Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, after seeing the Seraphon book I think I am ready to throw in the towel on splitting command abilities. I think that if any new models are being planned for the other armies, we will have a long wait. It seems that GW is hell-bent on just making new models for Chaos and Stormcast, so the hope of new heroes for anyone else has greatly diminished. So it's mini bosses for everyone!

As a side note, many of you know that I am sponsoring the Broadside Bash in San Diego in the spring. The guys who run the Broadside Bash and play WFB have all jumped ship to Kings of War. We had a long discussion about the future of the tournament. At the time we agreed that Mantic miniatures as prizes were not an option for two reasons. 1) They are arguably the worst fantasy models in mass production. Although many people play Kings of War, almost nobody plays it with Mantic figures. 2) I can afford to sponsor the tournament because GW gives me a promotional allowance which I use to provide prizes. But GW will not give me prize support if I use it to support another company's game system. A decision was made to split the tables allotted to fantasy, half for Kings of War, half for Age of Sigmar. Somewhere along the way, without talking to me about it, the guys that play Kings of War decided to put a poll up on their site. The poll asks which would you rather play? Warhammer Fantasy Battle 8th edition, Kings of War, or Age of Sigmar. Right now, Kings of War is leading by a large margin. The problem with the poll is that it is not limited to just those that could attend the event, someone in Norway can cast a vote. Also, and this is perhaps the greatest issue, many Age of Sigmar players are new to miniatures. they don't know about tournaments, and by the time they have the opportunity to see advertising about the Broadside Bash, we will have already decided which games will be played.

So as the purpose of the PPC is to create a balancing system that is capable of balancing AOS in tournaments, I am asking the community to place a vote for an AOS tournament at the Broadside Bash. Here is the address...
http://broadside-bash.blogspot.com/2015/10/broadside-bash-2016-fantasy-tournament.html

I am trying to be fair, if no one signs up for the AOS tournament, of course the tables will be opened for more Kings of War players. I just want the guys at Broadside Bash to know that an AOS community does exist, despite reports of our early demise.

Thank you!

Looks like AoS has gotten a slight boost at least in the poll. I voted, although it will be pretty hard indeed for me to attend But as you say, all this poll really does is to show if there are any communities at all playing the game.

Allright, it's time to take some time to think and vote about how we should deal with possible multiple generated attacks from units such as Ripperdactyl Riders and Konrad:

A) Put in a comp rule that extra attacks cannot themselves generate extra attacks. Adjust costs accordingly.

B) Go through any Warscroll that allows too good extra attacks generated by attacks and take away rules where neccessary (such as removing Toad Rage from Ripperdactyls). Adjust costs accordingly.

C) Leave everything as is and just make sure things cost accordingly!

EDIT: To clarify option A) with the words of Ninth below. Cheers mate!

My vote is for 1 (?), I think it should read "extra attacks cannot themselves generate extra attacks" since that is more clear than 'one round' of attacks. Then Konrad gets his own rule since he is a special case (note other models with similar rules, like the Bone Giant, specifically mention it being one extra round of attacking).

I had no intention on playing it any other way than number 1 anyways. It's just too confusing.

I would like option C.

My friends who are play testing your PPC system would also like it to cost more.
Ripperdactyl Vicious Beaks hits on 4+, wounds on 3+.
Their Swooping Dives give them reroll of hits and wounds in one round of combat after they move, basically an once a turn ability.

We all had an issue with Ripperdactyl Riders units that are more t than 3 models strong.

Now 4 Ripperdactyl Riders attacking a unit near a toad.
Their 4 attacks become 12 attacks,
which got 7 hits,
which generated 7 more attacks that had 3 hits,
and that generated 3 more attacks with 3 hits,
which generated 3 more attacks with 1 hit,
which generated 1 more attack that missed.
Next all the misses get a reroll, (6+4+2+1) = 12 rerolls getting 5 new hits.
You can't reroll a reroll but the 5 new attacks generated by the 5 hits gets rerolls.
The 5 new attacks scored 2 hits,
which generated 2 more attacks that hit 1,
which generated a new attack that hit,
which generated a new attack that hit,
which generated a new attack that finally miss.
Next all the misses gets a reroll, (3+1+1) = 5 rerolls getting 3 new hits.
You can't reroll a reroll but the 3 new attacks generated by the 3 hits gets rerolls.
The 3 new attacks scored 2 hits,
which generated 2 more attacks that hit 1,
which generated a new attack that finally miss.
Next all the misses gets a reroll, (1+1+1) = 3 rerolls getting 1 new hits.
You can't reroll a reroll but 1 new attack generated by the 1 hit gets rerolls.
The one new attack missed, a reroll also missed, finally ending the hit rolls.

4 Ripperdactyl had 12 beak attacks that created 31 wound rolls, which failed 9.
The opponent rolled for 4+ armour saves and pass 10 taking 12 wounds.

The above actually happened.

Having them costing much higher is needed.
Having additional model in a unit costing much much higher is also needed.

Costing appropriately for ripperdactyls is all well and good, but this is about more than that. How do you cost potentially infinite attacks appropriately? Even worse is that these things are always combinations of otherwise balanced abilities. For example:
Settra
Tomb King
Two Liche Preists
Skeleton Archers

Settra and tomb King use their command abilities on the archers, granting +2 to hit. Both Liche priests cast smiting on the archers. An attack roll of 4+ on the dice generates two extra attacks, which in turn can generate attacks, and so on. There is more than one combo like this, and this one can easily be made much much worse. How do you point cost that?

I would say option "A" extra attacks can't spawn extra attacks. Also, I thought we had a rule in the PPC that a unit can't be affected by the same named ability twice. If we don't, we should. Otherwise we will get slowed things like double and triple mystic shielded units. Plus it would stop people from just spamming certain units.

Smellingsalts wrote:
I would say option "A" extra attacks can't spawn extra attacks. Also, I thought we had a rule in the PPC that a unit can't be affected by the same named ability twice. If we don't, we should. Otherwise we will get slowed things like double and triple mystic shielded units. Plus it would stop people from just spamming certain units.

I am quoting for the truth of the statement. PPC aims to not change too many rules, but something as convoluted as this is just too big to not fix. Especially when it is easy to implement.

We've added a fourth scenario to the PPC now:

If you have the time, please try it out and comment on it!

Scenario 4 - Schemes of War

Cheers!

Just from looking it over (I'll try it out later today), it looks a little complex for my liking. Personally, I would cut it down to just objective/board edge holding for primary then just kill/keep alive for schemes. Thus, remove the +1 vp for each unit you slay from the primary objectives, then make the schemes of war a d3 chart with only the first three options listed. Also, I think blunt should just be any unit rather than non-hero non-monster; plenty of regular units are harder to kill than those anyway.

This is not to say that the other options aren't good; I think it would be great if some of those could get ported over to the first three scenarios to make them a bit more exciting.

Sidenote; are all the scenarios going to 5-6 turns instead of 6-7 turns? Because I think that is a good change.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just from looking it over (I'll try it out later today), it looks a little complex for my liking. Personally, I would cut it down to just objective/board edge holding for primary then just kill/keep alive for schemes. Thus, remove the +1 vp for each unit you slay from the primary objectives, then make the schemes of war a d3 chart with only the first three options listed. Also, I think blunt should just be any unit rather than non-hero non-monster; plenty of regular units are harder to kill than those anyway.

This is not to say that the other options aren't good; I think it would be great if some of those could get ported over to the first three scenarios to make them a bit more exciting.

Sidenote; are all the scenarios going to 5-6 turns instead of 6-7 turns? Because I think that is a good change.

I too dislike complex scenarios, as I have a hard time remembering all the stuff going on (I get so lost in the game itself every time lol), but we havev't felt the scenario to be overly complex when we play it. Maybe it's my lack of english that makes it seem more complex than it really is on the table Anyway, it will always differ between people of course. Spicing other scenarios up would be nice, especially the Battle Royale since AoS shouldn't be about kill points primarily (IMHO!).

All scenarios are going 5-6 turns indeed!

Hello all,
Here's a quick question about the gaunt summoner, is there any limitation to how many demons he can summon from his book ability? I can't seem to find one on the list. With the rules the NinthMuskateer has put out for terrain costs, I feel that a limitation for this summoning ability is now pretty necessary.
-Danse


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the earlier post,
just found the 100 pt limit on the webpage, that seems just about right

It was a good thing you asked, because that's a miss from me to not have it included in the WoC list from the start. I'm adding it now, thanks!

Attilla, I can't download the Fyreslayers Points list from your site. I keep being told that it is an unsafe file and that Internet Express can't find the page. I can download all of the other points lists. Is there something you did differently when you posted this, or do you have any advice?

Wierd, I can access it just fine right now when trying both from my phone and my computer at work. The Fyreslayers doc was copied and edited from the Beastmen doc - do you get the same message from opening that one?

Coming back to attacks that generate more attacks without end because of bad rules writing, i vote that new attacks do not ever generate more attacks and i point you to the night goblin great moon clan formation that give the ability to fanatics and mangler squigs, i saw i a champion in a night gob unit get 18 hits before he stopped with his net and i saw a rock lobber fire 4 times with its bully next to it!

Can we adress the funny rules too? I think it is important to specify wether they are gained without the charades? What I mean is - do you have to do the silly stuff in ppc to gain the benefits, or is the benefit included in the point cost without having to do anything extra?

Andreas 2.0 wrote:
Can we adress the funny rules too? I think it is important to specify wether they are gained without the charades? What I mean is - do you have to do the silly stuff in ppc to gain the benefits, or is the benefit included in the point cost without having to do anything extra?

Silly rules are considered to activate automatically without any player antics involved, and the units are costed appropriately. I forget where this is stated but I think it's been that way since the start.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Andreas 2.0 wrote:
Can we adress the funny rules too? I think it is important to specify wether they are gained without the charades? What I mean is - do you have to do the silly stuff in ppc to gain the benefits, or is the benefit included in the point cost without having to do anything extra?

Silly rules are considered to activate automatically without any player antics involved, and the units are costed appropriately. I forget where this is stated but I think it's been that way since the start.

Yes, they are always considered active - another thing I actually thought was in the comp doc but isn't
I'll add it for the next update, even though it's some time away yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hettar wrote:
Coming back to attacks that generate more attacks without end because of bad rules writing, i vote that new attacks do not ever generate more attacks and i point you to the night goblin great moon clan formation that give the ability to fanatics and mangler squigs, i saw i a champion in a night gob unit get 18 hits before he stopped with his net and i saw a rock lobber fire 4 times with its bully next to it!

Maybe we should open up another vote on the matter after the next update is done - it is important that we re-evaluate every matter from time to time as the game has evolved! But so far it was voted the most that we try to stick to the main plan and not alter the ruleset but raise the cost for these things. So when we get down to setting the points of the formations, this is one that could cost more because of that.

Force Organisation

At the moment, we are heading for a direction where the monsters/warmachine restriction of 25% is increased to 50%. We've played this way lately and have not found anything unbalanced about it, but only more fun when building our armies.

Does anyone here object to this change, and why if so.

No it's fine. Monsters are ok. 50% is fine.


Grimbok

Sounds good to me, my concern would have been the availability of 50% warmachines but now that we have terrain warscrolls there are hard counters available to anyone, so I don't see it being a problem.

So something to discuss on overall comp, auto-hitting on 6s. Currently attacks will auto-fail on a 1, but not automatically hit on a 6. I have run into a couple situations where a unit's attacks have needed 7+ to hit and just automatically miss. Do we want to address this or is it a niche enough situation to ignore? I don't know how often it occurs in general (I am somewhat known for greatly utilizing hit penalties in my armies).

Hi Guys, new to the forums and thread, been reading everything I can about PPC before our first games on the weekend, we just ditched another comp after some pretty one sided battles, and after doing the numbers here I fielded 1600 points of Dwarfs vs. 2400 points of VC on your rule set. No wonder I got rolled!

So I've read the 7 pages of this thread hoping for an answer, and I'm glad to see the detailed evolution of the summoning rules you have created. Obviously Nagash and summoning is a huge thing for the VC (and we have one player of Deamons) but in this ruleset is "Death Magic Incarnate" on Nagash costed? And how does it resolve?

Does a 10+ (7+ for him with a base +3 bonus) give him 200 points, or 400 points or 2 x 200 points seperately? I have to ask as I want to avoid the arguments summoning is creating in our group and it's going to spoil our two VC players times , or everyone else's if it isn't balanced.

Thank you for all the discussions and hard work on this, you guys all clearly care about AoS and I look forward to more enjoyable games with the balance of PPC!

First off, welcome to PPC!

Nagash comes with Death Magic Incarnate automatically, but does have to pay to access the summoning spell like everyone else. When he does summon, first determine what you are summoning with the points then double the number of models.

For example, say he casts Will of Nagash using the casting value of 8 to summon 130 points of models. He could elect to summon a unit of 21 skeleton warriors (128 pts), which would then be doubled and the player instead deploys a unit of 42 skeletons.

If he instead decided to summon a unit of 14 skeleton warriors with champion, banner, and music (129 pts) he would deploy a unit of 28 skeletons, but the unit would still only have a single command group since it is only the number of models doubled.

Something worth noting in PPC overall is that Death armies are completely useable without summoning (as well as with). Unlike other AoS comps I have seen they aren't obligated to take summoning in order to be competitive. Also note that even PPC isn't perfect; there are ways to break it's balancing outright and there is still a power gap between well constructed vs poorly constructed lists. Thankfully it requires only a spoonful of good sportsmanship to have really well-balanced games, rather than the buckets needed by other comps.

Thank you for the super fast reply I am sure my friend will be mighty excited to play Nagash this weekend! Hopefully my trusty Dwarfs can cleave through the Undead and bring a glorious victory!

I will try to provide any feedback from our first games with the system. I am by no means a high level player, but maybe some less skilled feedback will give another perspective!

EDIT: Small follow up, Nagash knows any spells known by other wizards on the battle field. So you can take Nagash (900pts) and Necro (100pts) + Will of Nagash 100pts on the Necro which would grant it to Nagash?

Jorthax wrote:
EDIT: Small follow up, Nagash knows any spells known by other wizards on the battle field. So you can take Nagash (900pts) and Necro (100pts) + Will of Nagash 100pts on the Necro which would grant it to Nagash?

Yes, though if that Nagash player is fighting against Dwarfs I wouldn't recommend it, since that necromancer will be cannon fodder very quickly. That would also require a 2200 point army (50% limit on heroes) as opposed to 2000 for just Nagash with the spell, but I don't know what points you'll be at.

I'm just wondering what you guys are thinking about the Dwarf being in the ''mercenary'' section.

Seems strange since GW put them in ''order'' faction.

If the PPC keep it close to GW, we should keep the terrain in ''mercenary'' and move the Fyreslayers to order.

my 2 cents.

I asked the same thing, Atilla mentioned that they went in the mercenaries section because despite being Order they are specifically stated (in multiple places) as working for any alliance in the fluff. After seeing it in action, it works well because they don't have any direct synergy with other factions (even Order ones), meaning they serve as auxiliary units rather than exploit-enablers.