PDA

View Full Version : My first game of Age of Sigmar



SanDiegoSurrealist
19-07-2015, 14:34
I had my first game of Age of Sigmar yesterday, and I have to say I was not impressed.

The set-up:
60 Wounds each
0-3 Heroes
0-2 Monsters

Opponent playing Death – Krell, Necromancer, 20 Grave Guard, Mortis Engine, 5 Black Knights, and a couple other things I don’t remember.
Summoned units after game had started: 20 Skeletons and a Terrorgeist.

Me playing Order– All the Stormcast Eternals from the starter box, a Slann, and 3 Salamanders.
Summoned units after game had started: Scar Vet with Standard, 5 Temple Guard, 2 x 20 Saurus, Old Blood on Carnasaur, 2 x 5 Cold One Cav, Skink Priest, and an Engine of the Gods.

Originally I thought there was no balance but I think I may have been wrong in that assessment; it is perhaps too balanced. Stat lines for the two armies (as with most armies) are incredibly similar. The game quickly devolved into getting into melee and then rolling either higher than 3 or higher than 4 on a pool of dice, with the occasional exciting challenge into rolling 5s, just to mix it up some.

Even with that being the case my opponent still steamrollered me! Now that could have to do with a lot of minor things, but in this case it was a unit of 20 Grave Guard with 40-60 (base 40 + 1 attack each from Krell = 60) attacks a turn, plus a spell gave him a second pile-in and another round of attacks with this unit; 80-120 attacks per turn! Followed by him getting the initiative each consecutive turn also made for a very poor experience.

The rolling for initiative each turn is not an enjoyable game mechanic, unless you are the one getting to go first each time. It means you get two volleys of critical ranged attacks and maneuvering, and two chances at your charges, before your opponent got one. It is not interesting nor a fun design, and in my experience games where a player got double turns in the first two or three rounds, regardless of the type of game, usually ended with that player dominating.

The game's simplicity leads to an environment that, simply put, isn't tactically complex. Quickly the battle devolved into one big pile of units rolling against each other until one side ran out of models. It's hard to conclude whether that's a product of the rules as intended or not, though I can't see too much happening with new fancy rules on new miniatures they introduce in the next few months that would change this outcome.

I think it will take a few more games but I can see it is going to be a game of bland wash-rinse-repeat slugfests that will often come down to two or three figures on each side smacking each other over and over for victory.

SimaoSegunda
19-07-2015, 15:08
I had my first game of Age of Sigmar yesterday, and I have to say I was not impressed.

The set-up:
60 Wounds each
0-3 Heroes
0-2 Monsters

Opponent playing Death – Krell, Necromancer, 20 Grave Guard, Mortis Engine, 5 Black Knights, and a couple other things I don’t remember.
Summoned units after game had started: 20 Skeletons and a Terrorgeist.

Me playing Order– All the Stormcast Eternals from the starter box, a Slann, and 3 Salamanders.
Summoned units after game had started: Scar Vet with Standard, 5 Temple Guard, 2 x 20 Saurus, Old Blood on Carnasaur, 2 x 5 Cold One Cav, Skink Priest, and an Engine of the Gods.

Originally I thought there was no balance but I think I may have been wrong in that assessment; it is perhaps too balanced. Stat lines for the two armies (as with most armies) are incredibly similar. The game quickly devolved into getting into melee and then rolling either higher than 3 or higher than 4 on a pool of dice, with the occasional exciting challenge into rolling 5s, just to mix it up some.

Even with that being the case my opponent still steamrollered me! Now that could have to do with a lot of minor things, but in this case it was a unit of 20 Grave Guard with 40-60 (base 40 + 1 attack each from Krell = 60) attacks a turn, plus a spell gave him a second pile-in and another round of attacks with this unit; 80-120 attacks per turn! Followed by him getting the initiative each consecutive turn also made for a very poor experience.

The rolling for initiative each turn is not an enjoyable game mechanic, unless you are the one getting to go first each time. It means you get two volleys of critical ranged attacks and maneuvering, and two chances at your charges, before your opponent got one. It is not interesting nor a fun design, and in my experience games where a player got double turns in the first two or three rounds, regardless of the type of game, usually ended with that player dominating.

The game's simplicity leads to an environment that, simply put, isn't tactically complex. Quickly the battle devolved into one big pile of units rolling against each other until one side ran out of models. It's hard to conclude whether that's a product of the rules as intended or not, though I can't see too much happening with new fancy rules on new miniatures they introduce in the next few months that would change this outcome.

I think it will take a few more games but I can see it is going to be a game of bland wash-rinse-repeat slugfests that will often come down to two or three figures on each side smacking each other over and over for victory.

A few points:

1) it appears you may have been playing summoning wrongly. The general consensus is that you need to have started with a unit in your army in order to be able to summon that unit type during the game. So, unless you deploy a unit of skeleton warriors at the start, you ain't getting new ones during the game.

2) I don't understand your complaint about the initiative roll-off. If your opponent was winning the roll every time, then how is that different to him just having the first turn in 8th? Also, don't forget, if you use command or hero abilities that last until your next hero phase, you keep those benefits even if the character is killed. I was in a game against a horde of ghouls yesterday that got two consecutive turns, but because I'd used a lightning storm on them, they were still suffering a penalty to their hit rolls in his following turn.

3) You really need to target your opponent's heroes as much as possible. They're generally very good force multipliers, and tend not to be as easy (or even possible) to summon back.

4) Be prepared to retreat from combat occasionally. If you can engage your opponent's big units with small units, or decline to use pile-in moves, or engage big units on two sides, you can really limit the amount of damage your opponent can do to you. 30-odd ghouls are pretty scary, but if your opponent can only attack with 6-7 of them at a time....

The tactical complexities are very different to those of 8th, but I promise you, if you try and approach it with different ideas, you will find that there is some depth there.

Razhem
19-07-2015, 15:19
1) it appears you may have been playing summoning wrongly. The general consensus is that you need to have started with a unit in your army in order to be able to summon that unit type during the game. So, unless you deploy a unit of skeleton warriors at the start, you ain't getting new ones during the game.


General consensus or wishful thinking? And isnīt a consensus basically a houserule already?

Reaper85
19-07-2015, 15:37
A few points:

1) it appears you may have been playing summoning wrongly. The general consensus is that you need to have started with a unit in your army in order to be able to summon that unit type during the game. So, unless you deploy a unit of skeleton warriors at the start, you ain't getting new ones during the game.



Personally thinking... shouldn't that kind of clarification be stated in the rules to begin with? rather than hoping "consensus" sorts it out? just a thought... dark side of that, is maybe they are summoning as intended.

LTERALUS
19-07-2015, 15:53
A few points:

1) it appears you may have been playing summoning wrongly. The general consensus is that you need to have started with a unit in your army in order to be able to summon that unit type during the game. So, unless you deploy a unit of skeleton warriors at the start, you ain't getting new ones during the game.

You're wrong

Tichey
19-07-2015, 15:54
Yeah with the summoning rules my group kinda just assumed you already needed to have them on the field but i wouldn't count on everyone agreeing to that, especially in a PUG against someone who like the idea of being able to take a small hero heavy force, get sudden death then spam summon monsters for an easy win. My group was fairly lucky with me being the one playing vamps and the others playing non summon armies in that I would prefer to have a fun, fair game rather than just steamroll them.

SimaoSegunda
19-07-2015, 15:55
Personally thinking... shouldn't that kind of clarification be stated in the rules to begin with? rather than hoping "consensus" sorts it out? just a thought... dark side of that, is maybe they are summoning as intended.

Ok, maybe I wasn't clear what I meant when I said consensus. Let me explain further:

Most summoning spells appear on warscrolls for the units in question. For instance, the "summon zombies" spell appears on the "zombies" warscroll, the "summon hounds" spell appears on the "hunting hounds" scroll.

The rules for wizards says that they know the spells on their warscroll in addition to the two basic spells in the game. The summoning spells are generally not found on any wizards scroll, nor do the summoning spells themselves say the spell is added to the warscroll for certain wizards. Where are the summoning spells for units found? On the warscroll of the unit in question. Ergo, it stands to reason that you need to have the warscroll for the unit in order to summon it. Therefore, needing to have the unit at the start of the game in order to summon a similar unit during the game.

When I say "the consensus", this is because everyone I have so far spoken to about it agrees that this is the way it works, including some youtube commentators.

Note: I am open to the possibility that I am interpreting it incorrectly, hence why I said that it appears that he 'appears' to be playing it wrongly. I have yet to encounter anyone else playing it differently, but to answer Razhem's comment above, no, I don't think it is wishful thinking, and no, consensus is definitely not the same thing as a houserule.

SimaoSegunda
19-07-2015, 15:57
You're wrong

Wonderfully constructive comment, that. Anything to back it up?

Vladyhell
19-07-2015, 15:57
The rules are clear as day,you can only summon what you play.

thesoundofmusica
19-07-2015, 16:10
This is my experience if it helps:
• summoning is too powerful (especially with a caster that has several casts a turn), at least in a battleline type battle. I cant say about scenarios yet.

• but mostly what screws me over is not knowing which unit does what. Its a new game, everything has new stats. But you see these units and remember 8th ed. Preconception is the word right?

• when just playing battleline games some kind of comp rule works great.
This is what we play currently for around 35-40 models.
1-2 heroes
1+ unit of 10+ models
0-1 war machines
0-1 monsters
Max 2 shooty units (including Warmachines)
60-70 wounds

The "Legacy" armies have lots of unbalancing rules etc but who cares. The old idea of 2000 points being balanced is kind of silly, unless you mirror.

TheFang
19-07-2015, 16:16
The rules are clear as day,you can only summon what you play.

No they aren't. Please quote the part "as clear as day".

Bede19025
19-07-2015, 16:17
I wonder, does the op play 40k? In that game units have no flanks or rear and movesment is free and easy. No one says that game lacks tactical complexity.

hdctambien
19-07-2015, 16:25
Ergo, it stands to reason that you need to have the warscroll for the unit in order to summon it. Therefore, needing to have the unit at the start of the game in order to summon a similar unit during the game. .

What does it mean to "have a warscroll"? I have *all* the warscrolls. Just because I didn't deploy a model doesn't mean I don't "have" the warscroll.

Also, contrast the Lizardmen/Undead/Demon summoning spells with the Treekin spell:

MAGIC
Sylvaneth Wizards know the Regrowth spell in addition to any other spell they know whilst there are any Tree Kin on the battlefield.

Seems weird that some spells would say that "wizards know this spell" and other rules would specify that "wizards know this spell only if this unit is on the battlefield".

Tokamak
19-07-2015, 16:26
In AoS there's a soft flank and rear distinction due to measuring from models rather than bases. Which is why some people like to charge their cavalry sideways...

Senbei
19-07-2015, 16:31
I wonder, does the op play 40k? In that game units have no flanks or rear and movesment is free and easy. No one says that game lacks tactical complexity.

No.... but if a gunline army could have two turns in a row in 40k we'd be ranting too I suspect. Also, 40k has been less tactical than WFB since 1998. Prior to that individual models had a front facing and couldn't fire through friendly models.

SimaoSegunda
19-07-2015, 16:41
What does it mean to "have a warscroll"? I have *all* the warscrolls. Just because I didn't deploy a model doesn't mean I don't "have" the warscroll.

Also, contrast the Lizardmen/Undead/Demon summoning spells with the Treekin spell:

MAGIC
Sylvaneth Wizards know the Regrowth spell in addition to any other spell they know whilst there are any Tree Kin on the battlefield.

Seems weird that some spells would say that "wizards know this spell" and other rules would specify that "wizards know this spell only if this unit is on the battlefield".

I see what you're saying, however, that would mean that if you had all your skeletons killed, you wouldn't be able to summon replacements if it was only while you had some models left alive. "Oh, Vlad von Carstein has been summoning skeletons all day, but now that there aren't any in play, he suddenly forgets how". It's not the same thing as "Isabella doesn't know how to summon terrorgheists, if she did, she'd have brought one with her.

Do you have a rules quote to show that you get the warscrolls for units that you haven't set up as part of your army?

TheFang
19-07-2015, 16:50
Do you have a rules quote to show that you get the warscrolls for units that you haven't set up as part of your army?
All of the warscrolls for summonables.

"Magic
Chaos Wizards know the Summon Bloodthirster of Rage spell, in addition to any others they know."

No condition included. You can summon anything as long as you have the right kind of wizard.

SimaoSegunda
19-07-2015, 16:54
And how do you know you have that spell? It isn't from the chaos wizard warscroll. You take a bloodthirster, as a result you get the warscroll, as a result you get to summon them.

Avian
19-07-2015, 16:54
I keep bringing up the apparent need to have Kroq-gar on Carnosaur on the table in order to summon Kroq-gar on Carnosaur to the table.

Nobody has yet been able to justify that interpretation.

hdctambien
19-07-2015, 17:00
All of the warscrolls for summonables.

"Magic
Chaos Wizards know the Summon Bloodthirster of Rage spell, in addition to any others they know."

No condition included. You can summon anything as long as you have the right kind of wizard.


"All models are described by warscrolls,which provide all of the rules for usingthem in the game. You will need warscrollsfor the models you want to use."

That is the rule about Warscrolls. It doesn't say that "1 warscroll describes 1 model". You just need to have a warscroll if you want to use a model. If I want to use a Stegadon, then I need to have the Stegadon warscroll. That warscroll describes a rule for all Slann models which says they can cast the Summon Stegadon spell.

The rules do not tie "having a warscroll" to "deploying a model".

The idea that you have/take a bunch of warscrolls to define some sort of "army list" is a holdover from 8th edition and the points system. There is no such thing in AoS.

hdctambien
19-07-2015, 17:01
And how do you know you have that spell? It isn't from the chaos wizard warscroll. You take a bloodthirster, as a result you get the warscroll, as a result you get to summon them.

Citation required.

Where is the rule that says "you get a warscroll when you take a model"?

thesoundofmusica
19-07-2015, 17:24
I keep bringing up the apparent need to have Kroq-gar on Carnosaur on the table in order to summon Kroq-gar on Carnosaur to the table.

Nobody has yet been able to justify that interpretation.

He dies and gets summoned back? Or does that go against 'being on the table'?

SteveW
19-07-2015, 17:31
I had my first game of Age of Sigmar yesterday, and I have to say I was not impressed.

The set-up:
60 Wounds each
0-3 Heroes
0-2 Monsters You hadn't played it yet but felt the need to already comp it? So you actually have yet to play AoS.


Opponent playing Death – Krell, Necromancer, 20 Grave Guard, Mortis Engine, 5 Black Knights, and a couple other things I don’t remember.
Summoned units after game had started: 20 Skeletons and a Terrorgeist.

Me playing Order– All the Stormcast Eternals from the starter box, a Slann, and 3 Salamanders.
Summoned units after game had started: Scar Vet with Standard, 5 Temple Guard, 2 x 20 Saurus, Old Blood on Carnasaur, 2 x 5 Cold One Cav, Skink Priest, and an Engine of the Gods.

Originally I thought there was no balance but I think I may have been wrong in that assessment; it is perhaps too balanced. Stat lines for the two armies (as with most armies) are incredibly similar. The game quickly devolved into getting into melee and then rolling either higher than 3 or higher than 4 on a pool of dice, with the occasional exciting challenge into rolling 5s, just to mix it up some.

Even with that being the case my opponent still steamrollered me! Now that could have to do with a lot of minor things, but in this case it was a unit of 20 Grave Guard with 40-60 (base 40 + 1 attack each from Krell = 60) attacks a turn, plus a spell gave him a second pile-in and another round of attacks with this unit; 80-120 attacks per turn! Followed by him getting the initiative each consecutive turn also made for a very poor experience.

The rolling for initiative each turn is not an enjoyable game mechanic, unless you are the one getting to go first each time. It means you get two volleys of critical ranged attacks and maneuvering, and two chances at your charges, before your opponent got one. It is not interesting nor a fun design, and in my experience games where a player got double turns in the first two or three rounds, regardless of the type of game, usually ended with that player dominating.

The game's simplicity leads to an environment that, simply put, isn't tactically complex. Quickly the battle devolved into one big pile of units rolling against each other until one side ran out of models. It's hard to conclude whether that's a product of the rules as intended or not, though I can't see too much happening with new fancy rules on new miniatures they introduce in the next few months that would change this outcome.

I think it will take a few more games but I can see it is going to be a game of bland wash-rinse-repeat slugfests that will often come down to two or three figures on each side smacking each other over and over for victory. The game for me was fun until I played quite a few games and it is just a wash repeat slugfest with no depth to it.

PS, contrary to popular belief you do not need a unit on the table to summon that unit. That is just asserted by people with no backing by the rules and causes all kinds of contradictions like you can't summon Tetto Ekko unless you already have Tetto Ekko.

Razhem
19-07-2015, 17:38
Note: I am open to the possibility that I am interpreting it incorrectly, hence why I said that it appears that he 'appears' to be playing it wrongly. I have yet to encounter anyone else playing it differently, but to answer Razhem's comment above, no, I don't think it is wishful thinking, and no, consensus is definitely not the same thing as a houserule.

Reading the thread seems itīs wishful thinking where you are at the moment to me, you have no real proof ;)

Also, when something is based on consensus, and not a FAQ or official wording, itīs pretty much the textbook definition of a houserule, since you can easily end up in another place with a different consensus.

CaladanCid
19-07-2015, 17:45
Yeah, the fact that unique models have summoning spells associated with them pretty much puts a big hole in the idea that you must have a unit to summon it. I definitely understand the point SimaoSegunda is making, and I wish summoning worked better, but I can't get over the unique model issue.

Shandor
19-07-2015, 17:51
Well since you have all warscrolls in the world when you play a game its really clear you can summon all you like as long you have the right Wizard with you.
The only way to avoid this is when you house Rule the Warcrolls like "We play 5 Scrolls against 5 scrolls" or something like that.
But if you dont deploy Skeletons it does not mean you dont "have" the skeleton warscroll in this game.. its there.. on the internet or in your map or on your smartphone.
If you add one necromancer in your game you have all the necromancer spells with him.. no matter where you need to read them.

If you want to houserule Summoning its ok. since its OP anyways. But dont pretent its a AoS rule.


Btw from a Roleplaying/fluff aspekt its kinda strange if you can only summon what you already have. Summoning is calling something that isnt here from another place. Or raise the dead from the ground when it comes to necromancy. How should that work? "Oh no i have no skeletons here so i cant raise the dead from the battlefield because i forgot how they look like?" :)

from a Rule standpoint its even more worse.. you can field them right away or try to summon them later and got no benefit for that? Whats the reason of summoning spells then?

Well its AoS.. i guess i dont should expect logic in this crap.

Tokamak
19-07-2015, 17:52
I keep bringing up the apparent need to have Kroq-gar on Carnosaur on the table in order to summon Kroq-gar on Carnosaur to the table.

Nobody has yet been able to justify that interpretation.

I'm not really sure where I was going to get a "a vile wave of crawling, biting, stinging creatures" for Malagor in the first place...

Viletide
This spell summons a vile wave of
crawling, biting, stinging creatures that
swarm over the foe. Viletide has a casting
value of 6. If successfully cast, Malagor
can immediately make an attack using the
Carrion Viletide profile above.

Tyelacoirii
19-07-2015, 18:11
Is there a rule saying you cant summon or even deploy numerous versions of previously unique models?
I had interpeted it as you needed to have the warscroll in your army in order for your casters to get the spell. I can see how people interpret it differently but it seems like you are making an additional assumption that way.

SteveW
19-07-2015, 18:30
I had interpeted it as you needed to have the warscroll in your army in order for your casters to get the spell..

What are you justifying that on? I see nothing that would indicate this at all.

hdctambien
19-07-2015, 18:41
Is there a rule saying you cant summon or even deploy numerous versions of previously unique models?
I had interpeted it as you needed to have the warscroll in your army in order for your casters to get the spell. I can see how people interpret it differently but it seems like you are making an additional assumption that way.

What does "having a warscroll in your army" mean? What does it mean to "have an army" in AoS?

Those are not Age of Sigmar rules, they are ideas from 8th (and all previous) editions of Warhammer that you are assuming still apply.

Flipmode
19-07-2015, 18:46
Summoning is mostly an issue if you have brought in an arbitrary army selection limit. Unfortunately, every 'simple solution OMG why could GW not just do this!??' I have seen has these kind of problems.

Holier Than Thou
19-07-2015, 18:54
I print off all the warscrolls and bring them with me for a game.
I bring all my models along for a game.
I deploy whatever I like from my collection.

If I don't put down a Terrorgheist then why do I suddenly no longer have the Terrorgheist warscroll?

It says Death Wizards know all the summoning spells, it doesn't say they know them as long as you initially deploy one of these units at the start of the game.

Disclaimer. The above is theoretical, I have not printed any warscrolls because I have no intention of ever playing this pile of ****.

SanDiegoSurrealist
19-07-2015, 18:56
You hadn't played it yet but felt the need to already comp it? So you actually have yet to play AoS.

Your right, maybe that was the problem.

thesoundofmusica
19-07-2015, 19:17
I have no intention of ever playing this pile of ****.

Yet here you are, on the Age of Sigmar forum.
I have no intention of ever buying a Prius but I still visit the PriusChat daily to bash the product and offer theoretical input. No I dont do I that would be beyond ridiculous.

Shandor
19-07-2015, 19:21
Yet here you are, on the Age of Sigmar forum.
I have no intention of ever buying a Prius but I still visit the PriusChat daily to bash the product and offer theoretical input. No I dont do I that would be beyond ridiculous.

Well it says:

Warhammer General Discussion

TheFang
19-07-2015, 19:22
Yet here you are, on the Age of Sigmar forum.

This is Warhammer I'm afraid. You can't win an argument by wishing everyone away. Invoking Prius doesn't work as there is no warscroll.

The rules allow you to summon anything so long as you have the correct wizard(s).

AngryAngel
19-07-2015, 19:23
No.... but if a gunline army could have two turns in a row in 40k we'd be ranting too I suspect. Also, 40k has been less tactical than WFB since 1998. Prior to that individual models had a front facing and couldn't fire through friendly models.

Ah but now the tactic shoe is on the other foot, now fantasy will be looking up to big bro 40k for great strategy, how the worm has turned.


And how do you know you have that spell? It isn't from the chaos wizard warscroll. You take a bloodthirster, as a result you get the warscroll, as a result you get to summon them.

I think your wishing summoning was more balanced then it really is. Which is silly as if you want balance you probably shouldn't be playing AoS.


I print off all the warscrolls and bring them with me for a game.
I bring all my models along for a game.
I deploy whatever I like from my collection.

If I don't put down a Terrorgheist then why do I suddenly no longer have the Terrorgheist warscroll?

It says Death Wizards know all the summoning spells, it doesn't say they know them as long as you initially deploy one of these units at the start of the game.

Disclaimer. The above is theoretical, I have not printed any warscrolls because I have no intention of ever playing this pile of ****.

Why would you even need to bring your in printed form ? Just bring your phone with the AoS app and show them there, bam, done.




Your right, maybe that was the problem.

No, the problem is going into AoS expecting balance, there isn't. It has a balance of bland. With just a touch of oh my god. You know, I never thought I'd buy the nagash model for my undead, but now, I think I will. Get some great AoS games in placing Nagash then summoning my army. I mean aim for some sudden death, its almost impossible to fail to cast for him, he summons double, is only 1 model, casts a million spells a turn. This game blows me away with its mechanics and I can't see how it will survive, as is.

big squig
19-07-2015, 20:07
I was under the assumption that you could only summon stuff that is actually in your list. Meaning you can summon unlimited number of skeletons, but only if your brought at least one unit of skeletons to begin with.

The skeleton summon spell is on the skeleton warscroll, not the necromancers.

That's how I interpreted it when I first read the rules/warscrolls. I mean, why not just put the summon spells in the necromancer's warscroll unless it was intended that taking certain units unlocked relevant spells?

Holier Than Thou
19-07-2015, 20:16
Yet here you are, on the Age of Sigmar forum.
I have no intention of ever buying a Prius but I still visit the PriusChat daily to bash the product and offer theoretical input. No I dont do I that would be beyond ridiculous.

I can still have an opinion on something I don't want to play and I can still have an opinion on how a rule works (or doesn't as is mostly the case with AOS).

Also, it's not an Age of Sigmar forum.

SteveW
19-07-2015, 20:18
How do you get that from:

"Death Wizards know the RaiseSkeletons spell, in addition to any other
spells they know."

Do you need to field skeletons to make a model a death wizard? Nope.
So he's already a death wizard? Yes
And all death wizards know the summon skeletons spell? Yep

Point out where you find something printed to the contrary.

Flipmode
19-07-2015, 20:30
"Any remaining units are held in reserve, playing no part unless fate lends a hand."

For me, that is summoning or equivalent hero powers. It does not need to have a counterpart unit in your initial setup to count as having the scroll, and therefore the spell.

Too many cases would make this an illogical intention.

AngryAngel
19-07-2015, 20:37
I was under the assumption that you could only summon stuff that is actually in your list. Meaning you can summon unlimited number of skeletons, but only if your brought at least one unit of skeletons to begin with.

The skeleton summon spell is on the skeleton warscroll, not the necromancers.

That's how I interpreted it when I first read the rules/warscrolls. I mean, why not just put the summon spells in the necromancer's warscroll unless it was intended that taking certain units unlocked relevant spells?

Probably because they didn't want to clutter up some of the scrolls needlessly I'd imagine. However, I'd rather not assume much with this system. The quoted post after this one really sums it up. It doesn't say " All death wizards have the summons skeleton spell, if you have at least one skeleton unit fielded with your army " or the like. It seems like a rather startlingly stupid omission if that is how it works. Seems even more incompetent they would omit that in each and every instance of summoning. Which leaves me to wonder why people assume it works only if you have the unit in your army already.



How do you get that from:

"Death Wizards know the RaiseSkeletons spell, in addition to any other
spells they know."

Do you need to field skeletons to make a model a death wizard? Nope.
So he's already a death wizard? Yes
And all death wizards know the summon skeletons spell? Yep

Point out where you find something printed to the contrary.

This, it isn't like the unit entries are huge seems odd they would leave out that you need to take the unit first to be able to summon it. Makes more sense they left in the unit entries just as a reminder that those units can be summoned, as not all can be.

SteveW
19-07-2015, 20:40
I doubt it's for clutter. If you leave the rules on the warscroll it leaves the game open for expansion. If on every death wizard it said what they can summon, any new units would be unsommonable until an errata came out. Instead they chose to put who can summon a unit on that units warscroll so any new unit would slide seamlessly into the game.

AngryAngel
19-07-2015, 20:42
Either way, the odds you can't summon if you don't have them in your army on the board seem beyond slim. Though I could see leaving them in the unit so as to be able to change it later make sense to me.

TheFang
19-07-2015, 20:58
That's how I interpreted it when I first read the rules/warscrolls. I mean, why not just put the summon spells in the necromancer's warscroll unless it was intended that taking certain units unlocked relevant spells?

Listing the summoning spells for Daemons would put the Mage's scroll onto a side of A4. Much more space efficient to do it on the warscroll for the Daemon. If you haven't got the minis you can't summon them.

rob451
19-07-2015, 21:04
If you look at the Treekin scroll you will see a spell that has the explicit caveat that the unit must be on the board for Sylvaneth wizards to know it.

This means that the wording "Wizards know this spell in addition to any other spells they know" does not depend on a certain unit being on the table unless the text specifies that it does.

This is done this way so that releasing a new unit doesn't require an FAQS or reprinting the War Scrolls for wizards.

itcamefromthedeep
19-07-2015, 22:52
I mean, why not just put the summon spells in the necromancer's warscroll unless it was intended that taking certain units unlocked relevant spells?

This is done this way so that releasing a new unit doesn't require an FAQS or reprinting the War Scrolls for wizards.
Bingo. There will most certainly be new summonable dead guys and summonable daemons.

---

When you put some Sigmarines in reserve, do they still have Lightning Strike, even when they're not on the table? In other words, do units need to be on the table to have their special rules? (It looks like the answer is clearly no, units can have abilities even when they're not on the table).

SanDiegoSurrealist
20-07-2015, 14:05
GW is the business of selling models why on earth would they make a game mechanic that does not facilitate that?

SteveW
20-07-2015, 15:47
Yeah, I love how they managed to make a game where the guy who spends the most on his army has a pretty big advantage.

thesoundofmusica
20-07-2015, 16:32
Yeah, I love how they managed to make a game where the guy who spends the most on his army has a pretty big advantage.

Aww is that really how it will play out? I doubt it.

HelloKitty
20-07-2015, 16:43
Rules as written no, you can spend $10,000 on your army and you can still lose, simply by having the other player stop deploying after a couple units and invoking the sudden death rule.

Not exactly my favorite mechanism but i've seen it at work now.

SteveW
20-07-2015, 17:00
The sudden death mechanism would not help all that much if you are at a ten to one deficit in msrp of forces.

Overtninja
20-07-2015, 17:00
You can summon whatever models you want to so long as you have the warscrolls handy, and the models to represent said models. This is one of those situations where 'See this eagle? It's actually a Greater Demon' will not fly imo. If you're going to try to go gonzo summoning bonkers things, you'd better be able to represent them on the field appropriately.

Does this promote buying yourself into power? Sure. Does it prevent summoning ten giant monsters, who can themselves summon other giant monsters? Sure does. It also helps prevent people from summoning literal carpets of models as well - they need to, you know, have said models to do that with.

If someone has a collection that deep and wants to run a summon-heavy army, that's fine with me, as I can probably match his summoning with summoning of my own - I can generate an endless tide of Dryads and probably fill the table with woods if my opponent wants to run that way. :p Most armies do have the option of doing stuff like this - and in the right environment it can be really fun. The right environment, in this case, is one were both players understand the sort of game they are setting up and how goonish it will be for all involved parties.

Urgat
20-07-2015, 17:07
Aren't all those summoned units considered dead at the end of the game? Doesn't that impact the game result?

ScruffMan
20-07-2015, 17:13
As has been said summoning is only generally a problem if you are trying to balance the game with limits. What the game seems to intend is for it to be a way to suddenly put a model in a strategic place rather than having them deployed at the beginning. Is it a problem with sudden death? Yes, probably needs fixing as some people will always go for the auto win and will ruin the experience.

If you are houseruling limits on armies then I suggest also that summonable units are part of that army list that is essentially in reserve, you have to pay for them. Obviously then get rid of the they don't count as models for victory conditions bit.

Again, lots of opportunities for scenarios here.

Overtninja
20-07-2015, 17:17
The rules say 'Models added to your army during the game (for example, through summoning, reinforcements, reincarnation and so on) do not count towards the number of models in the army, but must be counted among the casualties an army suffers.' This could go one of two ways - they count towards your casualty count if they die, or they count when they are summoned. The last is fairly punitive, as it virtually guarantees a minor loss unless you can table your opponent or claim an objective that grants victory in the game. It may be that this is the balancing factor - summoning puts you at a disadvantage, even as it advantages you if this is the case.

I'd go either way depending on how people are playing - try playing both ways and see how it affects the overall games. I'd like clarification from GW on this, as the wording is ambiguous and actually impactful. For the most part, the rules are pretty clear, but this rules' intent needs to be made more explicit.

rob451
20-07-2015, 17:18
Aren't all those summoned units considered dead at the end of the game? Doesn't that impact the game result?

They aren't considered dead unless they die only then do they count against models killed and this only matters if you fail to table your opponent or achieve a sudden death victory. Models killed ONLY matters in the event of a Minor Victory.

If you start with 10 models on the table and summon a further 10 then suffering 10 losses will calculate to 100% losses (regardless of which models they were) and suffering 19 casualties will result in 190% losses. Similarly if you suffer 0 losses you have suffered 0% casualties. Suffering 100% casualties does not count as being wiped out - having no models on the table counts as being wiped out.

If the summoned models don't die during the game they don't automatically die at the end of it.

Shandor
20-07-2015, 17:25
Rules as written no, you can spend $10,000 on your army and you can still lose, simply by having the other player stop deploying after a couple units and invoking the sudden death rule.

Not exactly my favorite mechanism but i've seen it at work now.

Im not sure about this but does the Sudden Death rule dont need to declare a Monster or Hero Model? If this is the case you can just field 10000 troops and one Commander hiding behind them and just dont care much.

thesoundofmusica
20-07-2015, 17:30
Im not sure about this but does the Sudden Death rule dont need to declare a Monster or Hero Model? If this is the case you can just field 10000 troops and one Commander hiding behind them and just dont care much.

Nah there are a couple of other sudden death objectives.

About summoning: I'm certainly no expert in the english language but the rulebook mentions what we're suppose to do with summoned units. They dont count towards the number of models in your army, but must be counted among the casualties. That to me makes no distiction between summoned models that were killed and summoned models that are still alive.
But maybe this has been debated elsewhere?

ScruffMan
20-07-2015, 17:34
Nah there are a couple of other sudden death objectives.

About summoning: I'm certainly no expert in the english language but the rulebook mentions what we're suppose to do with summoned units. They dont count towards the number of models in your army, but must be counted among the casualties. That to me makes no distiction between summoned models that were killed and summoned models that are still alive.
But maybe this has been debated elsewhere?


Just had a look through the rules and as written I do believe you are correct, good spot! Not sure whether it is RAI but it certainly sorts out the summoning problem somewhat.

AngryAngel
20-07-2015, 19:28
Yeah, but what does it matter who wins ? If I summon a whole army and stomp your face, and at the end of the game, you win. I mean who really won ? I wouldn't give two poops if I lose every game but feel like I win each time. In this game it hardly matters who wins or who loses, unless you use that triumph thing, which I never will as its dumb.

For instance, the game is about the experience now right ? So if the experience you want, is fielding say nagash summoning a vast undead horde and just being all undead awesome, what does it matter if you lose so long as you did such ? I don't think the opponent would ever get sudden death on you and he'd be hard pressed to beat through the swarm of models you'd be sending in wave after wave at him.

Niall78
20-07-2015, 19:56
Yeah, but what does it matter who wins ? If I summon a whole army and stomp your face, and at the end of the game, you win. I mean who really won ? I wouldn't give two poops if I lose every game but feel like I win each time. In this game it hardly matters who wins or who loses, unless you use that triumph thing, which I never will as its dumb.

For instance, the game is about the experience now right ? So if the experience you want, is fielding say nagash summoning a vast undead horde and just being all undead awesome, what does it matter if you lose so long as you did such ? I don't think the opponent would ever get sudden death on you and he'd be hard pressed to beat through the swarm of models you'd be sending in wave after wave at him.

You make a very valid point I haven't read yet on these forums.

If another player curb stomps me but the rules grant me some kind of lame technical win I'm hardly going to be delighted. In fact I'd be embarrassed in such a situation.

"Gamey" wins like that are unsatisfying in the extreme for both parties if they are decent gamers out for a good session.

In the hands of abusive players such rules or conditions are a nightmare of epic proportions.

AngryAngel
20-07-2015, 20:04
You make a very valid point I haven't read yet on these forums.

If another player curb stomps me but the rules grant me some kind of lame technical win I'm hardly going to be delighted. In fact I'd be embarrassed in such a situation.

"Gamey" wins like that are unsatisfying in the extreme for both parties if they are decent gamers out for a good session.

In the hands of abusive players such rules or conditions are a nightmare of epic proportions.

I appreciate the comments and glad you can see my point. I really don't think AoS is a game for gamers, it kind of feels more like. I'm relaxing, tossing some dice and we're going to kill a couple hours, the end. Which is fine, if that is your intention, it feels sad to me however, as I enjoyed the game that 8th was and now its just model showcase and laughs. I don't even really want to bash the system, it is what it is.

SteveW
20-07-2015, 20:14
I appreciate the comments and glad you can see my point. I really don't think AoS is a game for gamers, it kind of feels more like. I'm relaxing, tossing some dice and we're going to kill a couple hours, the end. Which is fine, if that is your intention, it feels sad to me however, as I enjoyed the game that 8th was and now its just model showcase and laughs. I don't even really want to bash the system, it is what it is.


I said something similar in another thread. The thing is GW has always strived to be a fun game company, never a serious tournament game company. AoS is probably the first of many of these sorts of games.

AngryAngel
20-07-2015, 20:18
I said something similar in another thread. The thing is GW has always strived to be a fun game company, never a serious tournament game company. AoS is probably the first of many of these sorts of games.

Which is fine as long as they realize they will lose the gamers. Only if you play no other games with your groups, will gamers keep feeding the AoS beast as its so soft. So for their sake, I hope they have a lot of customers that only play GW games and therefore are in it lock stock and barrel or are just and completely collectors. As they will need that to keep this hobby ( as it isn't much of a game ) alive.

SteveW
20-07-2015, 20:21
Which is fine as long as they realize they will lose the gamers. Only if you play no other games with your groups, will gamers keep feeding the AoS beast as its so soft. So for their sake, I hope they have a lot of customers that only play GW games and therefore are in it lock stock and barrel or are just and completely collectors. As they will need that to keep this hobby ( as it isn't much of a game ) alive.


I agree with you, only time will tell if this was a good direction.

I do think though that this might bring forward if not create a new type of gamer that until now has only been a myth. The beer and pretzels gamer.

HammerofThunor
20-07-2015, 20:22
Which is fine as long as they realize they will lose the gamers. Only if you play no other games with your groups, will gamers keep feeding the AoS beast as its so soft. So for their sake, I hope they have a lot of customers that only play GW games and therefore are in it lock stock and barrel or are just and completely collectors. As they will need that to keep this hobby ( as it isn't much of a game ) alive.

I think the 'best' thing this from any point of view is we will finally see a test of the premise that they can survive as a miniature company rather than a game company. If they can't they'll have to refocus (or die). If they can, well they were right.

AngryAngel
20-07-2015, 20:28
I think the 'best' thing this from any point of view is we will finally see a test of the premise that they can survive as a miniature company rather than a game company. If they can't they'll have to refocus (or die). If they can, well they were right.

A test for time then, but one that will hang a couple sizeable fantasy armies in the balance for me.

HammerofThunor
20-07-2015, 20:34
i think the whole company may swing on it one way another.

HereComesTomorrow
20-07-2015, 20:53
i think the whole company may swing on it one way another.

I doubt it.
If Fantasy was making as little as some people claim, then there was no big loss for GW if AoS fails. Either they make more money or continue making not much money.

Its really not a huge gamble as people would have you think.

Poncho160
20-07-2015, 20:56
Rules as written for summoning:

CASTING SPELLS
All wizards can use the spells described below, as well as any spells listed on their warscroll. A wizard can only attempt to cast each spell once per turn.

So a wizard can only use the two rule book spells and any listed on his warscroll.

From the Dire Wolves Warscroll:

Death Wizards know the Summon Dire Wolves spell, in addition to any other spells they know.

No where does it say in the warscrolls or in the main rules that you must take the unit to know the spell. Equally as important the rules do not state that you automatically know the spell without taking the unit. Badly written rules are bad.

To ramp up the discussion you can argue that no wizard in any army is listed (in the undeads case) as being a death wizard. Sure on the warscrolls some of the characters have the words death and then the word wizard several words later, but no character is listed as being a "death wizard" only a wizard, and because the main rules don't describe how warscrolls key words work or interact, the argument that no character is a death wizard is equally as valid as the argument that all undead wizards are death wizards.

Again badly written rules are bad.

Niall78
20-07-2015, 21:03
I agree with you, only time will tell if this was a good direction.

I do think though that this might bring forward if not create a new type of gamer that until now has only been a myth. The beer and pretzels gamer.

I love beer and pretzel games. Ticket to ride, Settlers of Catan, Dominion - hell even Kerplunk.

Do you really think any game that requires a hundred plus Euro to even start, that requires building and painting, that involves pushing miniatures around a game board, that requires player debate to try to resolve basic balancing issues can ever be considered a beer and pretzel game?

SteveW
20-07-2015, 21:19
I love beer and pretzel games. Ticket to ride, Settlers of Catan, Dominion - hell even Kerplunk. Me too.


Do you really think any game that requires a hundred plus Euro to even start, that requires building and painting, that involves pushing miniatures around a game board, that requires player debate to try to resolve basic balancing issues can ever be considered a beer and pretzel game? I'm poor, like really poor, and even I consider $108 investment to start a hobby low. Players don't need to debate over rules, every one of those debates with a few exceptions of course can be boiled down to self interest and being gamey.

Niall78
20-07-2015, 21:35
I'm poor, like really poor, and even I consider $108 investment to start a hobby low. Players don't need to debate over rules, every one of those debates with a few exceptions of course can be boiled down to self interest and being gamey.

Who said it wasn't cheap if you want to start a hobby? If you want a pretzel game it is a significant investment of money - let alone time. Their are literally thousands of board and card games that fill that niche much better than any - even highly simplified - tabletop miniature system.

SteveW
20-07-2015, 21:41
Who said it wasn't cheap if you want to start a hobby? If you want a pretzel game it is a significant investment of money - let alone time. Their are literally thousands of board and card games that fill that niche much better than any - even highly simplified - tabletop miniature system.

You've confused me. Are you saying it isn't a large investment for a beer and pretzels game? Or it is? Because you've now said both.

BTW- saying there are other games that fill the same role has no weight when discussing if this game fills that role.

Holier Than Thou
20-07-2015, 21:58
You've confused me. Are you saying it isn't a large investment for a beer and pretzels game? Or it is? Because you've now said both.

BTW- saying there are other games that fill the same role has no weight when discussing if this game fills that role.

He's saying it's a lot of money, time and effort for a game to be pulled out every now and then for an hour or so when thousands of board games or card games can be used for this purpose but it's not a lot of money to outlay for a hobby. However if you want a hobby, there are also many, many other games that are far superior to Age of Sigmar.

SteveW
20-07-2015, 22:06
many other games that are far superior to Age of Sigmar.
Sorry but that's your subjective stance and honestly your constant bashing of AoS is getting rather tired. You've admitted that you have yet to play AoS several times so constantly bashing it is getting pretty annoying, to the point where it's becoming a troll job.

Mateobard
20-07-2015, 22:07
It's a lot to lay out in terms of time and money for a game that should have been a lot tighter in terms of rules and balance from the get go.

I've now played something like a dozen games of Age of Sigmar - from small games with the box set minis to massive games with old armies. In no form and at no time has the game been balanced. Even when we just used the miniatures in the box, the capacity to kill multiple models in a single attack combined with the way that Battleshock is model-based was enough to make the game just not fun after a few tries.

And it didn't have to be this way at all. Played as written or with comp, it's still a poorly written, poorly designed game. And that disqualifies it as a valid hobby style war game. If the models were prepainted and this was a heroclix style game, fine. No problem. Pick up some little dudes and go to town. But this hobby has a greater and longer tradition than that, and it doesn't sing to those people and never will.

I've seen a lot of folks imply that the game is secretly awesome when you just let Age of Sigmar be Age of Sigmar. It's just not true. The mechanics are clunky, the rules are poorly worded and written, the game generally ends by turn 2 or three and the rest of the game is just a curb stomping, you can win by summoning monsters that summon and then all spam nasty spells. You can easily win on the top of turn one. You can find combinations in which your units cannot fail saves or fail to hit. You can find combinations in which you can make it impossible to lose by hiding your assassinate target off the board.

It's a game that was not designed well. It's a game designed lazily and poorly. It deserves to fail completely. I hope, genuinely, that it does fail, so that someone else can give Warhammer the Pathfinder treatment and we can all have fun without GW's BS getting in the way.

Leogun_91
20-07-2015, 22:21
I was under the assumption that you could only summon stuff that is actually in your list. Meaning you can summon unlimited number of skeletons, but only if your brought at least one unit of skeletons to begin with.

The skeleton summon spell is on the skeleton warscroll, not the necromancers.

That's how I interpreted it when I first read the rules/warscrolls. I mean, why not just put the summon spells in the necromancer's warscroll unless it was intended that taking certain units unlocked relevant spells?They assume that if you bring the unit with you then you also bring the model. If you deploy it doesn't matter. If you brought the unit with you to the store/club/friends house/shady establishment/various place then you will need the scroll, otherwise you have no need for it (since you must be able to place the model when you summon). This way no-one needs to flip through pages of summoning spells for each death wizard and GW can release more summonable undead further down the line.

Holier Than Thou
20-07-2015, 22:24
Sorry but that's your subjective stance and honestly your constant bashing of AoS is getting rather tired. You've admitted that you have yet to play AoS several times so constantly bashing it is getting pretty annoying, to the point where it's becoming a troll job.

That's true, I haven't played it and I won't either. As someone else eloquently put it "If it looks like **** and smells like ****, then it probably is ****." I have read the rules, I have read the warscrolls and I have read the battle reports and guess what? It looks and smells like ****. I don't need to play it to know that I won't like it and the people who do say they like it seem to defend every element of it which gives the impression they just can't bear to see GW getting, deserved, complaints.

If you think I'm trolling then by all means report me but I won't lie and say I think AOS could be good.

SteveW
20-07-2015, 22:33
That's true, I haven't played it and I won't either. As someone else eloquently put it "If it looks like **** and smells like ****, then it probably is ****." I have read the rules, I have read the warscrolls and I have read the battle reports and guess what? It looks and smells like ****. I don't need to play it to know that I won't like it and the people who do say they like it seem to defend every element of it which gives the impression they just can't bear to see GW getting, deserved, complaints. I've seen quite a few comments by you that would only be made by someone who has not read the rules, or at least has no understanding of them.


If you think I'm trolling then by all means report me but I won't lie and say I think AOS could be good. Why would you think it could be good, you have yet to show the capacity to judge the system or even demonstrate you understand it. The thing is, the statements "I don't like" and "i wont try" are mutually exclusive as you cannot know if you like something until you try it.

I'm done here, your negativity isn't something I need to engage with any longer.

Holier Than Thou
20-07-2015, 22:38
I've seen quite a few comments by you that would only be made by someone who has not read the rules, or at least has no understanding of them.

Why would you think it could be good, you have yet to show the capacity to judge the system or even demonstrate you understand it. The thing is, the statements "I don't like" and "i wont try" are mutually exclusive as you cannot know if you like something until you try it.

I'm done here, your negativity isn't something I need to engage with any longer.

I'd like to know what comments I've made that suggest I haven't read the rules.

Poncho160
20-07-2015, 22:41
They assume that if you bring the unit with you then you also bring the model. If you deploy it doesn't matter. If you brought the unit with you to the store/club/friends house/shady establishment/various place then you will need the scroll, otherwise you have no need for it (since you must be able to place the model when you summon). This way no-one needs to flip through pages of summoning spells for each death wizard and GW can release more summonable undead further down the line.

Unfortunatley because of the minimal rule set, that is just your interpretation of the the rules, because the rules (or lack of them) simply don't state how the summon spells can be used. It is easily open to interpretention as to how all the rules interact and will have to be decided by each group of players. :)

AoS has effectively killed pick up games between two strangers, unless they spend an hour before the game discussing what kind of game they want and coming to some sort of compromise as to how to interpret the rules.

SteveW
20-07-2015, 22:51
Unfortunatley because of the minimal rule set, that is just your interpretation of the the rules, because the rules (or lack of them) simply don't state how the summon spells can be used. It is easily open to interpretention as to how all the rules interact and will have to be decided by each group of players. :) I respectfully disagree. The summoning rules give a set of requisites and if they are met, you can summon. It's so simple I think some people are over analyzing it to the point of confusion.


AoS has effectively killed pick up games between two strangers, unless they spend an hour before the game discussing what kind of game they want and coming to some sort of compromise as to how to interpret the rules. Not any more than any other edition did, every store/event had it's own comp packs and almost nobody played out of the box warhammer.

Niall78
20-07-2015, 23:02
AoS has effectively killed pick up games between two strangers, unless they spend an hour before the game discussing what kind of game they want and coming to some sort of compromise as to how to interpret the rules.

That doesn't sound very beer and pretzels. ;)

MiyamatoMusashi
20-07-2015, 23:03
The thing is, the statements "I don't like" and "i wont try" are mutually exclusive as you cannot know if you like something until you try it.

Have you ever eaten live maggots?

AngryAngel
20-07-2015, 23:12
I love beer and pretzel games. Ticket to ride, Settlers of Catan, Dominion - hell even Kerplunk.

Do you really think any game that requires a hundred plus Euro to even start, that requires building and painting, that involves pushing miniatures around a game board, that requires player debate to try to resolve basic balancing issues can ever be considered a beer and pretzel game?

If you think Dominion is a beer and pretzels game you play with very different people then I do. That game can be cut throat, same goes for Catan.

SteveW
20-07-2015, 23:12
Have you ever eaten live maggots?

I have eaten larva. Many kinds in fact, some taste nutty, and others like dirt. It isn't an uncommon practice.

If by maggots you mean only fly larva? Yes, accidentally while biting into an apple and if it were not for them wiggling in my mustache I'd have never reacted poorly to them.

AngryAngel
20-07-2015, 23:33
Careful, people will take the biting of the apple with maggots inside as a description of playing AoS. AoS is the apple, taking a bit is playing the game, and the people who point out the issues with it are the wriggling in the mustache that makes you react poorly to it. Think about it.

:D

Niall78
20-07-2015, 23:33
If you think Dominion is a beer and pretzels game you play with very different people then I do. That game can be cut throat, same goes for Catan.

Any game can be cut throat. If the players know the game, have developed tactics through experience and are competitive they'll go at each other like wild dogs. Doesn't matter what type of game it is - sports, computer games, card games, board games, tabletop games. People like pitting their skills against other humans. It's what makes games fun.

Poncho160
20-07-2015, 23:39
I respectfully disagree. The summoning rules give a set of requisites and if they are met, you can summon. It's so simple I think some people are over analyzing it to the point of confusion.

The problem is what summoning rules? Haha :). Unless I am interpreting the rules completley wrong they are so open to interpretation it's anyone's guess as to how they work :).

I can see it from both sides. One side says that the warscroll of the unit says that the wizard knows the summoning spell and you dont have to take the unit to get the warscroll. The other side says you have to have the unit to get the warscroll and be able to use the summoning rule. Each side has a completley valid argument because the rules don't elaborate on the issue. It is completley open to interpretation.

There are also a few people saying that no one can use the summing spells because no one has the right keywords to use them! Haha :)

orzing
20-07-2015, 23:44
Some discussion about wizards here. From the spanish rules i have, i only read that you can summon the units you use in battle

SteveW
20-07-2015, 23:44
The problem is what summoning rules? Haha :). Unless I am interpreting the rules completley wrong they are so open to interpretation it's anyone's guess as to how they work :). The ones given on the warscrolls. They are all really simple.


I can see it from both sides. One side says that the warscroll of the unit says that the wizard knows the summoning spell and you dont have to take the unit to get the warscroll. The other side says you have to have the unit to get the warscroll and be able to use the summoning rule. Each side has a completley valid argument because the rules don't elaborate on the issue. It is completley open to interpretation. It isn't though. The rules are simple and leave no room for interpretation. They say for example "all death wizards know this spell", so all models/units with the keyword death wizard know that spell. All the details are there on the warscroll.


There are also a few people saying that no one can use the summing spells because no one has the right keywords to use them! Haha :)They do though, all the vampire counts wizards for example have death and wizard in their keywords.

Poncho160
20-07-2015, 23:57
The ones given on the warscrolls. They are all really simple.

It isn't though. The rules are simple and leave no room for interpretation. They say for example "all death wizards know this spell", so all models/units with the keyword death wizard know that spell. All the details are there on the warscroll.

They do though, all the vampire counts wizards for example have death and wizard in their keywords.

But how do you get access to the warscrolls? Do you automatically have access to every warscroll and you are able to use the rules contained within or do you have to have the unit to get the warscroll? The rules don't say :).

And yes all the vampire counts have the key words death and wizard, but no character has the key word "death wizard", an important distinction I think. No where does it say how the keywords work or if they can be combined, again it is open to interpretation.

Heinrich Kemmler has the key word Deathmage for example. This would seem to imply he was a Deathmage (whatever that means), so a wizard of some kind, but it dosent say he is a Death Wizard.... :)

Flipmode
21-07-2015, 00:06
But how do you get access to the warscrolls? Do you automatically have access to every warscroll and you are able to use the rules contained within or do you have to have the unit to get the warscroll? The rules don't say :).

And yes all the vampire counts have the key words death and wizard, but no character has the key word "death wizard", an important distinction I think. No where does it say how the keywords work or if they can be combined, again it is open to interpretation.

Heinrich Kemmler has the key word Deathmage for example. This would seem to imply he was a Deathmage (whatever that means), so a wizard of some kind, but it dosent say he is a Death Wizard.... :)
Everyone has access.
A Death Wizard has the keywords Death Wizard.
Deathmage is something else.

SteveW
21-07-2015, 00:08
But how do you get access to the warscrolls? Do you automatically have access to every warscroll and you are able to use the rules contained within or do you have to have the unit to get the warscroll? The rules don't say :). You do have access though, asking if you have access is like asking if you can read. If you can read, than you can read. It's an axiom, I do have the warscrolls, they are for the game of warhammer age of sigmar.


And yes all the vampire counts have the key words death and wizard, but no character has the key word "death wizard", an important distinction I think. No where does it say how the keywords work or if they can be combined, again it is open to interpretation. You're reaching here. It says in the same font and boldness the exact same words. It even says they're located in a section called the keywords section, they are then found in the section that says "keywords". What is left to interpretation?


Heinrich Kemmler has the key word Deathmage for example. This would seem to imply he was a Deathmage (whatever that means), so a wizard of some kind, but it dosent say he is a Death Wizard.... :)It also says Death, Wizard on there. If at some point something comes out that says a Deathmage can do something he will be able to do that as well.

AngryAngel
21-07-2015, 00:10
But how do you get access to the warscrolls? Do you automatically have access to every warscroll and you are able to use the rules contained within or do you have to have the unit to get the warscroll? The rules don't say :).

And yes all the vampire counts have the key words death and wizard, but no character has the key word "death wizard", an important distinction I think. No where does it say how the keywords work or if they can be combined, again it is open to interpretation.

Heinrich Kemmler has the key word Deathmage for example. This would seem to imply he was a Deathmage (whatever that means), so a wizard of some kind, but it dosent say he is a Death Wizard.... :)

That seems like disagreement for disagreement sake when they have both death wizard in the keywords. We already went through the spells being on the armies warscrolls so they can change things with the units and not need to with the wizards.

Though I get it, the rules are poor, I agree.

Poncho160
21-07-2015, 00:14
Everyone has access.
A Death Wizard has the keywords Death Wizard.
Deathmage is something else.

Just to play devils advocate then, please point me to the rule that says everyone has access to the warscrolls, even if you don't take the unit the warscroll relates to :).

And the no one has the key word Death Wizard. They have two separate words, placed several words apart. One is death and one is wizard. There are no rules saying you can combine key words :)

All i am saying is that the rules are so vague that they are compleltley open to interpretation and no one can claim to be 100% correct :).

Flipmode
21-07-2015, 00:27
I can, just did. Smiley.

EDIT: Also see Angryangel. You're reaching to make a point that isn't really needed.

SteveW
21-07-2015, 00:28
Just to play devils advocate then, please point me to the rule that says everyone has access to the warscrolls, even if you don't take the unit the warscroll relates to :).

And the no one has the key word Death Wizard. They have two separate words, placed several words apart. One is death and one is wizard. There are no rules saying you can combine key words :)

All i am saying is that the rules are so vague that they are compleltley open to interpretation and no one can claim to be 100% correct :).
Everyone has access to all the warscrolls, they're even free. That isn't a rule, it's axiomatic.

Death Wizard isn't a word, it's two words. So every way you write both death and wizard it's two words.

You're confusing vague with simple, the rules are very simple. They are not in any way vague.

Poncho160
21-07-2015, 00:34
Everyone has access to all the warscrolls, they're even free. That isn't a rule, it's axiomatic.

Death Wizard isn't a word, it's two words. So every way you write both death and wizard it's two words.

You're confusing vague with simple, the rules are very simple. They are not in any way vague.

Had to google axiomatic! Lol

You are probably right in how the rules work, it would just be nice if the rules were clear on the subject. It's going to cause a lot of headaches and rules arguing in the long run though.

Scribe of Khorne
21-07-2015, 00:42
Anyone playing AoS and arguing about the rules is plainly 'doing it wrong'.

Malagor
21-07-2015, 00:52
Anyone playing AoS and arguing about the rules is plainly 'doing it wrong'.
Indeed. Afterall arguing about rules is what they do in competitive games.
Here you are just suppose to roll with it.

SteveW
21-07-2015, 00:53
Had to google axiomatic! Lol
.
Is there another word for it in English proper? Or were you just unfamiliar with the term?

ewar
21-07-2015, 00:56
Is there another word for it in English proper? Or were you just unfamiliar with the term?

No, it means the same thing in English 'proper', though I wouldn't call it an everyday term.

I think, due to the fact you are discussing the rules for several pages, we can assume that there are some vagaries :)

AngryAngel
21-07-2015, 01:24
Anyone playing AoS and arguing about the rules is plainly 'doing it wrong'.

I would tend to agree.


Indeed. Afterall arguing about rules is what they do in competitive games.
Here you are just suppose to roll with it.

Exactly this, the game is competitive in the loosest possible sense. Why argue over it ? Let the rules be what they are and just have fun, doesn't matter who wins and loses. Honestly that is the best way to look at it, roll dice, look at the models, do fun stuff, as long as you feel like you had the most fun, you can claim you won.

itcamefromthedeep
21-07-2015, 02:42
Remember, AoS is a sportsmanship test. The lack of points values and ambiguous rules appear to be a mechanism for weeding out players who are too competitive to come to an agreement over how to have an entertaining game.

If you can't make it work, GW doesn't want your business. They don't want you in the player base poisoning others with your unsportsmanlike attitude.

ColShaw
21-07-2015, 02:47
Remember, AoS is a sportsmanship test. The lack of points values and ambiguous rules appear to be a mechanism for weeding out players who are too competitive to come to an agreement over how to have an entertaining game.

If you can't make it work, GW doesn't want your business. They don't want you in the player base poisoning others with your unsportsmanlike attitude.

I emphatically disagree that sportsmanship and competition are mutually exclusive.

GrandmasterWang
21-07-2015, 03:01
Random note: Strolled into GW the other day and watched 2 different pickup games of AOS start, both seemed to take between 2 and 5 minutes of discussion between the parties before the game to set up.

The entry cost to this game btw is 1 now the cost of 1 miniature. That's the point of it. A few days ago I saw 2 kids have their first game of AOS, both had bought and assembled only 1 miniature each. With free rules and no 'points' they were both able to play legally with an entry cost of $25 each. They seemed to have a great time.

In my earlier example of the setup time I have no idea if the 4 people playing had fun or a balanced game (the forces they deployed looked roughly balanced) as I left, but people talking about an hour setup time (facetious as they may be) are clearly off the mark.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

forseer of fates
21-07-2015, 03:13
You say free rules, arnt the storm cast rules only available in the new 45 pound books.....

mhsellwood
21-07-2015, 03:23
Exactly this, the game is competitive in the loosest possible sense. Why argue over it ? Let the rules be what they are and just have fun, doesn't matter who wins and loses. Honestly that is the best way to look at it, roll dice, look at the models, do fun stuff, as long as you feel like you had the most fun, you can claim you won.

Agreed. And that seems to me to be a very healthy attitude to the whole thing. Speaking personally I enjoy playing Warhammer, but I also enjoy painting the models, talking about the background, discussing modelling and painting techiniques, talking about what units are 'cool' or interesting etc. I also like to play games where irrespective of the outcome both people had fun - sometimes winning is actually not the same as having fun in a game (anecdote time: I used my gyrocopters to essentially shut down a guy's khornate knight unit one game - I won the game but at no point did he have fun and neither did I. I was playing by the rules and in pursuit of victory but the game was not fun).

Forseer of fate - you can download the rules from the games workshop site - go to the shop entry for (whatever) and they have a section named 'rules' where you can download all the rules for the model. Also, the rules come with the models. So, yes the rules are free

gd09garett
21-07-2015, 04:03
I wonder, does the op play 40k? In that game units have no flanks or rear and movesment is free and easy. No one says that game lacks tactical complexity.

Actually, I hear that complaint quite often about 40k.

Poncho160
21-07-2015, 04:12
Is there another word for it in English proper? Or were you just unfamiliar with the term?

Just never heard the word before :)

Mawduce
21-07-2015, 04:13
Actually, I hear that complaint quite often about 40k.

Vehicles have flanks and rear armor. That is about the only thing that does in 40k. My issue with fantasy was that melee combat almost always never stayed in perfect squares unless the battle was with a phalanx, and even then it was difficult to maintain. Combat always broke out into a skirmish somewhere. Movement in fantasy was always unrealistic to me. Once locked in combat the flanks are an issue, but not for that long, unless it's the rear.

Poncho160
21-07-2015, 04:14
I think a lot of the commenatators above have the right attitude to AoS. If you cant quickly decide on a rules intentions with your oppenent and carry on having fun playing the game, AoS might not be the game some people are looking for.

Wesser
21-07-2015, 08:27
Vehicles have flanks and rear armor. That is about the only thing that does in 40k. My issue with fantasy was that melee combat almost always never stayed in perfect squares unless the battle was with a phalanx, and even then it was difficult to maintain. Combat always broke out into a skirmish somewhere. Movement in fantasy was always unrealistic to me. Once locked in combat the flanks are an issue, but not for that long, unless it's the rear.

Suspension of Disbelief. The square unit is just a convenience.... what does models striking in the 2nd rank represent other than battlelines intermingling?


I remember watching Braveheart where the English and Scots clash.

- We have ordered regiments which moves a bit awkwardly to maintain cohesion

- We have light cavalry outflanking longbowmen taking them in the flank


It's all very Warhammer right up until the charge where it degenerates into a brawl, so much that when the light cavalry charge the English rear... well they don't really have one at that point. This part of the battle was very much AoS, but then again it was the early middle ages. In the later period and continuing into the renaissance this kind of brawl became increasingly uncommon.


It's always going to be difficult to mimic the complexity and confusion of medieval battles on a tabletop. Warhammer had it's limits, but AoS doesn't even have the scope to be considered a battle. What is some mighty lord or special character for instance doing in a scrap involving 30-40 models on either side??

MiyamatoMusashi
21-07-2015, 11:02
Vehicles have flanks and rear armor. That is about the only thing that does in 40k.

Not really. The fact that closest models are removed as casualties first means positioning matters. If the heavy weapons guy is standing at the back, but you get round behind the unit, the heavy weapons guy will die first. That gives value to outflanking and enfilade fire.

In AoS, no matter where the attack came from, you choose the mooks to die first because why not? Position and manoeuvre does not matter at all.

Leogun_91
21-07-2015, 11:38
Unfortunatley because of the minimal rule set, that is just your interpretation of the the rules, because the rules (or lack of them) simply don't state how the summon spells can be used. It is easily open to interpretention as to how all the rules interact and will have to be decided by each group of players. :)

AoS has effectively killed pick up games between two strangers, unless they spend an hour before the game discussing what kind of game they want and coming to some sort of compromise as to how to interpret the rules.
The interpretation that you need the models on the field at the beginning makes no sense with the rules we are given. With the popular house rule to play with equal wounds it has a real limiting effect but that is not GWs rules. If the VC player chooses not to deploy everything at start why would you penalize him further?

In addition being forced to have Kroq-Gar on the field in order to summon him feels wrong (granted the rules do not stop you from having multiple of the same SC but still).

thesoundofmusica
21-07-2015, 11:58
Not really. The fact that closest models are removed as casualties first means positioning matters. If the heavy weapons guy is standing at the back, but you get round behind the unit, the heavy weapons guy will die first. That gives value to outflanking and enfilade fire.

In AoS, no matter where the attack came from, you choose the mooks to die first because why not? Position and manoeuvre does not matter at all.

"At all"
Sure it does. It matters when controlling the direction you want your opponent to retreat. It matters in that clever dual charges and pile-ins can stop your opponent piling in on units you dont want them to or stop them piling in at all. Models block movement, so it matters for board control.

Edit:
There are tactics involving movement. I'm sure people will pick them up as we go along.

Thelordduke
21-07-2015, 12:37
You say free rules, arnt the storm cast rules only available in the new 45 pound books.....

All rules for units are on the website. You do not have to buy any books for rules outside of special scenarios from the campaigns.

Avian
21-07-2015, 12:39
All rules for units are on the website. You do not have to buy any books for rules outside of special scenarios from the campaigns.

And some of the battalion warscrolls, I believe.

Malagor
21-07-2015, 13:02
I emphatically disagree that sportsmanship and competition are mutually exclusive.
That's kinda the joke ;)
The die-hard supporters of AoS suggest that they are and that AoS is suppose to weed out the friendly players from the dirty and rude competitive players.
Of course the friendliest players in my area are the competitive players but oh well.

itcamefromthedeep
21-07-2015, 14:18
I emphatically disagree that sportsmanship and competition are mutually exclusive.
It's a good thing I didn't say they were, then.


That's kinda the joke ;)
The die-hard supporters of AoS suggest that they are and that AoS is suppose to weed out the friendly players from the dirty and rude competitive players.
Of course the friendliest players in my area are the competitive players but oh well.
The players who win best general at tournaments have a high degree of overlap with the people who tend to win best presentation and best sportsmanship. The people who are really good at the game tend to have the whole package.

---

GW seems to be working under the theory that rules disputes and toxic experiences with game balance only happen among players not mature enough to settle it amicably between themselves. Under that theory, the kinds of people who get into arguments or play with hyper-efficient army lists are undesirables who are best removed from the community so they can stop driving away friendlier players.

Now, there are absolutely no shortage of players who are willing to bring less than their most effective list in order to ensure an entertaining game. I know that there are some players against whom I hold back a bit in terms of army list to avoid a toxic experience. Age of Sigmar works just fine among that kind of player, when both sides can eyeball something near a fair game, and modulate their army list based on what their opponent is capable of as a player. When those players play against each other you can get a play experience similar to what you see in 8e Fantasy and 7e 40k games (often more fairly balanced). Where it falls apart is for players who don't know each other well enough to correctly modulate the amount of force they put on the table. Many experienced gamers can go decades without seeing such an experience, but younger and newer players often don't have such a good sense of game balance or they don't have the emotional maturity to go for a good game over a win. It also falls apart in something like a tournament environment designed to be a test of how good the players are at the game when using a comparable amount of force on each side.

It's possible that the loss of tournament-style events and competitive players will be made up for by retention of people who would otherwise be driven away by the toxic experiences associated with tournaments and tournament practice games. If that theory works out then we would expect a slow build in the player base as it keeps the players who would otherwise bleed out after a game against something like a 7e Daemons list.

HelloKitty
21-07-2015, 14:38
If that theory works out then we would expect a slow build in the player base as it keeps the players who would otherwise bleed out after a game against something like a 7e Daemons list.

That is what kind of happened with 8th. We lost 1/3 of our group when 7th changed to 8th and most of those guys were the very competitive guys who also were good at rules lawyering. We slowly rebuilt back up to bigger than we were in 7th.

Now we once again lost 1/3 of our group and another 1/3 is sitting out waiting to see what the active 1/3 do. My predictions are that the 1/3 sitting out will mostly come back in a year after there is more material out and a greater sense of what things are about. The 1/3 that rage quit will mostly be gone for good though a handful will likely come back, as they did with 8th.

thesoundofmusica
21-07-2015, 15:20
"This game is for kids, I better melt my army."
I see the logic now :)

Mawduce
21-07-2015, 21:02
It's a good thing I didn't say they were, then.


The players who win best general at tournaments have a high degree of overlap with the people who tend to win best presentation and best sportsmanship. The people who are really good at the game tend to have the whole package.

---

GW seems to be working under the theory that rules disputes and toxic experiences with game balance only happen among players not mature enough to settle it amicably between themselves. Under that theory, the kinds of people who get into arguments or play with hyper-efficient army lists are undesirables who are best removed from the community so they can stop driving away friendlier players.

Now, there are absolutely no shortage of players who are willing to bring less than their most effective list in order to ensure an entertaining game. I know that there are some players against whom I hold back a bit in terms of army list to avoid a toxic experience. Age of Sigmar works just fine among that kind of player, when both sides can eyeball something near a fair game, and modulate their army list based on what their opponent is capable of as a player. When those players play against each other you can get a play experience similar to what you see in 8e Fantasy and 7e 40k games (often more fairly balanced). Where it falls apart is for players who don't know each other well enough to correctly modulate the amount of force they put on the table. Many experienced gamers can go decades without seeing such an experience, but younger and newer players often don't have such a good sense of game balance or they don't have the emotional maturity to go for a good game over a win. It also falls apart in something like a tournament environment designed to be a test of how good the players are at the game when using a comparable amount of force on each side.

It's possible that the loss of tournament-style events and competitive players will be made up for by retention of people who would otherwise be driven away by the toxic experiences associated with tournaments and tournament practice games. If that theory works out then we would expect a slow build in the player base as it keeps the players who would otherwise bleed out after a game against something like a 7e Daemons list.

I'm a friendly gamer, but I play to win. If there is no tension in a game then whats the point. Sportsmanship and competitiveness have nothing to do with each other. Sportsmanship is about not being an ass to the loser because he lost and holding your head high when you lose. Competitiveness is about doing everything you can to crush the other guy while he is "the other guy". One happens off the field of play while the second happens on it. I don't have fun when I crush someone utterly though. I've watched Bat Reps over and over and just seen people totally dominate in games. When it was over, you could see the sense of disappointment in both players in the after action. I'll stick to 40k for my gaming needs till they screw that up. And when they do, and they will, I'll buy third party models and play with whatever codex I want, because at that point, it won't matter anymore.

evilsponge
21-07-2015, 21:35
Remember, AoS is a sportsmanship test. The lack of points values and ambiguous rules appear to be a mechanism for weeding out players who are too competitive to come to an agreement over how to have an entertaining game.

If you can't make it work, GW doesn't want your business. They don't want you in the player base poisoning others with your unsportsmanlike attitude.

This is a pretty terrible attitude to have from both an ethical and buisness perspective and I'm beginning to see why GW is hemorrhaging players

SteveW
21-07-2015, 21:37
This is a pretty terrible attitude to have from both an ethical and buisness perspective and I'm beginning to see why GW is hemorrhaging players
You mean it's a fantastic ethical stance while being a terrible business one? Right? Because those things are the exact opposite in this case.

Ayin
21-07-2015, 21:39
Yeah, GW's big concern is making sure they maintain a player base with high marks in "sportsmanship". That's a major concern of their corporate policy.

How does one get themselves to the point they actually believe that?

Niall78
21-07-2015, 21:43
Yeah, GW's big concern is making sure they maintain a player base with high marks in "sportsmanship". That's a major concern of their corporate policy.

How does one get themselves to the point they actually believe that?

GW now sells Kool-Aid at €50 a bottle.

Sales are quite brisk from what I've heard. :)

"Sportsmanship" from a company that brought in the 'wysiwyg' rule. The mind boggles.

evilsponge
21-07-2015, 21:43
Yeah, GW's big concern is making sure they maintain a player base with high marks in "sportsmanship". That's a major concern of their corporate policy.

How does one get themselves to the point they actually believe that?

I wouldn't know what GW's big concerns are because GW doesn't feel its necessary to tell their customers what it is they're doing. That's not a complaint, just an observation from someone who's been out of the wargaming hobby for awhile now.

Spiney Norman
21-07-2015, 22:57
Now, there are absolutely no shortage of players who are willing to bring less than their most effective list in order to ensure an entertaining game. I know that there are some players against whom I hold back a bit in terms of army list to avoid a toxic experience. Age of Sigmar works just fine among that kind of player, when both sides can eyeball something near a fair game, and modulate their army list based on what their opponent is capable of as a player.

I've played almost a dozen games of AoS and I still have no idea how to 'eyeball something near a fair game', if we can all put away our '100 bloodthirster' strawman for a second and put ourselves in the position of trying to create a fair and balanced gamestate. How many night goblins should I put down to give something equivalent to that unit of 30 chaos warriors? How many dryads should I bring to fairly balance out that unit of ogres? How many Grail knights is an Arachnarok worth etc, etc.

However simple you think AoS is, it's far too complex to expect to just eyeball your opponents force and quickly figure out a matching force unless you conveniently play the same army and have exactly the same models with you to play a mirror match.

I understand why they think points are toxic, they can create some unpleasant min-max lists, but to take them away completely and leave nothing in their place is not the answer, I don't even know where to begin setting up a game of AoS now, and that is not a healthy place for a game to be.

itcamefromthedeep
21-07-2015, 23:05
Maybe I should walk a comment or two back a bit.

When I say that I think AoS is a sportsmanship test and it attempts to drive away players that are "too competitive", I mean that I have Reasons (tm) to think that GW believes that a normal game is played between good friends in their basements, such that pick-up games are a negligible proportion of the experience*. In those pre-arranged basement games, points get in the way of fair armies, because the players know each other and the armies well enough to make a good guess at what's fair. GW have always supported the pre-arranged game, up to and including FOCs that differed depending on the scenario (not at all friendly to pick-up games).

*I have Reasons to think that if the player base wants to come up with comp rules to make the game "fair" it should be on the community to do so, and that the company should cater to the pre-arranged game (where points get in the way of what the players believe to be a fair match). It's plausible to me that GW thinks the lack of a competitive play experience will be solved by the community (because they do it anyway for big tournaments), and I think they're right on that count. I would prefer living points values for everything, regularly reprinted and dialed in based on feedback, but we don't actually need GW for that (hell, I've started howmanypoints.org to start crowdsourcing points values because I think GW can't be trusted to do it).

There's enough anecdata about poor pickup game experiences where something like a Centurionstar is sprung on an unsuspecting player that it's plausible to me that GW thinks removing points values will end that kind of experience, because a player can't "hide" behind poorly-balanced points to excuse their a toxic game. GW doesn't want to be seen as responsible for a curb-stomping experience (they put the burden of a "fair" game on experienced players).

For Reasons, I think that GW believes that points values have nothing to do with sales. They think that models sell because they look cool and/or are fun to play with. To an extent, they're correct, and players will often put models in their army because they look cool or because the Shokk Attack Gun mechanic is entertaining. On the other hand, I can take a guess at how quickly Pyrovores move (even though they're definitely better now than they ever were, significantly better than on release). Still, I have Reasons to think that GW rationalizes away that sales data.

There are real members of the player base who think that tournaments are anathema to casual gamers, and actively get in the way of the pre-arranged game that GW wants to encourage. I believe HelloKitty has experiences about how tournament practice games can erase the narrative play experience from a gaming club. I have Reasons to think that GW corporate-level staff share similar sensibilities.

I have over 1100 Tyranid models, of varying kinds. It would be correct to say that I didn't collect all those minis for how they play on the table. There are Reasons to think that points-efficiency is not critical to sales. Still, after 1100 models in a faction, I still don't have any Pyrovores or Haruspexes.

I think their lack of market research is causing them to misunderstand some critical market feedback.

---

When the 5e Space Wolf codex came out, I had difficulty avoiding the conclusion that Jaws of the World Wolf was deliberately written to drive away people who like tight rules, because the power simply made so little sense in the context of the game that I couldn't see how mechanics of such poor quality could get through unless it was deliberate. Since then, I've had the vague feeling that the lack of FAQ support was also a deliberate attempt to drive away players who find tight rules important in favor of players who have a more relaxed attitude toward the game. So, I may have a bias toward the conclusion that the whole thing is intentional way of driving off players who they think are toxic. So, take my conspiracy-ish impressions with a grain of salt.

Sparowl
21-07-2015, 23:06
You mean it's a fantastic ethical stance while being a terrible business one? Right? Because those things are the exact opposite in this case.

Since it is based on more then one false premise, I.E. that competitive players are the toxic ones; that their extremely light rules packet will cause less rules debates due to target audience; that less players is better for business then more; then yes, it is both a terrible decision from an ethical stance and for a business plan.

SteveW
21-07-2015, 23:13
Since it is based on more then one false premise, I.E. that competitive players are the toxic ones; that their extremely light rules packet will cause less rules debates due to target audience; that less players is better for business then more; then yes, it is both a terrible decision from an ethical stance and for a business plan.


It isn't a false premise, there is no objective way to discern toxicity here. They seem to, in their subjective stance think competitive players are toxic and made an ethical decision on it. I for one applaud them for doing it as I feel that way as well.

If you don't agree, welcome to humanity, we all have different opinions on stuff.

Shandor
21-07-2015, 23:29
I've played almost a dozen games of AoS and I still have no idea how to 'eyeball something near a fair game', if we can all put away our '100 bloodthirster' strawman for a second and put ourselves in the position of trying to create a fair and balanced gamestate. How many night goblins should I put down to give something equivalent to that unit of 30 chaos warriors? How many dryads should I bring to fairly balance out that unit of ogres? How many Grail knights is an Arachnarok worth etc, etc.

However simple you think AoS is, it's far too complex to expect to just eyeball your opponents force and quickly figure out a matching force unless you conveniently play the same army and have exactly the same models with you to play a mirror match.

I understand why they think points are toxic, they can create some unpleasant min-max lists, but to take them away completely and leave nothing in their place is not the answer, I don't even know where to begin setting up a game of AoS now, and that is not a healthy place for a game to be.

The thing is... it needs one Person to work on those stuff to balance things per Errata. Testing things watching Battles and reading mails and work on it. How many peoples are working for GW? They really cant afford one single person working on those stuff to reduce those Rule holes and Min/max taktics? They have could done that the last 30 years but they keep throwing random effects in random directions. With or without Points.

Just saw someone won 5 games with only fielding Nagash. make a sudden death target and wins..

Niall78
21-07-2015, 23:36
Maybe I should walk a comment or two back a bit.

When I say that I think AoS is a sportsmanship test and it attempts to drive away players that are "too competitive", I mean that I have Reasons (tm) to think that GW believes that a normal game is played between good friends in their basements, such that pick-up games are a negligible proportion of the experience*. In those pre-arranged basement games, points get in the way of fair armies, because the players know each other and the armies well enough to make a good guess at what's fair. GW have always supported the pre-arranged game, up to and including FOCs that differed depending on the scenario (not at all friendly to pick-up games).

*I have Reasons to think that if the player base wants to come up with comp rules to make the game "fair" it should be on the community to do so, and that the company should cater to the pre-arranged game (where points get in the way of what the players believe to be a fair match). It's plausible to me that GW thinks the lack of a competitive play experience will be solved by the community (because they do it anyway for big tournaments), and I think they're right on that count. I would prefer living points values for everything, regularly reprinted and dialed in based on feedback, but we don't actually need GW for that (hell, I've started howmanypoints.org to start crowdsourcing points values because I think GW can't be trusted to do it).

There's enough anecdata about poor pickup game experiences where something like a Centurionstar is sprung on an unsuspecting player that it's plausible to me that GW thinks removing points values will end that kind of experience, because a player can't "hide" behind poorly-balanced points to excuse their a toxic game. GW doesn't want to be seen as responsible for a curb-stomping experience (they put the burden of a "fair" game on experienced players).

For Reasons, I think that GW believes that points values have nothing to do with sales. They think that models sell because they look cool and/or are fun to play with. To an extent, they're correct, and players will often put models in their army because they look cool or because the Shokk Attack Gun mechanic is entertaining. On the other hand, I can take a guess at how quickly Pyrovores move (even though they're definitely better now than they ever were, significantly better than on release). Still, I have Reasons to think that GW rationalizes away that sales data.

There are real members of the player base who think that tournaments are anathema to casual gamers, and actively get in the way of the pre-arranged game that GW wants to encourage. I believe HelloKitty has experiences about how tournament practice games can erase the narrative play experience from a gaming club. I have Reasons to think that GW corporate-level staff share similar sensibilities.

I have over 1100 Tyranid models, of varying kinds. It would be correct to say that I didn't collect all those minis for how they play on the table. There are Reasons to think that points-efficiency is not critical to sales. Still, after 1100 models in a faction, I still don't have any Pyrovores or Haruspexes.

I think their lack of market research is causing them to misunderstand some critical market feedback.

---

When the 5e Space Wolf codex came out, I had difficulty avoiding the conclusion that Jaws of the World Wolf was deliberately written to drive away people who like tight rules, because the power simply made so little sense in the context of the game that I couldn't see how mechanics of such poor quality could get through unless it was deliberate. Since then, I've had the vague feeling that the lack of FAQ support was also a deliberate attempt to drive away players who find tight rules important in favor of players who have a more relaxed attitude toward the game. So, I may have a bias toward the conclusion that the whole thing is intentional way of driving off players who they think are toxic. So, take my conspiracy-ish impressions with a grain of salt.

Gws job is to earn money for their shareholders. The more the better. If GW management stood up at a shareholder meeting and announced they were dumping many of their loyal players and spenders to make the GW experience more 'friendly' the board would sack them on the spot. I wonder how many of the other tabletop, RPG and board gaming companies are dumping loyal customers to increase player 'fun'?

The idea is ridiculous. Even the idea of 'fun' or 'friendly' is so nebulous it defies proper description when applied to the motivations of games players. What's fun for me mightn't be fun for you. How is GW quantifying this 'fun'? How is it quantifying 'friendly'? How does it even know what players think when it doesn't even communicate with its fan base to any great degree?

I personally think they are just incapable of writing decent rules any more - in fact they have been for years. Never explain with conspiracies what can just as easily be explained by incompetence.

Ayin
21-07-2015, 23:38
I understand why they think points are toxic, they can create some unpleasant min-max lists, but to take them away completely and leave nothing in their place is not the answer, I don't even know where to begin setting up a game of AoS now, and that is not a healthy place for a game to be.

People who could set up fun games in past editions can likewise do the same thing and agree to set up fun games in AoS. Now it's just harder for them.

People who just took whatever they wanted and let the dice fall where they might can do exactly the same thing now as they could before.


So...AoS = best game ever...I guess?

Sparowl
22-07-2015, 00:05
It isn't a false premise, there is no objective way to discern toxicity here. They seem to, in their subjective stance think competitive players are toxic and made an ethical decision on it. I for one applaud them for doing it as I feel that way as well.

I believe there are several fields of study who would be happy to disagree with you about how objective something like "social toxicity" can be. For instance, psychologists would probably be very upset with your declaration.

"They" cannot have a subjective stance. Subjectivity is by nature individualistic. You will undoubtedly be able to find sociological papers arguing otherwise. That stance is largely disregarded within the larger field.

Regardless of your belief, discouraging your current customers, in a business that is largely based upon the concept of community, is not an economically sound decision.

Furthermore, intentionally shunning people who have not committed a major crime is normally considered ethically wrong within contemporary western culture.


If you don't agree, welcome to humanity, we all have different opinions on stuff.

'All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.' - Douglas Adams

Spiney Norman
22-07-2015, 00:23
When I say that I think AoS is a sportsmanship test and it attempts to drive away players that are "too competitive", I mean that I have Reasons (tm) to think that GW believes that a normal game is played between good friends in their basements, such that pick-up games are a negligible proportion of the experience*. In those pre-arranged basement games, points get in the way of fair armies, because the players know each other and the armies well enough to make a good guess at what's fair. GW have always supported the pre-arranged game, up to and including FOCs that differed depending on the scenario (not at all friendly to pick-up games).

*I have Reasons to think that if the player base wants to come up with comp rules to make the game "fair" it should be on the community to do so, and that the company should cater to the pre-arranged game (where points get in the way of what the players believe to be a fair match). It's plausible to me that GW thinks the lack of a competitive play experience will be solved by the community (because they do it anyway for big tournaments), and I think they're right on that count. I would prefer living points values for everything, regularly reprinted and dialed in based on feedback, but we don't actually need GW for that (hell, I've started howmanypoints.org to start crowdsourcing points values because I think GW can't be trusted to do it).


Look at it this way, if you're trying to bake a cake it's better to have properly balanced scales, if your scales are not properly balanced then you might not have the right ratios of ingredients in your cake and it may not turn out exactly as you had intended. Playing wfb and 40k has been a lot like trying to make a cake with dodgy scales, the points values weren't right in many cases and that led to favourite models that I wanted to use being left at home because they simply weren't good enough to make it in the game and going into a game you know you will lose and lose heavily is never a positive experience. This was an unsatisfactory situation.

However a far less satisfactory situation is to take away my scales entirely and expect me to weigh every ingredient by holding it in my hand and pretending I have the slightest idea whether it is the amount required by the recipe or not. Even if my old scales were off at least they are nearer the mark than weighing ingredients in my hand. I was disatisfied before because I couldn't use the models I wanted in the game and have a positive game experience, but now I can't get a positive game experience at all unless by some miracle of needle-in-a-haystack odds I manage to stumble across the right quantities by sheer accident. Now some people who are baking experts can measure ingredients just by holding them, but that kind of experience is only gained by a lifetime of baking and using scales until you just know how much is enough. There has never been any kind of 'scales', accurate or otherwise, for Age of Sigmar, so no-one has that level of experience for that game, and because GW have not properly developed the game no-one ever will have.


I think their lack of market research is causing them to misunderstand some critical market feedback.

that seems very logical

minionboy
22-07-2015, 03:04
Yeah, GW's big concern is making sure they maintain a player base with high marks in "sportsmanship". That's a major concern of their corporate policy.

How does one get themselves to the point they actually believe that?

Because nothing drives away potential mini-wargame players like introducing them to mini-wargame players.

Or in other words, if the only people who play the game are pleasant to play the game with, people are more likely to want to play the game.

Niall78
22-07-2015, 03:20
Because nothing drives away potential mini-wargame players like introducing them to mini-wargame players.

Or in other words, if the only people who play the game are pleasant to play the game with, people are more likely to want to play the game.

GW should enforce a personality test before they sell any of their games or miniatures. If you don't rank as 'pleasant' or above on the test you get no product. That'd weed out the 'wrong fun' players eventually.

It could be such a good strategy it could go global. Very soon only 'pleasant' people would be allowed to partake in a whole host of sports and hobbies. Who cares about making money as long as your customers are 'pleasant' to each other.

Losing Command
22-07-2015, 04:18
Somehow that sounds a bit like racism based on personality :eek: I wonder if there is going to be a new rule for entering a GW store : the moment you stop smiling the storemanager has to throw you out :p

It's strange how AoS seems to be aimed at the most casual wargamers, but only the most experienced have the best chance of actually setting up a fun game.

Niall78
22-07-2015, 04:28
Somehow that sounds a bit like racism based on personality :eek: I wonder if there is going to be a new rule for entering a GW store : the moment you stop smiling the storemanager has to throw you out :p

I'm sensing an unpleasantness from you. You sound like the type who encourages 'wrong fun'.


It's strange how AoS seems to be aimed at the most casual wargamers, but only the most experienced have the best chance of actually setting up a fun game.

Yeah you've failed the pleasant test. No more purchases for you. Your money is simply not wanted by GW any more. You raise issues that are making the whole experience less fun for pleasant gamers.


;)

Ayin
22-07-2015, 04:31
I suppose GW will be pleased to see this new breed of 'good-guy' player replace their gwumpy-ole-badguy players in all of the community involved events they put on and endorse.

SteveW
22-07-2015, 04:32
I believe there are several fields of study who would be happy to disagree with you about how objective something like "social toxicity" can be. For instance, psychologists would probably be very upset with your declaration. Not if they understand what objective and subjective mean.


"They" cannot have a subjective stance. Subjectivity is by nature individualistic. You will undoubtedly be able to find sociological papers arguing otherwise. That stance is largely disregarded within the larger field. Indeed they can, the terminology doesn't change if more than one person agrees on an action or position.


Regardless of your belief, discouraging your current customers, in a business that is largely based upon the concept of community, is not an economically sound decision. That's what I said as well.


Furthermore, intentionally shunning people who have not committed a major crime is normally considered ethically wrong within contemporary western culture. The most major of crimes in a social group though is to be the guy who makes others feel unwelcome, and most gamers that would call themselves "competitive" fit that stereotype. So shunning them could be the best thing GW ever does, time will tell.




'All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.' - Douglas Adams

"There are two types of opinions. Mine, and everyone else's". - Me, just now.

Niall78
22-07-2015, 04:35
I suppose GW will be pleased to see this new breed of 'good-guy' player replace their gwumpy-ole-badguy players in all of the community involved events they put on and endorse.

If they can crack this problem of 'wrong fun' and 'unpleasant' players they deserve a Nobel prize in science. It will be the first time anyone has conquered and controlled human nature. And we all thought they were just a miniatures company......

Niall78
22-07-2015, 04:39
The most major of crimes in a social group though is to be the guy who makes others feel unwelcome, and most gamers that would call themselves "competitive" fit that stereotype. So shunning them could be the best thing GW ever does, time will tell.


People that play games are by their very nature competitive - otherwise they wouldn't be interested in gaming in the first place. What GW wants is to run a gaming company that doesn't involve gamers. Good luck with that.

SteveW
22-07-2015, 04:48
People that play games are by their very nature competitive - otherwise they wouldn't be interested in gaming in the first place. No, people run track, play football(either kind), box, and other competitive things if they are actually competitive. Those same people play games to do something more relaxing and socialize.

Niall78
22-07-2015, 04:59
No, people run track, play football(either kind), box, and other competitive things if they are actually competitive. Those same people play games to do something more relaxing and socialize.

Are you saying gamers aren't competitive? How strange. I've found gamers to be competitive no matter what they play. It could be computer, card, board or tabletop games - everyone likes to compete - it is the very nature of gaming.

I can't think of a tabletop gaming system I own - and there are many - that doesn't contain rules for victory or win conditions. Strange that games companies add such competitive nonsense to their games when you say that nobody actually wants them in the first place - they are just chilling after running track.

SteveW
22-07-2015, 05:01
Are you saying gamers aren't competitive? How strange. I've found gamers to be competitive no matter what they play. It could be computer, card, board or tabletop games - everyone likes to compete - it is the very nature of gaming.

I can't think of a tabletop gaming system I own - and there are many - that doesn't contain rules for victory or win conditions. Strange that games companies add such competitive nonsense to their games when you say that nobody actually wants them in the first place - they are just chilling after running track.

Sure, I'm not looking to offend too many people so we'll just make reality comport to your idea of competition.

Leogun_91
22-07-2015, 05:03
The most major of crimes in a social group though is to be the guy who makes others feel unwelcome, and most gamers that would call themselves "competitive" fit that stereotype. So shunning them could be the best thing GW ever does, time will tell.But in my group the (admittedly few) players that wish to give it a chance are all (both) competitive ones.
I who play for fluff and feel dropped it after trying it twice (it lacks the feel I loved along with the fluff) and several other casuals have just been shaking their heads in disbelief. In my experience many casuals care deeply for the background and with that thrown out they are driven away.
Sure there are competitive players driven away too, but it is far from exclusive to them.

Niall78
22-07-2015, 05:24
Sure, I'm not looking to offend too many people so we'll just make reality comport to your idea of competition.

You've stated their should be no competition - it is bad. Games are just for chilling after track.

Niall78
22-07-2015, 05:25
But in my group the (admittedly few) players that wish to give it a chance are all (both) competitive ones.
I who play for fluff and feel dropped it after trying it twice (it lacks the feel I loved along with the fluff) and several other casuals have just been shaking their heads in disbelief. In my experience many casuals care deeply for the background and with that thrown out they are driven away.
Sure there are competitive players driven away too, but it is far from exclusive to them.

Makes sense. If you play fluffy and the whole setting has been binned their isn't much to be fluffy about any more. But just wait thirty years - by that stage AoS might be as fluffy as WFB.

Poncho160
22-07-2015, 05:27
During the EoT period, which seemed cool, I picked up the Elves from the IoB box set, with the intention of finally collecting a warhammer army. That came to a crashing halt after I read the last EoT book.

I would really like to give AoS a try using the Elves from the IoB set with another guy new to warhammer, however, I have no idea what an equivalent and fair army would be for him to use, would be comprised of. He wants to use chaos.

Seems to be a big stumbling block in the rules to be honest and has stopped us playing so far.

Dosiere
22-07-2015, 05:42
AoS has win and loss conditions. In every game someone is going to walk away from this social experiment of a game a loser. That fact makes it by nature competitive. You can argue about the level of competitiveness for sure, but why bother if you literally don't care what the score is? Why are you even doing something that has a win/loss outcome if you are looking for something that is both relaxing and completely non-competitive? If you want something that truly involves no nature of competitiveness you should watch a movie or something. If you are looking for something social there is always book club or wine tasting.

The fact that 99% of games by their nature involve some level of competitiveness does not make them anti social nor the people playing to win them bad or out to have fun at others expense. Is there "that guy" from time to time? Sure, but that doesn't invalidate that much of the fun of gaming involves the win/loss factor. Take that away and it makes the experience hollow for most people. There's a reason that even AoS, in all it's casual glory, has a winner and a loser.

Niall78
22-07-2015, 05:47
AoS has win and loss conditions. In every game someone is going to walk away from this social experiment of a game a loser. That fact makes it by nature competitive. You can argue about the level of competitiveness for sure, but why bother if you literally don't care what the score is? Why are you even doing something that has a win/loss outcome if you are looking for something that is both relaxing and completely non-competitive? If you want something that truly involves no nature of competitiveness you should watch a movie or something. If you are looking for something social there is always book club or wine tasting.

The fact that 99% of games by their nature involve some level of competitiveness does not make them anti social nor the people playing to win them bad or out to have fun at others expense. Is there "that guy" from time to time? Sure, but that doesn't invalidate that much of the fun of gaming involves the win/loss factor. Take that away and it makes the experience hollow for most people. There's a reason that even AoS, in all it's casual glory, has a winner and a loser.

Exactly - competitiveness isn't bad - it is an intrinsic part of any gaming experience. Remove competition and you no longer have anything that can be recognised as a game. Should people play nice while being competitive of course. I'd never play with anyone I deemed anti-social. But to blame competitiveness for anti-social behaviour is plain silly.

Leogun_91
22-07-2015, 05:49
Makes sense. If you play fluffy and the whole setting has been binned their isn't much to be fluffy about any more. But just wait thirty years - by that stage AoS might be as fluffy as WFB.Wait thirty years is not an overly appealing option I'm afraid and there is little that suggests that I would like that new fluff (haven't so far).

AngryAngel
22-07-2015, 05:52
AoS has win and loss conditions. In every game someone is going to walk away from this social experiment of a game a loser. That fact makes it by nature competitive. You can argue about the level of competitiveness for sure, but why bother if you literally don't care what the score is? Why are you even doing something that has a win/loss outcome if you are looking for something that is both relaxing and completely non-competitive? If you want something that truly involves no nature of competitiveness you should watch a movie or something. If you are looking for something social there is always book club or wine tasting.

The fact that 99% of games by their nature involve some level of competitiveness does not make them anti social nor the people playing to win them bad or out to have fun at others expense. Is there "that guy" from time to time? Sure, but that doesn't invalidate that much of the fun of gaming involves the win/loss factor. Take that away and it makes the experience hollow for most people. There's a reason that even AoS, in all it's casual glory, has a winner and a loser.

You just don't get it, AoS isn't about winning, and it isn't about losing. It's just about trying your best, in a desperate battle vs impossible odds and just trying your little heart out to do just a little better each time. Just the people writing the rules, they're trying their best and bless their hearts, they're doing just a little bit better each time. AoS is an experience about the love of the game, come on guys, just feel it with me.

Niall78
22-07-2015, 05:57
You just don't get it, AoS isn't about winning, and it isn't about losing. It's just about trying your best, in a desperate vs impossible odds and just trying your little heart out to do just a little better each time. Just the people writing the rules, they're trying their best and bless their hearts, they're doing just a little bit better each time. AoS is an experience about the love of the game, come on guys, just feel it with me.

I've just thought of something. AoS is kind of like the Special Olympics. Everyone who takes part wins.

Saying that the events at the Special Olympics have rules, structure, winners and losers. So maybe not a good comparison after all. I wonder could the Special Olympics be branded as 'wrong fun' - too full of competitive people who aren't that 'pleasant'?

Buddy Bear
22-07-2015, 06:50
Wouldn't the hyper competitive players welcome Age of Sigmar, given that it has no limits whatsoever on army composition, not even points? If you were a WAAC player, you'd welcome the ability to be able to take any combination of units from any army and then stack one massive unit after another into your deployment zone.

Dosiere
22-07-2015, 07:09
Of course not because the point of competitive play isn't to win a game unfairly, it's to win a game fairly. Knowing that you had or created an advantage that makes the game an auto win for you would not satisfy myself nor any other gamer I know. It's not fun for your opponent or yourself.

Edit - for similar reasons a veteran playing a new player isn't going to take a super hard list knowing they can crush this kid who doesn't know what he's doing. No, they respect that to have a good game they need to tone it down and provide the other player every opportunity to win. Even if the veteran does win, it's always a learning experience for the newer player and the veteran is giving advice both in and after the game. This is how it works IRL. The internet makes it sound like every person wanting balance is doing nothing but playing games Being competitive isn't the same thing as WAAC, and wanting balance doesn't mean you need to win every game.

In fact it's quite the opposite, knowing that every game you have a good chance of losing only increases the fun during the game and makes winning actually rewarding when it does happen.

Ayin
22-07-2015, 07:11
Just from my personal observation, it's the "competitive" players, the regular tournament participants, of all the people that have been, were or are in the hobby, who are putting the absolute most effort into playing/using AoS. They're the ones working on comp packs, army balancing, points systems, scenarios (either unique or army specific), ect. Anyone who doesn't care so much either dropped Warhammer or is just sticking to 8th.

The thing with competitive players is that they want a strong system that allows good games.

Autumn Leaves
22-07-2015, 07:31
Dosiere, if competitive layers are winning inside the framework of the rules, then they have won fairly.
Isn't that the issue here?
The rules are so flexible the very worst list aberrations are viable, legal and therefore the default option for any players who choose that path?

Bloodknight
22-07-2015, 08:28
Wouldn't the hyper competitive players welcome Age of Sigmar, given that it has no limits whatsoever on army composition, not even points? If you were a WAAC player, you'd welcome the ability to be able to take any combination of units from any army and then stack one massive unit after another into your deployment zone.

That's pretty much the opposite of what competitive gaming means.


therefore the default option for any players who choose that path

No. Why do you think comp systems have been existing for tournaments for a long time? The competitive players are usually also after a nice game that's fun for all participants, so they tried to bring the armies to one level so player skill would decide more games than list building. While that might not have worked perfectly, that was the whole idea behind it. Lame combo-stacking isn't a nice game that can be used as a test of skill. That's why so much work goes into comp packs: creating a better experience for the participants.

There are really a lot of misconceptions going around about what drives tournament players. Rarely is it WAAC. It's more like "win because you're better than the other guy and both players use the best tools at their disposal". Tournament players like to play hard, true, but WAACers are usually the guys you find around hobby stores who're actually not good players and try to overcome their weakness by cheesing out their army and, if at all possible, they try to fight the weakest players they can find and avoid playing against competent opponents. The latter part is something you can forget at a tournament, those guys would generally get weeded out in the first or 2nd game.

And no, I don't play in tournaments. I don't get enough training in GW's systems to be a strong enough player to compete at the level that I want to compete at.



Other than that, AOS's rules are way too vague for tournaments, a tournament FAQ for it would probably be 5 times as long as the ruleset.

Spiney Norman
22-07-2015, 08:58
Wouldn't the hyper competitive players welcome Age of Sigmar, given that it has no limits whatsoever on army composition, not even points? If you were a WAAC player, you'd welcome the ability to be able to take any combination of units from any army and then stack one massive unit after another into your deployment zone.

No, because at the competitive end AoS just turns into a contest of who can be the biggest d*ck. Competitive AoS essentially comes down to three factors
1. How many models you own
2. How elite those models are
3. How much space is in your deployment zone

By the end of the deployment phase you will know which way the game is going, you'll have so many models on the table that playing will take days an be an absolute chore. It's possible to play AoS at the competitive edge, but it is absolutely no fun at all, for anyone.

itcamefromthedeep
22-07-2015, 12:20
There are really a lot of misconceptions going around about what drives tournament players. Rarely is it WAAC. It's more like "win because you're better than the other guy and both players use the best tools at their disposal". Tournament players like to play hard, true, but WAACers are usually the guys you find around hobby stores who're actually not good players and try to overcome their weakness by cheesing out their army and, if at all possible, they try to fight the weakest players they can find and avoid playing against competent opponents. The latter part is something you can forget at a tournament, those guys would generally get weeded in the first or second round.GW seems to think that their removal of a points system hits the " scrub" demographic you describe.

Tournaments will be fine (they'll come up with their own comp systems) but the scrub who likes to kick metaphorical puppies will need to justify to the the person they're playing why it is that they're bringing such a powerful set of minis.

GW looks to be trying to hit *that* kind of players, and trust that tournaments will successfully fend for themselves.

I'm not convinced that it'll work out for them (disdain for tournaments is a challenge and there are plenty of veterans who won't agree over what a "fair" game looks like) but I'll say that the gambit is not as crazy as it looks. The jerks who stomp means at the LGS are among the people we can expect to fail the sportsmanship test of AoS.

ColShaw
22-07-2015, 15:18
The jerks who stomp means at the LGS are among the people we can expect to fail the sportsmanship test of AoS.

Please stop calling AoS a sportsmanship test. I feel that is implying that those who don't enjoy the game are therefore bad sports. This is untrue.

I was a poor sport for a very large part of my childhood; Monopoly was especially bad for me, but Risk wasn't much good either. These "family games" tended to degenerate into arguments and temper tantrums. You know what taught me to be a good sport? Warhammer. Specifically, Warhammer tournaments. For the first time in my life, I was being scored by my opponents on sportsmanship. It actually had an effect on the tournament outcome. I was already trying to be a better gamer and opponent, but my experiences at Rogue Trader Tournaments in the early '00s helped solidify my adult self as someone who tried to ensure everyone was having fun, even while trying my best to win.

I won a Best Sportsman trophy at a RTT once, having gotten "Best Opponent" from all 3 of my opponents that day. That is the single award I'm most proud of. And I thank Warhammer, and my local tournament scene, for helping me value sportsmanship as I should.

AoS is not a sportsmanship test any more than any other game is. Plenty of games that are quite well balanced (chess, for example) are equally tests of whether someone can be a good sport. When I was playing semi-competitive chess in high school, I witnessed plenty of bad behavior. Plenty of games that are poorly balanced are equally tests of good sportsmanship; witness kids playing with guns and their "I got you! You're dead!" "No I'm not!" "Cheater!"

Please, please stop suggesting that GW are somehow trying to mold gamers into better sports by releasing poorly-tested rules.

Shandor
22-07-2015, 15:43
Please stop calling AoS a sportsmanship test. I feel that is implying that those who don't enjoy the game are therefore bad sports. This is untrue.

I was a poor sport for a very large part of my childhood; Monopoly was especially bad for me, but Risk wasn't much good either. These "family games" tended to degenerate into arguments and temper tantrums. You know what taught me to be a good sport? Warhammer. Specifically, Warhammer tournaments. For the first time in my life, I was being scored by my opponents on sportsmanship. It actually had an effect on the tournament outcome. I was already trying to be a better gamer and opponent, but my experiences at Rogue Trader Tournaments in the early '00s helped solidify my adult self as someone who tried to ensure everyone was having fun, even while trying my best to win.

I won a Best Sportsman trophy at a RTT once, having gotten "Best Opponent" from all 3 of my opponents that day. That is the single award I'm most proud of. And I thank Warhammer, and my local tournament scene, for helping me value sportsmanship as I should.

AoS is not a sportsmanship test any more than any other game is. Plenty of games that are quite well balanced (chess, for example) are equally tests of whether someone can be a good sport. When I was playing semi-competitive chess in high school, I witnessed plenty of bad behavior. Plenty of games that are poorly balanced are equally tests of good sportsmanship; witness kids playing with guns and their "I got you! You're dead!" "No I'm not!" "Cheater!"

Please, please stop suggesting that GW are somehow trying to mold gamers into better sports by releasing poorly-tested rules.

Well if everyone just can do what he wants its perfect balanced! :P

TheFang
22-07-2015, 15:44
Please, please stop suggesting that GW are somehow trying to mold gamers into better sports by releasing poorly-tested rules.

Good post. Also, it implies that GW have the intelligence to somehow release a ruleset which cunningly selects suitable players. AoS is not a work of genius.

Sephillion
22-07-2015, 16:03
Please stop calling AoS a sportsmanship test. I feel that is implying that those who don't enjoy the game are therefore bad sports. This is untrue.

I was a poor sport for a very large part of my childhood; Monopoly was especially bad for me, but Risk wasn't much good either. These "family games" tended to degenerate into arguments and temper tantrums. You know what taught me to be a good sport? Warhammer. Specifically, Warhammer tournaments. For the first time in my life, I was being scored by my opponents on sportsmanship. It actually had an effect on the tournament outcome. I was already trying to be a better gamer and opponent, but my experiences at Rogue Trader Tournaments in the early '00s helped solidify my adult self as someone who tried to ensure everyone was having fun, even while trying my best to win.

I won a Best Sportsman trophy at a RTT once, having gotten "Best Opponent" from all 3 of my opponents that day. That is the single award I'm most proud of. And I thank Warhammer, and my local tournament scene, for helping me value sportsmanship as I should.

AoS is not a sportsmanship test any more than any other game is. Plenty of games that are quite well balanced (chess, for example) are equally tests of whether someone can be a good sport. When I was playing semi-competitive chess in high school, I witnessed plenty of bad behavior. Plenty of games that are poorly balanced are equally tests of good sportsmanship; witness kids playing with guns and their "I got you! You're dead!" "No I'm not!" "Cheater!"

Please, please stop suggesting that GW are somehow trying to mold gamers into better sports by releasing poorly-tested rules.

Listen to the Lego man. He speaks wisely.

Teurastaja
22-07-2015, 17:14
GW doesn't really aim for specific type of gamers. It's not a matter of competition, sportsmanship etc. People who are pro-AoS shouldn't really feel like they are chosen ones because they 'get it'. There's no hidden truth about human nature to discover in AoS. GW doesn't care if you like narrative gaming with your friends, enjoy challenging games at tournaments or simply like to burn kittens in your spare time.

GW simply aims to create situation in which they don't invest a lot of money in developing rules and background but people still buy their products. Creating balanced and complex game requires many working hours and that equals costs. With AoS they cut those costs by forcing customers to create their own rules and in-game balance. There will be no points and no way to create balanced armies. They came up with 4 pages of oversimplified, bland rules to justify selling you miniatures and charge you extra for books that have less content than they had before.

In reality they charge you more money for products of lesser value. It's not in our interest as their customers to support this policy by buying AoS related products.

Tuatha Dar
22-07-2015, 17:15
I wonder, does the op play 40k? In that game units have no flanks or rear and movesment is free and easy. No one says that game lacks tactical complexity.

Yes they do. Compared to something as tactically complex as say WarmaHordes, neither 40K or AoS is even close.

itcamefromthedeep
22-07-2015, 17:22
I think we can fairly draw lines between intent, capability, and result.

Requiring good sportsmanship to play a game does not imply that people who don't enjoy it are poor sports. Not liking AoS certainly doesn't mean or imply failing a sportsmanship test.

A game that require knowledge of calculus isn't automatically enjoyable to people who know calculus. Similarly, a game that requires a minimum of sportsmanship to play isn't necessarily enjoyable to people who are good sports.

I think I have a bead on the intent behind some of this, but that doesn't mean it'll work. I hope I don't need to present examples of people failing to achieve goals. It's entirely possible to see what a designer was trying to achieve, but failed to achieve. I merely hoped to humanize some of the decisions many people find inexplicable.

I wasn't trying to describe "why I think this makes sense", but rather "why I think they believed this would be a good idea".

---

It's nice to hear stories of personal growth around this game.

Sparowl
22-07-2015, 17:37
Not if they understand what objective and subjective mean.

Indeed they can, the terminology doesn't change if more than one person agrees on an action or position.

I don't think you get to call people out on what objective vs subjective is, when you do not understand it yourself.

Subjective - adjective

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.


The most major of crimes in a social group though is to be the guy who makes others feel unwelcome, and most gamers that would call themselves "competitive" fit that stereotype. So shunning them could be the best thing GW ever does, time will tell.

Going out on a limb here, but I think the most major of crimes in a social group would probably be murdering everyone in the social group in some manner. I could be wrong. I guess making someone unwelcome or uncomfortable might be worse.

As far as social faux pas (which is more likely what you meant), there are still many worse ones within a group.

Regardless of that, however, your statement of the people who are competitive being the ones who are most likely to make someone feel unwelcome - I disagree with that assertion. Clearly you are making a blanket statement to defend your position, but even knowing that, it is a very broad opinion, which would be incredibly difficult to defend. Especially considering how many weasel words you managed to squeeze into it.


"There are two types of opinions. Mine, and everyone else's". - Me, just now.

I'll make sure to give your quote the credit it is due, per your stature and contributions to society.

ColShaw
22-07-2015, 18:13
I think we can fairly draw lines between intent, capability, and result.

Requiring good sportsmanship to play a game does not imply that people who don't enjoy it are poor sports. Not liking AoS certainly doesn't mean or imply failing a sportsmanship test.

A game that require knowledge of calculus isn't automatically enjoyable to people who know calculus. Similarly, a game that requires a minimum of sportsmanship to play isn't necessarily enjoyable to people who are good sports.

I think I have a bead on the intent behind some of this, but that doesn't mean it'll work. I hope I don't need to present examples of people failing to achieve goals. It's entirely possible to see what a designer was trying to achieve, but failed to achieve. I merely hoped to humanize some of the decisions many people find inexplicable.

I wasn't trying to describe "why I think this makes sense", but rather "why I think they believed this would be a good idea".

---

It's nice to hear stories of personal growth around this game.

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. :)

Denny
22-07-2015, 18:37
Going out on a limb here, but I think the most major of crimes in a social group would probably be murdering everyone in the social group in some manner. I could be wrong. I guess making someone unwelcome or uncomfortable might be worse.

. . . I hate it when I think of something funny to post and someone else gets there first. :(;)

Buddy Bear
22-07-2015, 18:38
That's pretty much the opposite of what competitive gaming means.

WAAC (Win-At-All-Costs) Player: Someone who does whatever the can, within the boundaries of the rules, to guarantee a win. Age of Sigmar more easily facilitates that kind of mindset than any other game I've known, as those kinds of players could do thinkgs in Age of Sigmar which would be considered outright cheating in any other game.

Shandor
22-07-2015, 18:46
GW doesn't really aim for specific type of gamers. It's not a matter of competition, sportsmanship etc. People who are pro-AoS shouldn't really feel like they are chosen ones because they 'get it'. There's no hidden truth about human nature to discover in AoS. GW doesn't care if you like narrative gaming with your friends, enjoy challenging games at tournaments or simply like to burn kittens in your spare time.

GW simply aims to create situation in which they don't invest a lot of money in developing rules and background but people still buy their products. Creating balanced and complex game requires many working hours and that equals costs. With AoS they cut those costs by forcing customers to create their own rules and in-game balance. There will be no points and no way to create balanced armies. They came up with 4 pages of oversimplified, bland rules to justify selling you miniatures and charge you extra for books that have less content than they had before.

In reality they charge you more money for products of lesser value. It's not in our interest as their customers to support this policy by buying AoS related products.

Good post. This really could end up all "Is AoS good or Bad" discussions. Its really simple and true.

SteveW
22-07-2015, 19:47
I'll make sure to give your quote the credit it is due, per your stature and contributions to society.
Seeing as how he was a writer, and I'm a teacher, your fallacious way of giving weight to our quotes should put me ahead of him. Unless of course you only mean to tally contributions to society by fame, then sure he's famous and I'm not.

Tau_player001
22-07-2015, 20:33
Wouldn't the hyper competitive players welcome Age of Sigmar, given that it has no limits whatsoever on army composition, not even points? If you were a WAAC player, you'd welcome the ability to be able to take any combination of units from any army and then stack one massive unit after another into your deployment zone.
Nop. You should check your definitions on what "competitive" means.


WAAC (Win-At-All-Costs) Player: Someone who does whatever the can, within the boundaries of the rules, to guarantee a win. Age of Sigmar more easily facilitates that kind of mindset than any other game I've known, as those kinds of players could do thinkgs in Age of Sigmar which would be considered outright cheating in any other game.

*Facepalm*
Competitive =/= WAAC (atleast, not the derogatory use of it in the crap community that this game has).

Ayin
22-07-2015, 20:59
Seeing as how he was a writer, and I'm a teacher, your fallacious way of giving weight to our quotes should put me ahead of him. Unless of course you only mean to tally contributions to society by fame, then sure he's famous and I'm not.

No. Just because you're a teacher, doesn't mean you've ever contributed a single meaningful or positive thing to society.


This also has nothing to do with any topic worth discussing in this thread. I understand that Track and Field events and boxing are hard and you play Warhammer so you don't have to deal with people being mean to you for not winning. That's fine, everyone needs to find their own fun. Ideally all fun should be supported in an inclusive community.

RandomThoughts
22-07-2015, 23:07
The most major of crimes in a social group though is to be the guy who makes others feel unwelcome, and most gamers that would call themselves "competitive" fit that stereotype.

Seriously? Certainly not in my experience. The guys that make other players feel unwelcome in my experience are arrogant, condescending ****s that make fun of everyone they find beneath themselves for whatever reason. Some of them can be competitive gamers, that thing anyone who doesn't have their knowledge of the game are idiots. But just as likely they can be declared non-competitive players that hate losing and will badmouth anyone who ever dares to win against them.

So, yeah...

SteveW
22-07-2015, 23:08
No. Just because you're a teacher, doesn't mean you've ever contributed a single meaningful or positive thing to society.


This also has nothing to do with any topic worth discussing in this thread. I understand that Track and Field events and boxing are hard and you play Warhammer so you don't have to deal with people being mean to you for not winning. That's fine, everyone needs to find their own fun. Ideally all fun should be supported in an inclusive community.


That actually was not the point i was making with bringing up what competition is, but I realized the audience I was speaking to was not receptive and tried to drop it. It has nothing to do with being mean either, nobody is mean to me, I'm on the coaching staff and am the one in charge of discipline so if anyone is being mean its me and I love it.

Niall78
22-07-2015, 23:09
Seriously? Certainly not in my experience. The guys that make other players feel unwelcome in my experience are arrogant, condescending ****s that make fun of everyone they find beneath themselves for whatever reason. Some of them can be competitive gamers, that thing anyone who doesn't have their knowledge of the game are idiots. But just as likely they can be declared non-competitive players that hate losing and will badmouth anyone who ever dares to win against them.

So, yeah...

In my experience wysiwyg enforcers were the worst of the lot. Followed closely by condescending GW store workers.

SteveW
22-07-2015, 23:10
Seriously? Certainly not in my experience. The guys that make other players feel unwelcome in my experience are arrogant, condescending ****s that make fun of everyone they find beneath themselves for whatever reason. Some of them can be competitive gamers, that thing anyone who doesn't have their knowledge of the game are idiots. But just as likely they can be declared non-competitive players that hate losing and will badmouth anyone who ever dares to win against them.

So, yeah...


That's exactly my point, I apologize if it sounded otherwise.