PDA

View Full Version : One week on, and the limited design space of AoS is starting to show



Avian
10-07-2015, 08:25
So I was looking over the leaked Liberators warscroll which has all the new weapon options. There is the new Grandblade, for example, which is Range 1, hits on 3+, wounds on 4+, has -1 rend and 2 damage. And then there is the Grandhammer, which is Range 1, hits on 4+, wounds on 3+, has -1 rend and 2 damage.
I looked at that for a moment and then said to myself, "Wait, this is the same weapon twice."

Now, in case you aren't familiar with probability, a 3+ roll followed by a 4+ roll is exactly the same as a 4+ roll followed by a 3+ roll.
(Yes, EXACTLY the same.)

It's the same for the little hammer and the little sword. The difference is that hammers are more affected by modifiers to the to-hit roll, while swords are more affected by modifiers to the to-wound roll, and all the modifiers the Sigmarines have affect their to-hit roll. So unless there shows up a decent number of things that affect the to-wound roll, the two weapon types will most of the time be equal, and hammers will never be worse than swords. Players might think to themselves, "Well, one is better at hitting people, while the other is better at wounding, so they are better in slightly different situations", but with the way combat works now, this doesn't matter.

If you actually care about effectiveness, there are two Liberator setups worth considering (out of 12 different combos):
1) Double hammers with as many big hammers as you can
2) Hammer + shield with as many big hammers as you can


That is just one consequence of the limited design space the AoS releases have to work within. For weapons, there are seven variables (attacks, range, to-hit, to-wound, rend, damage and re-rolls), but in practice few of them are used and only within a very limited range. Not to mention that Attacks and Damage do pretty much exactly the same thing. 8th edition had much more variation:


Overkill - This is a big one. Previously, some weapons would be overkill against certain targets - S6 weapons against T3 with little armour, for example. Now this is almost unheard of. Damage 2+ weapons are especially prone to this, as the extra damage is never wasted.
Abilities where one roll affects the next - The biggest example of this from earlier editions is how Strength also modified armour, but Poison and Killing Blow were also fairly common. This would further synergise with re-rolls.
Cost - Previously, you might want to take a cheaper weapon in order to afford more guys. Now you can take whatever you like.
Strike order - With 8th edition casualty removal this mattered less, now it doesn't depend on the model or the weapon
Uses two hands - Previously, two hands wielding weapons prevented you from benefiting from a shield in combat. Here the warscrolls are inconsistent; some prevent you from using three hands' worth of equipment, while others do not. In the Sigmarine warscroll, it gets even worse, as the guys with two-handed weapons will get the shield bonus as long as someone else in the unit has a shield.
First round / charge bonus - The number of units that gain a bonus in the first round of combat, or when charging has gone decidedly down, and is mostly limited to lances. Notably, flails and cavalry spears seem to have lost this.


Perhaps the worst example I've come across are Marauders. They lost the option for great weapons, leaving them with the option for an axe or a flail. Now, previously, the flail would do a lot more damage in the first round of combat, but it prevented you from using a shield, and in later rounds they did the same damage as hand weapons. Thus you wanted flails on a unit that could take out its target in one round, and hand weapons & shields on more defensive blocks. Now, units can use (free) shields just fine with flails, and the hand weapons actually do more damage than flails, including in the first round (because 4+ 4+ is better than 5+ 3+). Thus the unit you build to be more defensive isn't more defensive, and the unit you build to do more damage does less damage. How does that make any sense? And in any case the differences are quite small. I have one defensive unit of Marauders and two built offensively - now one unit is illegal and the defensive block is actually better offensively than the remaining offensive unit.



Summary
Weapons in AoS are more limited in which benefits they have, frequently give the impression of being more varied than they actually are, and frequently the combo you thought do the most damage actually does the least.

SteveW
10-07-2015, 08:30
Yeah, but my men at arms hit on a 2+ now so this game is awesome...lol

Losing Command
10-07-2015, 08:57
Well they could expand it a little further, but 1+ to hit and/or wound is rather pointless. There indeed just isn't a whole lot of room to do fun stuff with stats. Move, wounds and bravery can be toyed with the most, but huge values of those just become silly (not much difference in effect between 120" and 420" movement) and all the other stats have to be on a dice and preferably above 1. And giving things an armoursave that means they can only be hurt by weapons with a high enough rend doesn't sound like a good idea either. I have been thinking of borrowing some bastilidons and slann and go to the local GW store to prove that (cast Mystic Shield twice on a bastilidon with 2 slann and you now have a 1+ model that ignores the Rend value and ignores Mortal Wounds on a 4+) but that would just be too rude :evilgrin:

What is left is giving everything special snowflake rules, but I'm not sure there is a whole lot more you can do that hasn't already been done in the warscrolls. Unless they heavily expand into the silly territory ofcourse (pull left ear for X/Y/Z bonus ... endless options) but not many were a fan of the comedy rules in the first place.

So with there not being a whole lot of creative things they can do with the rules, the only thing that is left is doing creative things with the models. Just as planned ?

Commandojimbob
10-07-2015, 09:05
1 week in , 51 weeks to go before AoS first anniversary..... I would bet that GW will be releasing a lot more than what we have seen alread.... just a hunch :)

Seriously though it is tiresome to read posts about something that we all know will take 3-6 months at least to see where this game is going. Also please stop comparing to 8th, this is not 9th this is a completely different game altogether, its like comparing Chess to Draughts, same board , a load of pieces but completely different .

Harwammer
10-07-2015, 09:11
It's just a rule of warhammer that a marauder can't hold on to a great weapon any longer than an ungor can stay on one base.

Avian
10-07-2015, 09:25
Also please stop comparing to 8th, this is not 9th this is a completely different game altogether, ...
You may want to look up 'completely' in the dictionary.

Regardless, even if this were a completely new game, its design space would still be just as limited. Last week it was, "Just about everyting is either 3+ or 4+", and this week it's, "Have the 3+ and the 4+ trade places".

What will next week bring?

MiyamatoMusashi
10-07-2015, 10:04
To the OP: it didn't really take a week, though, did it? It's just limited, with horribly dissociated rules (your offensive/defensive comparison) and, yes, a shockingly limited design space. You're right, but who's surprised?

To the responder: "play this game, it might be good in six months or so, maybe, if they change it" is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Holier Than Thou
10-07-2015, 10:32
Yeah, but my men at arms hit on a 2+ now so this game is awesome...lol

Haha, so do my zombies. They are now the most skilled hand to hand warriors IN THE WORLD!!!!

heavyheart
10-07-2015, 10:42
If you make it too complicated little Timmy won't remember what number he needs to roll.

Of course little Timmy can't buy the models either and his dad's not paying £30 for five toy soldiers.

This game isn't for anyone it's too simple for veterans and priced wrong for kids.

I remember when £5 got you five monopose marines sure the quality was lacking but it was affordable with pocket money, even at £10 five snap fit sigmarines would of been within reach of little Timmy but at their actual price and given how many you'll need it's just stupid.

duffybear1988
10-07-2015, 10:49
I see plenty of kids playing other games with far more challenging rules than AoS. Frankly I think AoS is an insult to kids. When my 7 year old god son can master the ins and outs of Minecraft in the space of a couple of hours, I really don't think that he would find Fantasy that challenging to grasp in a few years time.

EagleWarrior
10-07-2015, 10:55
Yeah, I'd be very surprised if they didn't start filling in a lot more rules as time going on, and a lot more of the new fluff too. I think what we're seeing now is the minimum that can technically be called a 'game' with more to come later.

That said, I remain extremely sceptical and may just declare that the end times didn't happen and keep playing 8th edition.

heavyheart
10-07-2015, 11:07
Yeah, I'd be very surprised if they didn't start filling in a lot more rules as time going on, and a lot more of the new fluff too. I think what we're seeing now is the minimum that can technically be called a 'game' with more to come later.

That said, I remain extremely sceptical and may just declare that the end times didn't happen and keep playing 8th edition.

But they've already confirmed this is it for rules, I really don't get this belief they'll release more later when they've openly said they won't.

Overtninja
10-07-2015, 11:10
Weapon loadout effectiveness depends on whether there are affects that modify the to-hit and to-wound rolls, respectively. I don't know off the top of my head if there are affects which currently do this - but it's certainly an area where additions could be made, which would make 4+h/3+w better or worse than 3+h/4+w respectively.

Honestly, this game is going to be a lot less about the stats of given weapons and armor, but on what modifies these rolls. 1-6 is not a very big range, so any changes to them are significant, as well, which means any effects that modify to-hit and to-wound will be powerful - we can already see this with the way you can augment saves.

Avian
10-07-2015, 11:17
Well, we shall see. At the moment all the Sigmarine buffs support hammers, which suggests to me that maybe the designers aren't really aware what they are doing.

At the moment, the difference between the two best Liberator loadout is either 3.5+ to hit with a 4+ save (the offensive build), or a 4+ to hit with a 3.5+ save (the defensive build).

EagleWarrior
10-07-2015, 11:25
But they've already confirmed this is it for rules, I really don't get this belief they'll release more later when they've openly said they won't.

It's a fair point, but my guess is that they will change their minds (or never intended to do as they said they would). I don't think the game as is is enough to support a player base and we're clearly going to need a lot more fluff for how the existing races really fit into the new world paradigm. It seems, to my admittedly old school player based perspective, that not releasing more rules will be financially unsustainable.

HereComesTomorrow
10-07-2015, 11:46
1 week in , 51 weeks to go before AoS first anniversary..... I would bet that GW will be releasing a lot more than what we have seen alread.... just a hunch :)

Seriously though it is tiresome to read posts about something that we all know will take 3-6 months at least to see where this game is going. Also please stop comparing to 8th, this is not 9th this is a completely different game altogether, its like comparing Chess to Draughts, same board , a load of pieces but completely different .

I predict in 3-6 months we'll have a unit that hits on 3+ and wounds on a 4+ and another that hits on a 4+ and wounds on a 3+ with rules that gives them modifiers on their hit or wound rolls or gives them rerolls.

We might also get a character that hits AND wounds on a 3+ and gives modifiers for Bravery tests.

Honestly, just look at the core stats for basic troops. Daemonettes, skeletons and clanrats all hit on a 4+/4+. The lack of variety and imagination should have been evident to anyone who properly looked at the Legacy rules.

Kahadras
10-07-2015, 11:46
It's a fair point, but my guess is that they will change their minds (or never intended to do as they said they would).

This is the best hope for AoS. The good thing about online rules is that it's really easy to update them so GW could improve them at any point. Whether they will or not is another matter.

Avian
10-07-2015, 11:49
Well, they are also printing the rules in the books, which makes updating awkward.

EagleWarrior
10-07-2015, 11:53
I read somewhere (although I don't remember where) that they were planning to have the rules be a 'living document' that would be regularly updated as time went on. Yes, this will be a pain for people who want books (most of us) but will make it very easy for them to expand the rules if they wish to.

Kegslayer
10-07-2015, 11:55
Games not even out yet. Who cares. It lacks so and so boo boo. 8th is gone. AoS is here and staying. Get with it or move along

Kahadras
10-07-2015, 11:57
Well, they are also printing the rules in the books, which makes updating awkward.

I honestly don't think that would stop GW. Just paid £45 for the rulebook? 6 months down the line here comes the new one! £45 please.

HereComesTomorrow
10-07-2015, 12:00
Games not even out yet. Who cares. It lacks so and so boo boo. 8th is gone. AoS is here and staying. Get with it or move along

People who invested 20 years into a setting and hobby care. Sorry we can't all just join in the oblivious hugbox and look the other way while faceless corporate entities ruin everything we love.

swordofglass
10-07-2015, 12:08
Games not even out yet. Who cares. It lacks so and so boo boo. 8th is gone. AoS is here and staying. Get with it or move along

ahahahahaha! AoS is not 'staying'. It will shrivel and die in short order.

Commandojimbob
10-07-2015, 12:09
faceless corporate entities ruin everything we love.

I love that - isn't that what they are known for because for me, if its one thing I can rely on, its a faceless corporate entity ruining everything :D

Also, how have they invalidated your 20 year hobby ? All the models are still valid, you can still go and buy new stuff, there is a new game to learn and a whole new load of fluff to explore. All of the black library books of the old world exist and Wiki is still working - plus - you can still play 8th.

I have posted a few comments on AoS and GW needed to do this and whether it succeeds, we cannot tell within the first week. GW are a business at the end of the day and they need to sell products! We can debate the virtues of how they sell and the products they release, sure, but it is what it is now and like in any industry, if you dont like a companies direction move on.

EagleWarrior
10-07-2015, 12:10
8th ed still exists, people can keep playing if they want to and I think a lot of them will.

Wesser
10-07-2015, 12:16
I read somewhere (although I don't remember where) that they were planning to have the rules be a 'living document' that would be regularly updated as time went on. Yes, this will be a pain for people who want books (most of us) but will make it very easy for them to expand the rules if they wish to.

GW have FAQs which are technically living documents. Despite stuff like VC healing, Naestra & Arahan Eagle rules etc. badly needing a FAQ what we had was:

- FAQs getting updated with years in between

- Rarely addressing actual queries

- Be worded so vaguely as to be no help at all

In most cases it was up to players to sort out solutions, which was all well and good (although it regularly meant confusion at different tournaments or pick-up games), but it means I can't trust GW to manage a living document. Their Track-record works against them here

Denny
10-07-2015, 12:31
People who invested 20 years into a setting and hobby care. Sorry we can't all just join in the oblivious hugbox and look the other way while faceless corporate entities ruin everything we love.

Dang right.
I mean sure, we'll look the other way if faceless corporate entities destroy the environment, or engage in dodgy accounting that is partly responsible for global economic collapse, or exploit children in third world countries to make cheaper sneakers*, or produce potentially harmful products aimed at our children, or engage in massive tax fraud, but there's no way we will sit on our hands when they change the rules for playing with toy soldiers. :shifty:

*But what’s the real cost, ‘cause the sneakers don’t seem that much cheaper . . .

The_Real_Chris
10-07-2015, 12:37
Also, how have they invalidated your 20 year hobby ? All the models are still valid, you can still go and buy new stuff, there is a new game to learn and a whole new load of fluff to explore.

Valid, but you can get less and less. Yes I can still play epic, but I can't buy the tau army I want unless I turn to recasters or proxies.

You can buy stuff, but it is a different scale, with a different basing convention.

There is a different game and different fluff. Not an expansion of the old. As soon as you suggest I go to a new game, with new rules, fluff, models, scale and basing conventions, the question becomes why AoS (that means Age of Sail to many historical wargamers...) over other companies offerings.

Turgol
10-07-2015, 12:44
So I was looking over the leaked Liberators warscroll which has all the new weapon options. There is the new Grandblade, for example, which is Range 1, hits on 3+, wounds on 4+, has -1 rend and 2 damage. And then there is the Grandhammer, which is Range 1, hits on 4+, wounds on 3+, has -1 rend and 2 damage.
I looked at that for a moment and then said to myself, "Wait, this is the same weapon twice."

Now, in case you aren't familiar with probability, a 3+ roll followed by a 4+ roll is exactly the same as a 4+ roll followed by a 3+ roll.
(Yes, EXACTLY the same.)

It's the same for the little hammer and the little sword. The difference is that hammers are more affected by modifiers to the to-hit roll, while swords are more affected by modifiers to the to-wound roll, and all the modifiers the Sigmarines have affect their to-hit roll. So unless there shows up a decent number of things that affect the to-wound roll, the two weapon types will most of the time be equal, and hammers will never be worse than swords. Players might think to themselves, "Well, one is better at hitting people, while the other is better at wounding, so they are better in slightly different situations", but with the way combat works now, this doesn't matter.

If you actually care about effectiveness, there are two Liberator setups worth considering (out of 12 different combos):
1) Double hammers with as many big hammers as you can
2) Hammer + shield with as many big hammers as you can


That is just one consequence of the limited design space the AoS releases have to work within. For weapons, there are seven variables (attacks, range, to-hit, to-wound, rend, damage and re-rolls), but in practice few of them are used and only within a very limited range. Not to mention that Attacks and Damage do pretty much exactly the same thing. 8th edition had much more variation:


Overkill - This is a big one. Previously, some weapons would be overkill against certain targets - S6 weapons against T3 with little armour, for example. Now this is almost unheard of. Damage 2+ weapons are especially prone to this, as the extra damage is never wasted.
Abilities where one roll affects the next - The biggest example of this from earlier editions is how Strength also modified armour, but Poison and Killing Blow were also fairly common. This would further synergise with re-rolls.
Cost - Previously, you might want to take a cheaper weapon in order to afford more guys. Now you can take whatever you like.
Strike order - With 8th edition casualty removal this mattered less, now it doesn't depend on the model or the weapon
Uses two hands - Previously, two hands wielding weapons prevented you from benefiting from a shield in combat. Here the warscrolls are inconsistent; some prevent you from using three hands' worth of equipment, while others do not. In the Sigmarine warscroll, it gets even worse, as the guys with two-handed weapons will get the shield bonus as long as someone else in the unit has a shield.
First round / charge bonus - The number of units that gain a bonus in the first round of combat, or when charging has gone decidedly down, and is mostly limited to lances. Notably, flails and cavalry spears seem to have lost this.


Perhaps the worst example I've come across are Marauders. They lost the option for great weapons, leaving them with the option for an axe or a flail. Now, previously, the flail would do a lot more damage in the first round of combat, but it prevented you from using a shield, and in later rounds they did the same damage as hand weapons. Thus you wanted flails on a unit that could take out its target in one round, and hand weapons & shields on more defensive blocks. Now, units can use (free) shields just fine with flails, and the hand weapons actually do more damage than flails, including in the first round (because 4+ 4+ is better than 5+ 3+). Thus the unit you build to be more defensive isn't more defensive, and the unit you build to do more damage does less damage. How does that make any sense? And in any case the differences are quite small. I have one defensive unit of Marauders and two built offensively - now one unit is illegal and the defensive block is actually better offensively than the remaining offensive unit.



Summary
Weapons in AoS are more limited in which benefits they have, frequently give the impression of being more varied than they actually are, and frequently the combo you thought do the most damage actually does the least.

Again with this!
Hammers and swords are 1h or 2h weapons. Not that those were ever differentiated in WHFB. Here, however, they are. Whichever is better depends on bonuses you plan on getting vía formations or heroes.
The fact that a Sigmarine shield works for the rest of the unit is thought out so that you take a combined weapons unit. It does not matter if you take 2h or 2 1h weapons; you always want to have one or two shield guys around. Your oponent might want to take that guy out.

Adapt or live enraged!

Le Monkey Face
10-07-2015, 12:46
In old Warhammer the great weapon was almost always the default choice anyway, if available. Old WFB did not balance weapons well either.

Overtninja
10-07-2015, 12:52
People like to act that because the old WHF rules won't be updated again (not that they really were at any speed in 8th), the game is suddenly unplayable. Honestly, GW has taken nothing from you. The lore didn't move at all in 8th edition outside the end times, the characters therein had stories that existed entirely in their past exploits, and those things frankly haven't gone anywhere. The only place that the narrative could have gone when it moved forward was the way it did - with characters dying or changing and being replaced with new characters. That's how a narrative functions. Eventually your heroes die and new ones show up.

But yeah, there's literally no reason you can't still play 8th. It's still there, the same as it always was. It's disingenuous to act as though you wouldn't be salty about 9th edition - either they move forward after the endtimes with the same world and everyone is dead, or they start a new world and everyone is dead. Or, even worse, they didn't move forward and pulled a retcon like they did before and nothing changes, no characters die, and you continue to have a setting in total stasis with new, variously objectionable rules in place of the old variously objectionable rulesYou'd still complain about the rules regardless of what they were - you'd still complain about the models (80% of the releases would be un-fieldable because of their rules and points costs), you'd still complain about netlisting, you'd still complain about all the stuff that you did in 7th and 8th.

All that money you spent on rulebooks? you can still use them. The game didn't disappear. You can still play Endtimes with your Endtimes armies. You can still play Storm of Magic too. You can go play Mordhiem even! All of these games are still there, and you can still use your models for them. It's absurd to act as though things disappear when they are no longer new or 'current'. GW didn't take these games from you - you stopped playing them for the next new thing.

As for the actual topic of the thread - most of the texture of the game's rules are going to be on the special abilities of each model's warscroll, right? so even if there are a bunch of things with 4+h/4+w weapons, there should be a host of things that increase, reduce or otherwise modify said rolls. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that, if the new models are any indication, there shouldn't be many 'average' troops any more - no more mediocre core you have to take and so forth. You really won't be seeing that moving forward.

Haravikk
10-07-2015, 12:52
I think in the OP's example it's going to come down to whether any units will be protected by to-Wound penalties in future, in place of an improved save (which can be rended away), plus any units that may have to-Hit penalties for attacks directed against them.

Of course the Sigmarine weapon stats have little variety as they stand in isolation, but we don't really have a clear picture of the environment they'll be playing in yet. So really, the question is whether those differences can be exploited, and I think that yes, they can, we just don't know by what yet (or if they will be).


I do agree on the point about shields though; I guess we're going to need some clarification about whether war-scrolls are supposed to let you decide how to build your units, or if they're really just supposed to match units that have been built using included instructions. Basically, if a unit's instructions don't show an option for building them with flails + shields, then you can't have both on a single model. The other question is whether you're supposed to be able to have mixed units or if, again, you're supposed to build them the same, and the war-scroll will just match the finished unit. This is how I suspect things are meant to be, just as war-scrolls for older units aren't intended to match units that have every possible option (since those we're legal before).

Of course, the starter kit can only be built one way without customisation, so really we need to see what new standalone kits look like before we'll have a clear answer to some of these questions (or if they'll remain).

heavyheart
10-07-2015, 12:56
I love that - isn't that what they are known for because for me, if its one thing I can rely on, its a faceless corporate entity ruining everything :D

Also, how have they invalidated your 20 year hobby ? All the models are still valid, you can still go and buy new stuff, there is a new game to learn and a whole new load of fluff to explore. All of the black library books of the old world exist and Wiki is still working - plus - you can still play 8th.

I have posted a few comments on AoS and GW needed to do this and whether it succeeds, we cannot tell within the first week. GW are a business at the end of the day and they need to sell products! We can debate the virtues of how they sell and the products they release, sure, but it is what it is now and like in any industry, if you dont like a companies direction move on.

Old models are valid now but once new armies you'll be told not to use them anymore the same way people have been told no 8th edition games after the 11th.

GW don't benefit from you using old models because then your not buying and that makes you worthless in their eyes.

Overtninja
10-07-2015, 13:04
Where did they say you won't be able to use any old models for AoS? Also, if it appleis only to GW's own stores, it's kind of a moot point. :S

heavyheart
10-07-2015, 13:17
Where did they say you won't be able to use any old models for AoS? Also, if it appleis only to GW's own stores, it's kind of a moot point. :S

It's not mute because not everyone has space to play at home and for those people it's GW store or nothing houses in England are smaller than in America on average.

And they haven't said it yet but they will mark my words, once new elf and dwarf armies arrive they'll want those on display not your old stuff they no longer make.

Avian
10-07-2015, 13:22
The fact that a Sigmarine shield works for the rest of the unit is thought out so that you take a combined weapons unit. It does not matter if you take 2h or 2 1h weapons; you always want to have one or two shield guys around. Your oponent might want to take that guy out.
Eh? Guys with shields die when their owner wants them to die. The attacker can't decide whom to attack.

Also:
- Flails that do less damage than hand weapons.
- Guys with two-handed weapons being able to use shields just fine.

HelloKitty
10-07-2015, 13:26
It's not mute because not everyone has space to play at home and for those people it's GW store or nothing houses in England are smaller than in America on average.

And they haven't said it yet but they will mark my words, once new elf and dwarf armies arrive they'll want those on display not your old stuff they no longer make.

I play at a GW store. We are allowed to play 8th still. In fact we have a campaign running right now where we are playing 8th in the store. This is true of all the stores in my immediate area.

I'm not really sure where this "you can't play 8th in GW stores" fallacy came from but its not true, at least its not true of every GW store. If there are a few managers saying this, then I suppose thats on them but its not a GW policy company-wide.

-DE-
10-07-2015, 13:26
OP: You already know it, but a limited system such as AoS (or WFB) simply breaks down without points to limit the various gear options. However you tweak the hit-damage-rend-attacks ratio, it's dead easy to math it out and determine which weapon has the highest DPS, and never take anything else. Make a weapon with higher Hit and Wound against another with an extra Attack - one is bound to be better. Make a weapon with high Rend and another with an extra shooting attack - one is bound to be better (guess which).

With a points system in place, the weaker weapon will invariably be cheaper and the better, more expensive. But in AoS, once you run the math, the choice vanishes. There is never any reason, other than aesthetics, to choose the lesser weapon. Even if you prefer the look of the weaker one, simply inform your opponent beforehand that all swords in your army count as hammers. Unless he's a ******, he'll have nothing against it (that's how AoS works, right?).

Having multiple weapon options in AoS is basically pointless. Even the difference between high-rend and low-rend but better hit/wound weapons is negligible. The only reason why GW does it is because they have a lot, and I mean a lot of empty space on the sprues to fill up, and what better way than to increase the number of (illusory in game terms) weapon options.

ScruffMan
10-07-2015, 13:26
Dang right.
I mean sure, we'll look the other way if faceless corporate entities destroy the environment, or engage in dodgy accounting that is partly responsible for global economic collapse, or exploit children in third world countries to make cheaper sneakers*, or produce potentially harmful products aimed at our children, or engage in massive tax fraud, but there's no way we will sit on our hands when they change the rules for playing with toy soldiers. :shifty:

*But what’s the real cost, ‘cause the sneakers don’t seem that much cheaper . . .


Best post I have read on here in months!

Sephillion
10-07-2015, 13:30
This game isn't for anyone it's too simple for veterans and priced wrong for kids.


I guess their target customers are kids who have very rich and unregarding parents. That also happen to be interested in fantasy, wargames and hobbying.

That and their very dedicated, loyal customers who will buy anything, even the dice cup...

Sephillion
10-07-2015, 13:33
Dang right.
I mean sure, we'll look the other way if faceless corporate entities destroy the environment, or engage in dodgy accounting that is partly responsible for global economic collapse, or exploit children in third world countries to make cheaper sneakers*, or produce potentially harmful products aimed at our children, or engage in massive tax fraud, but there's no way we will sit on our hands when they change the rules for playing with toy soldiers. :shifty:

*But what’s the real cost, ‘cause the sneakers don’t seem that much cheaper . . .

Can someone tell me what's the name of this logical fallacy again?

Avian
10-07-2015, 13:39
Can someone tell me what's the name of this logical fallacy again?

It's a logical disconnect.

Denny
10-07-2015, 13:45
It's a logical disconnect.

Do you mean Non Sequitur? :angel:

Harwammer
10-07-2015, 15:06
Well, we shall see. At the moment all the Sigmarine buffs support hammers, which suggests to me that maybe the designers aren't really aware what they are doing.It's surely a thematic choice? Hammers are the holiest weapon.

Turgol
10-07-2015, 15:09
Eh? Guys with shields die when their owner wants them to die. The attacker can't decide whom to attack.

Also:
- Flails that do less damage than hand weapons.
- Guys with two-handed weapons being able to use shields just fine.

Yeah, I know, normal wounds allocation will not work to take him out. Not sure if Warscrolls special rules have snipers or something like that. Assassins and other kind of special models might also make sense precisely to take out specialist models in a unit.

ScruffMan
10-07-2015, 15:16
It's a logical disconnect.

Come off it, it was pure mockery rather than any sort of real argument. And mockery is exactly what many of the responses of late have deserved. We're on warseer here not the debate team, of course if it was a real debate 99% of the posts on here would be chucked out for emotional nonsense.

Sir_Turalyon
10-07-2015, 15:17
Well spotted Avian, it should have been obvious from the start... without things like enemy WS/Toughness to check them, the to hit/to wound pair is almost a single statistic. Almost, because modifiers / re-rolls to one of them sometimes makes them independent.

But without re-rolls, you can replace them neatly with one statistic, and roll a 36-sided die for it :) :



X
1
2
3
4
5
6


1
1+
7+
13+
19+
25+
31+


2
7+
12+
17+
22+
27+
32+


3
13+
17+
21+
25+
29+
33+


4
19+
22+
25+
28+
31+
34+


5
25+
27+
29+
31+
33+
35+


6
31+
32+
33+
34+
35+
36+

HereComesTomorrow
10-07-2015, 15:28
I love that - isn't that what they are known for because for me, if its one thing I can rely on, its a faceless corporate entity ruining everything :D

Also, how have they invalidated your 20 year hobby ? All the models are still valid, you can still go and buy new stuff, there is a new game to learn and a whole new load of fluff to explore. All of the black library books of the old world exist and Wiki is still working - plus - you can still play 8th.

I have posted a few comments on AoS and GW needed to do this and whether it succeeds, we cannot tell within the first week. GW are a business at the end of the day and they need to sell products! We can debate the virtues of how they sell and the products they release, sure, but it is what it is now and like in any industry, if you dont like a companies direction move on.

Oh, its still there?
So when am I getting my 8th Ed Skaven update then, after Bretonnia I assume? I'm also excited for the next Gotrek And Felix novel.

HelloKitty
10-07-2015, 15:34
A product not getting updated does not mean you can no longer use that product. I've been playing AD&D for years and it was discontinued in 2000.

Cutter
10-07-2015, 15:39
A product not getting updated does not mean you can no longer use that product. I've been playing AD&D for years and it was discontinued in 2000.

There's no school like the old school :D

russellmoo
10-07-2015, 15:41
Oh, its still there?
So when am I getting my 8th Ed Skaven update then, after Bretonnia I assume? I'm also excited for the next Gotrek And Felix novel.

You are exactly right. What is most frustrating about the release of Age of Sigmar is that they were 3 armybooks away from having a full and comprehensive rules set, and really with the end times changes to chaos we actually only needed 2 8th ed army books and there would have been a complete system in place and those of us that have yet to find enjoyment in AoS could be perfectly content with an older edition where all of the armies had rules written for that editions core rule set.

Tzar Boris
10-07-2015, 15:59
Funniest oversight I saw was Karl Franz. One entry for Karl Franz, riding a Griffon.

Now as I'm sure everyone knows, there's been a few Karl Franz minis, and it DOES give you the substitute for those in the list at the end.

Substituting the various versions for "Empire General" or "Empire General on Warhorse", or "Empire General on Warhouse (that can fly)".

The Warscroll for Karl Franz on Deathclaw only takes up two thirds of the page and they did give you mount options for Valten. So why not just list the different mounts? Why not list monstrous mounts/warhorses on their own Warscroll and just refer each character who can ride those options?

You've went to the effort of making rules for Karl Franz, and went to the bother of mentioning "yes, we know there's other models what we made" - so y'know, add those two things together. Not rocket science. Or maybe it's Deathclaw that is the Leader of Men. Damn snooty troops won't bother fighting hard for a guy who only thinks to bring a stupid horse.

Shandor
10-07-2015, 16:05
Funniest oversight I saw was Karl Franz. One entry for Karl Franz, riding a Griffon.

Now as I'm sure everyone knows, there's been a few Karl Franz minis, and it DOES give you the substitute for those in the list at the end.

Substituting the various versions for "Empire General" or "Empire General on Warhorse", or "Empire General on Warhouse (that can fly)".

The Warscroll for Karl Franz on Deathclaw only takes up two thirds of the page and they did give you mount options for Valten. So why not just list the different mounts? Why not list monstrous mounts/warhorses on their own Warscroll and just refer each character who can ride those options?

You've went to the effort of making rules for Karl Franz, and went to the bother of mentioning "yes, we know there's other models what we made" - so y'know, add those two things together. Not rocket science. Or maybe it's Deathclaw that is the Leader of Men. Damn snooty troops won't bother fighting hard for a guy who only thinks to bring a stupid horse.

Well all my Darkelves on Pegasi are all Morathis now.. since she is the only one can have one.. :(

And my 10 Heroes/kommandants on Horses need to pretend they riding Cold ones..

Tzar Boris
10-07-2015, 16:15
Well all my Darkelves on Pegasi are all Morathis now.. since she is the only one can have one.. :(

And my 10 Heroes/kommandants on Horses need to pretend they riding Cold ones..

People wondering why there's no competitive game here. If a single list was read, let alone playtested before launch I'd be surprised.

Whirlwind
10-07-2015, 18:14
Also:
- Flails that do less damage than hand weapons.
- Guys with two-handed weapons being able to use shields just fine.

Unfortunately it shows a complete lack of understanding of statistics which personally I think should be essential for designing a wargame (as after all this is what a lot of dice rolling is).

bound for glory
10-07-2015, 18:28
I honestly don't think that would stop GW. Just paid £45 for the rulebook? 6 months down the line here comes the new one! £45 please.

you mean "50 please."

silveralen
10-07-2015, 18:52
I predict in 3-6 months we'll have a unit that hits on 3+ and wounds on a 4+ and another that hits on a 4+ and wounds on a 3+ with rules that gives them modifiers on their hit or wound rolls or gives them rerolls.

We might also get a character that hits AND wounds on a 3+ and gives modifiers for Bravery tests.

Honestly, just look at the core stats for basic troops. Daemonettes, skeletons and clanrats all hit on a 4+/4+. The lack of variety and imagination should have been evident to anyone who properly looked at the Legacy rules.

I have a slight question here: how does this differ from having a lot of 3 WS 3 S, with the majority of units falling in a 1-5 range for both stats?

I understand certain things are lost, like instant kills or str modifying armor, but having varied damage and rend seems cover a similar design space and actually allow for further distinction without modifying the old stats. On the other hand, now models need special rules to make them harder to hit or wound (as opposed to a high ws and T). That doesn't seem difficult to do. It is something they've not done heavily yet but again... we've barely seen the new rules.

Pushing away from stats that effect 3-4 different things in a variety of ways to simple one meaning stats with explicit rules to modify them opens things up to people who may not have the various charts memorized, but can understand they hit on a 3+ and the enemy unit decreases that chance by one, to a 4+.

The design space is the about the same it seems, what changed was the formatting and the fact they've yet to actually exploit some of it.

Avian
10-07-2015, 19:13
You could eliminate the tables without having hitting and wounding on set numbers. Warmachine and Hordes does this, where your dice roll adds to your stat value, and you try to beat the enemy's defensive stat.

As to how it's different, I can illustrate with my Maruader units (built in 7th edition): One unit of 25 with hand weapon, shield, light armour, and full command. This was a semi-resilient block, geared to be defensive. Then I had two units of 10, one with flails and one with great weapons. Both had musicians. These were my 'detachments' - they had a variety of support tasks, could provide a number of S5 attack if needed and due to their low cost their were eminently expendable (a good thing, because they'd fold like wet paper in a protracted combat).

Now, because choices are all more similar, a lot of the tactical considerations go out the window. A lot of the things you previously had to think about simply do not matter any longer, and I think that's a shame.

Asensur
10-07-2015, 19:18
Being positive about this, magic the gathering creatures only have 2 stats (apart from the special rules).

On all these years they continue to implement new strategies and gives twists to other ones, and they only included 1 new type of card since the beginning of the game.

Whirlwind
10-07-2015, 19:21
I have a slight question here: how does this differ from having a lot of 3 WS 3 S, with the majority of units falling in a 1-5 range for both stats?

I understand certain things are lost, like instant kills or str modifying armor, but having varied damage and rend seems cover a similar design space and actually allow for further distinction without modifying the old stats. On the other hand, now models need special rules to make them harder to hit or wound (as opposed to a high ws and T). That doesn't seem difficult to do. It is something they've not done heavily yet but again... we've barely seen the new rules.

Pushing away from stats that effect 3-4 different things in a variety of ways to simple one meaning stats with explicit rules to modify them opens things up to people who may not have the various charts memorized, but can understand they hit on a 3+ and the enemy unit decreases that chance by one, to a 4+.

The design space is the about the same it seems, what changed was the formatting and the fact they've yet to actually exploit some of it.

The difference is the strategic side of it in WFB. Yes there are a lot of similar roles, but you/your opponent try an choose which battle is most favourable to you. If you have a WS6 vs WS3 then obviously one side has more of an advantage (but the other side might have S5 vs T3) etc. You are trying to get the best match up you can or hold up a unit that you don't want to fight with another. In AoS this makes no difference you will always hit and wound the same so it doesn't actually matter which units you put which units into for the most part (and rending and AS are fairly similar across all armies). Hence it's just a numbers game. A unit of 20 dwarfs will cause as much damage to ogres as they will Chaos Warriors (assuming same AS). The only small amount of strategy is with relation to who hits first - but that is simply who will deal out the most damage first - again just a numbers game. Although it's fast paced it's quite shallow...

Col. Tartleton
10-07-2015, 19:26
Being positive about this, magic the gathering creatures only have 2 stats (apart from the special rules).

On all these years they continue to implement new strategies and gives twists to other ones, and they only included 1 new type of card since the beginning of the game.

Magic the gathering is more complicated than turn one "I attack with all my cards. Do you block anything or are you dead?" "Good game."

It's about resource management not fighting. It's a strategy game, not a war game.

silveralen
10-07-2015, 20:45
The difference is the strategic side of it in WFB. Yes there are a lot of similar roles, but you/your opponent try an choose which battle is most favourable to you. If you have a WS6 vs WS3 then obviously one side has more of an advantage (but the other side might have S5 vs T3) etc. You are trying to get the best match up you can or hold up a unit that you don't want to fight with another. In AoS this makes no difference you will always hit and wound the same so it doesn't actually matter which units you put which units into for the most part (and rending and AS are fairly similar across all armies). Hence it's just a numbers game. A unit of 20 dwarfs will cause as much damage to ogres as they will Chaos Warriors (assuming same AS). The only small amount of strategy is with relation to who hits first - but that is simply who will deal out the most damage first - again just a numbers game. Although it's fast paced it's quite shallow...

I'm confused again. The sort of thing you described still exist.

I'll use the the army I'm most familiar with in the new edition, skaven. Storm vermin have clanshields increase your AS but only against damage 1 attacks. So they'd be much better of against your 20 dwarf unit than going near a dwarf hero, and warmachines pose a bigger threat than say archers. They also do well against enemies they outnumber, getting a bonus to hit, so if I have 30 stormvermin, sending them against 20 dwarf warriors vs is a good idea, all my bonuses are coming into play. Your dwarf warriors might inflict more relative damage to my rat ogres or plague monks, while taking less in return. Similarly, warpfire throwers work great against units with high saves or other defensive abilities that mortal wounds bypass, such as a group of dwarf warriors who formed a shield wall. If those dwarf warriors also have a runic icon, my spellcasters should be targeting other units etc.

It is more about special rules than statlines for these sort of matchups now, but they do exist. Not to the same degree as they once did currently, but again we've yet to see many units designed for this edition.

mhsellwood
10-07-2015, 22:08
I'm confused again. The sort of thing you described still exist.

I'll use the the army I'm most familiar with in the new edition, skaven. Storm vermin have clanshields increase your AS but only against damage 1 attacks. So they'd be much better of against your 20 dwarf unit than going near a dwarf hero, and warmachines pose a bigger threat than say archers. They also do well against enemies they outnumber, getting a bonus to hit, so if I have 30 stormvermin, sending them against 20 dwarf warriors vs is a good idea, all my bonuses are coming into play. Your dwarf warriors might inflict more relative damage to my rat ogres or plague monks, while taking less in return. Similarly, warpfire throwers work great against units with high saves or other defensive abilities that mortal wounds bypass, such as a group of dwarf warriors who formed a shield wall. If those dwarf warriors also have a runic icon, my spellcasters should be targeting other units etc.

It is more about special rules than statlines for these sort of matchups now, but they do exist. Not to the same degree as they once did currently, but again we've yet to see many units designed for this edition.

Precisely right. The real difference therefore between the two is actually how you maneuver on a turn by turn basis, knowing the full range of what your models can do what your opponents models can do, making sure you have your models in the right place to provide buffs or debuffs etc. There are tactics they are just different from 8th and earlier.

To the OP. So much certainty. So many weaknesses in your argument.

Re. hammers vs swords. In isolation yes the hammers are better or no worse, and the lord celestant due for preorder tomorrow provides more benefit to hammers than swords. But we know there is at least one more character due for release. You know that this does not provide any bonuses to the wound roll thus more bonus to the sword models? Have you actually looked at all the other models rules? Because if your opponent debuffs your roll to hit then the sword is a better option. So, if you have nothing but hammers, then dryads plaguebearers dark elf sorceress's etc all become really good options. So the hammer will not inevitably be better as you posit.

Re. number of variables. All are used and all are used across the full range - there is plenty of 1" ranges, 2" ranges and even 3" ranges (which actually represent the additional ranks rules very elegantly), To hit varies between 2+ and 6+ as does to wound, and on a D6 that is pretty much it. Attacks vary between 1 and 12, and as you know allows for more subtle variation between unit stats. Rend varies between 0 and -3 which given the nature of the save is about right. Damage and attacks are mathematically the same but in a practical sense there is a difference between the more regular damage output of high attacks versus the spikes of high damage, both from how the game plays (Having high attacks is likely to lead to more regular battleshock tests, high damage less tests but more severe) and also how the unit feels - high attacks will feel attritional, high damage devastating. Very weak argument as there is a decent amount of variation.

Your specific points.

Overkill. Agreed, but as you are no doubt aware in 8th edition strength was king, due to how it interacted with armour saves so there was almost never a reason to not get as high a strength as you could - reference the giant blade wielding elves, great weapon infantry, dominance of monstrous models pumping out str 5 attacks.
There are plenty of abilities that key off previous rolls and synnergise with re-rolls. Reference the Grave Guard and the double damage on rolls of 6 to wound, or executioners doing mortal wounds on a to wound roll of 6. So, plenty of examples where this still holds true.
Cost. True. But if all choices for a model are roughly as valid, why should you pay more for one than the other? And cost is far from a perfect tool (Marauders in 8th edition with the 7th edition book - slightly more than 5 points a model for a frenzied ws 4 str 5 model versus 4 points for a ws 4 str 3 model? Yeah points are a perfect way to make different choices valid)
Strike order. As you observe in a functional sense irrelevant in 8th edition. Your damage dealing or damage resistance was basically untied to your initiative.
Uses two hands. With legacy rules yes there are some weirdnesses, but maybe just use common sense and what you have modelled? Otherwise assume that the unit is always equipped with the best combo and go from there
Charge bonus. Utter rubbish. All fast cavalry have lost their spear bonus, but on the other hand they can now shoot before charging which is a net gain. So, all heavy cavalry now have lance bonuses. All proper chariots have a charge bonus (often inflicting mortal wounds on units they end up near, or getting extra attacks etc). Giant eagles gain a charge bonus. Steam Tanks get a charge bonus. Absent light cavalry who have gained the shoot then charge ability, what units previously had charge bonuses and now do not?


The marauders I will give you. Interesting though that you picked up on them and ignored the Chaos Warriors directly above who illustrate the difference between different weapon options really well. Warriors can take hand weapons and chaos runeshield, two hand weapons, a great weapon, or a halberd and a chaos runeshield. All of these different options perform differently, are better in different situations, and have quite different tactical uses and ideal targets. Why ignore this example of a well done set of options that are all equally valid and interesting?

Conclusion

Predetermined views on, and declaration as to long term lack of interest in a game system that has yet to receive its first actual release is premature and quite strange. Finally if a game is reliant on math hammer rather than actual game play to be interesting, I foresee no future for that chess game

Misfratz
10-07-2015, 22:23
This reminds me of the abolition of movement values from 40k in the 2nd to 3rd edition transition. Ostensibly this was done to make the game simpler, but for reasons of game variety the game designers still wanted to be able to make different units move at different speeds, and so we end up with a whole series of special rules to add in variable rates of movement which is more complicated than simply having a movement statistic.

It looks like this is what they have done with Warhammer, except more so. Much more so. It's boring, lazy and fiddlesome.

Recently I've mostly been playing boardgames. There is a lot of interesting thinking about what makes an engaging and fair game that is reflected in a variety of interesting boardgames these days. It's tragic to see GW fall so far short. They could do so much better.

Whirlwind
10-07-2015, 22:29
I'm confused again. The sort of thing you described still exist.

I'll use the the army I'm most familiar with in the new edition, skaven. Storm vermin have clanshields increase your AS but only against damage 1 attacks. So they'd be much better of against your 20 dwarf unit than going near a dwarf hero, and warmachines pose a bigger threat than say archers. They also do well against enemies they outnumber, getting a bonus to hit, so if I have 30 stormvermin, sending them against 20 dwarf warriors vs is a good idea, all my bonuses are coming into play. Your dwarf warriors might inflict more relative damage to my rat ogres or plague monks, while taking less in return. Similarly, warpfire throwers work great against units with high saves or other defensive abilities that mortal wounds bypass, such as a group of dwarf warriors who formed a shield wall. If those dwarf warriors also have a runic icon, my spellcasters should be targeting other units etc.

It is more about special rules than statlines for these sort of matchups now, but they do exist. Not to the same degree as they once did currently, but again we've yet to see many units designed for this edition.

Yes and the clanrats will have the same rule and same damage output against all units that cause 1 damage. It doesn't matter whether are fighting goblins, Dwarf Warriors, skinks, Bleakswords etc. Hence there is little strategy in the choice of units you attack. You can attack each of these units with impunity and know that your average damage output will be about the same. The only thing that does affect your damage output is the save. Put it this way; if you have a better understanding of statistics you will win this game each and everytime (assuming the same army composition on both sides). Once you get the upper hand in one part of the board there is little going back; these units will then quickly barrel through the unlucky unit and then into the next nearest combat swinging it in your favour again which then barrel role into the next etc. One unlucky dice roll can basically win you the game from turn one (assuming balanced armies). Although WFB also played on statistics it wasn't so easy to untangle and good manoeuvring or blocking up the elite unit could affect the game but never generally to point where it was a one click win. The best way you can see this is play several games with exactly the same army composition and see how a few roles basically swings the game one way or the other.

InstantKarma
10-07-2015, 22:53
Dang right.
I mean sure, we'll look the other way if faceless corporate entities destroy the environment, or engage in dodgy accounting that is partly responsible for global economic collapse, or exploit children in third world countries to make cheaper sneakers*, or produce potentially harmful products aimed at our children, or engage in massive tax fraud, but there's no way we will sit on our hands when they change the rules for playing with toy soldiers. :shifty:

*But what’s the real cost, ‘cause the sneakers don’t seem that much cheaper . . .

True story.

Avian
10-07-2015, 22:59
Because if your opponent debuffs your roll to hit then the sword is a better option. So, if you have nothing but hammers, then dryads plaguebearers dark elf sorceress's etc all become really good options.
No, they become marginally better options. It's not as if only hammers get a penalty to hit, but it would affect them slightly more. And quite frankly, in-faction buffs will be far more common than out-faction debuffs. That's just the way it is.



Re. number of variables. All are used and all are used across the full range
Yes, but the variation is very low. And they're not even used consistently, leading to 21 types of shields, for example. Things are not different enough to make an appreciable difference, but different enough that a new player is going to have trouble remembering the difference between the halberds carried by Unit X and Unit Y.


Cost. True. But if all choices for a model are roughly as valid, why should you pay more for one than the other?
That's backwards. When choices DON'T cost the same, you can MAKE the weapons different. Because everything seemingly needs to be roughly as valid, everything gets more samey.


And cost is far from a perfect tool (Marauders in 8th edition with the 7th edition book - slightly more than 5 points a model for a frenzied ws 4 str 5 model versus 4 points for a ws 4 str 3 model? Yeah points are a perfect way to make different choices valid)
That is not a problem with using points to indicate usefulness, that is a problem with incompetent game designers. The correct approach would have been to hire better ones, instead of giving up entirely.


Charge bonus. Utter rubbish. All fast cavalry have lost their spear bonus, but on the other hand they can now shoot before charging which is a net gain.
That would only make sense if all fast cavalry actually had ranged weapons.


Absent light cavalry who have gained the shoot then charge ability, what units previously had charge bonuses and now do not?
Boar Boyz. Anyone with a flail.


Why ignore this example of a well done set of options that are all equally valid and interesting?
Oh, things are messed up with that unit as well. Halberds, for example, are now worse at doing damage than hand weapons are (hand weapons doing more damage than other weapons is a recurring feature in this game). Shields do nothing unless it's a mortal wound. Neither of those make any sense.

roperpg
10-07-2015, 23:13
Hence there is little strategy in the choice of units you attack.
Is there a big boss near that Goblin unit? Has a shaman cast Sneaky Stabbin' on them? How many Gobbo's in the unit? Have they got bows? If you decide to attack first with your clanrats, is your chieftain going to survive the attentions of those wolf riders? If you don't, will enough clanrats survive to make any difference?

The clanrat's damage output *may* be virtually identical across a range of enemies, but whether they actually get to do it isn't so simple.

Stonelands
10-07-2015, 23:17
Can someone tell me what's the name of this logical fallacy again?

Fallacy of relative deprivation?

Though I'm not saying the post was altogether bad by any means...

Mr_Foulscumm
11-07-2015, 00:16
My biggest complaint about these rules, if I was to say anything, is the lack of interactions between units. Sure they have a bunch of stats for each unit, but these are not dependent on what they are facing. Goblins hurting Dragons as easily as a they do Gnoblar. This limits unit differentiation quite a lot.

I'm also a bit confused about certain weapon load outs. As an example, Goblins can be armed with a Slasha and a Jabbin' Spear. The spear is just plain better... so what is the intensive to use the Slasha?

I have a really hard time seeing how this game will hold up as a long running game when making differences between options out-right invalidate the other options available.

roperpg
11-07-2015, 00:20
As an example, Goblins can be armed with a Slasha and a Jabbin' Spear. The spear is just plain better... so what is the intensive to use the Slasha?
Gobbo's get Spear and shield, or slasha and bow - they aren't armed with both.
If they were, then they'd get to use both simultaneously.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Malagor
11-07-2015, 00:21
My biggest complaint about these rules, if I was to say anything, is the lack of interactions between units. Sure they have a bunch of stats for each unit, but these are not dependent on what they are facing. Goblins hurting Dragons as easily as a they do Gnoblar. This limits unit differentiation quite a lot.

I'm also a bit confused about certain weapon load outs. As an example, Goblins can be armed with a Slasha and a Jabbin' Spear. The spear is just plain better... so what is the intensive to use the Slasha?

I have a really hard time seeing how this game will hold up as a long running game when making differences between options out-right invalidate the other options available.
Well that's the problem with not having a points-system, what's the point of picking the lesser option when you can just pick the "better" option ?
In other games where there is no points system they tend to use pre-made scenarios where they armies are already chosen or the umpire simply states that he must have that option.
Here there is no reason other then to simply be nice.

Mr_Foulscumm
11-07-2015, 00:55
Gobbo's get Spear and shield, or slasha and bow - they aren't armed with both.
If they were, then they'd get to use both simultaneously.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

You're right, missed that in the unit description. My bad. :)

silveralen
11-07-2015, 02:06
Yes and the clanrats will have the same rule and same damage output against all units that cause 1 damage. It doesn't matter whether are fighting goblins, Dwarf Warriors, skinks, Bleakswords etc. Hence there is little strategy in the choice of units you attack. You can attack each of these units with impunity and know that your average damage output will be about the same. The only thing that does affect your damage output is the save. Put it this way; if you have a better understanding of statistics you will win this game each and everytime (assuming the same army composition on both sides). Once you get the upper hand in one part of the board there is little going back; these units will then quickly barrel through the unlucky unit and then into the next nearest combat swinging it in your favour again which then barrel role into the next etc. One unlucky dice roll can basically win you the game from turn one (assuming balanced armies). Although WFB also played on statistics it wasn't so easy to untangle and good manoeuvring or blocking up the elite unit could affect the game but never generally to point where it was a one click win. The best way you can see this is play several games with exactly the same army composition and see how a few roles basically swings the game one way or the other.

Yes, if he managed to get a major advantage like that, you probably need to as well. Did you get your slayers stuck into rat ogres, or one wound clan rats? Did you soften the stormvermin with some cannon fire? Did you form a shield wall?

This goes doubly for units nearby. You need to do something so that a unit is in good position to meet them when they do break through.

If you flat out can't, yeah you are in a bit of trouble, but, realistically, you should be. That's the exact sort of situation that should influence the game.

NagashLover
11-07-2015, 03:45
Many of Mantics games use fixed rolls that use special/snowflake rules to adjust the difficulty of rolls. One of the many reasons I found KoW extremely bland (along with the fluff and simplicity for the sake of children...sound familiar?). I know some who find it "engaging" but honestly the same criticism can be leveled at KoW though...the models are cheaper (yet still most are terrible sadly).

I remember MK1 as a terribly unbalanced game that had wonky mechanics that worked but was still taking its baby steps. It took time for Warmahordes to hit what it has become today (and it still has its own issues).

Point being, the knee jerk reaction and prejudice of calling a product out this early is utterly ignorant and irrational. It's akin to calling video game "x" terrible because of a botched release or a novel/show terrible because the first 3 episodes were "trash". Same about devices from phones to cars.

I have plenty of years invested in Fantasy (over 20). I'll still be playing different versions of oldhammer, like I did before EndTimes and other systems. At this time I have no plans on getting into Age of Sigmar, but I'll still watch it to see how it actually plays. After they stop pandering to the old WFB vets by releasing what are obviously last goodbyes with silly rules for armies that will fade out, once they start showing us what a normal release will look like and most importantly how/if they do end up taking advantage of the living document concept.

Maybe they can pull me into this game, maybe not (right now it's a "not")...it's astounding that people with the gift of human understanding and rationality would jump so quick into a judgment call while completely ignoring the fact that a product at launch can end up being a different beast a year later.

itcamefromthedeep
11-07-2015, 03:48
Well, they are also printing the rules in the books, which makes updating awkward.If they printed a new rulebook 2 weeks after I bought the first one, it wouldn't be the worst thing they've burned me on.

I'm a proud owner of a Valedor supplement.

---

Why are we talking about one configuration of a mini being better than another? By what measure, and does the game care about that measure?

Should I care about value per Wound, or value per Warscroll or value per unit? It all assumes that at some point the game will have a comp system based on one of those things.

---

Yes, design space is limited by way of having less granularity in attack resolution. Not quite as limited as X-wing (where attack values range from 2-4 with a handful of outliers and defensive values almost all sit in the 1-4 range, with 3-12 Hull+shield), but more limited than it was. Lacking granularity in damage resolution doesn't have to be crippling for the game.

mhsellwood
11-07-2015, 04:18
Avian,

Responses to your points are below. In essence I think it is fair to say that we are unlikely to see eye to eye on this.


No, they become marginally better options. It's not as if only hammers get a penalty to hit, but it would affect them slightly more. And quite frankly, in-faction buffs will be far more common than out-faction debuffs. That's just the way it is.

In terms of ones being a marginally better option... you were the first to argue that due to one option being marginally better in some circumstances it is the choice you will always make. I have proved that it is not always the best option, so you would not invariably choose it. Does it not therefore follow that both options are actually valid, not better or worse? Not sure what your point is here to be honest re. the in-faction versus out-faction buffs.


Yes, but the variation is very low. And they're not even used consistently, leading to 21 types of shields, for example. Things are not different enough to make an appreciable difference, but different enough that a new player is going to have trouble remembering the difference between the halberds carried by Unit X and Unit Y.

Prove that the variation is low. Are you saying that there is little functional difference in damage output between a Swordmaster and a Zombie, or a Carnosaur mounted Scar Vet versus a Skink Priest? Of course not. Even when you compare elite versus elite there will be differences. I.e. compare Swordmasters to Grave Guard to Hammerers. Hammerers on their own do the least damage, but benefit a lot from dwarf hero abilities - Swordmasters are the most survivable and excellent in close combat but gain very little from your heros, while Grave Guard are decently killy but fragile. In terms of 21 types of shield - within faction the shields are normally the same, maybe two different types, so for a new player you learn your shields for your units not every single type of shield for every unit. And again you get unit variation from this - Vampire Counts are brittle due to their interaction with the rend rule, while dwarf shields reduce your speed in exchange for being excellent.


That's backwards. When choices DON'T cost the same, you can MAKE the weapons different. Because everything seemingly needs to be roughly as valid, everything gets more samey.

That is not a problem with using points to indicate usefulness, that is a problem with incompetent game designers. The correct approach would have been to hire better ones, instead of giving up entirely.

Everything needs to roughly as valid within any given unit type, not across the army. So different units don't need to be the same in terms of toe to toe combat effeciency - they just need to offer your army different tactical options, different synergies, different formations etc. Points are in general not very good as a measure of effectiveness - a fact acknowledged by Rick Priestly and other games designers. Look at the Too Fat Lardies output - no points systems in any of that and I would be a bit concerned if you suggested that because they don't have a points system they are incompetent. Even in Warmachine they have shifted from really detailed points to a more broad brush points approach which recognises that points are valid only as an indicator of average or general usefulness rather than an absolute measure.



That would only make sense if all fast cavalry actually had ranged weapons.


Boar Boyz. Anyone with a flail.

Name a fast cavalry unit that does not have a ranged weapon, and does not gain a charge bonus. Boar Boyz reroll wounds on the charge for their tusks (which is their main attack) so do gain a charge bonus. Flails have never gained a charge bonus, only a first round strength bonus - your expectation of seeing some kind of charge bonus for flails is just that, an expectation, not an absolute requirement of a game system.



Oh, things are messed up with that unit as well. Halberds, for example, are now worse at doing damage than hand weapons are (hand weapons doing more damage than other weapons is a recurring feature in this game). Shields do nothing unless it's a mortal wound. Neither of those make any sense.

Again, expecting halberds to hit harder is just an expectation, not an absolute requirement. In terms of comparison I am sure you are aware Halberds have a 2" range compared to 1" for hand weapons. So if you have a decent sized unit with halberds you can actually get more attacks with a dense formation than with hand weapons. It also means that you can game the combat phase movement and engagement rules to have your halberd models in range while the hand weapon models are not. Also a valid formation is a line of hard guys with shields and a 1" range in front of hitty guys with a 2" or 3" range - the models with a 2" range can actually form a line behind the hard unit forming the first line and be immune to attacks with a 1" range. So actually which weapon you choose is not just about doing the math, it is also about controlling your match ups, positioning of units and taking advantage of the combat movement and weapon ranges.

In terms of the shield - why does it not make sense? It is a characterful way to improve their protection and make them a bit different from other units. Fluff wise you could argue that a runeshield is like a mass reactive field - when the blow is powerful enough it awakens and protects - against weak blows it is dormant. The rule is both characterful and useful without being just another +1 to your save.

AngryAngel
11-07-2015, 04:25
I play at a GW store. We are allowed to play 8th still. In fact we have a campaign running right now where we are playing 8th in the store. This is true of all the stores in my immediate area.

I'm not really sure where this "you can't play 8th in GW stores" fallacy came from but its not true, at least its not true of every GW store. If there are a few managers saying this, then I suppose thats on them but its not a GW policy company-wide.

That happens to be different in different stores, and you do realize at any time word could come down from the company at large to ban those 8th ed games from their stores, especially if they have less then pleasing reception for AoS.


Many of Mantics games use fixed rolls that use special/snowflake rules to adjust the difficulty of rolls. One of the many reasons I found KoW extremely bland (along with the fluff and simplicity for the sake of children...sound familiar?). I know some who find it "engaging" but honestly the same criticism can be leveled at KoW though...the models are cheaper (yet still most are terrible sadly).

I remember MK1 as a terribly unbalanced game that had wonky mechanics that worked but was still taking its baby steps. It took time for Warmahordes to hit what it has become today (and it still has its own issues).

Point being, the knee jerk reaction and prejudice of calling a product out this early is utterly ignorant and irrational. It's akin to calling video game "x" terrible because of a botched release or a novel/show terrible because the first 3 episodes were "trash". Same about devices from phones to cars.

I have plenty of years invested in Fantasy (over 20). I'll still be playing different versions of oldhammer, like I did before EndTimes and other systems. At this time I have no plans on getting into Age of Sigmar, but I'll still watch it to see how it actually plays. After they stop pandering to the old WFB vets by releasing what are obviously last goodbyes with silly rules for armies that will fade out, once they start showing us what a normal release will look like and most importantly how/if they do end up taking advantage of the living document concept.

Maybe they can pull me into this game, maybe not (right now it's a "not")...it's astounding that people with the gift of human understanding and rationality would jump so quick into a judgment call while completely ignoring the fact that a product at launch can end up being a different beast a year later.

You speak some logic, however a games botched release and maligned first impression with bugs and glitches is enough to destroy an otherwise good game. Three poor episodes in a new tv show, can be enough to down the whole project. First impressions are big, and many things live or die on them, you can call it irrational and ignorant all you want, but it is equally irrational and ignorant to put out poor effort, get the reward you deserve, then blame the people because after they see what you have to offer, they don't trust you later on to have truly fixed it.

Bashing people for making a judgement based on their first impressions is short sighted in and of itself, as if the company doesn't care enough for a good first push, why should the consumer care to keep their mind open for later ? The company didn't care, why should you ?

Mateobard
11-07-2015, 04:59
I would also add that it's not like they botched a 60 page rule book for a whole new game or take on Fantasy. They had 4 pages, and they opted to go as simple as possible. If it took all of 20 minutes for the community on the internet to tear the very poorly written rules to shreds (Seriously, standing behind a wall confers no cover, but standing on top of a hill in the wide open does?), then they dropped the ball in a really big way.

mhsellwood
11-07-2015, 05:15
I would also add that it's not like they botched a 60 page rule book for a whole new game or take on Fantasy. They had 4 pages, and they opted to go as simple as possible. If it took all of 20 minutes for the community on the internet to tear the very poorly written rules to shreds (Seriously, standing behind a wall confers no cover, but standing on top of a hill in the wide open does?), then they dropped the ball in a really big way.

Check the scenery war scroll - walls are covered there. In essence if you are within 3" of a wall and it is between you and the attacking unit then you receive cover. There are issues, but please make sure they are actual issues or rules ambiguities not just a missed rule or a perfectly valid RAW interpretation that does not fit with our preconceptions.

Geep
11-07-2015, 07:00
Check the scenery war scroll - walls are covered there. In essence if you are within 3" of a wall and it is between you and the attacking unit then you receive cover. There are issues, but please make sure they are actual issues or rules ambiguities not just a missed rule or a perfectly valid RAW interpretation that does not fit with our preconceptions.
True- they partly fixed walls. But I can still gain cover from any direction by standing on top of the wall :p
Forests have their own warscroll- which does nothing to prevent me freely shooting through a forest with no penalty. The enemy has to be closer- and can, in fact, be in the open but touching the forest base- and then they get a cover bonus.


You speak some logic, however a games botched release and maligned first impression with bugs and glitches is enough to destroy an otherwise good game.
This. Very much this. I don't think AoS is a good game at all, but GW's silence, followed by 'look, free (terrible) rules!', followed by more silence, must undermine the resolve of even the staunchest gamer that GW is going the right way here.

Ayin
11-07-2015, 07:25
So, one of my more local GW stores threw up it's comp rules for Age of Sigmar, so that everyone who shows up to play in their event this saturday can be confident that they will get a reasonably fair game in.

"Army Composition
Games are recommended to be played at 50 or greater points.
For every 25 counted wounds you may take:
- 4 Warscrolls
- 8 Wounds of models with the Hero keyword (only 60% can be spent on a single model, rounding up)
- 6 Wounds of models with the Monster keyword
- 6 Wounds of models with the Warmachine keyword (note that crew Wounds are stilled paid for, but they themselves do not typically have the Warmachine keyword)
- All models with 10 or more wounds must be from the same Compendium
Regardless of Wound Totals
- All named Heroes are 0-1 choices and may not be taken multiple times.
- All unnamed Heroes are 0-2 choices and may not be taken more than twice.
- Models with both the Hero and Monster keyword count against both allowances (and may therefore by limited in some games if only allowed by one of the two categories).
- When a model receives a Wound through an upgrade (for example Blight King Champion upgrade), the bonus is not counted towards your army’s total wounds.
- When a unit exceeds 10 models, receive 2 models for each one purchased with wounds.
i.e. a unit that begins at Five, 1-wound models, would cost 10 wounds total for a unit of 10, but only 15 wounds for a unit of 20 or 20 wounds for a unit of 30."


Holy Gork. Sure glad we ditched that whole 'models cost points' thing for this much easier, much less complicated system. Sure allows new players easy access to the community.

ntw3001
11-07-2015, 08:00
Dang right.
I mean sure, we'll look the other way if faceless corporate entities destroy the environment, or engage in dodgy accounting that is partly responsible for global economic collapse, or exploit children in third world countries to make cheaper sneakers*, or produce potentially harmful products aimed at our children, or engage in massive tax fraud, but there's no way we will sit on our hands when they change the rules for playing with toy soldiers. :shifty:

*But what’s the real cost, ‘cause the sneakers don’t seem that much cheaper . . .
Don't just sit at your desk whining about that stuff! Make yourself useful; sit at your desk whining about this stuff!

Denny
11-07-2015, 09:30
Don't just sit at your desk whining about that stuff! Make yourself useful; sit at your desk whining about this stuff!

I feel others are more talented in that field, but I'll give it a go.

Errr . . . I'm not sure AoS was a wise course of action for GW, and it's not to my personal taste, but we won't know for sure until more of the model range and game content is released?

. . . Sorry, that was rubbish . . .:(

Holier Than Thou
11-07-2015, 09:44
So, one of my more local GW stores threw up it's comp rules for Age of Sigmar, so that everyone who shows up to play in their event this saturday can be confident that they will get a reasonably fair game in.

"Army Composition
Games are recommended to be played at 50 or greater points.
For every 25 counted wounds you may take:
- 4 Warscrolls
- 8 Wounds of models with the Hero keyword (only 60% can be spent on a single model, rounding up)
- 6 Wounds of models with the Monster keyword
- 6 Wounds of models with the Warmachine keyword (note that crew Wounds are stilled paid for, but they themselves do not typically have the Warmachine keyword)
- All models with 10 or more wounds must be from the same Compendium
Regardless of Wound Totals
- All named Heroes are 0-1 choices and may not be taken multiple times.
- All unnamed Heroes are 0-2 choices and may not be taken more than twice.
- Models with both the Hero and Monster keyword count against both allowances (and may therefore by limited in some games if only allowed by one of the two categories).
- When a model receives a Wound through an upgrade (for example Blight King Champion upgrade), the bonus is not counted towards your army’s total wounds.
- When a unit exceeds 10 models, receive 2 models for each one purchased with wounds.
i.e. a unit that begins at Five, 1-wound models, would cost 10 wounds total for a unit of 10, but only 15 wounds for a unit of 20 or 20 wounds for a unit of 30."


Holy Gork. Sure glad we ditched that whole 'models cost points' thing for this much easier, much less complicated system. Sure allows new players easy access to the community.

Wow, how totally straight forward and simple to understand. :eek:

Whirlwind
11-07-2015, 09:58
Holy Gork. Sure glad we ditched that whole 'models cost points' thing for this much easier, much less complicated system. Sure allows new players easy access to the community.

And it still doesn't work, just take Ogre Kingdoms and see what happens...Although it is not clear as to whether the above applies to summoned units too?

Whirlwind
11-07-2015, 10:25
Yes, if he managed to get a major advantage like that, you probably need to as well. Did you get your slayers stuck into rat ogres, or one wound clan rats? Did you soften the stormvermin with some cannon fire? Did you form a shield wall?

This goes doubly for units nearby. You need to do something so that a unit is in good position to meet them when they do break through.

If you flat out can't, yeah you are in a bit of trouble, but, realistically, you should be. That's the exact sort of situation that should influence the game.

But it makes no real difference whether the slayers are in combat with clanrats or rat ogres. That extra bonus you get for the slayers gives you only a 10% extra chance in getting a wound through (excluding armour). As such you need 10 slayers really to make this extra wound on average. However the standard deviation of 10 D6 dice rolls is much greater than 1 wound. Hence wounds inflicted is much more influenced by statistical odds of your dice roll than it ever is of this small bonus.

The same goes for shooting. It doesn't matter where you cause these wounds. In the end causing 10 wounds is the same regardless of who you apply it too. The influence on the overall game is the same...

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 11:02
Wow, how totally straight forward and simple to understand. :eek:

It's not that bad, it's just written a bit awkwardly and could use a breakdown.

minimum 50 wounds for your army, but army composition is calculated in 25-wound increments. This makes 50/75/100/etc lists pretty easy to create using this comp, which is nice.

Per 25 wounds, you can field 4 warscrolls, with 8 wounds for heroes (heroes have 5 generally, which is where the 60% thing comes from), 6 wounds worth of monster (most monsters have 12, which means you can field one monster at 50 wounds), 6 wounds of warmachine (so, 2-3 for most lists at 50 wounds).

At 50 wounds, this results in 8 warscrolls, 16 wounds of heroes (max 10 wound monster hero, which would count for both hero and monster if you went that way), 12 wounds of monster (so, one in most cases), 12 wounds of warmachine (2-3, as noted above). This means that if you want to field your giant Dragonzord Monsterking LordbeastTM on Slavering GrobblemouthTM or whatever, you'd only be able to rock him at 75+ wound battles - where, given wound count, your opponent could either meet him with his own monster lord, or field other things to counter it.

Your big mean monsters and/or heroes can't mix and match compendiums, to prevent the doofy combos people have been crowing about on these forums for the last couple of days.

Named Heroes are 0-1, no duplicates. Regular heroes are 0-2. No double Archaon, but double Chaos Lord is go (if you want).

Large units are at discount if over 10 wounds of models - every model in a single unit over ten gives you a 2 for 1 wound-cost discount, as noted.

Again, actually very reasonable. It prevents dumb cross-codex combos whilst still allowing mix-and-match for units from multiple armies, it prevents monster or warmachine spam, both of which kind of cause an arms race with one another, and it leads to a reasonable balance of models. Some lists will want to skew more towards former 'elite' and 'rare' choices, but the discount for larger units means it's actually easier (and advantageous) to take a larger unit of former 'core' for the bonus they accrue for having 20+ models.

Honestly, if you've been playing WHF for a while, you should be able to parse this without issue, considering formerly you were doing literal algebra in your head to estimate the outcome of a given combat with a given unit, taking all rolls, special abilities, buffs/debuffs, strength vs. armor, and whatever into account multiple times a turn, often somewhat in advance as you planned your battle. WHF comp lists were often more complex than this, even. ;p

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 11:06
And it still doesn't work, just take Ogre Kingdoms and see what happens...Although it is not clear as to whether the above applies to summoned units too?

It's worth noting that summoned units count against wounds lost in a battle, so if you're going summon crazy you'd better be tabling your opponent or they're going to claim minor victory. It's not entirely clear if they are counted as casualties when summoned or accrue casualties as they die (I would assume the latter), but there is that consideration. If you spam summoning you're cluttering up the field and giving your opponent more wounds towards his victory, just by giving him more things to chop.

Avian
11-07-2015, 11:09
In terms of ones being a marginally better option... you were the first to argue that due to one option being marginally better in some circumstances it is the choice you will always make. I have proved that it is not always the best option, so you would not invariably choose it. Does it not therefore follow that both options are actually valid, not better or worse?
It shows that including all these extra sword arms on the sprue really only helps to drive up the cost of the box. Without them they could have fit in another guy or two, or sold the box at a lower price. Most of the time, hammers and swords behave identically, and most of the time when they don't, hammers are better. No matter how you look at it, swords are pointless.




Name a fast cavalry unit that does not have a ranged weapon, and does not gain a charge bonus. Boar Boyz reroll wounds on the charge for their tusks (which is their main attack) so do gain a charge bonus. Flails have never gained a charge bonus, only a first round strength bonus - your expectation of seeing some kind of charge bonus for flails is just that, an expectation, not an absolute requirement of a game system.
My Wolf Riders with short bows are now considerably better on the charge than the guys with spears, getting three attacks on 5+ 5+ whereas the guys with spears only get one 5+ 4+.




Again, expecting halberds to hit harder is just an expectation, not an absolute requirement.
What the heck are you talking about? Halberds were CREATED to hit harder. That's like saying it's not a requirement that bows be able to hit things at range, and that having them do damage in melee is equally good. A good game has correlation between what it looks like a unit is good at, and what it's actually good at. Instead this game has guys with flails being worse at doing damage than guys with hand axes, and wolf riders with bows being better at charging than wolf riders with spears.

heavyheart
11-07-2015, 11:12
So, one of my more local GW stores threw up it's comp rules for Age of Sigmar, so that everyone who shows up to play in their event this saturday can be confident that they will get a reasonably fair game in.

"Army Composition
Games are recommended to be played at 50 or greater points.
For every 25 counted wounds you may take:
- 4 Warscrolls
- 8 Wounds of models with the Hero keyword (only 60% can be spent on a single model, rounding up)
- 6 Wounds of models with the Monster keyword
- 6 Wounds of models with the Warmachine keyword (note that crew Wounds are stilled paid for, but they themselves do not typically have the Warmachine keyword)
- All models with 10 or more wounds must be from the same Compendium
Regardless of Wound Totals
- All named Heroes are 0-1 choices and may not be taken multiple times.
- All unnamed Heroes are 0-2 choices and may not be taken more than twice.
- Models with both the Hero and Monster keyword count against both allowances (and may therefore by limited in some games if only allowed by one of the two categories).
- When a model receives a Wound through an upgrade (for example Blight King Champion upgrade), the bonus is not counted towards your army’s total wounds.
- When a unit exceeds 10 models, receive 2 models for each one purchased with wounds.
i.e. a unit that begins at Five, 1-wound models, would cost 10 wounds total for a unit of 10, but only 15 wounds for a unit of 20 or 20 wounds for a unit of 30."


Holy Gork. Sure glad we ditched that whole 'models cost points' thing for this much easier, much less complicated system. Sure allows new players easy access to the community.

See even the staff in stores know the game as released is unplayable.

Good on them for trying but if AoS was actually a game there'd be no need for shop staff to go to that effort.

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 11:19
And it still doesn't work, just take Ogre Kingdoms and see what happens...Although it is not clear as to whether the above applies to summoned units too?

OK can only afford 2 heroes at 50 wounds (a Tyrant and a Butcher or Firebelly would be 15), which means they can only bring 34 wounds of troops. You could bring at max 8 Ironguts, and that would be your entire army, taking the above heroes. I guess you could take a Sabertusk, too. If you bring Mournfang, you get 2 for 12 points, which is pretty great, but then you can only afford 5 Ironguts.

They're going to be severely outnumbered in any matchup, and will get surrounded and murdered by many things - or picked off with shooting. I suppose they will always qualify for sudden death, though, which gives them a fighting chance. Even then, it's pretty rough for the ogres, I think, and by no means a foregone conclusion.

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 11:28
See even the staff in stores know the game as released is unplayable.

Good on them for trying but if AoS was actually a game there'd be no need for shop staff to go to that effort.

First it was 'hurf durf this game is unplayable without comp', now it's 'hurfudurf they need comp to play it lewlz'. You act as if 8th edition didn't need comp at any respectable competitive level.

This game was built under the conceit that nothing GW has ever made has been balanced, and they are completely aware that their playerbase will just take balance into their own hands anyway. GW tried to release errata and balance the game, but their releases were too slow and their rulings were generally met with derision and scorn. Every new codex was accused of power creep to sell the new models (except when they didn't make the models OP, at which point everyone declared that GW was stupid and wasting their time making a new model that wouldn't be fielded by anyone with a brain), and in general anything that GW did rules-wise was second-guessed, laughed at, ignored or altered.

I for one am surprised that GW didn't make the move towards an open rules-set that's easy to configure to the needs of a given tournament or event sooner - it's much more in keeping with the way GW seems to enjoy playing their own games, anyway.

You've been salty for days now, man. You need to drink water or you'll completely desiccate. I worry for your health. Don't become a Tomb King - hydrate!

zoltan
11-07-2015, 11:36
It's not that bad, it's just written a bit awkwardly and could use a breakdown.

minimum 50 wounds for your army, but army composition is calculated in 25-wound increments. This makes 50/75/100/etc lists pretty easy to create using this comp, which is nice.

Per 25 wounds, you can field 4 warscrolls, with 8 wounds for heroes (heroes have 5 generally, which is where the 60% thing comes from), 6 wounds worth of monster (most monsters have 12, which means you can field one monster at 50 wounds), 6 wounds of warmachine (so, 2-3 for most lists at 50 wounds).

At 50 wounds, this results in 8 warscrolls, 16 wounds of heroes (max 10 wound monster hero, which would count for both hero and monster if you went that way), 12 wounds of monster (so, one in most cases), 12 wounds of warmachine (2-3, as noted above). This means that if you want to field your giant Dragonzord Monsterking LordbeastTM on Slavering GrobblemouthTM or whatever, you'd only be able to rock him at 75+ wound battles - where, given wound count, your opponent could either meet him with his own monster lord, or field other things to counter it.

Your big mean monsters and/or heroes can't mix and match compendiums, to prevent the doofy combos people have been crowing about on these forums for the last couple of days.

Named Heroes are 0-1, no duplicates. Regular heroes are 0-2. No double Archaon, but double Chaos Lord is go (if you want).

Large units are at discount if over 10 wounds of models - every model in a single unit over ten gives you a 2 for 1 wound-cost discount, as noted.

Again, actually very reasonable. It prevents dumb cross-codex combos whilst still allowing mix-and-match for units from multiple armies, it prevents monster or warmachine spam, both of which kind of cause an arms race with one another, and it leads to a reasonable balance of models. Some lists will want to skew more towards former 'elite' and 'rare' choices, but the discount for larger units means it's actually easier (and advantageous) to take a larger unit of former 'core' for the bonus they accrue for having 20+ models.

Honestly, if you've been playing WHF for a while, you should be able to parse this without issue, considering formerly you were doing literal algebra in your head to estimate the outcome of a given combat with a given unit, taking all rolls, special abilities, buffs/debuffs, strength vs. armor, and whatever into account multiple times a turn, often somewhat in advance as you planned your battle. WHF comp lists were often more complex than this, even. ;p

Yep because thats far more straightforward than saying 1000 points was... :rolleyes:

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 12:00
1000 points + army-specific comp!

zoltan
11-07-2015, 12:20
1000 points + army-specific comp!

verses that huge list plus comp! (as that list is just a general balance, not taking specific armies into account)! old way was still way more straight forward

Holier Than Thou
11-07-2015, 12:27
Yep because thats far more straightforward than saying 1000 points was... :rolleyes:

This. How anyone can suggest this is any easier for ANYONE, vets or noobs, to understand than "points costs are in your book, bring 2000 points." is beyond me. It's also still completely unbalanced as my zombies are one wound each and there are a helluva lot of other things that are one wound that are sooooooooooo much better yet with this way of picking forces they are considered equal. It's just a dreadful game that isn't worth the enormous effort people are going to to try and make it work.

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 12:44
You do know that your zombies become an unholy terror at 20+ models, right? In a proper horde they hit on 2+ and wound on 3+. That will eat literally anything, pretty sure. They are as good, if not better, than other 1-wound models with the inclusion of that rule - though you have to put a lot of them into one unit to get the fully bonus, which pulls available wounds from elsewhere.

I think the reason people are I guess struggling with figuring out how many wounds to field vs fielding points is that they relied on programs like battlescribe to just do the work of building an army for them. If you tried actually building an army by hand, with various point total minimums and maximums for each unit type, adjusted for maximum potency/ effectiveness, targeted win condition, there was a lot of work involved in making an army of any size - even before comp further modifies this. You just had a program that did all this for you so you didn't have to think about it that hard.

Maybe you guys should investigate that AoS app that comes out soon, I'd wager it'll be roughly equivalent to battlescribe and the like. Then you can avoid all that disgusting, difficult math in a game that is incredibly easy to figure out how to play and field an army in. Seriously, you guys make me laugh.

heavyheart
11-07-2015, 12:57
I have the points cost for my space marines memorized and can knock out a 1000 point list in a few minutes and my friends are no different we barely consult a codex after a few weeks.

Your being very condescending.

MiyamatoMusashi
11-07-2015, 12:59
"I'm going to invent an excuse for why people think this is bad, then tell them that that excuse is WRONG even though it's not actually what people were saying".

Whirlwind
11-07-2015, 13:12
OK can only afford 2 heroes at 50 wounds (a Tyrant and a Butcher or Firebelly would be 15), which means they can only bring 34 wounds of troops. You could bring at max 8 Ironguts, and that would be your entire army, taking the above heroes. I guess you could take a Sabertusk, too. If you bring Mournfang, you get 2 for 12 points, which is pretty great, but then you can only afford 5 Ironguts.

They're going to be severely outnumbered in any matchup, and will get surrounded and murdered by many things - or picked off with shooting. I suppose they will always qualify for sudden death, though, which gives them a fighting chance. Even then, it's pretty rough for the ogres, I think, and by no means a foregone conclusion.

You are underestimating the ability of an Ogre to kill it's opponent though. They can put out a massive amount of damage from a shallow width front (minimising return attacks). Most games you are in combat by turn 1 or 2 at the latest.

Compared to one wound, one attack, one damage armies.

For example take the following example (Tyrant - 8 wounds, 4 Ironguts - 16 wounds, 4 Ironguts - 16 wounds, 2 gorgers - 10 wounds)
In combat that this 6 damage on average for tyrant, 24 damage on average for the ironguts, 6.5 damage on average for the gorgers (which are really there to tie up any units early on such as warmachines/hiding wizards as they can deepstrike, run and then charge). That's 36 damage on average per round of close combat (maximum is about 90 damage). It is difficult for most other armies to contend with this sort of damage output. On top of this they are fast so can don't have to spend too much time facing just shooting units. The only area they may struggle with is armies that can summon, if they can summon faster than the ogres can kill them (and in this case it may be worth taking a butcher instead).

Whirlwind
11-07-2015, 13:23
You do know that your zombies become an unholy terror at 20+ models, right? In a proper horde they hit on 2+ and wound on 3+. That will eat literally anything, pretty sure. They are as good, if not better, than other 1-wound models with the inclusion of that rule - though you have to put a lot of them into one unit to get the fully bonus, which pulls available wounds from elsewhere.

Summoning is your friend here. There are plenty of wizards to choose from and you can merge units of zombies. So you only need to pick a unit of about 20 with a few wizards/necromancers about (even Kemmler or Arkhan in large games) + corpse cart + morghast harbingers which guarantee that you can raise more zombies (assuming outside of dispel range). In the same phase (as it just states you merge them in the hero phase). Merge them into one unit (hopefully 50 or more) - now you have a unit that hits and wounds almost automatically but didn't cost you massive amounts of wounds to start off with. In theory you don't even have to start the game with any zombies but can still quickly build 50 of them.

Holier Than Thou
11-07-2015, 13:45
Before I begin, thanks for making assumptions about me.


You do know that your zombies become an unholy terror at 20+ models, right? In a proper horde they hit on 2+ and wound on 3+. That will eat literally anything, pretty sure. They are as good, if not better, than other 1-wound models with the inclusion of that rule - though you have to put a lot of them into one unit to get the fully bonus, which pulls available wounds from elsewhere.

First of all, I have read the warscroll for my army so I'm well aware of the fact that if I make my zombies at least 30 models strong then they will hit and wound on 3+ (2+ to hit if they are near a Corpse Cart). Why zombies have suddenly become the greatest hand-to-hand warriors in all the realm escapes me but that's not what I want, zombies have always had strength in numbers because they were so cheap. Now far better units get the same advantage of huge numbers because there is no deterrent to bringing them in their droves.


I think the reason people are I guess struggling with figuring out how many wounds to field vs fielding points is that they relied on programs like battlescribe to just do the work of building an army for them. If you tried actually building an army by hand, with various point total minimums and maximums for each unit type, adjusted for maximum potency/ effectiveness, targeted win condition, there was a lot of work involved in making an army of any size - even before comp further modifies this. You just had a program that did all this for you so you didn't have to think about it that hard.

Maybe you guys should investigate that AoS app that comes out soon, I'd wager it'll be roughly equivalent to battlescribe and the like. Then you can avoid all that disgusting, difficult math in a game that is incredibly easy to figure out how to play and field an army in.

Secondly, I have never used a computer program to put together an army list, that was one of the many things I enjoyed doing in WFB and still enjoy doing in 40k. I don't see why shop managers, players, etc should HAVE to spend time working out some way to bring a semblance of balance to a product that a games company (they're called Games workshop, not Miniature Workshop) couldn't be bothered to do. You argue 8th edition wasn't balanced, maybe not but it was nothing compared to the official released version of Age of Sigmar, turn up with what you like and meet in the middle to try to get the same result on a dice no matter what you're facing.


Seriously, you guys make me laugh.

It might not be so funny if you took your Games Workshop Limited Edition Genuine Sigmarite Rose-Tinted spectacles off and saw this mess for what it is.

HelloKitty
11-07-2015, 13:53
That happens to be different in different stores, and you do realize at any time word could come down from the company at large to ban those 8th ed games from their stores, especially if they have less then pleasing reception for AoS.



You speak some logic, however a games botched release and maligned first impression with bugs and glitches is enough to destroy an otherwise good game. Three poor episodes in a new tv show, can be enough to down the whole project. First impressions are big, and many things live or die on them, you can call it irrational and ignorant all you want, but it is equally irrational and ignorant to put out poor effort, get the reward you deserve, then blame the people because after they see what you have to offer, they don't trust you later on to have truly fixed it.

Bashing people for making a judgement based on their first impressions is short sighted in and of itself, as if the company doesn't care enough for a good first push, why should the consumer care to keep their mind open for later ? The company didn't care, why should you ?

Thats fine but what is being said is that you cant play 8th in gw stores - full stop. Which is wrong. What could or could not happen is speculation. I was not addressing speculation i was addressing that one wrong statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 14:00
edit - for Whirlwind

Ogres are fierce in combat, but they also have crap armor and are weak against shooting, even with high wound count. They move six and can run up to twelve, and charge up to twelve, and pile in 3 - even with this consideration, you'd need spectacular rolls for a one turn charge with them - and this assumes you are also playing on a bowling ball without terrain to get in the way. I'm not arguing that Ogres aren't scary, but if they all get into combat with your army turn 1, you messed up big time deploying things.

Summoning units is a double-edged sword - it might be possible to flood the field, but you're swiftly engineering a situation where nothing on your side can move, and feeding wounds over maximum wound count of the army to your opponent. Unless you can table him, he's probably going to win on wounds generated.

Zombies do get really rough with the necessary components, as you listed. It would actually be interesting to fight against - flying models or cavalry would be necessary to get over the zombie carpet and stomp out things like the corpse cart, which would help blunt the army's effectiveness. It would be really cool to try to fight against it though, zombie movie style.

Not seeing anything about merging units though - the summon spell indicates you create a new unit, not add to an existing unit. This means that unless you field a tremendous initial carpet, anything you summon would only be 20 max. I may have missed something, I've got the pdfs in front of me if you can direct me to the right page or entry. :D

Malagor
11-07-2015, 14:09
Not seeing anything about merging units though - the summon spell indicates you create a new unit, not add to an existing unit. This means that unless you field a tremendous initial carpet, anything you summon would only be 20 max. I may have missed something, I've got the pdfs in front of me if you can direct me to the right page or entry. :D
"Shambling Horde:
If two or more units of Zombies from your army are within 1"
of each other in your hero phase, they can merge and become a single unit for the rest of the battle."

Philhelm
11-07-2015, 14:10
Summoning units is a double-edged sword - it might be possible to flood the field, but you're swiftly engineering a situation where nothing on your side can move, and feeding wounds over maximum wound count of the army to your opponent. Unless you can table him, he's probably going to win on wounds generated.

That's not what happens.

HelloKitty
11-07-2015, 14:27
You dont win by how many wounds you kill. Summoning out of the box is like 40ks summoning - busted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whirlwind
11-07-2015, 14:30
edit - for Whirlwind

Ogres are fierce in combat, but they also have crap armor and are weak against shooting, even with high wound count. They move six and can run up to twelve, and charge up to twelve, and pile in 3 - even with this consideration, you'd need spectacular rolls for a one turn charge with them - and this assumes you are also playing on a bowling ball without terrain to get in the way. I'm not arguing that Ogres aren't scary, but if they all get into combat with your army turn 1, you messed up big time deploying things.

Summoning units is a double-edged sword - it might be possible to flood the field, but you're swiftly engineering a situation where nothing on your side can move, and feeding wounds over maximum wound count of the army to your opponent. Unless you can table him, he's probably going to win on wounds generated.

Zombies do get really rough with the necessary components, as you listed. It would actually be interesting to fight against - flying models or cavalry would be necessary to get over the zombie carpet and stomp out things like the corpse cart, which would help blunt the army's effectiveness. It would be really cool to try to fight against it though, zombie movie style.

Not seeing anything about merging units though - the summon spell indicates you create a new unit, not add to an existing unit. This means that unless you field a tremendous initial carpet, anything you summon would only be 20 max. I may have missed something, I've got the pdfs in front of me if you can direct me to the right page or entry. :D

Ironguts and the Tyrant have a 4+ armour save (and possibly 3+ for Tyrant) which are pretty much the best armour most other armies get. Admittedly gorgers are 6+ but these are there just tie up other units and bog them down in combat. Not sure where you got your move figures from though (they are worse than you have stated). 6" move, D6 run, charge is 2D6. Can't charge and run on the same turn though except gorgers. Note gorgers can deploy 12" from an enemy model so it is a lot easier for them to get at you first round. I assume then that the opponents aren't moving or backpeddling (but again the reason for the gorgers is to hamper this). Otherwise the minimum distance of 24" can be covered in one turn if both armies are moving towards each other (however turn 2 is more likely). Unless the whole army has shooting units it is unlikely to cause enough damage by turn 2 (also I'd point out that most shooting units need to be within 20" so they have to move forward from starting positions to be able to hit).

Yes but summoning units can be boon when sudden death is applied. Small elite units to start with that maximise your casting potential and then summon to your hearts content. Also flyers can't just jump on a single model. They still have to reach them - the important units should be ringed with the cheap troops to avoid this situation.

The rules for the merging unit are within the Zombie rules not the summoning ones (under "Shambling horde") as already noted.

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 14:35
@Malagor - Ahh, thanks, I don't know how I missed that. A zombie horde list would be really mean to face off against, but it needs all it's parts to work - any of them falling off would be pretty bad for the VC player, which gives the opponent goals in the game. Corpse cart seems like a good thing to take out first, since it can't be summoned back. Then it's just keeping the zombies at a manageable level - or sniping off the Necromancers. Would be interesting to play against with the right army composition, I think.

@ Philhelm - I meant to imply that by summoning things, you are adding models to the field whose wounds would count against your total lost at the end of the game - with a zombie carpet, you're summoning masses of things without any save. You'd lose a great number of wounds over the course of the game, even if you keep summoning them back, which would lead to a situation where you could easily lose more than your initial total number of fielded wounds, and easily more than the maximum of your opponent's army. If your opponent survives long to the end of the game, they will then win on number of wounds scored.

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 14:49
Ironguts and the Tyrant have a 4+ armour save (and possibly 3+ for Tyrant) which are pretty much the best armour most other armies get. Admittedly gorgers are 6+ but these are there just tie up other units and bog them down in combat. Not sure where you got your move figures from though (they are worse than you have stated). 6" move, D6 run, charge is 2D6. Can't charge and run on the same turn though except gorgers. Note gorgers can deploy 12" from an enemy model so it is a lot easier for them to get at you first round. I assume then that the opponents aren't moving or backpeddling (but again the reason for the gorgers is to hamper this). Otherwise the minimum distance of 24" can be covered in one turn if both armies are moving towards each other (however turn 2 is more likely). Unless the whole army has shooting units it is unlikely to cause enough damage by turn 2 (also I'd point out that most shooting units need to be within 20" so they have to move forward from starting positions to be able to hit).

Yes but summoning units can be boon when sudden death is applied. Small elite units to start with that maximise your casting potential and then summon to your hearts content. Also flyers can't just jump on a single model. They still have to reach them - the important units should be ringed with the cheap troops to avoid this situation.

The rules for the merging unit are within the Zombie rules not the summoning ones (under "Shambling horde") as already noted.

You'd need rending shooting, certainly - most armies do have access to this in some degree though, which is good. Barring that, massed fire would still do a good deal of damage. Alternately, things that cause mortal wounds, hopefully at range. The Ironguts would benefit from their banner against magical bolts, but it wouldn't be a poor plan to try, even then. Any wounds would be good, and you only need to kill a few to reduce them to something that you could meet with something beefy enough to go toe to toe with them (which is a limited pool, but with such a low model count on the other side focus fire is going to be a major issue for them).

Summoning is indeed pretty strong - but if you're going for the grossest possible summoning list (if we're using the comped example at 50 wounds, We'd go with Arkhan (11), one Necromancer (5), Corpse Cart (6), and 2-3 Morghasts of some description (12-18), leaving you between 10 and 16 wounds to round out your army, you might as well throw the rest for chaff or something since your monster allotment is taken by Arkhan), you're going to rely largely on summoning to do stuff, and your advance across the table is going to be pretty slow as well. If there's any terrain in the way, your opponent could probably hold you off and pick off some wounds with shooting - and even with protection (your Morghasts) in the backfield your guys will be pretty vulnerable. It's would be a risk/reward thing, and probably actually fun to play with and against.

Whirlwind
11-07-2015, 15:31
Summoning is indeed pretty strong - but if you're going for the grossest possible summoning list (if we're using the comped example at 50 wounds, We'd go with Arkhan (11), one Necromancer (5), Corpse Cart (6), and 2-3 Morghasts of some description (12-18), leaving you between 10 and 16 wounds to round out your army, you might as well throw the rest for chaff or something since your monster allotment is taken by Arkhan), you're going to rely largely on summoning to do stuff, and your advance across the table is going to be pretty slow as well. If there's any terrain in the way, your opponent could probably hold you off and pick off some wounds with shooting - and even with protection (your Morghasts) in the backfield your guys will be pretty vulnerable. It's would be a risk/reward thing, and probably actually fun to play with and against.

You couldn't get Arkhan in the 50 wound list as you can't spend more than 60% of your hero allowance on one model.

I think I'd go for

Count Mannfred
2 x Necromancers
1 X Corpse Cart
1 X Mortis Engine
1 x one model Morghast
11 x Grave Guard/Tomb Guard

That's four spells at +3 summoning each turn

I'd probably allocate two spells two casting elite units (e.g. Morghasts, Terrogheists, Zombie Dragons) most of which will need a roll of 7+ and two for raising swarms of screening troops most of which will need 2 to 4+ rolls (and if you are lucky you'll get the larger summoned unit and make sure your casting units are out of site and as far away from the enemy as possible in turn 1!

itcamefromthedeep
11-07-2015, 15:40
Deploy one Tomb Swarm model. Call Endure as a victory condition. Burrow. Win.

---

Deploy a Herald of Tzeench. Cast "Summon Herald of Tzeench", with the Tome bonus. If you get 9 or more on those three dice, summon a herald on Chariot as well. The Herald you just summoned does the same, rinse and repeat. If ever you get a summoning roll below 5 on three dice, use one of the Heralds on Disks to summon another normal Herald. Continue until the table is full of Heralds.

I happen to know that there are more house rules than that in that environment so this trick won't be nearly as effective there. You'll just have to start with some Heralds and Pink Horrors and summon Lords of Change every turn. After 10 or 12 Lords of Change the problem with summoning will be clear, even if the newly summoned models can't summon that turn.

---

There's a point at which talk about whether Ogres have difficulty walking into guns seems a little small-fry to me as far as this game's problems go. We're still talking about a game where you can put down Fateweaver and an Engine of the Gods, summon a bunch of stuff, and then immediately take another turn after this one to guarantee your alpha strike. It's a game where Nagash can, by himself, summon enough models to hold off a deployment zone literally full of close combat models, such that they'll simply never be able to reach the big guy. It's a game where a Wizard can bring one of those magical tornado terrain pieces and choose to simply be immune to close combat (neener neener neener) so you'd better hope you brought enough guns to kill the wizard before the wizard kills you.

This is not a game for competitive or semi-competitive players. People will pile on the house rules like crazy, for sure. I'm just not sure it's enough to crack through the persistent and dramatic hostility to that kind of play.

As far as I'm concerned this game has 99 problems, but limited design space ain't one of them.

roperpg
11-07-2015, 17:54
That's not what happens.
Yes, yes it is. Victory conditions are Sudden Death > Tabling > compare %age of models removed vs. models deployed at start of game.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Inquisitor Kallus
11-07-2015, 18:11
Well all my Darkelves on Pegasi are all Morathis now.. since she is the only one can have one.. :(

And my 10 Heroes/kommandants on Horses need to pretend they riding Cold ones..

Its not like you couldnt mix things up or make your own warscroll..

Holier Than Thou
11-07-2015, 18:26
Its not like you couldnt mix things up or make your own warscroll..
Is there any other (war)game where people would happily accept someone rocking up and saying "I've made up my own rules for this model/game."? I think it's remarkable how far some people are willing to go to keep defending how ****-poor a job GW have done with this.

silveralen
11-07-2015, 18:35
A few thoughts.

1. The wound system is much simpler imo, mainly because all the small +1/+2's on armies has been removed. That greatly streamlines army building. You aren't having to tinker to make sure you spend as close to the max points as possible, or compare magic items in terms or archers/infantry. It removed a lot of fiddly variations in cost between different versions of the same unit.

I can put a list following those rules together in 5 mins. Putting a brand new 8th list together (from an army I'm not super familiar with) took me around 20-30 min minimum to hash everything out and make sure I didn't leave any points on the table.

I'm just fairly certain most people here haven't had a situation where they were completely unfamiliar with an army for a number of years, unlike those of us relatively new to the hobby. Note also this isn't me saying the new version is better, I actually liked trying to squeeze every point into an army in the best way possible, but that was a potential barrier and this version is dramatically simpler.

2. Races like ogres who might struggle when fielded by themselves can easily get support as of this moment, with the war scroll limit. You could have a tyrant and a few others backed by orcs or goblins and still have a fluffy alliance list.

3. Summoning seems slightly borked currently, but I think it was last edition as well? Or maybe that was 7th? I remember there was a time when Vamps had a hefty advantage by virtue of being able to refill their zombie/skelly tarpits with ease.

Holier Than Thou
11-07-2015, 18:52
A few thoughts.

1. The wound system is much simpler imo, mainly because all the small +1/+2's on armies has been removed. That greatly streamlines army building. You aren't having to tinker to make sure you spend as close to the max points as possible, or compare magic items in terms or archers/infantry. It removed a lot of fiddly variations in cost between different versions of the same unit.

I can put a list following those rules together in 5 mins. Putting a brand new 8th list together (from an army I'm not super familiar with) took me around 20-30 min minimum to hash everything out and make sure I didn't leave any points on the table.

5 minutes? I can do it in 2 seconds, I'll take whatever I want. This is not an improvement.



3. Summoning seems slightly borked currently, but I think it was last edition as well? Or maybe that was 7th? I remember there was a time when Vamps had a hefty advantage by virtue of being able to refill their zombie/skelly tarpits with ease.

Summoning is indeed ridiculous as has been discussed at length in numerous threads.

MagicAngle
11-07-2015, 22:51
3. Summoning seems slightly borked currently, but I think it was last edition as well? Or maybe that was 7th? I remember there was a time when Vamps had a hefty advantage by virtue of being able to refill their zombie/skelly tarpits with ease.

Not really. If a fanger lord and his pals are blowing all their magic dice on Invocation of Nehek, then all the better for you, as you wont be facing any offensive magic from them. It was a bit worse in 7th, for sure, as you could multi-cast necromantic spells, and there were some borderline broken combos - ghoul summoner being one that springs to mind.

Mawduce
11-07-2015, 23:08
@Malagor - Ahh, thanks, I don't know how I missed that. A zombie horde list would be really mean to face off against, but it needs all it's parts to work - any of them falling off would be pretty bad for the VC player, which gives the opponent goals in the game. Corpse cart seems like a good thing to take out first, since it can't be summoned back. Then it's just keeping the zombies at a manageable level - or sniping off the Necromancers. Would be interesting to play against with the right army composition, I think.

@ Philhelm - I meant to imply that by summoning things, you are adding models to the field whose wounds would count against your total lost at the end of the game - with a zombie carpet, you're summoning masses of things without any save. You'd lose a great number of wounds over the course of the game, even if you keep summoning them back, which would lead to a situation where you could easily lose more than your initial total number of fielded wounds, and easily more than the maximum of your opponent's army. If your opponent survives long to the end of the game, they will then win on number of wounds scored.

No one is disagreeing with you. But what player that wants to play a horde army is gonna wanna play under that rule type. An undead player doesn't care how many of his men die in battle so long as the field or relic is his at the end of the game. Wounds tallied mean nothing to him. Completely breaks the immersion

Autumn Leaves
11-07-2015, 23:17
If you're having some issues just roll a D6b and move on, it's how the issues were resolved over the past 30 years...

TheFang
11-07-2015, 23:24
If you're having some issues just roll a D6b and move on, it's how the issues were resolved over the past 30 years...
There are so many issues you might as well just roll off to see who wins.

itcamefromthedeep
12-07-2015, 02:22
Is there any other (war)game where people would happily accept someone rocking up and saying "I've made up my own rules for this model/game."? I think it's remarkable how far some people are willing to go to keep defending how ****-poor a job GW have done with this.Nobody I know actually plays 40k as it's written. Everyone I've ever seen play Maelstrom uses the house rule where you get to discard cards you can't ever achieve.

Letting people take a Dark Elf Hero and give them the attack and movement profile of a Pegasus isn't exactly a big deal. Is anyone really afraid that it'll be "broken"? In this game?

roperpg
13-07-2015, 14:32
Going back to Avian's original point, his summation of optimal builds aren't the full picture.
If your standard stance is 'all comers", then sword and shield is your best option.
Reasoning?
Most buffs affect to hit rolls with a few affecting wound rolls, so your if your opponent is stacking whatever he can, your liberators will be taking more save rolls, so the reroll of ones on defence is worth having.
Most debuffs only affect to-hit rolls, at which point the sword is your best friend. Okay, we're only talking 1/36, but if you're math-hammering then you do it right.
Paired weapons are again indistinguishable until you run into debuffs, at which point swords win again.
But if you have a Lord Celestant on foot as your general, then hammers are always better than swords. Unless your Celestant buys the farm...

But no, the weapons are IDENTICAL, nothing to pick between them, grumble etc.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Avian
13-07-2015, 15:27
With paired weapons, hammers are actually better by default.

Similarly, the Tyrant bonus and the Lord buff both benefit hammers more.

roperpg
13-07-2015, 15:38
With paired weapons, hammers are actually better by default.

Similarly, the Tyrant bonus and the Lord buff both benefit hammers more.
Paired swords:
(2/3 +(1/6 * 2/3) )* 1/2 = 7/9 * 1/2 = 7/18

Paired Hammers:
(1/2 + (1/6 * 1/2)) * 2/3 = 7/12 * 2/3 = 14/36 = 7/18

Where's the mistake?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Konovalev
13-07-2015, 16:04
Is there any other (war)game where people would happily accept someone rocking up and saying "I've made up my own rules for this model/game."? I think it's remarkable how far some people are willing to go to keep defending how ****-poor a job GW have done with this.

FFG's X-Wing. House rules for Snowspeeder's, AT-AT's, AT-ST's, Air-To-Ground, Ground-to-Air, turret emplacements, the battle of Hoth, and the Deathstar trench run are quite common.

Reinholt
13-07-2015, 16:22
On the topic of house rules, I think they need to be divided into two categories:

1 - Rules that are add-ons for a game that is otherwise perfectly playable (the aforementioned X-wing example).

2 - Rules that are patches to the core rules to make the game playable.

I would suggest those are not the same situation in the view of most gaming groups.

Avian
13-07-2015, 16:43
Where's the mistake?
Sorry, I was mistaken. Paired makes no difference, but the Lay Low the Tyrant and the bonus from the Celestant favours hammers.

roperpg
13-07-2015, 16:55
Sorry, I was mistaken. Paired makes no difference, but the Lay Low the Tyrant and the bonus from the Celestant favours hammers.
Was beginning to panic! [emoji1]
I like that swords are a better generic option but hammers are the best if you can get stuff going in your favour.

Plus, hammers just look better on a mini...

D6damage
16-07-2015, 00:46
In response to Avian's original point...

If I had to decide which weapon combos to use on my miniatures, I would just have fun gluing them together and see what looked cool.

This is what happened in WHFB: someone does the maths and decides combo A always wins. So then all the competitive players only use combo A from now on. And anyone who tries to use combo B, C or D (because they like the look of the models, or for the narrative element) is at a serious disadvantage. Can you not see how that was a really bad thing?

Ayin
16-07-2015, 02:15
In response to Avian's original point...

If I had to decide which weapon combos to use on my miniatures, I would just have fun gluing them together and see what looked cool.

This is what happened in WHFB: someone does the maths and decides combo A always wins. So then all the competitive players only use combo A from now on. And anyone who tries to use combo B, C or D (because they like the look of the models, or for the narrative element) is at a serious disadvantage. Can you not see how that was a really bad thing?

Indeed. I would think designers would want multiple options to be viable in different situations.

Unfortunately, GW hasn't been able to accomplish that often in the last decade. They're STILL not able to accomplish it now.

Avian
16-07-2015, 07:33
In response to Avian's original point...

If I had to decide which weapon combos to use on my miniatures, I would just have fun gluing them together and see what looked cool.

This is what happened in WHFB: someone does the maths and decides combo A always wins. So then all the competitive players only use combo A from now on. And anyone who tries to use combo B, C or D (because they like the look of the models, or for the narrative element) is at a serious disadvantage. Can you not see how that was a really bad thing?
Well, if you select weaponry based upon what looks cool, why do you then worry that something is less effective?

Furthermore: if the problem was that one weapon was better than another, that is solvable. However, the method GW chose to go with makes it WORSE for the people who select based on the 'rule of cool'.

Now, for example, if you want to equip your Wolf Riders to charge into combat, you might decide to go with spears. That is the less effective choice, and you should have selected bows instead. Or compare the situation where Marauders with hand weapons do more damage than those with flails.


The best thing to do would have been to tweak the rules so that every combo has its niche, and that combos are good in the situations you would intuitively think they were good at.

The second best thing would be to have the same rules for every combo, and let players choose *entirely* on looks.

The third best option is what they went with. The illusion of choice, and no connection between what you'd *think* a combo is good at, and what it actually is good at.

Wesser
16-07-2015, 07:53
In response to Avian's original point...

If I had to decide which weapon combos to use on my miniatures, I would just have fun gluing them together and see what looked cool.

This is what happened in WHFB: someone does the maths and decides combo A always wins. So then all the competitive players only use combo A from now on. And anyone who tries to use combo B, C or D (because they like the look of the models, or for the narrative element) is at a serious disadvantage. Can you not see how that was a really bad thing?

That was actually pretty rare.

When I field skeleton warriors I field both spearskellies and swordskellies. Sure Sword'n Board is mathematically ever so slightly better, but the difference rarely matters at all and every now and again the spears manage some crucial extra kills

Sure Empire Halberdiers have an advantage over the other kinds of State troops, but at least the halberd is the archetypical empire weapon, and the other types of state troops still had parts to play.



My point being is that weaponry defined the unit and to a certain extent some its tasks upon the battlefield. If we have a lot of different names for weapons that just basically all operate within a number of combos you can count on one hand it's down to confusing, boring and bland...

Ayin
16-07-2015, 08:11
Furthermore: if the problem was that one weapon was better than another, that is solvable. However, the method GW chose to go with makes it WORSE for the people who select based on the 'rule of cool'.

Now, for example, if you want to equip your Wolf Riders to charge into combat, you might decide to go with spears.

...I had not considered that. Because they can charge in and still shoot on their own turn, they effectively get to attack twice. Where spears might be the default choice and bows the 'upgrade', making the unit better all around by more expensive in other systems, without points the only deciding difference is 'want them better at shooting or fighting?' and bows win at both of those. Wow.