around the place going "pew-pew".

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 16:56
Once you see the scenarios in the bigger book that comes with the box you'll see. The scenarios talk about what forces to use. It is 100% exactly like the historicals and battletech missions that I played as a kid.

Now thats just for the box contents. But that can easily be transcribed into any scenario with any forces where the scenario will limit what you are allowed to use.

You realise that is completely not viable in a game as broad as AoS, what are they going to do, include a possible army list with every scenario for every single faction and sub-faction in the game? Since there is no way to equate one character to another or one infantry unit to another how is this even going to work? If a scenario calls for three units of 30 night goblins, and I want to play that scenario using daemons, how many blood letters should I take instead etc?

I can't help but think that if the game isn't flexible enough to be able to use different forces for each scenario (or even have common scenarios which people can just turn up and play), or even allow for player designed scenarios then it's far too limited for what I want out of a game.

@Bram, it's great that you're making an effort, but I'd be lying if I said I had the foggiest idea whether it fits the game or not, there is just no baseline comparison and I haven't played a game yet.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 16:59
My point being that scenarios can dictate what you can and cannot take, at any level, be it specific (faction specific) or at a broader level (some formula to determine worth).

They are leaving it to us (the community) to write scenarios. They will also provide scenarios in future campaign books.

They are very very specific that this is a game that the players define based on their framework - full stop. Players that do not wish to define the game and instead want the rules given to them (which is what most of us are used to) will not want to play this game.

Bloodknight
02-07-2015, 17:00
When I shifted to battletech in the early 90s thats also how it was then.

Hmm. I started playing BT in the early 90s, too. 92, to be exact. You could balance by weight (which many people did, although it's not a very good way to do it because some units are plain better at the same weight. Victor vs Charger...), C-Bills (which not so many people did after they found out what tanks do to mechs at the same C-Bill cost. 4 Scorpion tanks for a Stinger comes to mind), and the Combat Value system, which was quite decent. We used to play 30K CV games at the time. Then they introduced BV1, also decent, and now BV2, which is pretty good, at least at the 3025 level (I don't play the later timelines, so I don't know). The basic Charger is actually really useful in BV2 :D

In any case, practically all systems have some kind of system that allows you to balance a game. BT has 5 systems you can choose from, 3 of them are decent. Historicals are among the easiest to balance within their period- they're all humans and if nothing else, every Sherman equals a Panzer III or IV. That's not Goblins vs Dragons.



They are leaving it to us (the community) to write scenarios.

Tbh I think that that will suck, at least for pickup games. I mean, look at how many different comp systems there are for 8th edition. They had a solid baseline to work from and still there is no consensus. And the consensus within the comp systems often took months to reach by people who really grokked the game, not Johnny Cluelesses.


I don't know what they did or why they did it, but as a rule system, this is built to fail because it's lacking half the info you need to get a worthwhile game out of it. Especially as a casual player. Not all casual players enjoy losing all the time while chucking dice. At some point, they will want to get a fair game and that's when they basically spend most of the time playtesting instead of playing "for real".

As someone above said: it's a wargame for people who don't know what a wargame is. And I'd like to add "and have never played boardgames beyond snakes and ladders".

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 17:01
My point being that scenarios can dictate what you can and cannot take, at any level, be it specific (faction specific) or at a broader level (some formula to determine worth).

They are leaving it to us (the community) to write scenarios. They will also provide scenarios in future campaign books.

How can you even write a balanced scenario with no information regarding the relative value of different model profiles, it's like trying to bake a cake with a list of ingredients but no quantities.

With a well developed points system designing your own scenarios can be very easy, but GW just haven't given us the tools we need to do that, they're asking us to do something that really is their job as game designers.

HelloKitty
02-07-2015, 17:07
From a narrative standpoint, its easy to write scenarios. For someone who wants balance to be the first priority - this will not be it.

Bloodknight
02-07-2015, 17:08
it's like trying to bake a cake with a list of ingredients but no quantities

And unless you get it right, that cake will be poison :D. That's the problem, there are so many permutations there that people just can't overlook without a baseline to work from.

swordofglass
02-07-2015, 17:12
In AoS there is nothing stopping you taking a thousand marauders or ten thousand sigmarines.

Correct


In 8th there was nothing stopping you taking a thousand Skaven slaves or Skellies or ghouls or Men-at-Arms.


Yes there was. It's called a 'points system'.

InstantKarma
02-07-2015, 17:16
Because clearly the thing to do when your profits are continuing to fall is to ditch a profitable subsidiary line that is the principal driving force for sales in your primary line. Are they completely unaware that they have market place competition from companies that actually have working game rules? Look, I still happen to think that GW do make the best toy soldiers out there, but in all honesty if they become completely non-functional as gaming pieces and are essentially reduced to *just* being toy soldiers I really think their sales will fall through the floor.

They will fall through the floor if we let them (which I'm inclined to think we should at this point).

Also perhaps makes a strong case that either they move rules development to another company (everyone always suggests FFG) or everyone keep the older systems going.

I'm actually now very worried for the future of 40k.

Avian
02-07-2015, 17:16
They are very very specific that this is a game that the players define based on their framework - full stop. Players that do not wish to define the game and instead want the rules given to them (which is what most of us are used to) will not want to play this game.
Sounds to me like they're very specific in not wanting to put in an effort. :eyebrows:



How can you even write a balanced scenario with no information regarding the relative value of different model profiles, it's like trying to bake a cake with a list of ingredients but no quantities.
Nah, you're writing a recipe and have the option of EITHER specifying quantities OR ingredients. If you want to specify both you can only have ONE ingredient. :D


I also notice that normal units no longer have a type (ex: infantry). That's even less helpful.

HereComesTomorrow
02-07-2015, 17:19
I also notice that normal units no longer have a type (ex: infantry). That's even less helpful.

But now we have KEYWORDS!

Deadhorse
02-07-2015, 17:22
Players that do not wish to define the game and instead want the rules given to them (which is what most of us are used to) will not want to play this game.

That sounds mindboggingly stupid.
They failed to provide a decent game as far as I can tell. The mechanics provided are extremely crude.
They failed to finish it, leaving pretty big dotted out areas. "For the community" to fill in.
They also destroyed the universe, replacing it with a few lines of horrid poo.

Who would want to play this? Why?

Avian
02-07-2015, 17:27
But now we have KEYWORDS!

Not very helpful ones. I mean, one of them is the name of the unit, which is in the title bar anyway. The boss Sigmardude has the keywords:
Order, Celestial, Human, Stormcast Eternal, Hero, Lord-Celestant
But not, say, mounted.

That's not very narrative of them...

Scribe of Khorne
02-07-2015, 17:27
My point being that scenarios can dictate what you can and cannot take, at any level, be it specific (faction specific) or at a broader level (some formula to determine worth).

They are leaving it to us (the community) to write scenarios. They will also provide scenarios in future campaign books.

They are very very specific that this is a game that the players define based on their framework - full stop. Players that do not wish to define the game and instead want the rules given to them (which is what most of us are used to) will not want to play this game.

Super lame.

InstantKarma
02-07-2015, 17:31
My point being that scenarios can dictate what you can and cannot take, at any level, be it specific (faction specific) or at a broader level (some formula to determine worth).

They are leaving it to us (the community) to write scenarios. They will also provide scenarios in future campaign books.

They are very very specific that this is a game that the players define based on their framework - full stop. Players that do not wish to define the game and instead want the rules given to them (which is what most of us are used to) will not want to play this game.

But the point of 'defining a framework' is a very important one to the community for at least one important reason; Proper Authority. Even in our rather individualistic western culture, when it comes to 'how to do this' and 'why do I do that' we want to have a reliable reference point that we can point to and say, 'See! This is the correct way!' I'd even argue we NEED such a source as without one you are essentially stuck at the whims of whoever is in power making up whatever rules they want (Or in AoS, whoever bought the most models). When it is simply left 'up to the players' you are left with no clear reference point for interpretation (ie GW) meaning that trying to have some sort of continuity and reliability becomes very difficult. As has been pointed out several times, how concepts like 'balance' and 'fair play' are not only understood but executed become located with some perhaps very well intentioned(or not) persons and you're left either with just a personal preference or the prayer that your local store owner has some arcane background in rules development which works for you at a local level. Heaven forbid you travel out of state and try to play somewhere else though.

Also the point about players 'being given rules' and being used to it is also very important. GW had set a precedent as to what and where to find our reference point; a basic rulebook, army books, and then FAQs to check any errors or answer questions from the community. How many YEARS have we had this precedent, and now it appears to be simply gone?

Mr_Foulscumm
02-07-2015, 17:32
Not very helpful ones. I mean, one of them is the name of the unit, which is in the title bar anyway. The boss Sigmardude has the keywords:
Order, Celestial, Human, Stormcast Eternal, Hero, Lord-Celestant
But not, say, mounted.

That's not very narrative of them...

Also, Keywords take time to develop. All of them won't actually do something from the start and will have to have their synergies and meanings built up over multiple releases.

I know the scales of production and capacity is completely different. But case in point: Lord of the Rings LCG still has a lot of keywords that don't actually do anything in the game, and there's been a lot of subsequent releases over the years that have added to that.

But, LotR LCG was actually a pretty good game straight out of the box, so it never bothered me.

HereComesTomorrow
02-07-2015, 17:36
Also, Keywords take time to develop. All of them won't actually do something from the start and will have to have their synergies and meanings built up over multiple releases.

I know the scales of production and capacity is completely different. But case in point: Lord of the Rings LCG still has a lot of keywords that don't actually do anything in the game, and there's been a lot of subsequent releases over the years that have added to that.

But, LotR LCG was actually a pretty good game straight out of the box, so I it never bothered me.

Hell, 8th went its whole lifespan without anything ever having that one rule. Sea something I think?

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 17:37
They are very very specific that this is a game that the players define based on their framework - full stop. Players that do not wish to define the game and instead want the rules given to them (which is what most of us are used to) will not want to play this game.

Other than you, how many gamers do you think want to go to the trouble of designing their own points value system before they can actually play an even-handed game? I mean if you're going to put that much dedication in you may as well design your own rules system from the ground up and make it exactly what you want.

Wargaming is supposed to be a fun hobby, not a full time job.

Scribe of Khorne
02-07-2015, 17:43
Its seeing the cliff (6th Edition 40K) driving mad towards the edge (7th 40K) and now toppling right over (AoS).

We have gone from an open tool box, to literally next to nothing, and calling it a game. Its not a game. Its a set of build and paint your own models.

hazmiter
02-07-2015, 17:49
I guess ill have to see what comes out for dark elves..... I only have a (very small army, not even 2k points), so if this AoS comes out with usable rules/ scrolls that cover what i currently own, i may give it a shot.

I agree with the OP on the lack of point values however..... Its been that way since i started playing back in 2004, and now theyre gone :wtf: perhaps with time everything will work out.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 17:49
Its seeing the cliff (6th Edition 40K) driving mad towards the edge (7th 40K) and now toppling right over (AoS).

We have gone from an open tool box, to literally next to nothing, and calling it a game. Its not a game. Its a set of build and paint your own models.

"From the lightning, with thy tempest, Alan Bligh deliver us!" :D

Turgol
02-07-2015, 17:53
From a narrative standpoint, its easy to write scenarios. For someone who wants balance to be the first priority - this will not be it.

It's funny I was told by two different sources something different. More rules will be coming, in some form. They would not know what that was, though. That was not told during staff training in Nottingham to avoid leaks.

Mr_Foulscumm
02-07-2015, 17:55
It's funny I was told by two different similar different. More rules will be coming, in some form. They would not know what that was, though. That was not told during staff training in Nottingham to avoid leaks.

Your post might need some editing. :)

TheFang
02-07-2015, 17:56
It's funny I was told by two different similar different. More rules will be coming, in some form. They would not know what that was, though. That was not told during staff training in Nottingham to avoid leaks.
This is the sort of thing which produces the massive wave of negativity. If they're going to sort it out why don't they announce it. As it stands the consensus has built to the point where pretty much everyone is decrying AoS as an utter shambles which must put a massive dent in the likely sales. I've not seen anyone planning a purchase of it yet. People want to see the rules picture with the scrolls for existing units.

Turgol
02-07-2015, 18:01
This is the sort of thing which produces the massive wave of negativity. If they're going to sort it out why don't they announce it. As it stands the consensus has built to the point where pretty much everyone is decrying AoS as an utter shambles which must put a massive dent in the likely sales. I've not seen anyone planning a purchase of it yet. People want to see the rules picture with the scrolls for existing units.

Oh, believe me, I do agree on this. Fear of leaks and lack of communication are GW's worst assets by far.

PS: I do not agree on the not purchasing part :). I'am buying the starting set at least. The Archgate or I dunno what the name was might be too much painting job for right now. RoB I will buy as well, if they are cheap enough. I need some of those.

Whirlwind
02-07-2015, 18:03
My point being that scenarios can dictate what you can and cannot take, at any level, be it specific (faction specific) or at a broader level (some formula to determine worth).

They are leaving it to us (the community) to write scenarios. They will also provide scenarios in future campaign books.

They are very very specific that this is a game that the players define based on their framework - full stop. Players that do not wish to define the game and instead want the rules given to them (which is what most of us are used to) will not want to play this game.

Of course scenarios also limit general pick up and play games. Say Player A has just painted some new models for their Undead army and want them to join their old Tomb Kings army. Player B has just painted up some Sigmarines and wants them to ally with some of his old Bretonnia army. Now it is highly unlikely that there will be a specific scenario for this circumstance. So either Player A/B have to spend however long making a scenario and try to balance it whilst including the units they would like to play with (which realistically is only going to happen if they play the game several times) or rely on one of the players bringing the scenario and that it is balanced. So what do you do if you just pop down to the local club and want a pick up game and that is balanced. It is really difficult to achieve. The make your own scenarios is fine if its a small group of friends. It is a lot more difficult if you have a club and don't want to spend two hours working out what you are going to play. This is where a points system actually helps because there is some baseline you are working to.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 18:13
This is the sort of thing which produces the massive wave of negativity. If they're going to sort it out why don't they announce it. As it stands the consensus has built to the point where pretty much everyone is decrying AoS as an utter shambles which must put a massive dent in the likely sales. I've not seen anyone planning a purchase of it yet. People want to see the rules picture with the scrolls for existing units.

Perhaps they've got some kind of crazy hero complex, they come out with some pile of utter ***** and then a month later come out with a full colour, hard cover book for 50 fixing the whole thing and saving us faithful few who remain. Or maybe this is just another false rumour ;)

Mr_Foulscumm
02-07-2015, 18:23
Why would you play games with your small, jewel like objects of magic and wonder? Shouldn't they be in your display cabinet? :D

nosebiter
02-07-2015, 19:46
They will fall through the floor if we let them (which I'm inclined to think we should at this point).

Also perhaps makes a strong case that either they move rules development to another company (everyone always suggests FFG) or everyone keep the older systems going.

I'm actually now very worried for the future of 40k.


Unlss AoS become a huge hit, which i highly doubt, then you are safe.

But of it performs at or above what they are wanting financially... Then 40k will gwt the AoS treatment.

nosebiter
02-07-2015, 19:47
Oh, believe me, I do agree on this. Fear of leaks and lack of communication are GW's worst assets by far.

PS: I do not agree on the not purchasing part :). I'am buying the starting set at least. The Archgate or I dunno what the name was might be too much painting job for right now. RoB I will buy as well, if they are cheap enough. I need some of those.

RoB are not cheap. And the clatter of dice on those plastic tabletobs, makes my teeth rattle.

Col. Tartleton
02-07-2015, 20:11
Why would you play games with your small, jewel like objects of magic and wonder? Shouldn't they be in your display cabinet? :D

If they're in the display cabinet they won't get worn or break. Broken models sell glue, paint, and sometimes new models.

Citadel still sells a lot of overpriced hobby supplies. Convincing us to buy their overpriced products and then risk breaking them and thus selling us more overpriced products is clearly something they should be doing.

InstantKarma
02-07-2015, 20:15
Unlss AoS become a huge hit, which i highly doubt, then you are safe.

But of it performs at or above what they are wanting financially... Then 40k will gwt the AoS treatment.

Preforming financially realtive to 40k or WHFB? Because the common knoweldge (supposedly/most likely) is that 40k has been the golden goose laying GW eggs for quite some time. So if AoS does better than WHFB, well than good. If it is almost comparable to 40k sales, then be worried.

Avian
02-07-2015, 20:17
Points cost per model v1.1

Movement x Wounds x Attacks + (Bravery - 4) + (5 - to-hit roll) + (5 - to-wound roll) + (5 - save)


Maximum number of models per unit v1.1

To-hit x to-wound / wounds
If Move > 6, divide further by 2


Key
Attacks - total, both ranged and melee attacks
To-hit / to-wound - if model has multiple weapons, use best values
Save - use the value 7 for models with no save

Gorsameth
02-07-2015, 20:38
Preforming financially realtive to 40k or WHFB? Because the common knoweldge (supposedly/most likely) is that 40k has been the golden goose laying GW eggs for quite some time. So if AoS does better than WHFB, well than good. If it is almost comparable to 40k sales, then be worried.

Ehm, 40k is still making less year after year incase you didnt realise.

And no I dont expect AoS to do better then WHFB at all. Not with (lack of) rules like this atleast.

stephan harkon
02-07-2015, 21:03
I think what people seem to be missing is that this is a starter set and it has been a good few years since we have had points costs included in a starter set as standard.
I am hoping that when we see warscrolls for the other factions these will have points/unit sizes included on them

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Avian
02-07-2015, 21:10
I think what people seem to be missing is that this is a starter set and it has been a good few years since we have had points costs included in a starter set as standard.
This again?

Take a look in the rulebook you get with any starter set. See how it talks about point values and agreeing a battle size with your opponent? Take a look at the AoS rules. See how they tell you to take whatever you like? This has never happened before.

Whirlwind
02-07-2015, 21:13
Preforming financially realtive to 40k or WHFB? Because the common knoweldge (supposedly/most likely) is that 40k has been the golden goose laying GW eggs for quite some time. So if AoS does better than WHFB, well than good. If it is almost comparable to 40k sales, then be worried.

Well it was a golden goose. But instead of leaving it outdoors to roam free and produce large free range golden eggs. They stuck it in a battery cage, force fed it with steroids and yanked out as many eggs as it could produce. Of course now it has been battered so brutally that the eggs it lays are vastly inferior to previous versions, it can hardly stand up on its two poor legs and the owners response is that it obviously needs more steroids and yelling at. Unfortunately this goose will eventually stop laying eggs altogether and then there will be nothing for it but the slaughterhouse...and turned into a greasy chicken kebab

stephan harkon
02-07-2015, 21:17
This again?

Take a look in the rulebook you get with any starter set. See how it talks about point values and agreeing a battle size with your opponent? Take a look at the AoS rules. See how they tell you to take whatever you like? This has never happened before.
I agree with you on this, there is just part of me hoping (praying!) that a 4 page pamphlet can not be the final set of rules & that at some point we will see a version with all the extra bits released.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Shadeseraph
02-07-2015, 21:17
This again?

Take a look in the rulebook you get with any starter set. See how it talks about point values and agreeing a battle size with your opponent? Take a look at the AoS rules. See how they tell you to take whatever you like? This has never happened before.

There is also the point that if there was supposed to be an advanced rulebook planned, the starter set or the WD would be the premier place to advertise it. I mean, it's the natural idea: someone not familiar with the game picks the box for some reason, and inside finds a "starter rule set". One would expect that the starter rule set would have some kind of reference, such as "for more advanced rules, you can find our new and shiny BRB, with advanced scenarios, advanced warscrolls and an actual ruleset".

stephan harkon
02-07-2015, 21:26
But GW being GW means that will never happen unfortunately

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
02-07-2015, 21:33
Points cost per model v1.1

Movement x Wounds x Attacks + (Bravery - 4) + (5 - to-hit roll) + (5 - to-wound roll) + (5 - save)


Maximum number of models per unit v1.1

To-hit x to-wound / wounds
If Move > 6, divide further by 2


Key
Attacks - total, both ranged and melee attacks
To-hit / to-wound - if model has multiple weapons, use best values
Save - use the value 7 for models with no save

I'm completely unsure how you came up with this or whether it has any merit to it whatsoever, but it's mathematical complexity is a thing of beauty, and I therefore place my trust in it completely. :D

Deadhorse
02-07-2015, 21:36
Aelf concept art:

216385

Flipmode
02-07-2015, 21:37
Of course scenarios also limit general pick up and play games. Say Player A has just painted some new models for their Undead army and want them to join their old Tomb Kings army. Player B has just painted up some Sigmarines and wants them to ally with some of his old Bretonnia army. Now it is highly unlikely that there will be a specific scenario for this circumstance. So either Player A/B have to spend however long making a scenario and try to balance it whilst including the units they would like to play with (which realistically is only going to happen if they play the game several times) or rely on one of the players bringing the scenario and that it is balanced. So what do you do if you just pop down to the local club and want a pick up game and that is balanced. It is really difficult to achieve. The make your own scenarios is fine if its a small group of friends. It is a lot more difficult if you have a club and don't want to spend two hours working out what you are going to play. This is where a points system actually helps because there is some baseline you are working to.

Play a small game. See how it goes. Swap sides or try again with more or less depending on the winner. "Man, your new X killed everything... Can we see how you do without it? Next week I'll have finished painting Y and we'll have a bigger game"

Not picking on your post in particular, genuine suggestions.

I'm just a generally optimistic person (who is used to losing at GW games because I play for an experience rather than to fit into a very tight set of terms)

Avian
02-07-2015, 21:50
I'm completely unsure how you came up with this or whether it has any merit to it whatsoever, but it's mathematical complexity is a thing of beauty, and I therefore place my trust in it completely. :D

I sat down with a spreadsheet and used trial and error. It's not really complex.

Possibly the save bit at the end should be multiplied by wounds, though...

Sephillion
02-07-2015, 21:54
This is the sort of thing which produces the massive wave of negativity. If they're going to sort it out why don't they announce it. As it stands the consensus has built to the point where pretty much everyone is decrying AoS as an utter shambles which must put a massive dent in the likely sales. I've not seen anyone planning a purchase of it yet. People want to see the rules picture with the scrolls for existing units.

I have no doubt at this point that more rules will be coming. Whether they fix the issues with the "game" or not is another matter. AoS isn't the best foundation to expand a game. And the negative perception it seems to generally have will not help it become a instant success. The more positive people are generally those who believe Krusty is coming. So any new rule needs to deliver.

Right now, my perception of the game is very much negative, but if GW would communicate adequately and tell me what was coming, I'd have a more neutral, perhaps even positive, outlook instead. Since I like their models in general I'l stick to the news and continue to see how it evolves, but how many will decide "not for me" and go elsewhere?

Ender Shadowkin
02-07-2015, 23:45
Points cost per model v1.1

Movement x Wounds x Attacks + (Bravery - 4) + (5 - to-hit roll) + (5 - to-wound roll) + (5 - save)


Maximum number of models per unit v1.1

To-hit x to-wound / wounds
If Move > 6, divide further by 2



Were you intending to apply both a model cap per scroll and a points per model for building lists?

I've been cooking up a comp system to maybe try out at a small tournament in a couple weeks, and hopefully extrapolated to a big one I usually hold in the fall...I of course need to see what happens with things this saturday, but started alread,y I like your unit cap earlier you mentioened early but and leaning towards the following tweek (this is not assigning points...):

To-hit x to-wound x (save/5) / wounds
and I use the following modifier before I saw yoru v 1.1, lol
If Move > 10 or "fly", divide further by 2

Note sure what to do about shooting though, I think I will have to see how the games go (and whether I will use a no shooting into combat rule)

This system resulted in a unit size of 3 for the flying lawyer dudes. Which seams right. I wasnt gonna use points though...trying to perserve some of what they were trying to do with the original set (giving them a little benefit of the doubt for what they were going for). I was gonna have scroll # limits, mandatory Battalion scrolls, and a model Min and Max. I can PM he follow system (and rule tweeks) so far, if you wanted to take a peek...


Some of you may ask why bother? Well I enjoy the tournament scene, traveling around. I hate what is going on with AoS on first impressions, but I know 8th is not sustainable, nor has any other system shown the potential for mass appeal that warhammer has. Over on Warhammer.org the swedish comp guys are working on homebrew 9th. That sounds cool, but really, are any new player can to join in? Its gonna be a nuche then dying game.

I love the The hobby and tournament scene, and it is about paiting, converting, comraderie, and yes competitive play. I hope that even if the later suffers the overall hobbey scene can survive, with some tweeks, to get to AoS V2 or V3 where the rules have had time to be officially cleaned up.

MusingWarboss
03-07-2015, 00:39
I guess one things for sure with Age of Sigmar, GW has finally confirmed once and for all that they truly are a miniatures company and not a games company and that they really, really don't care about any competitive scene.

Mawduce
03-07-2015, 01:04
I think what people seem to be missing is that this is a starter set and it has been a good few years since we have had points costs included in a starter set as standard.
I am hoping that when we see warscrolls for the other factions these will have points/unit sizes included on them

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Those sets didn't need it because there were larger rule books in place to fall back on. All you need to know was how to move, shoot, melee, use powers and assess damage. If you went larger than that one set, you needed to buy the book. This doesn't have that. There are conflicting reports of a larger book but right now until some big reveal later in the week we only this mess. GW is saying we get nothing more than this, managers are saying GW told them there was going to be something more than this. Which doesn't bode well either way. Either the company is lying to us or its employees. No matter how one slices it, they are lying.

As a 40k player, I was thinking about a fantasy army, now I won't bother. If I do, it will be KoW. They seem stable.

AngryAngel
03-07-2015, 02:42
From the discussion with the gw management yesterday - that is indeed correct. They want to focus on selling models and give the rules away and divorce themselves from rulebooks. (thats allegedly from the new CEO and what he told the staff over the weekend at their meeting)


So, they've finally attained complete useless purity, awe inspiring, truly. If that is their current policy, they've really given it all up. I wonder how long until 40k follows suit. I think it will only be a matter of time if that is coming down from on high.

MusingWarboss
03-07-2015, 02:53
We're basically seeing the point where they actually deny being "Games Workshop" and revert to being "Citadel Miniatures".


From the discussion with the gw management yesterday - that is indeed correct. They want to focus on selling models and give the rules away and divorce themselves from rulebooks. (thats allegedly from the new CEO and what he told the staff over the weekend at their meeting)

If GW now proposes what has been suggested many times over - that people should divorce models from games then perhaps people will now listen to the logic!?! Yes, it's official, you can now use ANY miniatures to play the games!! Even if that means GW didn't make them. :shifty:

Why would they care? The rules are free for use.

taurus-marstein
03-07-2015, 03:25
Simple fix:
Play 2 games. In the first, deploy as normal, no matter how lame it goes. In the second game simply reset up the same models and switch sides.

You can only claim true victory if you win both games.

This way, you basically have to pick a balanced force. Playing a force that you, yourself, can't beat will only result in a draw for both players.

This also leaves you to deploy "bad units" that you can succeed with but your opponent will fail horribly with.

Philhelm
03-07-2015, 03:39
Simple fix:
Play 2 games. In the first, deploy as normal, no matter how lame it goes. In the second game simply reset up the same models and switch sides.

You can only claim true victory if you win both games.

This way, you basically have to pick a balanced force. Playing a force that you, yourself, can't beat will only result in a draw for both players.

This also leaves you to deploy "bad units" that you can succeed with but your opponent will fail horribly with.

That's not a fix.

taurus-marstein
03-07-2015, 04:19
Why not?
AoS is gonna be a short, quick game. I don't seee how this wouldn't fix at least the tournament style part of the game.

ColinT
03-07-2015, 04:49
Why not?
AoS is gonna be a short, quick game. I don't seee how this wouldn't fix at least the tournament style part of the game.

Lol there's more logic in this than anything else I've seen unfortunately. Especially if the wound counting doesnt add up. When we see on saturday that a chaos chosen has 2 wounds and a grot has 1...

taurus-marstein
03-07-2015, 04:53
Yes. A way to instantly gain near-perfect game balance is to simply play two games, one with each side.

This also does not in any way force players to take more models than they own or force them to take less models than they want to. Both are fine. But you just won't do it ONLY to win like a ******

ColinT
03-07-2015, 05:10
Points cost per model v1.1

Movement x Wounds x Attacks + (Bravery - 4) + (5 - to-hit roll) + (5 - to-wound roll) + (5 - save)


Maximum number of models per unit v1.1

To-hit x to-wound / wounds
If Move > 6, divide further by 2


Key
Attacks - total, both ranged and melee attacks
To-hit / to-wound - if model has multiple weapons, use best values
Save - use the value 7 for models with no save

Well looks like a decent start, unfortunately glass cannon wizards with garbage stats but bonkers spells are gonna throw it off

AngryAngel
03-07-2015, 05:47
Yes. A way to instantly gain near-perfect game balance is to simply play two games, one with each side.

This also does not in any way force players to take more models than they own or force them to take less models than they want to. Both are fine. But you just won't do it ONLY to win like a ******

Much like Wargames, the only way to win AoS, is to choose not play.

Philhelm
03-07-2015, 06:22
Why not?
AoS is gonna be a short, quick game. I don't seee how this wouldn't fix at least the tournament style part of the game.

If game balance requires that two battles are played, and that the players switch sides for the second battle, that means that there must be a fundamental flaw in the game to begin with. Hence, it is not a fix. An example of a fix would be assigning a points value to each model or unit.

I understand the logic behind your suggestion for balancing, but it wouldn't work well in actual practice. First, who's to say that players want to play the same battle again? I'd rather just play a new battle with different forces or against another player. Who's to say that there will necessarily be time to play two games, even if the game plays much more quickly? Who's to say that I want someone else manhandling my painted miniatures?

Perhaps it could work for a tournament, strictly for the sake of balance, but I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of strangers handling my expensive miniatures. You'll eventually come across that guy eating pizza and Cheetos who thinks that a greasy napkin is equitable to soap and water. It would also increase the likelihood that you will accidentally break the other player's miniature. That would be an awkward moment.

mattjgilbert
03-07-2015, 06:51
If you win your previous game the rules say you get a bonus, so going into the second game, one player is likely to have a bonus the other player didn't on the first game. So now the second game is not the same as the first. You'd also have to set up on the same sides, choose to deploy the same models the other person did (so ignore the rules saying you only deploy what you want to) and hope the tournament organiser allowed for double the number of games on the day to normal.

I understand the idea, but it falls over on practicalities.

Ayin
03-07-2015, 06:56
I've not seen anyone planning a purchase of it yet. People want to see the rules picture with the scrolls for existing units.

Tons of people will purchase it. The majority reasoning behind this is either "I figure I'll give it a shot, regardless of what we know so far, why not?" or "I like XYZ models, so..." Hilariously, with these two general reasons, we see that GW is, in a way, right in their decisions to withhold information/not do any advertising or communicate with their fanbase as well as make a minimalist rule set and concentrate on selling models more than a solid game.

If people are willing to join the "I figure I'll give it a shot, regardless of what we know so far, why not?" camp on purchases, then GW doesn't need to advertise ahead of time. From their perspective, anyone who dislikes it wouldn't have purchased it anyways, information or not (the 'internet haters'), and those who are loyal to GW as a brand will buy the game regardless, using the same reasoning as any other brand-loyal customer does to make branded purchases. Best case scenario for them being that, eventually the brand-loyal customers purchases eventually lead to play and then expand the community to include those who were initially put off by the product but still wish to play some type of "GW" game.

If people are of the "I like XYZ models, so..." group, that just proves to GW that they are a MODEL company and not a GAME company, and people are willing to buy product as it's own purpose.

dooms33ker
03-07-2015, 07:10
If it hasn't been said enough, and apparently it hasn't, no one has seen any war scrolls or scenarios beyond what has been leaked online. The argument that a Bloodthirster cannot be matched by a goblin hero is certainly valid in all versions of Warhammer as we know it, but Age of Sigmar is not Warhammer as we know it. In the new game a goblin hero could have incredible passive command abilities to match the physical prowess of the 'thirster. Imagine if all goblins within a radius receive a bonus to a stat, or can receive D6 reinforcements per unit at the end of each turn. Suddenly your goblin units exponentially go up in value. This is just one of many possibilities for war scrolls.

Spiney Norman
03-07-2015, 07:15
Yes. A way to instantly gain near-perfect game balance is to simply play two games, one with each side.

This also does not in any way force players to take more models than they own or force them to take less models than they want to. Both are fine. But you just won't do it ONLY to win like a ******

That doesn't give you game balance, it only inflicts the negative experience caused by the inherent imbalance on both players equally.
The only way to be certain of a balanced game is for both players to use identicle forces and that is going to get old quite quickly.

Besides, giving my hand-painted miniatures over to someone else who may be a complete stranger to play with? I don't think so.

Sotek
03-07-2015, 09:36
Solution:

Everyone gets 100 d6 You roll them and 'Fhorrge teh nharriiitiiive' as you add up who has the highest score for 2 hours.

It's more balanced and probably more tactical.

NatBrannigan
03-07-2015, 09:39
It's odd seeing some people on here say "no points? Great, i'm just a casual gamer anyway" and others say "no points? Nooo I'm a competative tournament gamer!"

I, and i'm sure lots of others, fall somewhere in between. The most fun is had by two balanced forces fighting and the outcome being in doubt for much of the game. I don't care who wins but the points system created a balance (most of the time) and that balance meant the game was fun and suspensful. Most of my 8th edition games are close and the odd time one player obliterates another it's usually some hillarious calamity that everyone can laugh about.

This game seems to target the casual gamer, i get that, but am i wrong in thinking that casual gamers want a game between two equal forces? This approach just makes no sence to me, or anyone else I know. At all...

As an aside the constant, unending measuring of AoS is a real pain. My one and only game (proxied Sigmar lizards vs Deamons to copy what come in the box) was just tedious. My Sigmar Lizards were victorius, but I was just glad the game was over.

Lordmonkey
04-07-2015, 13:33
Points cost per model v1.1

Movement x Wounds x Attacks + (Bravery - 4) + (5 - to-hit roll) + (5 - to-wound roll) + (5 - save)


Maximum number of models per unit v1.1

To-hit x to-wound / wounds
If Move > 6, divide further by 2


Key
Attacks - total, both ranged and melee attacks
To-hit / to-wound - if model has multiple weapons, use best values
Save - use the value 7 for models with no save

I just put this up on my local gaming clubs facebook page, see what they think. Looks cool from my pov though! Thanks for your hard work :)

Fen
04-07-2015, 14:44
Isn't that broken for anything that isn't infantry?

I mean,unless i made mistakes somewhere,a Knight of the realm is around 66 points

Lordmonkey
04-07-2015, 16:50
Well yeah, and a Knight Errant is almost exactly the same cost depending on which statline you use. It's a good starting point though.

kikibobo
09-07-2015, 15:30
Points cost per model v1.1

Movement x Wounds x Attacks + (Bravery - 4) + (5 - to-hit roll) + (5 - to-wound roll) + (5 - save)


Maximum number of models per unit v1.1

To-hit x to-wound / wounds
If Move > 6, divide further by 2


Key
Attacks - total, both ranged and melee attacks
To-hit / to-wound - if model has multiple weapons, use best values
Save - use the value 7 for models with no save

I like this calculation for the most part, but here is my interpretation:

((Movement - 5) x Wounds x Attacks) + (Bravery - 4) + (5 - to-hit roll) + (5 - to-wound roll) + (5 - save)

Attacks - d6 or d3 attacks, use the average rounded up
Ranged Attacks - Add em up!
To-hit / to-wound - if model has multiple weapons, use best values
Save - use the value 7 for models with no save

I feel like movement was playing too big of a role in your calculation. While fast moving models definitely have an advantage in this game, all the various ways to press forward seem to likewise bring down its value compared to 8th. Maybe I am wrong. I just dont think a movement 5 is that much better than a movement 6, but the difference becomes significantly greater as you hit monster and hero level warscrolls.

I am also tempted to make a further addition at the end of, "+ (# of casts or unbinds each turn x 5)" or something to that effect

Let me know your thoughts. In the end, for me and my group, this is a temporary thing while we feel out whether we like the warscroll part of this game. If changes/additions to the army comp and core rules arent made, we will probably end up sticking with 8th, house ruling this into our own game, or picking up kings of war 2 when it releases anyways

Edit: On second thought, I think ranged is powerful enough atm that it should be a straight addition to melee attacks as initially used