So... What is right/wrong with the AoS ruleset?
A lot of people say they are terrible but it's also obvious a lot of people like them.
Why? And by 'rules' I mean the 4 page freebie along with battle plans, warscrolls, and time of War.
I'd ask that discussion of comp is excluded from this discussion purely because my perception is this is the main issue people have with it.

So with comp left to one side, what's good/bad about the ruleset? Or is it just the lack of comp that's the problem?

RoperPG wrote:
So... What is right/wrong with the AoS ruleset?
A lot of people say they are terrible but it's also obvious a lot of people like them.
Why? And by 'rules' I mean the 4 page freebie along with battle plans, warscrolls, and time of War.
I'd ask that discussion of comp is excluded from this discussion purely because my perception is this is the main issue people have with it.

So with comp left to one side, what's good/bad about the ruleset? Or is it just the lack of comp that's the problem?

Other than comp...

A few people are still complaining about the rules for some older characters that give preference to the loudest player or the best beard or whatever. It's important to note that GW said that this was thrown in as a nod to older players and wouldn't be used for any new units or armies. NONE of the new stuff has had these sorts of rules.

The comp is the main thing... and it's a really big thing. Everything else is a distant second.

Thread's theme has been around the block multiple times here already. But here we go...

RoperPG wrote:
So... What is right/wrong with the AoS ruleset?
A lot of people say they are terrible but it's also obvious a lot of people like them.
Why? And by 'rules' I mean the 4 page freebie along with battle plans, warscrolls, and time of War.
I'd ask that discussion of comp is excluded from this discussion purely because my perception is this is the main issue people have with it.

So with comp left to one side, what's good/bad about the ruleset? Or is it just the lack of comp that's the problem?

Whenever I refer to Comp I mean the community lead point system.

I have played more games without Comp than with. The games did not appear further 'balanced' with them.

Age of Sigmar is fun. I've had a lot of good games. We've played with models/units we might not have had with a strict points system.

The focus of using scenarios is one of the main strengths. It adds flavour and variety.

The games are sort(er) in length (a positive).

The lack of 'armies' or 'allies' is a strength.

Warscrolls allow the units to have rules that match their fluff. It provides way more special rules but never feels bloated, as they're often around similar themes and a reduced in breadth stat block.

Summoning is open to abuse but in reality on the tabletop it never becomes as overpowered as you'd expect. Or at least from what I've experienced.

It still uses D6 which in itself can be rather limiting.

Shooting into and out of combat is dumb is a bad rule that seems to be counter intuitive but slipped in somehow.

 Kriswall wrote:
NONE of the new stuff has had these sorts of rules.

The Auric Runeson disagrees with you.

Anyway, this overall feels like a bit of a moot thread. Liking or disliking the rules is utterly subjective and many people have already made many posts regarding the ups and downs of it (Jono, Matt, I, Bottle, etc)
Feels like flogging a dead horse, with all respect.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Shooting into and out of combat is dumb is a bad rule that seems to be counter intuitive but slipped in somehow.

I don't mind it. On the tabletop it provides more options and choices to make. Though I admit to some that the imagery of it might appear off.

It seems that the rules writing started with the attitude of "well, why not allow it?". And anything that was too much was taken out. This seems to apply to deployment, summoning, shooting, etc.

Direct measurement from the actual model instead of a standardized base/silhouette. Anytime modelling can give advantage or disadvantages to players is what I consider to be bad for the game. I understand the reasoning behind measuring directly to models (the switch from square/rectangular bases to circular bases).

Except for that, everything else about the rules is fine to me.

Aos has very simplistic yet effective rules for what it is, but there is a specific rule that is above all other rules that specifically states that if there is any disagreement of rules, roll a dice or discuss it with the second party, most game system do not have that particular rule and so it becomes a problem where people need FAQS and third parties to decide what is best... AoS is designed in a way as to simplify and speed up the game and if needed make it complex, if someone disagreed with me during WFB days we would spend time arguing and looking up rules and faqs in AoS we roll a dice and go from there, those joke rules can be ignored and its actually in the rules to be ignored so you won't get those "I am doing it because the rules let me" players

For me the bad aspects are:

- no points, after playing with and without comp systems I think that I prefer to play with points. AoS could easily incorporate points, with the scenarios fixing uneven point ratios for each side if needed - they could add points into the app and adjust them on a monthly basis.

- shooting, both shooting into/out of combat and also being able to shoot anything with even the slightest line of sight. It's not fun to have your heroes cannon sniped when they are surrounded by troops.

- buffs, I like them, but when you have to keep track of nearby terrain, formation bonuses, magical and command bonuses, and any others, it can get difficult to keep track of.

The good aspects are:

- Freedom in list building. I love being able to mix and match factions or play anything from monster mash to hero hammer to troops spam.

- Army Size. I love armies being 50-60 models and feeling "complete"

- Free rules. A great idea. Please do it for 40k too

Wait a second, something about this thread seems awfully familiar...

What's good about the AOS rules that I enjoy:

* four pages. I've gotten to the point in my life where I am done learning large rulesets. Every game of 40k I play involves spending a lot of time with my nose in a rulebook to make sure I play it right. I'm frustrated with that. Other games are similar. Infinity, for example... great game, but that rulebook...

* warscrolls - i like how the warscrolls work and how the units interact with each other

* time of war and scenarios - I enjoy a scenario driven game. I really cannot do more battle line 24/7 anymore in my life. This is something I've embraced 100%.

What I do not like about the AOS rules and why I wrote Azyr Comp:

* no points. I'm not a tournament gamer. I need points for my resource campaigns. I need points to make sure that the game is measurably balanced. The eyeball it method has never worked and I've never seen it work. Every eyeball it game I've watched since July has been very one sided and when we run the sides through Azyr the side that wins usually always had significantly more points which played a big part.

I do not enjoy sitting in a game that was one sided on either end simply because the forces were stacked past the point of reasonable imbalance and 99% of the people I've met cannot eyeball balance.

Yes GW's points systems are also dismal failures IMO but thats not a failure of a point system in general thats GW being GW and pointing things to sell models.

* nonsensical immersion breaking rules. Shooting into combat is fine. Being able to have a unit that pauses to shoot OUT of combat is absurd in my opinion.

Being able to drop a mortar shell over a combat and only hurt the enemy is absurd in my opinion.

* summoning. Summoning busts the game wide open in a not good way. I can't stand how summoning works out of the box. I would never play AOS raw with someone abusing summoning. It is not a fun game for me.

With a solid comp pack that removes these show-stoppers (for me), the game is a lot of fun.

I view the Age of Sigmar rules as a decent first draft to a game I might very much like in its second or third incarnation, though I fear the game has not been successful enough to get such.

Anyway, things I like about it:

1) the shift of rules complexity from the centralized core rules to the distributed unit rules. Basically, instead of a bunch of 'one size fits all' generic keyword special rules, anything special that a unit can do mechanically is printed right there on its 'war scroll' unit entry. This simultaneously saves hassle having to look up rules in multiple places and allows special rules to be considerably more diverse and targeted to the specific nature of the units in question. As a result, while there are one or two underwhelming units here or there, for the most part, most units in the game have something interesting they do mechanically that is evocative of their fluff and helps bring them to narrative life at the tabletop.


2) Flattened attack progression. Basically, instead of comparing stats on a table, to-hit and to-wound are flat values. A lot of people don't actually like this change, and I didn't like it when I first started playing age of Sigmar, but I've come to appreciate it. It simplifies combat, and brings most units much closer together in power, which allows deities like Nagash and chaff like goblins to exist on the same table. Also, we still have defensive differentiation - in number of wounds, saving throw, and war scroll specific defensive special abilities - so it's not as flat as initially described.


3) Monsters with stats that change as they take damage. In this way, most multi-wound monsters operate like units of single wound models, losing strength as the lose wounds / numbers, and again helping big monsters and large units of little things play nicely together on the same table.


4) Streamlined core rule set. Granted, I think they stream-lined things a bit too much, a 6 page ruleset, with separate scenario and terrain entries instead of trying to fit generic battle set up into those streamlined rules, would I think have been about right. Still, as mentioned in #1, I appreciate having a simplified set of core rules, and pushing the complexity into how your individual units are handled.


5) Scaling. Age of sigmar just scales up and down better than the old fantasy did. under 8th, I didn't even feel like I was playing the game until around 1500 points, and even then it was iffy. I've played Age of Sigmar in games of 'one squad and a hero' up to armies that would have been several thousand points in 8th edition, and regardless of the size it's worked... er... you could say 'as well' or 'as poorly', both would fit.


Those are the main things I like, but I really want to stress how much I like the shift of complexity from the core rules to the individual units, and the amount of narrative life that allows the designers to breathe into the mechanics of those units.



As for stuff I don't like...

1) No sense beating around the bush, the big one is the lack of an official points system, making organizing games, especially pick up games, extremely difficult and often frustrating.

2) The rules are a bit too streamlined, leaving areas that are awkward or confusing or prone to frustration, particularly when combined with the first point. I've seen so many games ruined by players who limited deployed forces without limiting reserves available to summoning and similar abilities. I've also seen a lot of confusion on pile-in moves.

3) lack of look out sir / joining units. This is another big ones. Most infantry heroes have five wounds, and lack the defensive stats needed to survive even a single unit targeting them with ranged attacks. Combine this with true line of sight, which means most of GW's big/floaty/dynamic hero models cannot be physically hidden by their smaller, built-to-be-ranked troopers, and you have a game where, if your general isn't some sort of monster, they're unlikely to see combat. Very frustrating.

4) This is a bit more minor, but... why are there no unit type keywords!? Infantry/cavalry/monstrous infantry/etc? It's such an obvious thing to do, such an obviously useful mechanical hook on which to hang abilities or special rules (ie, ability to join units of the same type, or units specialized in fighting big things or little things, etc), and yet its not there.

5) ability to shoot while in combat. Yeah, a lot of ranged units lose some special rules while engaged, but it still feels off.

6) round bases / loose formations. Can get to be a hassle in larger games with bigger squads. I prefer moving a single block unit on a tray, and also like the look of it.

But now were're getting into how stuff 'feels' and aesthetic preferences, so I feel like I'm beyond meaningful complaints here. The big ones for me are #1 (especially) and #3.


Honestly, that's not too much on either side, like I said, AoS is, mechanically, pretty close to a game I could very much like. My bigger complaints are with how GW has gone about retiring the old game and rolling out the new one., their lack of communication, the unengaging nature of the new setting due to it's nebulousness and lack of relatable grounding points, the seemingly deliberate rejection of their existing player base combined with the unwillingess to meaningfully reach out to anyone else (6 months of new releases into the new game, and still not a single female model among them if we don't count round base repacks), the utterly insane and completely self defeating pricing shifts (the biggest problem with fantasy was the ludicrous buy in costs of starting a new army, and at first it seemed AoS was going to improve on that with better introductory play at smaller scale, but GW have been ramping the prices up so hard that soon a starter AoS force of a couple dozen models will cost as much as a starter WHFB force of a couple hundred, utterly defeating the point). In the social media age, the lack of communication or community support in particular is egregious, but...


but none of that is mechanical stuff, so it's mostly off topic here.

Measuring is counter-intuitive (from the model, not the base)
Shooting is counter-intuitive (shooting out of combat, no risk shooting into combat)
Cover is counter-intuitive (you get cover when standing on a wall, but not behind it).
Combat is over-complified and counter intuitive (same to-hit/to-wound whatever you are attacking)
Lack of points/balancing systems makes balanced/pick up gaming hard to arrange.

Whilst the rules are simple, they leave a lot of questions, and the bloat is added back in with hundreds of special rules, meaning there's something like 35 different types of shield, some with duplicate rules, some with different rules.

I like the idea of a super streamlined set of gaming rules, and see what they were trying to do, but as usual with GW the implementation is a total let down. It's like a really bad facsimile of what the competition are doing now (with simple rules and stat cards)

The weakening monsters is a brilliant idea (it's my favourite part of the HeroClix system), the freeform basing and skirmish formation is pretty neat too.

The freedom of shooting is one of my favourite changes with AoS. It might not be realistic, but if I took that standard to pretty much any of the games I play, movies I watch, books I read etc. they'd have a lot of problems. I think comping shooting is lame and a bit of a knee jerk reaction.

I find the rules intuitive, and that's their best aspect. The game plays naturally. One myth I'm glad has died is lack of tactics. As has always been said, the game shines with scenarios and objectives. Retreating is a great mechanic.

Overall I don't think they are bad rules, but they could have been better, and they are not the kind of rules I want to play.


What I like about AoS

It is a genuine attempt to cram all of a basically functional skirmish game into 4 pages, and essentially succeeds (though I have reservations, as you will see below.)

The Key Words system seems pretty good. I haven't looked into it in detail as I don't play the game.

Simple and effective magic rules.


What I dislike about AoS:

Combat resolution is still the tedious, time wasting To Hit, To Wound, To Save system of WHFB and 40K. This idea dates back to the early 70s.

The necessity of measuring model movement by millimetres for maximum men in melee. This is as "gamey" as having ranks and flanks, but far less realistic, resulting in formations like the inverse T.

No proper command, control, communication and morale rules.


What I would have liked to have seen:

Combat resolution reduced to two rolls, a To Hit and a To Save. Differentiate
powerful weapons by giving them more attacks and a better To Hit. Differentiate tougher targets by giving them a better To Save and more hit points.

Use the paper saved to add simple C3 and morale rules. These add an extra dimension to your tactical decision making possibilities.

Dump the MMMbMfMMiM rule for a simple rule that any figure in the unit in base to base contact with an enemy can attack. If the other figures have range 2 weapons, they can also attack if they are in base to base contact with a figure of their unit that is in base to base contact with the enemy. If range 3, then, blah blah blah.

I think these rules would simplify and speed up the game while retaining all the simplicity and convenience of the war scrolls and special rules, and also add a new element of tactics in the use of C3 and morale.


Common complaints I don't worry about

No points.
I think it would have been better to give each unit a power rating, to enable players to judge the fairness of scenarios more easily, but I also think most standard units are not wildly imbalanced as they stand,and given the game is a small scale skirmish, intended to be played quickly and non-seriously, I don't think it needs a tournament grade balance mechanism.

Line of Sight
It isn't important in a small scale skirmish game.

Shooting into/out of combat
I don't find this unrealistic in a small scale skirmish situation where troops are individually aiming at each other, rather than shooting at a general area. It gives missile troops a bit of a boost, and therefore more interesting to play, and it helps to reduce the Mosh Pit effect of melee being so decisive.

I'm not sure I'd call the game a 'small scale skirmish game'. It certainly can be played that way, but when the rules include formations like the 'deathrattle horde' - which requires five units and a character, with three of those units being nowhere near effective unless you're running them in units of 20, 30, or more - then I'd say the game is also looking to run larger games.

But yeah, I'd definitely agree moving from measured ranges to 'in base, or with reach in base of someone in base' that would work better, though then you're back to the base having a measurable impact on the battle (not that bases don't have one as it is, but since the rules ignore them they can pretend players don't need to re-base entire collections).


As for static to-hit and to-wound rolls breaking immersion... I disagree. If you just play with it, you get over it quickly. Because units are not equally hard to kill - wound count, armor save, and defensive special rules all weigh heavily. It is harder to wound Nagash than a zombie, and it is much harder to kill him. defensive ability is reasonably modeled, and I consider the fact that powerful models can be reasonably dragged down by weight of attacks to be a considerable improvement to the game, it lets those types of units operate more smoothly together on the table.

I do however agree with kilkrazy's notion that three rolls is more than each attack should need, especially when relatively common 'd3 damage' can turn that into four rolls. Two rolls,(attack and save), or preferably a single opposed roll (though I'm not sure how to make that work with rolling attacks for a unit at a time), would be considerably better.

 Malisteen wrote:


3) lack of look out sir / joining units. This is another big ones. Most infantry heroes have five wounds, and lack the defensive stats needed to survive even a single unit targeting them with ranged attacks. Combine this with true line of sight, which means most of GW's big/floaty/dynamic hero models cannot be physically hidden by their smaller, built-to-be-ranked troopers, and you have a game where, if your general isn't some sort of monster, they're unlikely to see combat. Very frustrating.

4) This is a bit more minor, but... why are there no unit type keywords!? Infantry/cavalry/monstrous infantry/etc? It's such an obvious thing to do, such an obviously useful mechanical hook on which to hang abilities or special rules (ie, ability to join units of the same type, or units specialized in fighting big things or little things, etc), and yet its not there.

Yes! I really agree. And including #4 would make #3 so easy to implement.

Yeah, the quality is...bad, actually just awful. the 4 pages aren't really even 4 pages of actual game play rules(there is terrain and such). Herzlos hit on a lot of what made me finally give it up to the trash heap, so here goes my opinion, first..................

the bad stuff:
Measuring is counter-intuitive (from the model, not the base) this is just dumb, open to abuse and all around a bad idea. it could be mitigated by saying use round bases(yes I would complain, but I would do it anyhow and the game would be better for it)

Shooting is counter-intuitive (shooting out of combat, no risk shooting into combat) this is also ridiculous, and with the irritating manner of combat anyhow its back to models are supposed to be fighting, they aren't just standing there static, they would be moving, a clear easy shot would not be realistic or even rational (folks wouldnt usually shoot their friends)

Cover is counter-intuitive (you get cover when standing on a wall, but not behind it). poorly written rule, like most of them.

summoning....yeah, this blows in too many ways to go into detail, game breaking.

Combat is over-complified and counter intuitive (same to-hit/to-wound whatever you are attacking) this is a nod to speed but not very helpful especially since you are still rolling buckets of dice, who gets to fight is a mess, you need to keep track of which units already hit, meaning "fast" races are about as swift as a zombie, mortal wounds are the newest cheese rule to arrive. really combat all around is terrible in AoS, they really really miss the mark on small skirmish with this.

Lack of points/balancing systems makes balanced/pick up gaming hard to arrange. Here they want us to talk to our opponents and come up with a common consensus, thats great but then so much for the quicker game time they crowed on, its back to forever to plan for a very short unsatisfying game. with everyone being new to this "new" system, noone can really have much of an idea what would even be a "fair" game.

the scenarios touted as a strength I find boring as hell. overall the game is a rambling mess that rapidly degenerates into a rugby scrum in the center (not everyone has this problem, but for us, despite trying to avoid it, still happens)

calling it a skirmish. its not. there are still units, its basically a small battle. I have rarely seen games (and admittedly with its unpopularity, there are few here to see and usually I am a part of them) under 100+ models 5 warscrolls of units of 10 and already you are at 50, but alot of units suck at that size or there are distinct advantages to having many more.

its not new or innovative in any way, shape, or form, its warhammer fantasy battle/40k all over again with 99.9% (dramatic overexaggeration to make a point) the same rules, just watered down to the point of nonsense. the movement is just 40k, with 1inch between models they might as well just rank up. the turn sequence is virtually the same with only a few things flipped. the shooting is 40k style. we all got suckered into buying into the same old game or walked into it knowingly, which brings up my biggest disgust with AoS.

GW punts again. they had an opportunity to make something truly new and unique, or even a better hybrid, they chose not to, as usual. really would 4 more pages or so be that hard to do, just a little bit more clarification, a little more crunch?

terrain....meh

the previous win table, just go ahead and give it to everybody, if i am at a pick up game and i dont know you, how should i know (or you be honest) about your last fight, and why does it matter with ours?

sudden death rules, they suck, they suck because it is very easy to simply make them impossible to acheive, the game does bog down in combat the same as warhammer could.

battleshock, this is just lousy all around, whatever fluffy way you want to say it, its just losing more models like undead and such used to.

pickup games...it sucks for these, badly. I hate trying to explain such a weak ruleset, other than gw, when I bust out the rules sheets it makes folks cringe. its only 4 pages, should be a strength but has proven to me to be a major turn off (usually it starts with "hey would you like to try a game of age of sigmar with me, I show the models, then explain that its not warhammer fantasy, so no blocks or big books, then i show them the rules, they do quick glance and then its "lets play something else, i see you have malifuax, warmachine, imperial assualt, fill in what models i brought ad nauseaum) at gw its a little better, but not much, it usually goes "no that game is crap, lets do 40k instead"

the game is no fun. its a mess. it requires way too much from the players that the rules writers should have done. I am not a GW employee, I dont want to finish their product for them.

line of sight needs alot of love, its supposed to be small scale skirmish, every soldier matters, would like to protect them, which is also where the cover rules are bad.

The good stuff:

sounds of crickets......but seriously though there are some good things to it

the warscrolls, while I personally think they look stupid and hate the name, and yeah they could be more informative, they are otherwise pretty damn good. easy to print, 3 hole punch and make your own army lists. they are fairly varied and in tandem with how the minis are sold, you get a box and can use it right away, this is a major strength in my opinion (it was also one of the reasons i give for warmahordes superiority over gw products in general, the use out of the box) they are also easy to follow.

freedom to build fluffy armies, while this is a combo with the bads of troops being relatively irrelevant, it does allow you to build the army you want to build without being "broken" rules wise, I have seen some really really neat armies that while you "could" have done them in WHFB, you didnt.

the rules are "free". granted most of us who wanted to like the game or do like it did go out and buy the big rulebook (in hindsight I regret that book mightily, I think its trash) and will likely buy the starter box, because thats just what we do. but we did NOT have to. we were good to go from day 1, our armies were not instantly invalidated nor removed from the game *squats* and we could play with our free warscrolls and rules from word go.

the game scales very very well in a certain range...while you can play it with 20 or less models, it blows goats badly at that range. really big games suck too, but that middle ground it is really good for scaling game size.

the hero phase, i do like this, not sure why, but it grew on me, and having it at the beginning, just seemed right TO ME, i know alot who will disagree with me on this one.

the ability to continually grow the game,. right now nothing I hate about it has to be set in stone, its all easily fixable and hey they might make expansions and add ones that turn this into a really good game. I personally played 117 games using all of my armys but 1 at least once ( I despise with all my heart the character of sigmar, whom i call suckmar, and thus his suckmarines are still on sprue and will remain there until someone takes them off my hands) I dont believe in quitting a game after only a few and despite my initial disgust with the whole AoS concept, gave it a good old go, traded some stuff for a big book and box set and went to play. this game got boring much much faster than i could have thought, it has the depth of checkers. I have never much cared for 40k, but AoS has (in combination with discontinuing lotr/ hobbit, a game AoS should have taken alot of cues from) made me divorce GW.

Cover is counter-intuitive (you get cover when standing on a wall, but not behind it). poorly written rule, like most of them.

Actually thats for the most part an urban legend. The part about the wall is wholly false. There is a terrain warscroll that has the rules for all of the terrain.

For walls:
Barricade: If all of the models from a unit
are within 3" of a wall or fence, and are on
the same side of it, then the unit receives
the benefits of cover against attacks made
by models that are on the other side of the
wall or fence.

Also the game was not designed as a pick up game, which is where I feel a lot of the angst originates from in various forms. (that could be a viable and valid CON for the game for sure)

Having to find the rules for something basic like terrain in a separate document seems like a poor design choice... how would a new player know to do this? If things like that are required, any appeal of a 4 page ruleset is totally removed, imo. Why not do like many games do, and include those rules but put them in an "advanced" section after the basics?

 RiTides wrote:
Having to find the rules for something basic like terrain in a separate document seems like a poor design choice... how would a new player know to do this? If things like that are required, any appeal of a 4 page ruleset is totally removed, imo. Why not do like many games do, and include those rules but put them in an "advanced" section after the basics?

Well, those are rules for a piece of terrain GW sells. Everything has war scrolls now. It's the same situation with all of the terrain. Regular rules for how terrain works in terms of moving through it and special effects are in the 4 pages. There is a lot more than the 4 pages anyway, considering all the war scrolls, battle plans, etc. The 4 pages are just the basic mechanics, and then nearly everything on the table has its own rules entry to add onto it.

Edit: To add, I think one of my gripes with AoS is just how many rules it has, much contrary to all the complaints about 4 pages. There is a ton to remember.

It's broken in the core rules though. You need to be aware of that and use the terrain scroll instead. Whilst it's good they fixed it, they should do something about the original rules toom

coldgaming wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Having to find the rules for something basic like terrain in a separate document seems like a poor design choice... how would a new player know to do this? If things like that are required, any appeal of a 4 page ruleset is totally removed, imo. Why not do like many games do, and include those rules but put them in an "advanced" section after the basics?

Well, those are rules for a piece of terrain GW sells. Everything has war scrolls now. It's the same situation with all of the terrain. Regular rules for how terrain works in terms of moving through it and special effects are in the 4 pages. There is a lot more than the 4 pages anyway, considering all the war scrolls, battle plans, etc. The 4 pages are just the basic mechanics, and then nearly everything on the table has its own rules entry to add onto it.

Edit: To add, I think one of my gripes with AoS is just how many rules it has, much contrary to all the complaints about 4 pages. There is a ton to remember.

I think that the amount of rules on each warscroll is off putting. I much prefer the way KoW does it with generic special rules and only those generic ones so I can look across the table and see a block of spearmen my opponent tells me they have phalanx and vicious. I know exactly what that unit does now. I don't need to remember any other BS.

As for the terrain... what do you do with home made stuff, do you need a warscroll for it to work?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looking at the terrain warscrolls all I can say is that is another reason I'd consider AoS rules poor quality. The random magical terrain was crap in 8th ed, we should have had less of it not make every bit of terrain over the top too.

Comparing to KoW again since both are simplified versions of WHFB but imo KoW simplified the right ways where AoS went the wrong way.
In KoW terrain is much simpler, you can look at a hill and know what it does without remembering any odd special rules. They also include a part about terrain that is for show only, like say a stature, that your regiments just walk over like they aren't there. That I love as in 8th ed (and now AoS) that stature would shoot fireballs or some crap at you. In KoW it is easier to add in fun little terrain features to the table without worrying about them getting in the way of the game. It means you can add more of them which makes the table more flavourful imo.

 Malisteen wrote:
I'm not sure I'd call the game a 'small scale skirmish game'. It certainly can be played that way, but when the rules include formations like the 'deathrattle horde' - which requires five units and a character, with three of those units being nowhere near effective unless you're running them in units of 20, 30, or more - then I'd say the game is also looking to run larger games.
...
...

On reflection I agree, it's a mass skirmish game like 40K. However, I think the movement and combat rules are too clunky to work for larger numbers of figures. Certainly, playing 40K, there starts to be a real time problem with horde armies like Tyranids and Orks. If I was going to play AoS and use large units like lots of Skinks, I certainly would put them on to block bases to speed up movement.

To go off at a bit of a tangent, I've noticed that people playing AoS in shops tend to move their units as sort of electron shell probability clouds, rather than properly measuring out the path and distance for each individual figure. I think this is because it's a right pain in the arse to do it properly, but, given the crucial factor in AoS of figure placement in melee, this kind of merry wandering is verging on cheating.

While actually I don't like the crucial figure placement mechanism, I would rather see people play games by the rules. Especially as the precise placement is a major part of the tactics in AoS.


If I was going to play AoS I would buy fish tank ornaments instead of the official terrain pieces, as they are expensive and need a lot of assembling and painting, while the ornaments come ready made. Then I would simply apply the appropriate terrain war scroll to each fish tank piece. Since the game is set in amazing magical landscapes, it's appropriate to give certain terrain pieces these special powers.

Regarding the special rules on each war scroll, I think this is the nature of the game. GW want to make it a "collect them all" type of game in which every unit is unique in some minor way at least.

The idea of learning the special rules to 100s of units probably appeals to young boys -- it's like learning all the nations and their capitals, or the specs of WW2 aircraft or something. That doesn't appeal to me so much any more, but I think it's easy enough to have a look at the war scrolls that are used for a single game.

On the whole though, the idea of having a war scroll for each unit, with all its rules and stats, is a good one. That's why I suggested it several years ago, and I'm happy that GW have taken up my idea.

The danger of the special rules proliferation is that it introduces more and more chances for exploits to be created. There is probably a mathematical formula to describe it.

To me this only matters if people are going to play AoS as a serious tournament game. I suppose it is something that organisers will just have to get to grips with, but it shouldn't matter for home and club play.

 RiTides wrote:
Having to find the rules for something basic like terrain in a separate document seems like a poor design choice... how would a new player know to do this? If things like that are required, any appeal of a 4 page ruleset is totally removed, imo. Why not do like many games do, and include those rules but put them in an "advanced" section after the basics?

This is simply how AoS rules are structured. Core rules only cover the very basics like movement, turn order, etc. Rules for any specific thing are on that specific thing's rules page. It is a deliberate redistribution of rules complexity from the central core rules to the distributed unit & terrain rules.

I personally find it more convenient, as I can set aside just the pages of the rules I'm using in a game, and not have to flip through a hundred page book of rules I'm not using if I have to look anything up. It also allows individual units and terrain to have more customized rules, rather than sticking to generic special rules that may not fit them as well - such as how the generic 'if you're standing on it you get cover' terrain rule doesn't fit with walls.

Personally I like that mechanical specialization, but I've always preferred piles of wacky special rules to sterile games like KoW, where faction rules look like spread sheets, and the difference between a 4 in this stat and a 3 in that stat is supposed to convey the distinct character of particular units or even entire armies. I understand that's an entirely subjective take, but I tried hard to like KoW back when I was much more bitter about AoS than I am now, and try as I might, even with the power of spite behind it, I just could not get into that game. There was nothing to it I could sink my teeth into or hang my imagination on.

 jonolikespie wrote:

coldgaming wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Having to find the rules for something basic like terrain in a separate document seems like a poor design choice... how would a new player know to do this? If things like that are required, any appeal of a 4 page ruleset is totally removed, imo. Why not do like many games do, and include those rules but put them in an "advanced" section after the basics?

Well, those are rules for a piece of terrain GW sells. Everything has war scrolls now. It's the same situation with all of the terrain. Regular rules for how terrain works in terms of moving through it and special effects are in the 4 pages. There is a lot more than the 4 pages anyway, considering all the war scrolls, battle plans, etc. The 4 pages are just the basic mechanics, and then nearly everything on the table has its own rules entry to add onto it.

Edit: To add, I think one of my gripes with AoS is just how many rules it has, much contrary to all the complaints about 4 pages. There is a ton to remember.

I think that the amount of rules on each warscroll is off putting. I much prefer the way KoW does it with generic special rules and only those generic ones so I can look across the table and see a block of spearmen my opponent tells me they have phalanx and vicious. I know exactly what that unit does now. I don't need to remember any other BS.

As for the terrain... what do you do with home made stuff, do you need a warscroll for it to work?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looking at the terrain warscrolls all I can say is that is another reason I'd consider AoS rules poor quality. The random magical terrain was crap in 8th ed, we should have had less of it not make every bit of terrain over the top too.

Comparing to KoW again since both are simplified versions of WHFB but imo KoW simplified the right ways where AoS went the wrong way.
In KoW terrain is much simpler, you can look at a hill and know what it does without remembering any odd special rules. They also include a part about terrain that is for show only, like say a stature, that your regiments just walk over like they aren't there. That I love as in 8th ed (and now AoS) that stature would shoot fireballs or some crap at you. In KoW it is easier to add in fun little terrain features to the table without worrying about them getting in the way of the game. It means you can add more of them which makes the table more flavourful imo.

I suggest trying the game at some point if you can. I think you'll find AoS is more intuitive than you've made it out.

 Malisteen wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Having to find the rules for something basic like terrain in a separate document seems like a poor design choice... how would a new player know to do this? If things like that are required, any appeal of a 4 page ruleset is totally removed, imo. Why not do like many games do, and include those rules but put them in an "advanced" section after the basics?

This is simply how AoS rules are structured. Core rules only cover the very basics like movement, turn order, etc. Rules for any specific thing are on that specific thing's rules page. It is a deliberate redistribution of rules complexity from the central core rules to the distributed unit & terrain rules.

I personally find it more convenient, as I can set aside just the pages of the rules I'm using in a game, and not have to flip through a hundred page book of rules I'm not using if I have to look anything up. It also allows individual units and terrain to have more customized rules, rather than sticking to generic special rules that may not fit them as well - such as how the generic 'if you're standing on it you get cover' terrain rule doesn't fit with walls.

Personally I like that mechanical specialization, but I've always preferred piles of wacky special rules to sterile games like KoW, where faction rules look like spread sheets, and the difference between a 4 in this stat and a 3 in that stat is supposed to convey the distinct character of particular units or even entire armies. I understand that's an entirely subjective take, but I tried hard to like KoW back when I was much more bitter about AoS than I am now, and try as I might, even with the power of spite behind it, I just could not get into that game. There was nothing to it I could sink my teeth into or hang my imagination on.

Agree with this for sure!

For home made terrain, you either use the generic terrain rules if it fits, or one of the published terrain scrolls if that's a better fit (there are scrolls for forests, walls, grave yards, assorted buildings, etc), or you make up your own home brew rules.

coldgaming wrote:

I suggest trying the game at some point if you can. I think you'll find AoS is more intuitive than you've made it out.

You know if anyone played at my FLGS it wouldn't be hard to grab some old WHFB models, and I probably would have. But if I wanted to try I'd have to go to the local GW, which is 2 hour max parking and I may well end up waiting there that long just to use the one table..
I did get the demo when it started, but it seemed clunky so when my parking meter came up I just abandoned it.

Even as someone who likes Age of Sigmar (the game in and of itself, not the way GW's handled the transition) more than I dislike it, I can certainly admit that the game is clunky. Very much first draft material, not a refined experience. Then again, so was first edition Malifeux, and the initial releases of a bunch of other games for that matter. Whether AoS lives long enough to get a more refined second edition, well... We'll see.

As for nobody playing near you, well, not much can be done about that. Most minis games are pretty bad when you don't have anyone else to play with.

The sad thing is that it should be so clunky, being GW's first major release in 15 years, based on their 70 years' experience in development of mass skirmish games (WHFB, 40K, LoTR.)

However I will turn the thread into a Two Minute Hate if I am not careful.

pretty sure WHFB and 40k are also and have pretty much always been pretty clunky as well. LotR was a bright spot, but it didn't scale up all that well, which is a problem when the most memorable scenes in the films & books the game was emulating were huge battles.

Yes, definitely true. That's why AoS was so disappointing for me. It essentially is 40K in fantasy clothing, with some minor changes to the stat line and a new set of special rules.

 Malisteen wrote:
I'm not sure I'd call the game a 'small scale skirmish game'. It certainly can be played that way, but when the rules include formations like the 'deathrattle horde' - which requires five units and a character, with three of those units being nowhere near effective unless you're running them in units of 20, 30, or more - then I'd say the game is also looking to run larger games.

So... as is often cited; people weren't getting into WHFB because of the size of start up.
So GW wipe out an amazing piece of IP which they've spent countless years building up and protecting. To replace with a game with a low buy in. Sounds good so far. Except the figures cost more and it's now back to formations with the same amount of figures. Good business idea if people fall for it.
I have nothing against the rules, but I got He-man and the Masters of the Universe out my system as a pre-teen. I assume this is now the age category the game is aimed at?

coldgaming wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Having to find the rules for something basic like terrain in a separate document seems like a poor design choice... how would a new player know to do this? If things like that are required, any appeal of a 4 page ruleset is totally removed, imo. Why not do like many games do, and include those rules but put them in an "advanced" section after the basics?

Well, those are rules for a piece of terrain GW sells. Everything has war scrolls now. It's the same situation with all of the terrain. Regular rules for how terrain works in terms of moving through it and special effects are in the 4 pages. There is a lot more than the 4 pages anyway, considering all the war scrolls, battle plans, etc. The 4 pages are just the basic mechanics, and then nearly everything on the table has its own rules entry to add onto it.

Edit: To add, I think one of my gripes with AoS is just how many rules it has, much contrary to all the complaints about 4 pages. There is a ton to remember.

That's actually what is off-putting to me, too (your last line). I just don't know where I'd have to find everything... the idea that in the core rules there's a different (or insufficient) rule for walls than in a specific terrain warscroll... I can't think of a scenario that would be less appealing to me! It's great to have alternate advanced rules at times... but that's just basic.

One of the things that has stopped me from playing 40K is the scattering of rules into a ton of different books, PDF-only supplements, etc... and it continues in AoS, that a certain unit might have different rules if fielded in a particular detachment than if fielded standard, and there's no way to know that other than to remember the detachment (referring to 40K here). It is actually too complicated... and AoS makes that even worse with separating out basic rules into more documents.

The appeal it had for me as a simple ruleset was real (although comp / balancing was an issue, which we're not really considering here). But that seems to be a bit of a mirage, and the actual game is still large, and getting more complex with additional rules in frequent campaign supplements and an ever increasing number of warscrolls... honestly it's a bit overwhelming as an outsider looking in. I'm sure folks playing have it down, like most systems, but it is kind of defeating the purpose of what I thought was the goal with AoS rules - simplicity and ease of play!

I find that AoS is simpler to learn but actually plays slower than WHFB.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
To replace with a game with a low buy in. Sounds good so far. Except the figures cost more and it's now back to formations with the same amount of figures.

If AoS do not exist, and GW introduce 9th edition instead. I pretty sure that, the price of the new 9th ed kits would cost more too.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
So... as is often cited; people weren't getting into WHFB because of the size of start up.
So GW wipe out an amazing piece of IP which they've spent countless years building up and protecting. To replace with a game with a low buy in. Sounds good so far. Except the figures cost more and it's now back to formations with the same amount of figures. Good business idea if people fall for it.
I have nothing against the rules, but I got He-man and the Masters of the Universe out my system as a pre-teen. I assume this is now the age category the game is aimed at?

The buy in is lower, because Age of Sigmar scales down to small games far better than WHFB ever did. WHFB needed side games like 'skirmish' to try and do the low scale game thing. AoS plays just as well (and by extension just as poorly) with a unit box plus a hero as it does with a couple hundred models.


As for who the game is aimed at - Age of Sigmar is auture's work, in the sense of creators in dialog with themselves, rather than with an audience in mind. Ie, it is coming from older designers designing a game for themselves. Designers who pre-date the 'competitive scene' in minis games - both tournaments and casual pick up games, designers who saw that kind of play, with its over-adherence to 'rules as written', its boring generic scenarios, its finicky points-crunching and math hammering and list building, as a blight that ruined good old-fashioned narrative basement campaigns played for fun with regular friends and tons of house rules and armies based on stories rather than points limits.

It is a game not aimed gamers younger than you, but rather at older gamers, gamers who are parents now and want a game they can play with their kids. Gamers old enough to no longer be embarrassed about 'playing with he-man dolls'. Who no longer need a rigid rules structure and the veneer of competition as a psychological excuse to get them over the hurdle of playing with toy soldiers (to be clear, I'm expressing my impression of the opinions of the designers, not my own). It is decidedly and deliberately NOT aimed at competitively minded 20-somethings who complain endlessly on the internets and send death threats to games designers (which actually happened oh my god I'm ashamed of the people in this hobby some times) and play super serious games against strangers at insular and unwelcoming game stores.

If you want to know the mind set behind Age of Sigmar, it's all here in this old Citadel Journal article by Jervis Johnson from, what? More than a decade ago?
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/08/40k-editorial-rules-rant-jervis-are-you-serious.html

Yeah. Age of Sigmar isn't some brand new corporately mandated response to Chapterhouse or to 8th edition failing financially. Those have been the catalysts that led to the corporate suits letting the designers off their chain, but make no mistake, this is the game that the heads of GW's design team have been wanting to make for ages.


Now, I happen to think all of this demonstrates a pretty poor understanding of their audience. It's all a very condescending attitude to adopt, and it takes a pretty big head to decide the problems with your game aren't how you wrote it, but how the players choose to play it, so you're going to write a version of the game that deliberately makes it impossible to play that way, like a kid sharing their toys, but when the other kids don't 'play with them right' taking them all back and going home. And as a business move, it's daft. There aren't as many basement players. And basement players play their basement games regardless. They don't need your rules to cater to them, because they don't need your rules in the first place. They're also unlikely to show brand loyalty to your product line.

But fantasy as it was was failing, and the suits decided they might as well let the designers try something crazy and do what they've been wanting to do to the game for, apparently, years, designing a game purely for themselves and just hope other people would buy into it.


And some of us have. I think the mind set behind the game is pretty dumb, and GW's business practices and community interaction remain utterly toxic, but I am one of those older, narrative gamers who finds 'serious' gaming tedious and 'serious' gamers irritating. As much as I hate the way this transition has been handled, and I hate the lack of communication and air of condescension coming from GW, I kind of like the game. So... *shrug*

Meowstalker wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
To replace with a game with a low buy in. Sounds good so far. Except the figures cost more and it's now back to formations with the same amount of figures.

If AoS do not exist, and GW introduce 9th edition instead. I pretty sure that, the price of the new 9th ed kits would cost more too.

likely as not, but a 9th edition wouldn't try to make the claim that you "need" fewer models. AoS was very deceptive on that point, my AoS battles have been much larger than their 8th edition counterparts, taken longer and were much less interesting and far more obnoxious until we starting ignoring some of the rules.

thekingofkings wrote:

Meowstalker wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
To replace with a game with a low buy in. Sounds good so far. Except the figures cost more and it's now back to formations with the same amount of figures.

If AoS do not exist, and GW introduce 9th edition instead. I pretty sure that, the price of the new 9th ed kits would cost more too.

likely as not, but a 9th edition wouldn't try to make the claim that you "need" fewer models. AoS was very deceptive on that point, my AoS battles have been much larger than their 8th edition counterparts, taken longer and were much less interesting and far more obnoxious until we starting ignoring some of the rules.

I mean that, GW price hike exist before AoS.

 Malisteen wrote:

But fantasy as it was was failing, and the suits decided they might as well let the designers try something crazy and do what they've been wanting to do to the game for, apparently, years, designing a game purely for themselves and just hope other people would buy into it.

Is there any number or metric or even outright quote from someone in GW that says "fantasy was failing"? Back when all this was just starting, there was a lot of 'it's not making as much as 40k and GW wants it to make more', which seems believable enough. Even 'space marines make more than fantasy' seemed...not TOO much of a stretch...although I'd take that with a grain of salt. But somewhere along the line, this turned into 'fantasy was losing money/failing', and I'd like to know if that was actually the case or it's just a game of whispers.

That's not the kind of thing that would exist as a public quote or figure even if it were true.

The only evidence we have of it was indirectly, from people who claimed (relatively believably) to have inside sources. Rumor sources like Hastings, who were talking about Age of Sigmar (if not that specific name) fairly accurately well before the End Times even started. These sources said WHFB was providing no more than 15% of GW's revenue, while eating considerably more than 15% of the costs, and claimed that there had been serious discussion of just discontinuing the fantasy game and product line altogether, with nothing at all in its place.

Unfortunately, I can't link to the posts in question, because warseer is still dead.

Anyway, if you believe my third hand accounts from these sources, there was an unexpected spike of sales and interest during the End Times, but by that point the wheels were already in motion.


However, regardless of whether that part is accurate, the part where Jervis Johnson was describing something like Age of Sigmar as the ideal form of warhammer, and decrying "competitive gaming" (ie, games played with points values, victory conditions, and unseemly adherence to something so pedestrian as 'rules') as the death of the hobby is direct from the horses mouth, as linked above.

Age of sigmar didn't come from the corporate suits worried about chapterhouse profiting from their IP. It came from the game designers worried about competitive gamers ruining their beer & pretzels game. And it isn't aimed at 12 year olds, it's aimed at 40+ year olds who miss ye olde days, including 40+ year old gamers who want to play games with their 12 year old kids.

Oh, no, I had no problem with that second part, it's pretty obvious that this is the sort of thing Jervis wanted. I do remember seeing something from Hastings on it - that 15% figure sounds familiar - but I don't remember anything about costing them more than that. It's entirely possible that I missed that, but...

I don't know if the earnings stuff is true or not. It's certainly plausible, you often see the most creative freedom given to designers when they're working on flagging product lines, while the corporate suits maintain tight controls on successful lines to keep creatives from killing the cash cows with needless innovation.

But whether it's that or something else that led to Jervis, or designers with the same mentality, being given the reigns is kind of besides the point. I'm mainly just arguing against the notion that Age of Sigmar was a cynical top-down editorially mandated money-grab pushed by non-gamer marketing suits and an out-of-touch corporate board feeling jealous and protective over their IP.

This game is very much a game design auture's vanity project. If anything, AoS may be the fault of too little corporate interference, not too much.

Wow. You sure did make a lot of assumptions about me and my play style. Firstly, thanks for assuming I'm a 20 something rules lawyering max min list maker.

Late 40's would be a better estimate.
I bought the 2nd edition box set with some of my christmas money in 1984 (iirc). Even my last Bolt Action game had some of the old cardboard 'Terror of the Lichemaster' scenery in it. (See blog)

I managed to play WHFB right up to the End times without ever max/min or comp lists. I play (and still play) with only the figures I like to paint, so even if a unit is trash, it still regularly gets a place. Units I don't like the look of never make it to my lists.
We played games that had all kinds of scenarios, zulu dawn type out numbered games, skirmish, objective lead. I didn't need GW to tell me in a new rule set that I could play like that.

A lot of pro-AoS arguments are always the people arguing for the fun story telling games. In my opinion, if you've not been doing that pre-AoS and needed AoS to tell you how, then I wonder why you played. Any ruleset fits this category.

The only 'quality' AoS brought was to the pockets of the owners/shareholders in Lenton.

 Malisteen wrote:

Age of sigmar didn't come from the corporate suits worried about chapterhouse profiting from their IP. It came from the game designers worried about competitive gamers ruining their beer & pretzels game. And it isn't aimed at 12 year olds, it's aimed at 40+ year olds who miss ye olde days, including 40+ year old gamers who want to play games with their 12 year old kids.

That's making a huge assumption that goes against a lot of the evidence we have, like the renaming of even the most basic fantasy races in such a way that GW think it can protect them, and the design of the game, which plays on the ability of children and teens to memorize all the little fiddly rules on each warscroll.

You also keep talking about "older designers" - but apart from Jervis, all the rules writers at GW are a bunch of no-names. All the talent has left to go and do their own things, or help out other companies.

It's much easier to say that that AoS is a continuation of GW's "We're a model toy company, not a game company." No rules means no need to playtest new units or factions. Warscrolls offer a very simple way for designers to take a picture of a model, do up a page in a PDF maker, and then put it out with minimum fuss. A minimal amount of effort is needed for GW to put out new, "impressive" looking kits that they can charge a lot of money for.

I wasn't trying to express my own opinion, but rather attempting to characterize the attitude expressed by the jervis johnson article, the attitude that seems to underlie AoS's design in general, an attitude I find condescending and reductionist. I apologize for my failure of communication in this regard.

AoS isn't about letting people play pointless (literally) narrative basement campaigns. As you say, players could always do that, you don't need rules to play without rules, that's the entire point of playing without rules. Rather it was designed to make it impossible, or at least very difficult, to play any other way, by designers who felt other ways of playing were somehow 'ruining the hobby'.

 infinite_array wrote:

You also keep talking about "older designers" - but apart from Jervis, all the rules writers at GW are a bunch of no-names. All the talent has left to go and do their own things, or help out other companies.

Phil Kelly is part of the old guard and still in the design team - although perhaps now in the specialist games team as it seems he worked on BaC.

 infinite_array wrote:

You also keep talking about "older designers" - but apart from Jervis, all the rules writers at GW are a bunch of no-names. All the talent has left to go and do their own things, or help out other companies.

This is a very mean thing to say... When you are working for a larger company (like GW) you often have to do what your superiours and project managers ask you to do. If you want creative freedom you're free to leave and establish your own firm (and lose the financial backup to produce your product).

 infinite_array wrote:
That's making a huge assumption that goes against a lot of the evidence we have, like the renaming of even the most basic fantasy races in such a way that GW think it can protect them, and the design of the game, which plays on the ability of children and teens to memorize all the little fiddly rules on each warscroll.

What evidence? Most of the wacky names aren't protectable, if that was the point then lawyers would have mandated original names that passed the google-check at least. It would also be pointless from the start, since calling your dwarve 'duardin' doesn't stop people from using another companies dwarf models as 'duardin' in your games. I'm always one for assuming malice before incompetence, but this is a pretty dramatic load of incompetence and malice you're trying to sell, here.

Changing the names also doesn't require blowing up the old world or starting a new game, and it runs 100% counter to including free rules in the new game for all your old dwarf and elf and lizardmen units. So again, the idea that the name changes are about copyright again seems to be a pretty huge stretch.

And it's not like Age of Sigmar is the first fantasy setting to come up with wacky names for old genre staples. It's practically ubiquitous. There are several tv trope entries on it from 'fantasy naming convention' to 'our X are different' to 'Phantasy Spelling' to 'ye olde buchurede englishe'. It goes back to the very roots of the genre, because if you'll recall Tolkien didn't just have 'Elves' and 'Dwarves' and 'Orcs', he had 'Eldar' and 'Khazád' and 'Uruks'.

And even warhammer fantasy had its 'Druchii' and 'Asur' and 'Dawi'.

So:

1) Silly names are common in the genre
2) The old setting already had them
3) They wouldn't have had to blow up the game and start a new one to change the names (see: Adeptus Astartes, Astra Militarum)
4) The new silly names don't even actually protect the IP, some even failing a basic goodle check.

So yeah, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that worries over protecting IP are not at the heart of this transition, nor are they to blame for AoS's mechanical... peculiarities.


As for memorizing things... you had to memorize a bunch of old rules before. now you're just looking them up on the pages of the units themselves, instead of starting with the units and then cross referencing with a BRB. I don't see evidence of anything there.


Where as the evidence that AoS's direction, especially mechanically, was very much driven by the attitudes and preferences of Jervis Johnson or designers like him is all over the previously linked article, a 15 year old editorial describing basically exactly Age of Sigmar as the ideal version of Warhammer fantasy, even at a time when the game as it was was still going relatively strong.

I can imagine Jervis wanting to throw away points and create a game that ran only on scenarios instead. I cannot imagine him wanting to blow up the Old World and shoehorn in Fantasy Space Marines.

I think they are looking for trademarkable names on some levels, but as we've seen with the factions released so far, it's not "duardin" that they would seek to trademark, but "fyreslayer" instead.

Sure sure, but they could have been called 'fyreslayer' regardless of whether they were 'fyreslayer dwaves' or 'fyreslayer duardin'. And they could have been 'fyreslayer dwarves' or 'fyreslayer duardin' in the old world and the old game, too.

I just can't see any reasonable way to hook the silly names to IP worries to blowing up the setting or making a new game with rules that seem designed to deliberately alienate the bulk of their customer base.

Oh, I don't think the destruction of the old world was so that the names could be changed (although it was no doubt a convienent opportunity), I think that was solely to introduce the Stormcast Eternals and to move away from ranked unit gameplay.

I think blowing up the world specifically was more to shake things up. A big event do over, issue zero thing designed to draw attention and provide a jumping-on point for new players when the existing customer base is providing a failing revenue stream. See: comic universe re-boots.

Perhaps that too. Again, I don't see that as Jervis' decision but more a marketing team decision there.

I wonder if Jervis brings over Stormcast models when he games in the Perry twin's basement :-p

 Malisteen wrote:
Sure sure, but they could have been called 'fyreslayer' regardless of whether they were 'fyreslayer dwaves' or 'fyreslayer duardin'. And they could have been 'fyreslayer dwarves' or 'fyreslayer duardin' in the old world and the old game, too.

I just can't see any reasonable way to hook the silly names to IP worries to blowing up the setting or making a new game with rules that seem designed to deliberately alienate the bulk of their customer base.

In any other case, you'd be right. But this is GW, whose head of IP was forced to testify under oath that he didn't know the difference between trademark and copyright. I think they absolutely renamed everything under the misguided notion that these new names are somehow more "protectable" than the old ones. It's the same reason that the Imperial Guard became the "Astra Militarium."

 Malisteen wrote:

I just can't see any reasonable way to hook the silly names to IP worries to blowing up the setting or making a new game with rules that seem designed to deliberately alienate the bulk of their customer base.

Although they did manage to change all the shades of paint by a fraction and rename them all with IP protectable names. Why do you not think they could try the same with AoS?

 Spinner wrote:

 Malisteen wrote:

But fantasy as it was was failing, and the suits decided they might as well let the designers try something crazy and do what they've been wanting to do to the game for, apparently, years, designing a game purely for themselves and just hope other people would buy into it.

Is there any number or metric or even outright quote from someone in GW that says "fantasy was failing"? Back when all this was just starting, there was a lot of 'it's not making as much as 40k and GW wants it to make more', which seems believable enough. Even 'space marines make more than fantasy' seemed...not TOO much of a stretch...although I'd take that with a grain of salt. But somewhere along the line, this turned into 'fantasy was losing money/failing', and I'd like to know if that was actually the case or it's just a game of whispers.

It's perfectly obvious that WHFB was in trouble, and 40K got into the same trouble when GW went down the same road with the title.

This can very easily be read in the rules changes that caused large amounts of complaints, the price doublings that caused large amounts of complaints, and the very rapid fall in sales that occurred following the previous events.

Whether this justified canning the whole game and fluff to replace with AoS is another thing.

Given the recent positive changes in GW that seem to be the work of new CEO Rountree, it would be very interesting to find out if the destruction of WHFB and creation of AoS was Rountree's first bold step forwards, or Kirby's last disastrous jerk on the reins of power. I suspect we'll never know.

However this is all getting off the proper topic.

Trying to head a little more back to the topic of the rules themselves, I'd just like to throw in my personal anecdote of having never seen any gamers (or collectors for that matter) asking for anything GW has done with AoS.

Yes Jervis promoted the idea of no points but no actual customers I ever met asked for that, any that wanted it seemed to be doing it themselves anyway.

A slimmed down, simpler ruleset was certainly asked for, but I don't feel like AoS delivered on that. It made the core rules smaller sure, but it still looks bloated to me with the need to remember a different special rule for every warscroll.

People hated magic terrain in 8th ed WHFB and 7th ed 40k, why does AoS have even more of it?

No one, and I mean no one, wanted space marines in their Fantasy.

End Times seemed well revived when it started and Nagash (and Sigmar in a sense) returned for the final big showdown with Chaos in a new campaign that was advancing the story... but as soon as the last one came out people locally just.. stopped. Fantasy was dead, no one knew what was coming, so people just set it aside.

But again, back to the rules, I feel like someone told the studio they have to condense the rules to 4 pages and the studio just had to run with that. Rules like shooting into and out of combat feel like they were simply cut for formatting's sake. KoW rules are clear and simple enough that I can sit down and read them easily in one sitting. They take up the first 40 pages of the rulebook yes, ten times as many pages as AoS, but they contain ALL the special rules you'll ever encounter. They contain ALL the rules for terrain. They contain rules for timed games in competitive events, they don't have the variety of AoS scenarios, but they have 6 solid ones that provide enough of a difference that people aren't playing battleline by default.

Looking at both of them I would say AoS has been simplified on the surface, but scratch the surface and it is needlessly complex. KoW on the other hand doesn't look as simplified, but is exactly as simple as it seems.

I'm also going to have to compare the two in terms of narrative gameplay since people claim that is the strength of AoS. From everything I've heard the battlplans are good scenario games, since I've got no interest in paying anything to read them I'll assume that's ture but point out KoW have put out an amazing campaign book that covers map based competitive campaigns, narrative campaigns and how to link one game to the next, it gives an example narrative campaign that includes a round of one of their skirmish games, with KoW rules for one of the named bad guys from the skirmish game fluff to include him in the next KoW battle. It even includes basics such as how to get a group together and organize a campaign. Given that I find it hard to believe AoS is better in the narrative gaming department, mostly that just comes down to the players being imaginative and both games seem to offer good inspiration there, albeit in different forms.

That kinda leaves me asking what the AoS rules are actually good for?

If I want a mass battle game I have KoW, if I want skirmish there are a dozen other skirmish games on the market. If I want narrative gaming in mass battle KoW and the campaign book serve me better than AoS as it's a real mass battle game. If I want narrative based skirmish.. honestly Mordheim seems better than AoS as I can watch my men gain experience and level up. Like 40k, AoS seems forced into this niche of skirmish rules but trying to sell the game with 100+ models because GW wants to sell models.

I've actually asked this on this forum and got the response that most people seemed to play with less than 50 models, but GW themselves only ever said that 100 models a side is a good evenings gaming so from that I assume they play with 100 models a side at Nottingham, and since I've not seen any battle reports from GW themselves nor any armies being shown off that are that small I am under the impression GW do expect the game to be played larger than that. (Although thinking about it the battleplans may give a better idea of how many models GW are expecting people to use, if people want to contradict my theory by throwing out battleplans using 20 models a side, or prove it by showing ones with 100+ models aside, please do.)
Actually they also state in the rules: "  Thee more units you decide to use, the longer the game will last and the more exciting it will be! " Sounds like an endorsement of mass battle armies to me.



That may have turned into an incoherent ramble, but the tl;dr is that AoS seems like a game built for a very specific, almost non existent* niche for no other reason than the GW studio seem to like it that way.

(*Before anyone jumps on me saying that they like the game so clearly there is a niche for it, just ask yourself if you discuss what a balanced fight would be, or if you just place a unit, let your opponent place a unit, etc, as per the exact rules as written and then play with sudden death even if the smaller army has the advantage or it looks like a perfectly balanced game that would be unbalanced by giving one side sudden death.)

I do agree that, AoS rules are pretty bad in term of quality. However, rule like shoot in/out of combat is mean to streamline the game flow, it is a choice.

If you don't like shooting into/out of melee, you can ignore the rule. It will make missile units weaker, but since there isn't a clear balance mechanism, this probably doesn't matter much. If you wanted to compensate, try improving the To Hit and perhaps the To Wound rolls of missile units by 1.

There are some ambiguous points that should have been caught. In particular, how to execute the pile-in move isn't properly explained and how you do it changes how the game plays a lot. The mystic shield stacking question, summoning rules and that one about the multiple weapons also come to mind, but the pile-in one is the most glaring.

Also, I don't think the sudden death rule is good. It might make more sense if it was something like: if you want to play with uneven sides, the disadvantaged player should pick a sudden death rule.

I think the ruleset has some obvious weaknesses. The amount of picking through dice is truly incredible. Look, okay, rolling a bucket of dice can be fun. The problem is counting the dice out and picking out the hits and then rerolling the ones gets tedious. Three rolls per attack is excessive, especially for a game that seems to be trying to be streamlined in its other aspects.

Another thing that is weird is people have noted the game seems centred around a narrative style of play, but the deployment rules don't actually reflect that. Rather than saying you should work with your opponent to create an interesting battle, they kinda just say you each whack models on the table until your deployment zone is full or you feel like stopping. That doesn't seem like the way to a good gameplay experience?

I really like that they tried something so drastically different, though.

 jonolikespie wrote:
(*Before anyone jumps on me saying that they like the game so clearly there is a niche for it, just ask yourself if you discuss what a balanced fight would be, or if you just place a unit, let your opponent place a unit, etc, as per the exact rules as written and then play with sudden death even if the smaller army has the advantage or it looks like a perfectly balanced game that would be unbalanced by giving one side sudden death.)

I guess your idea is that even the players of AoS forego deployment RAW and house rule it, making it seem unplayable RAW, however the deployment method above is often altered in the Battleplans. For example, The Ritual asks players to each pick an army before deployment and then choose who will be the attacker/defender, as larger armies by a third more models will default to the attacker.

That kinda leaves me asking what the AoS rules are actually good for?

For me, the strengths of AoS are the vast amounts of units that can be brought to the game (the GW AoS miniatures range is simply massive), almost making it like a D&D Monster Manual - and the possibilities that brings.

Second is the 'platoon' size of the games and the loose skirmish groupings of units.

These two things combined make the game very versatile in my opinion. From mass battles with dragons and massive warmachines down to fights over crampt terrain.

*Before anyone jumps on me saying that they like the game so clearly there is a niche for it, just ask yourself if you discuss what a balanced fight would be, or if you just place a unit, let your opponent place a unit, etc, as per the exact rules as written and then play with sudden death even if the smaller army has the advantage or it looks like a perfectly balanced game that would be unbalanced by giving one side sudden death.

AoS is a scenario based game where every scenario has its own deployment rules and victory conditions. This isn't a new concept to wargaming. The one you mention isn't one I'd be bothered playing as I'm not a fan of simple charge and kill games. Its part of why I drifted away from fantasy to 40k for a while many years ago, as 40k better supported the skirmish style game with very different objectives. Block battle games are generally not so good outside the big kill all battle, with some slight variations (defend, ambush etc).

But yes so far in the few games I've played we've discussed what would feel about right balance wise. For myself I don't care whether it is perfectly balanced, only that it is 'good enough' in light of the victory conditions. That is usually quite doable with a quick talk. By the end you may have decided that you got it a bit wrong, but not usually to the point that it was a one sided slaughter/instant win.

I've played enough wargames over the years where victory for one side or the other is known to be harder for one side, and I like playing the disadvantaged side, trying to buck the odds. They also make for a good balancing mechanism, as outside the 'competitive' circuit it is probably unlikely you will have 2 equally good players, so for a well balanced game you will want the better player fighting somewhat uphill.

Unbalanced games have a long tradition in historical wargaming, when playing historical scenarios, meaning replaying actual historical battles. The point of a historical battle was often that one side thought it was stronger, and the weaker side couldn't escape. Designers writing historical scenarios often use biased victory conditions to make the stronger side's task harder, and thus achieve a theoretical 50/50 winning percentage.

Of course there is also a long tradition in historicals of balanced competition games using points and lists. The purpose of this type of rules originally was to run fair tournaments of one-off face to face battles. This doesn't invalidate the use of points, lists and balance for non-competition games, since if you want to organise unbalanced games it helps to know the theoretical value of the forces you decide to make available to players.

When GW released AoS without a balance mechanism, it took only five minutes for people who wanted one to start writing their own. Given the lack of success by GW to balance their own rules (40K) perhaps it's better to let the players do it.

Ironically, given the emphasis on "narrative" play, which seems basically to mean non-competitive, non-tournament play, and the lack of a balance mechanism in AoS, GW are organising tournaments for AoS. So they get to have their cake and eat it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Unbalanced games have a long tradition in historical wargaming, when playing historical scenarios, meaning replaying actual historical battles.

I'll take issue with this kil. Historical gaming can be quite a blank canvas to work from (there are a surprising amount of gaps in our records) and unbalanced games in historicals have always been a thing, and a rather fun thing at that, but that doesn't mean they're replaying actual historical battles or historical scenarios. For example, there doesn't need to be a precise battle to represent a gsme where my Normans or Romans having an uphill battle against your Anglo Saxons or celts. With respect, and I know you probably didn't intend it as such but it always grates on my nerves when people say how historicals only ever come down to reenacting battles.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


When GW released AoS without a balance mechanism, it took only five minutes for people who wanted one to start writing their own. Given the lack of success by GW to balance their own rules (40K) perhaps it's better to let the players do it.

It can work but it does take time, effort and a bit of experience to get it right. We do it, and I would recommend it as a valid approach. That said, having seen ymdc, I'm not sure if I'd necessarily trust the majority of players to balance their own rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Ironically, given the emphasis on "narrative" play, which seems basically to mean non-competitive, non-tournament play, and the lack of a balance mechanism in AoS, GW are organising tournaments for AoS. So they get to have their cake and eat it.

I don't think they're so much tournaments as event days. I think though that there is some decent value from this approach.

jonolikespie wrote:Trying to head a little more back to the topic of the rules themselves, I'd just like to throw in my personal anecdote of having never seen any gamers (or collectors for that matter) asking for anything GW has done with AoS.

Yes Jervis promoted the idea of no points but no actual customers I ever met asked for that, any that wanted it seemed to be doing it themselves anyway.

A slimmed down, simpler ruleset was certainly asked for, but I don't feel like AoS delivered on that. It made the core rules smaller sure, but it still looks bloated to me with the need to remember a different special rule for every warscroll.

People hated magic terrain in 8th ed WHFB and 7th ed 40k, why does AoS have even more of it?

No one, and I mean no one, wanted space marines in their Fantasy.

End Times seemed well revived when it started and Nagash (and Sigmar in a sense) returned for the final big showdown with Chaos in a new campaign that was advancing the story... but as soon as the last one came out people locally just.. stopped. Fantasy was dead, no one knew what was coming, so people just set it aside.

Yes it does seem like GW is giving the big FU to it's customers. Sadly GW is giving the big FU to the wrong people. If GW did what they were suppose to do (give customers what they want so they can spend money) instead of GW doing what they want to do (which made people not want to give their money) GW wouldn't have to throw out the baby with the bath water and start over again. Sadly though GW is doing what they want to do instead of giving people what they want. Maybe just maybe GW is finally turning around and giving people what they want now. Time will tell if that is the case or not.

But again, back to the rules, I feel like someone told the studio they have to condense the rules to 4 pages and the studio just had to run with that. Rules like shooting into and out of combat feel like they were simply cut for formatting's sake. KoW rules are clear and simple enough that I can sit down and read them easily in one sitting. They take up the first 40 pages of the rulebook yes, ten times as many pages as AoS, but they contain ALL the special rules you'll ever encounter. They contain ALL the rules for terrain. They contain rules for timed games in competitive events, they don't have the variety of AoS scenarios, but they have 6 solid ones that provide enough of a difference that people aren't playing battleline by default.

Looking at both of them I would say AoS has been simplified on the surface, but scratch the surface and it is needlessly complex. KoW on the other hand doesn't look as simplified, but is exactly as simple as it seems.

I'm also going to have to compare the two in terms of narrative gameplay since people claim that is the strength of AoS. From everything I've heard the battlplans are good scenario games, since I've got no interest in paying anything to read them I'll assume that's ture but point out KoW have put out an amazing campaign book that covers map based competitive campaigns, narrative campaigns and how to link one game to the next, it gives an example narrative campaign that includes a round of one of their skirmish games, with KoW rules for one of the named bad guys from the skirmish game fluff to include him in the next KoW battle. It even includes basics such as how to get a group together and organize a campaign. Given that I find it hard to believe AoS is better in the narrative gaming department, mostly that just comes down to the players being imaginative and both games seem to offer good inspiration there, albeit in different forms.

That kinda leaves me asking what the AoS rules are actually good for?

If I want a mass battle game I have KoW, if I want skirmish there are a dozen other skirmish games on the market. If I want narrative gaming in mass battle KoW and the campaign book serve me better than AoS as it's a real mass battle game. If I want narrative based skirmish.. honestly Mordheim seems better than AoS as I can watch my men gain experience and level up. Like 40k, AoS seems forced into this niche of skirmish rules but trying to sell the game with 100+ models because GW wants to sell models.

I've actually asked this on this forum and got the response that most people seemed to play with less than 50 models, but GW themselves only ever said that 100 models a side is a good evenings gaming so from that I assume they play with 100 models a side at Nottingham, and since I've not seen any battle reports from GW themselves nor any armies being shown off that are that small I am under the impression GW do expect the game to be played larger than that. (Although thinking about it the battleplans may give a better idea of how many models GW are expecting people to use, if people want to contradict my theory by throwing out battleplans using 20 models a side, or prove it by showing ones with 100+ models aside, please do.)
Actually they also state in the rules: "  Thee more units you decide to use, the longer the game will last and the more exciting it will be! " Sounds like an endorsement of mass battle armies to me.



That may have turned into an incoherent ramble, but the tl;dr is that AoS seems like a game built for a very specific, almost non existent* niche for no other reason than the GW studio seem to like it that way.

(*Before anyone jumps on me saying that they like the game so clearly there is a niche for it, just ask yourself if you discuss what a balanced fight would be, or if you just place a unit, let your opponent place a unit, etc, as per the exact rules as written and then play with sudden death even if the smaller army has the advantage or it looks like a perfectly balanced game that would be unbalanced by giving one side sudden death.)

That being said, with KoW with the better rules/scenarios, are their models selling? Are people playing KoW with Mantic (that is the company correct?) miniatures? I don't know how well those minis are selling but from what I am gathering and I could very well be wrong here is that people are playing KoW with GW miniatures. So to me, having better rules/system/points does not sell miniatures.

So maybe arguing about poor rules or bad quality of AoS is a moot point since a better rule game is not selling their miniatures. Again I could be wrong.

But you bring up great points as usual my friend.

To be sure, you can design scenarios that use historical rules but depict unknown or imaginary battles. One way to do this is to run a known historical campaign and allow the players to deviate from the known course of events, so that they will arrive at different battlefields. Another way is to take a known historical battle and transpose it to a different era. Of course you can always just make something up from whole cloth.

 jonolikespie wrote:
snip

I don't think endless theorizing about whether the game should exist or not is going to get us anywhere. If you're genuinely curious and get the opportunity to try it, give it a shot. If you are turned off by the game from everything you've seen, forget about it and move on to things you do like and focus your energy there. We could all spend the rest of our lives debating the merits and justification to exist of things we've never tried, but it's really just an exercise in typing.

Davor wrote:
That being said, with KoW with the better rules/scenarios, are their models selling? Are people playing KoW with Mantic (that is the company correct?) miniatures? I don't know how well those minis are selling but from what I am gathering and I could very well be wrong here is that people are playing KoW with GW miniatures. So to me, having better rules/system/points does not sell miniatures.

So maybe arguing about poor rules or bad quality of AoS is a moot point since a better rule game is not selling their miniatures. Again I could be wrong.

But you bring up great points as usual my friend.

Mantic (that is the company) allows other company's miniatures in their official events, they do not make a generic human army as they simply say there are a ton of historic out there to use.

I think this is a fundamental difference between between GW and Mantic and one that I think led directly to AoS. GW make rules to sell models, Mantic make rules to create an enjoyable game.

I can't speak to Mantic's miniature sales at all, they may barely be surviving on the back of the kickstarters they run, but both Deadzone and Dreadball seemed to have been very popular using their own miniatures. Ultimately though I think as long as they don't go under they don't care so much if their models sell or not, as long as the community are enjoying their games.

 Bottle wrote:
For me the bad aspects are:

- no points, after playing with and without comp systems I think that I prefer to play with points. AoS could easily incorporate points, with the scenarios fixing uneven point ratios for each side if needed - they could add points into the app and adjust them on a monthly basis.

- shooting, both shooting into/out of combat and also being able to shoot anything with even the slightest line of sight. It's not fun to have your heroes cannon sniped when they are surrounded by troops.

- buffs, I like them, but when you have to keep track of nearby terrain, formation bonuses, magical and command bonuses, and any others, it can get difficult to keep track of.

The good aspects are:

- Freedom in list building. I love being able to mix and match factions or play anything from monster mash to hero hammer to troops spam.

- Army Size. I love armies being 50-60 models and feeling "complete"

- Free rules. A great idea. Please do it for 40k too

I agree. GW needs to implement something to stop people comping the game and messing up key mechanics like summoning and stuff just to try to make the game 'fair'. Being a Vampire Counts player I have felt the impact of these 'fair' comp packs. Yet I think that free rules would encourage more new people to play, especially younger people like myself who don't have tons of money to spend on rules and such like.
This would change AoS to be a new unique game, unlike WHFB, but be a mix of the current AoS and 8th ed. This could also mean that people who used to play 8th ed and raged after the release of sigmar, if they haven't already sold or burnt their models!

this is one of the more glaring issues with AoS from what I have experienced and read,. in order for this game to work or be worth a spit, you have to "ignore, modify, comp, etc,.." the hell out of it. that is the hallmark of a bad game, it is not a strength. we are all free playtesters for gw's lazy attempt at a money grab, there is no reason to support this mentality from gw, they are most certainly capable of far more than they have given with AoS. GW and WotC are 2 companies I simply will no longer give the benefit of the doubt to, they do not deserve it. they are making minimalist crap at premuim price and should be called out for it. its no surprise that neither of them will allow "comments" or discussion threads. I would shed no tears (well a few for 40k and lotr/hobbit) if they get whats coming and become TSR /FASA/WhiteWolf.

AoS needs a "points" type system, the game is an unmanageble mess. Jervis Johnson is incompetent. he is not making a game for him and his friends, he is supposed to be making one for a major games company noone asked for this mess. If he still insists, then GW needs to make said system anyhow and make it "official and optional"

I'd definitely echo the sentiment that the lack of an official point or pool system, pile in being poorly described, free shooting into and out of combat, free targeting of small heroes near similar sized units, and the default scenario (especially sudden death), are all problem areas that I would want to see fixed or removed.

My wish list for cleaning up the game (which can double as a list of what I find problematic about the existing rules) is:

- stretch unit coherency distance to 2" (1" is a bit awkward)
- bases are part of the model (let individual events and venues decide if they want to be picky about base size)
- add point or pool costs to war scrolls (even if they're an optional rule that only some scenarios use)
- add unit type keywords (infantry, cavalry, monstrous infantry, beasts, etc) to war scrolls
- remove the scenario & sudden death rules from the core document, instead having a separate document of data plans the way unit and terrain scrolls are in separate documents, with each data plan suggesting it's own handicap rule if players judge the sides to be uneven.
- use the extra room in the core rules document to provide a clearer description of pile in rules & the concept of reserves
- add penalties for shooting into or out of combat (-1 to attack an engaged target, engaged units cannot make shooting attacks at all unless otherwise stated). Same penalties applied to spellcasting, again unless otherwise stated.
- and a rule that infantry, cavalry, monstrous infantry, and monstrous cavalry heroes cannot be independently targeted by shooting attacks while within 3" of a friendly, non-hero unit with the same unit type keyword.
- if you don't have room for all of that just from removing the scenario & sudden death rules, then remove the terrain rules as well, and just add generic hill, forest, etc, terrain scrolls to the terrain document.
- if you still don't have room, than just accept a 6 page rules document. That's still pretty impressively brief.

those are the minorish/easyish changes. There's also a bigger change I'd like to see:

- completely revise turn order. At the start of each game turn, roll initiative. In the hero phase, players take turns nominating units to cast spells/use hero phase abilities, with the initiative winner selecting first. Then in the movement phase, players take turns moving units one at a time, again with initiative player moving first. Same with shooting phase, charging phase, same with nominating units to attack in the combat phase.

This makes the game flow a bit more smoothly, and keeps both players engaged throughout, instead of having to wait around doing very little while the opponent conducts their turn.

This also lowers the power of melee relative to shooting and magic (since you no longer fight twice for every time you shoot or cast spells), but those were already weakened by the penalties for shooting or casting in melee, so should balance out.

unlike the other suggested changes, though, many individual unit rules would have to be re-written pretty extensively, so...


Anyway, do all that, or at least the easy stuff, tweak a couple war scrolls here and there, and Age of Sigmar would very likely be my favorite minis game, instead of just one that I like more than I dislike.

Unit cohesion is one of the rules I just hate. In 40k too. It's one of the things that keeps the game stuck between skirmish and mass battle in that limbo for me.

I'd rather have no cohesion and just play a skirmish game or put them on a movement tray and play mass battle.

Honestly, AOS rules are either boring (roll 3+ or 4+ to hit and to wound), lazy (army composition) or downright absurd (the "funny" rules). There's nothing innovative in this ruleset, and I honestly don't undertand how GW allowed such a thing to be released. Pesonnally, the lone saving grace I can see in them, is that if you have kids, they are simple enough to be played with them.

So here are my likes and dislikes.

Likes
Army building freedom - Even though many will still stick to a particular faction, or even a particular Grand Alliance, the ability to just pick up whatever you want and put it on the field makes it easier for people to get into, but also for some potentially more interesting armies as well. Think for too long 'allies' have been out of the game.

Scalability - While I won't debate whether or not it scales up very well, Warhammer for the longest time has had an issue scaling down. Age of Sigmar scales down really well, which makes it easier to get people into the game and playing earlier rather than later.

Monster Rules - Scaling down the monster as it succumbs to damage is really cool and immersive in bringing down a large beast.

On the Fence
Points - I think that GW should've come up with a points system similar to Pool Comp. I can see why they might not want to. One of my friends wanted it, and then after playing a game or two with it, was unsatisfied in a way because he was thinking about cutting one of his characters because it wasn't performing for its cost.
At the end of the day, GW doesn't provide this but it has led the way for plenty of people to try their own. Some packs have risen above the rest, and as long as they continue to support new stuff coming out it shouldn't be a problem and is hardly a huge thing in the scheme of things. Basically, we have options - if we want points we can play with them, if we don't we won't.

Shooting into combat - I get why this is in here. Without options to 'flee' charges, there's no way to bait in units and then shoot at them. Especially with the range of shooting weapons being quite small as well coupled with 360 los. It doesn't feel very immersive though. And for a game that is supposed to be about storytelling and immersion, it sticks out.

Dislikes
$$ Cost - Why make a game that is much easier to get into, but then charge your customers even more for new models. Even reboxing the old stuff for 'less' you're still having to buy more, so while it's cheaper per model it's harder to buy in. 50AUD for single characters is absurd. That's the 2nd largest dollar note (and largest most common note) in use here for a single model.

Cover - Cover is not handled well in the rules at all and makes it lose immersion. If you're inside a forest, you get cover. If you're on the other side of a forest, you don't. Same thing goes for picking out lone characters basically surrounded by others just because your shooter is a little higher up to see.

Summoning - I think I would've been fine if summoning was basically stuff like lesser daemons, zombies, skeletons, etc and had hard limits on what could be summoned. But free for all summoning of smallest to larger things, and having no real limitation on it can make games spiral out of control. Part of this I think stems from the dispel range as well, since in the first turn or two, your opponent can basically summon with free reign.
I think the other issue is that Summoning happens in the Hero phase which allows charging later on, while in previous editions it happened after so you could basically only use them as roadblocks.

Battle Round roll-off - I think this swings too many games depending on who wins the roll off and allowing potential double turns. It's not the hugest thing in my book (and I think ties should be won by the person who didn't win last time), but it can lead to some very frustrating situations.

Big Plus for me: Since the release of AoS, I have not been party to a single rules debate/argument/discussion while playing it. Not one. Everything just... works.

Compare that to just about every other game I have ever played in, well, ever, and I am finding it good to just sit down and play the game rather than play the rules.

That has not been my own experience, Mongoose. I've been embroiled with a number of hasslesome table debates, in particular over summoning and how exactly pile in moves work.

I don't get the issue with pile-in moves?

I don't either, but only from reading the rules, not from playing and arguiing with people.

The one thing that seems like it could cause problems is that you have to move towards the nearest enemy model, which might not be part of the unit you are attacking. I can see that people might not like that, but there are some ways easily to resolve it.

GW are generally rather slack at writing rules, but at least AoS is a much shorter rulebook than 40K and therefore offers less space to be slack within.

Basically, AoS works fine as long as you aren't expecting a tournament level quality of rules, and the truth is that GW have never written tournament quality rules for any of their games.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't either, but only from reading the rules, not from playing and arguiing with people.

The one thing that seems like it could cause problems is that you have to move towards the nearest enemy model, which might not be part of the unit you are attacking. I can see that people might not like that, but there are some ways easily to resolve it.

GW are generally rather slack at writing rules, but at least AoS is a much shorter rulebook than 40K and therefore offers less space to be slack within.

Basically, AoS works fine as long as you aren't expecting a tournament level quality of rules, and the truth is that GW have never written tournament quality rules for any of their games.

That seems to me to be the intent though - I've played games where models within units have been split because they are piling in on two fronts, and you get to a point where some models can't pile-in without breaking coherency.

I think the debate with piling in is whether models can "orbit" enemy models to make room for more of their friends to get in contact. So if you are already in base contact, can you spin around to the other side of the enemy's base, while still being in contact, to allow your back ranks to also pile into base contact? Or are you stuck where you are once you establish base contact?

I prefer the stricter sense, which makes movement, formation and piling in more strategic.

Yep, the issues are if you can "orbit" a base to make room for others, and if the pile-ins have to be in a direct line or not.

The other place the rules break down is measuring model to model for larger or flying creatures. For example trying to hit Gyrocopters from the ground or trying to hit the araknarok spider when in the centre front of its base (due to the shape of the model, you are usually not in range from that position).

Got it.

Well, based on reading the rules, I would say you can 'orbit' a figure to enable more of your figures to get into melee. It says piling is is to allow you to get more figures into range.

I prefere measuring from the base rather than the model but I also prefer my idea about ranks rather than ranges for melee contact. Perhaps if models like Gyrocopters and Dragons are too far out of reach to melee, that is God's way of telling people to shoot at them with missiles instead.

I think these are the kind of quibbles that come up if you approach the rules with a hardcore tournament mindset, and they simply aren't tournament grade rules so it's naive to expect them to make perfect sense in that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoperPG wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't either, but only from reading the rules, not from playing and arguiing with people.

The one thing that seems like it could cause problems is that you have to move towards the nearest enemy model, which might not be part of the unit you are attacking. I can see that people might not like that, but there are some ways easily to resolve it.

...

That seems to me to be the intent though - I've played games where models within units have been split because they are piling in on two fronts, and you get to a point where some models can't pile-in without breaking coherency.

It seems to me that that is how tactics works AoS.

As I've said before, an important part of the game is "MMMbMfMMiM" (Measuring Model Movement by Millimetres for Maximum Men in Melee). Players have to move each figure to the position it needs to be in to get its attacks and avoid being sucked off by a different unit. The other factor of course is to move figures into the best position to get DRMs from terrain and other special rules.

I agree that from some point of view this is rather geometrical and tedious, but that is that way that tactics is presented in the game. I don't ike it myself, and that's part of why I don't play, but I don't think it's a mistake by the designer so much as a design choice. (A feature not a bug, perhaps.)

If you take it out of the game, what else is left to give the player any input of skill into results?

Agreed, I think?
As for orbiting in base contact, my take is the wording " may move up to 3" toward'.
So our group we play that base contact 'locks' position, as it's not possible to move any more 'toward' than already being in base contact, so you aren't eligible to move at all.

Edit. With the exception that if you are playing absolute vanilla, orbiting the enemy model may allow you to decrease the distance between the two models, even if the bases are already touching.

2nd edit - and if you are playing so that you can overlap bases, can I have the number of your medical insurer?

 jonolikespie wrote:

People hated magic terrain in 8th ed WHFB and 7th ed 40k, why does AoS have even more of it?

Just so we're clear: the terrain rules are entirely optional. You can use them with their associated Battlescrolls or you can use them as just "cover" if you wanted to.

End Times seemed well revived when it started and Nagash (and Sigmar in a sense) returned for the final big showdown with Chaos in a new campaign that was advancing the story... but as soon as the last one came out people locally just.. stopped. Fantasy was dead, no one knew what was coming, so people just set it aside.

People stopped buying anything that wasn't associated with End Times locally, but they kept playing right up until AoS.

I will say that I am not too upset by the players we lost locally. Most of them were tools who 'migrated' over to Warmachine/Hordes--and then migrated back to 40k after they realized their "tactical skills"(read: netlisting and running powerful armies) in WHFB most definitely did not translate to WMH...and then just got out of the local hobby scene period.

But again, back to the rules, I feel like someone told the studio they have to condense the rules to 4 pages and the studio just had to run with that. Rules like shooting into and out of combat feel like they were simply cut for formatting's sake. KoW rules are clear and simple enough that I can sit down and read them easily in one sitting. They take up the first 40 pages of the rulebook yes, ten times as many pages as AoS, but they contain ALL the special rules you'll ever encounter. They contain ALL the rules for terrain. They contain rules for timed games in competitive events, they don't have the variety of AoS scenarios, but they have 6 solid ones that provide enough of a difference that people aren't playing battleline by default.

I kinda/sorta agree with this.

The "basic" rules are pretty simple; but I personally like the special rules being where they are easy to find for each unit--on the unit's Battlescroll. Terrain is something that is just there for the most part, it gives you a boost to your save rolls if you opt to not use the specific entry.

I'm also going to have to compare the two in terms of narrative gameplay since people claim that is the strength of AoS. From everything I've heard the battlplans are good scenario games, since I've got no interest in paying anything to read them I'll assume that's true but point out KoW have put out an amazing campaign book that covers map based competitive campaigns, narrative campaigns and how to link one game to the next, it gives an example narrative campaign that includes a round of one of their skirmish games, with KoW rules for one of the named bad guys from the skirmish game fluff to include him in the next KoW battle. It even includes basics such as how to get a group together and organize a campaign. Given that I find it hard to believe AoS is better in the narrative gaming department, mostly that just comes down to the players being imaginative and both games seem to offer good inspiration there, albeit in different forms.

The Battleplans are intended to be played in a specific order for the most part in the non-army specific books and are easy to translate from one army to the next since they do not actually give a specific army but instead roles are assigned based upon certain criteria(dice roll or number of models). I'd argue that goes a bit better for narrative/scenario games than people think.

If I want a mass battle game I have KoW, if I want skirmish there are a dozen other skirmish games on the market. If I want narrative gaming in mass battle KoW and the campaign book serve me better than AoS as it's a real mass battle game. If I want narrative based skirmish.. honestly Mordheim seems better than AoS as I can watch my men gain experience and level up. Like 40k, AoS seems forced into this niche of skirmish rules but trying to sell the game with 100+ models because GW wants to sell models.

I've actually asked this on this forum and got the response that most people seemed to play with less than 50 models, but GW themselves only ever said that 100 models a side is a good evenings gaming so from that I assume they play with 100 models a side at Nottingham, and since I've not seen any battle reports from GW themselves nor any armies being shown off that are that small I am under the impression GW do expect the game to be played larger than that. (Although thinking about it the battleplans may give a better idea of how many models GW are expecting people to use, if people want to contradict my theory by throwing out battleplans using 20 models a side, or prove it by showing ones with 100+ models aside, please do.)
Actually they also state in the rules: "  Thee more units you decide to use, the longer the game will last and the more exciting it will be! " Sounds like an endorsement of mass battle armies to me.

They actually never say how many models you should be using in the Battleplans that are in the campaign books. There are, as I mentioned, criteria for who is going to be Attacker or Defender based upon how many models you have.

(*Before anyone jumps on me saying that they like the game so clearly there is a niche for it, just ask yourself if you discuss what a balanced fight would be, or if you just place a unit, let your opponent place a unit, etc, as per the exact rules as written and then play with sudden death even if the smaller army has the advantage or it looks like a perfectly balanced game that would be unbalanced by giving one side sudden death.)

Most of the scenario games actually do not have Sudden Death in play just for that reason. The only Scenario I can think of off the top of my head that uses the Sudden Death rules is called "The Trap" from the first AoS book.

To use the example of "The Trap"? The player with more models is the Defender and if the Defender has double the number of models as the Attacker, then Sudden Death rules are in effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you don't like shooting into/out of melee, you can ignore the rule. It will make missile units weaker, but since there isn't a clear balance mechanism, this probably doesn't matter much. If you wanted to compensate, try improving the To Hit and perhaps the To Wound rolls of missile units by 1.

Being a Wood Elf player who felt completely shafted by the Waywatchers in 8th, I love them in AoS. Just love them there.

The thing about Summoning is that it only really breaks down when you apply other comp to the game.

Taking the rules as they are written the only limit to what you can use in a game is:
A) what models you own and
B) what you can fit in your deployment zone

The tack they took with summoning is that it's a slight advantage to place models during the game, rather than at the beginning in your deployment zone. (But if your table is as full as I'm imagining here you'll have trouble deploying a summoned unit and being 9" away from an enemy).

It's only when limits are established on the size or composition of an army that the 'unlimited' summoning becomes an issue.

(there is still the issue of re-using models which have been killed to summon a 'new' unit with the same models, but I don't really think that's a big deal).

Also if you go with the strict RAW interpretation of the summoning rules, as soon as your opponent sets down a summoned unit on the table you get the victory points for that unit. ("must be counted among the casualties an army suffers")

RoperPG wrote:
Agreed, I think?
As for orbiting in base contact, my take is the wording " may move up to 3" toward'.
So our group we play that base contact 'locks' position, as it's not possible to move any more 'toward' than already being in base contact, so you aren't eligible to move at all.

Edit. With the exception that if you are playing absolute vanilla, orbiting the enemy model may allow you to decrease the distance between the two models, even if the bases are already touching.

2nd edit - and if you are playing so that you can overlap bases, can I have the number of your medical insurer?

I can see the point that since the game in theory depends on millimetre accurate placement of models, the issue of orbiting is potentially crucial. Still, it's not like the electron shell probability cloud type of unit movement, and it works equally for both sides, so I don't it's unfair to let people orbit. The purpose of piling in is to allow the player to get more figures into contact. Why follow an interpretation of a rule that reduces that?

 Bottle wrote:
Yep, the issues are if you can "orbit" a base to make room for others, and if the pile-ins have to be in a direct line or not.

If you assume there is no 'fat' on the rules, take them as written without trying to interpret. Orbiting a base is not moving towards a model, however you look at it...

 Bottle wrote:
The other place the rules break down is measuring model to model for larger or flying creatures. For example trying to hit Gyrocopters from the ground or trying to hit the araknarok spider when in the centre front of its base (due to the shape of the model, you are usually not in range from that position).

What makes you think that is not intentional?

Exactly, that seems a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Being unable to hit a Gyrocopter from the ground is God's way of telling you to shoot at it with missiles. Also, if you can't hit the copter, presumably it can't hit you.

Yep, which makes its melee attack very useless lol.

Although I've never played against a bloodthirster, I have heard it falls into the same trap due to the way it's so central on its base.

I wouldn't argue that's intentional.

Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

Remember that you're measuring from the model, not the base of the model. Bases are just there to hold things in place.

The fact that model-to-model measurement essentially requires you to walk on models bases, potentially damaging the basing, and making a confusing mess of everything if the model whose base you're standing on subsequently moves, is why literally every place I've played AoS counts bases as part of the models, in direct contradiction to the rules as written.

Even as a person who kind of likes age of sigmar, I have to admit that its handling of bases is beyond dumb and terrible.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
Agreed, I think?
As for orbiting in base contact, my take is the wording " may move up to 3" toward'.
So our group we play that base contact 'locks' position, as it's not possible to move any more 'toward' than already being in base contact, so you aren't eligible to move at all.

Edit. With the exception that if you are playing absolute vanilla, orbiting the enemy model may allow you to decrease the distance between the two models, even if the bases are already touching.

2nd edit - and if you are playing so that you can overlap bases, can I have the number of your medical insurer?

I can see the point that since the game in theory depends on millimetre accurate placement of models, the issue of orbiting is potentially crucial. Still, it's not like the electron shell probability cloud type of unit movement, and it works equally for both sides, so I don't it's unfair to let people orbit. The purpose of piling in is to allow the player to get more figures into contact. Why follow an interpretation of a rule that reduces that?

Once a unit is within 3" of another unit, the owning player's involvement comes down to 1 of 3 choices. Pile in, don't pile in, or retreat. They also get to pick the order of movement, but there's no 'freedom' involved beyond that.
If you play base to base contact 'locks' combatants, then the order you remove casualties becomes important because you can block/redirect attackers.
How you break that 3" bubble becomes very important- it raises the stakes.
Charges that 'just and just' make it with a single model still do the job, but from that point on how the combat unfolds isn't really in your control any more.
You start getting closer, hoping that you get that fabled 10, 11 or 12 that will allow your whole unit to surround the opposition on 3 sides, and then allow the pile-in mechanic to 'collapse' your unit in on your opponent's, ensuring you get maximum damage output whilst simultaneously cutting off retreat options and reducing their damage output by trapping models behind their allies.
But while you're edging closer in great strides hoping for that 'overshoot' charge roll, your opponent may well be happy with a 'just and just'...

I'm not suggesting that was the overall intent or it's some genius piece of game design, but the base-lock interpretation of pile-ins makes the move and charge phase a lot more complicated than just 'run and hit'.

Yes, I also prefer base to base counting as "locked" - but if you're playing model-to-model measuring, I have just realised base orbiting would be legal in RAW in 99.9% of cases, why?

Because you could orbit around the enemy base and also pivot your model so that the part of the model which came closest to the edge of its base (or in the cases of a model that over hangs; the part which over hangs the furthest distance) is now pointing directly towards the model you are in base contact with. This should mean that he model is now closer to the enemy due to the pivoting which would mean the model has moved towards the closest enemy model (and incidentally also orbited round).

Hope I explained that clearly.

Another rule I dislike is that fact that units with save '-' cannot receive any benefit for being in cover.

The idea of sitting on bases to get into touch, or whatever, is a player adaptation to the limitation of the rules and the limitations of the legacy army bases.

If people find their bloodthirsters are too high up to hit anyone, they might think of lowering the pylon of the base.

...or just houseruling base-to-base measuring :-)

THE GOOD
- Simplicity
- Fast paced
- Scenario driven
- Fantastic models

THE BAD
- Measuring from the model
- Internet designed points systems (e.g. Azyr Comp, SDK, etc.)

THE UGLY
- Every piece of terrain having a randomly generated ability
- Summoning
- Shooting into/out of combat

I have found AoS to play much slower than WHFB especially as the number of scrolls rack up. the game is pretty tedious. speed is definately not a strong point after a certain amount (6 per side) of scrolls.

 oni wrote:
THE GOOD
- Simplicity
- Fast paced
- Scenario driven
- Fantastic models

THE BAD
- Measuring from the model
- Internet designed points systems (e.g. Azyr Comp, SDK, etc.)

THE UGLY
- Every piece of terrain having a randomly generated ability
- Summoning
- Shooting into/out of combat

Pretty much this. Though I would add the lack of points costs to the "THE BAD" section.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

It's hard enough keeping my bases looking good without people standing on them, and that's usually just flock & tufts. I could see some people crying if models were put on their scratchbuild bases.

Herzlos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

It's hard enough keeping my bases looking good without people standing on them, and that's usually just flock & tufts. I could see some people crying if models were put on their scratchbuild bases.

Definitely agreed. Even on a battlefield, invasion of personal space is just rude.

Hm. IMHO, the main trouble with AoS rules aren't really the rules themselves - it's the long term planning and lack of visibility.

4 pages of rules are indeed quite easy to remember. Not so much if you have a whole page of special rules for each unit of your army...and the one of your opponent as well. That was also a problem in 40k or Battle, and they just repeated it with AoS.

I also don't feel the game isn't that much different - you still play your whole turn, you still have each side fighting in each close combat phase, you still have that old ritual to roll to Hit - to Wound - to Save (while the last ones are mainly the same things), you still roll dice for the sake of rolling dice "because it's fun in itself".

Basically, it's making new with old recipes. A few things here and there change, but that's it.

What hurts AoS the most is we players don't really know where GW wants to go with this game. They started to change a bit, showing more previews and trying to edit some compendiums - and that's a nice thing to do, still IMHO.

But then, we still wonder...when will the other factions come?

Oh yes, I would never let anyone place a model on my base, and even if I did, imagine having 15 models on a bloodthirster base and then the chaos player decides to retreat out of combat... Gives me a headache just thinking about it!

 Bottle wrote:
Oh yes, I would never let anyone place a model on my base, and even if I did, imagine having 15 models on a bloodthirster base and then the chaos player decides to retreat out of combat... Gives me a headache just thinking about it!

Some players wouldn't mind. Others may as well use transparent bases without any paint of flocking on it - or even a much thinner base like for historical miniatures.

But then, since each playing group will use their own home rules, it will be harder to play on a common ground. I think that's why there aren't that many "tournaments" for AoS - too much work to make all people agree on the same terms.

That was always the problem since the very beginning, to me. I feel GW didn't understand that in AoS game designing, and it can become quite a hindrance.

But otherwise, AoS is a great game to play with your circle of friends.

Historical games usually work by base to base contact along the edges,, not jumping on to the other base.

I have always felt this feature of AoS is a temporary thing until all legacy armies will have been upgraded to standard round bases.

All of the bigger / officialish events tend to have a score for army appearance / painting, so I can't see plain bases going down very well, especially among the "fluffy" players, in a game that's focused around centrepiece models.

Herzlos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

It's hard enough keeping my bases looking good without people standing on them, and that's usually just flock & tufts. I could see some people crying if models were put on their scratchbuild bases.

Then don't put models on bases 3-4x the size they should be on.

We had issues, locally, where people were using older models like the old Bloodthirster on the same size base as the new plastic Bloodthirster. There's so much wasted space if you do so--which is why that rule has started to get used.

I'm tempted to make a large monster like a Trygon -- I've got a spare kit somewhere -- and for laughs put a 2mm wargame on the base.

The problem is, by RAW walking on bases is totally a thing. The rules tell you to measure everything from the model and that the base only exists to hold the model. At no point is the concept of bases blocking each other present. It's incredibly awful.

It's also a rule that plenty of people will be happy to ignore.

The several times I played against people that absolutely want to play RAW with direct measurement to models, we have a piece of paper to write down how many miniatures move into an opposing model's base so that we don't ruin the paint and base.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

It's hard enough keeping my bases looking good without people standing on them, and that's usually just flock & tufts. I could see some people crying if models were put on their scratchbuild bases.

Then don't put models on bases 3-4x the size they should be on.

We had issues, locally, where people were using older models like the old Bloodthirster on the same size base as the new plastic Bloodthirster. There's so much wasted space if you do so--which is why that rule has started to get used.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Just standardize bases to what the model originally came with or currently comes with.

akai wrote:The several times I played against people that absolutely want to play RAW with direct measurement to models, we have a piece of paper to write down how many miniatures move into an opposing model's base so that we don't ruin the paint and base.

That sounds awful.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's also a rule that plenty of people will be happy to ignore.

People ignoring bad rules means the rules are bad, not that it is ok.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

It's hard enough keeping my bases looking good without people standing on them, and that's usually just flock & tufts. I could see some people crying if models were put on their scratchbuild bases.

Then don't put models on bases 3-4x the size they should be on.

We had issues, locally, where people were using older models like the old Bloodthirster on the same size base as the new plastic Bloodthirster. There's so much wasted space if you do so--which is why that rule has started to get used.

I've only ever put stuff on the official base (or a slightly larger lipped round (like, +5mm) if the base size doesn't matter). This isn't a problem caused by modelling for advantage, it's a problem caused by poorly considered rules.

Plus, some of my resin bases cost more than the mini's on them (but again, as per the original spec). I'm looking at you, metal Malifaux bases.

 jonolikespie wrote:

akai wrote:The several times I played against people that absolutely want to play RAW with direct measurement to models, we have a piece of paper to write down how many miniatures move into an opposing model's base so that we don't ruin the paint and base.

That sounds awful.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's also a rule that plenty of people will be happy to ignore.

People ignoring bad rules means the rules are bad, not that it is ok.

I don't think that matters if people have a good time playing the game.

Not at all, but we're discussing the rules quality, and people ignoring rules implies they find them bad in some way.

I think we're all in agreement you can have fun with something that's technically poor (like 80's action movies or Sharknado).

Herzlos wrote:
Not at all, but we're discussing the rules quality, and people ignoring rules implies they find them bad in some way.
.

In a creative hobby?

Umm, no. Just... no.

Can you give me an example of a rule you find objectively good, yet choose to ignore?

Herzlos wrote:
Can you give me an example of a rule you find objectively good, yet choose to ignore?

In AoS specifically?

Awakening Sylvaneth in the Rotwater Blight Time of War sheet. Nothing wrong with it, I just tend to have all the trees on the table already.

Umm...

Battalions tend to get used only on special occasions.

Ah, got a good one! Terrain! Almost never use the scenery table in the core rules, preferring instead to use specific Warscrolls. Again, nothing wrong with it (and it gets pulled out now and again), just prefer other options. Do a similar thing in WHFB, actually - a lot of people round here religiously roll up random terrain, whereas I prefer placing stuff and _maybe_ using a special rule for it.

I do the same as well when I and my opponent feel it would be better to play on a board that makes sense for the story (yes, I still like to "forge a narrative" behind my games, even for non GW games).

It's not a question of being bad rules (after all, there is nothing wrong in rolling some dice on random tables, right?) - rather being unnecessary in a specific and mutual mood.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Can you give me an example of a rule you find objectively good, yet choose to ignore?

In AoS specifically?

Awakening Sylvaneth in the Rotwater Blight Time of War sheet. Nothing wrong with it, I just tend to have all the trees on the table already.

Umm...

Battalions tend to get used only on special occasions.

Ah, got a good one! Terrain! Almost never use the scenery table in the core rules, preferring instead to use specific Warscrolls. Again, nothing wrong with it (and it gets pulled out now and again), just prefer other options. Do a similar thing in WHFB, actually - a lot of people round here religiously roll up random terrain, whereas I prefer placing stuff and _maybe_ using a special rule for it.

No AoS specifically. So these are either rules you feel are redundant, or have better equivalents, but you still use from time to time?

What I should have said (and I apologise if this looks like I'm moving the goalposts), is if there are any rules you feel are objectively good but choose to ignore permanenty, in the same way people are houseruling the measuring, cover, shooting in combat?

Like, are there any rules you feel are good, but would house-rule out?

Personally, I've always ignored the mysterious terrain stuff in 40K in terms of streamlining. I've no idea if it's a good thing or not, I just didn't feel it added any value. Ditto in Malifaux I always decline to cut my opponents deck - the rules say you should offer but I feel that if I'm playing them I trust them enough.

People have mentioned the random terrain rules a few times, and I just wanted to point out that the rules actually say that you should pick a rule for each piece from the table or roll a dice.

It does say to do it for each terrain piece, though, which is kinda weird maybe? I don't know if every tree should have to be damned, arcane, inspiring, deadly, mystical or sinister. But RAW you can at least pick which of those six things the tree is without having to roll on the table.

The only houserules we've been using are measuring from bases, and we've started generating mysterious terrain when models are set up / move within 3" of it as we found it was flavouring deployment.

I can understand people modding rules when they don't like them, but for the life of me I can't understand why - if you thought the rule was 'good' - you wouldn't use it.

That was largely my point - people ignoring the rules is an indication that they don't like them (for some reason).

I like the idea of only discovering the mysterious type of terrain when you're in range - much more realistic! I'm going to steal that for our Frostgrave campaign.

Define objectively good.

It seems to me that you are saying that if players decide to ignore a rule, it makes it a bad rule. That's absolutely fair in business terms (quality means what the custoemr wants) but I don't see how it helps the argument about whether people 'ought' to play AoS or not.

The fact is, people that like AoS clearly think the rules are good enough and aren't going to change their mind because of someone else's idea of them being objectively bad.

From a practical angle, the AoS rules say measure from the model. Lots of people measure from the base. It's hardly shaking Hell to its very foundations.

I personally believe there are better ways of organising that part of the game, but does that make the way it is now 'bad'? I mean, it works. I would only say it's bad in the sense that I easily came up with a better rule which the design team apparently either didn't think of or ignored.

Herzlos wrote:


What I should have said (and I apologise if this looks like I'm moving the goalposts), is if there are any rules you feel are objectively good but choose to ignore permanenty, in the same way people are houseruling the measuring, cover, shooting in combat?

Like, are there any rules you feel are good, but would house-rule out?

I think the closest I can get to that is that we limit what can go up the walls of a Dreadhold. In theory, anything can as it is just another piece of scenery, but we have ruled that cavalry cannot (but that Warhounds can, after watching Police Dogs scramble up walls ).

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I personally believe there are better ways of organising that part of the game, but does that make the way it is now 'bad'? I mean, it works. I would only say it's bad in the sense that I easily came up with a better rule which the design team apparently either didn't think of or ignored.

The measuring from the base thing? AoS was designed to be compatible with miniatures with square bases and round bases - and possibly no bases at all or even elaborate scenic bases. If all the models have the same base type, I have no problem with measuring from the base, but AoS couldn't make that assumption.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Define objectively good.

Something like "without obvious flaws"?

Measuring from the model - fails the above statement because it's open to modelling for advantage
Measuring from the base - matches and can be deemed objectively good?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I personally believe there are better ways of organising that part of the game, but does that make the way it is now 'bad'? I mean, it works. I would only say it's bad in the sense that I easily came up with a better rule which the design team apparently either didn't think of or ignored.

The measuring from the base thing? AoS was designed to be compatible with miniatures with square bases and round bases - and possibly no bases at all or even elaborate scenic bases. If all the models have the same base type, I have no problem with measuring from the base, but AoS couldn't make that assumption.

My idea is that instead of melee weapons having ranges of 1, 2 or 3 inches, they would have ranges of 1, 2 or 3 base widths. A figure with a range 1 weapon needs to be in base-to-base contact. Range two means that the figure must be in contact with a figure that is on contact. And so on...

This does away with several problems: No more prissy measuring of ranges in melee, no more worries about figure poses, or base sizes, and no more climbing on to big bases.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I personally believe there are better ways of organising that part of the game, but does that make the way it is now 'bad'? I mean, it works. I would only say it's bad in the sense that I easily came up with a better rule which the design team apparently either didn't think of or ignored.

The measuring from the base thing? AoS was designed to be compatible with miniatures with square bases and round bases - and possibly no bases at all or even elaborate scenic bases. If all the models have the same base type, I have no problem with measuring from the base, but AoS couldn't make that assumption.

And doesn't it say something about the set of rules that it can't make that assumption? It couldn't for a valid reason, GW was changing bases and smart enough not to invalidate everyone's armies, but having an excuse and being excusable are two different things.

Besides, simply saying the base is a part of the model fixes a ton of problems. That bloodthirster that is jumping on a tiny pillar of flame in the middle of the base? Instead of climbing on it to get at it it attacks you by measuring from it's base and you do the same back.

That guy trying to model for advantage by making his base tiny? He barely has any reach to swing back at you.

The guy that wants to make a beautiful, elaborate, scenic base? Nothing at all stopping him.

Now I'd call that an objectively better system as it achieves the same thing, allowing people freedom to base creatively and use old models, while taking away the flaw that is creating issues. It is even, apparently, what most people are doing to deal with the situation anyway, so it wouldn't have been poorly received by the community, unlike the rule we got.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My idea is that instead of melee weapons having ranges of 1, 2 or 3 inches, they would have ranges of 1, 2 or 3 base widths. A figure with a range 1 weapon needs to be in base-to-base contact. Range two means that the figure must be in contact with a figure that is on contact. And so on...

This does away with several problems: No more prissy measuring of ranges in melee, no more worries about figure poses, or base sizes, and no more climbing on to big bases.

I remember Lord of the Rings having something similar. Models had to be in base to base, but spears could be in base to base with a friendly model in base to base and fight over the shoulder. Pikes could then be in base to base with a spearman and fight over his shoulder. It seemed like a good system, though my experience with actually playing LotR was limited to an excited 13 year old's interpretation of the rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

My idea is that instead of melee weapons having ranges of 1, 2 or 3 inches, they would have ranges of 1, 2 or 3 base widths. A figure with a range 1 weapon needs to be in base-to-base contact. Range two means that the figure must be in contact with a figure that is on contact. And so on...

This does away with several problems: No more prissy measuring of ranges in melee, no more worries about figure poses, or base sizes, and no more climbing on to big bases.

I don't understand. Which base size are you using? The figures all have different sizes (and shapes) for their bases, including oblong ovals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

And doesn't it say something about the set of rules that it can't make that assumption? It couldn't for a valid reason, GW was changing bases and smart enough not to invalidate everyone's armies, but having an excuse and being excusable are two different things.

Besides, simply saying the base is a part of the model fixes a ton of problems. That bloodthirster that is jumping on a tiny pillar of flame in the middle of the base? Instead of climbing on it to get at it it attacks you by measuring from it's base and you do the same back.

Now we're getting into game design, and I think the various approaches I've seen (volumes, silhouettes, ignore bases, bases part of model) - I think all of them have various benefits and drawbacks, none of them objectively superior to the other. It's more about the kind of game experience you want to make, and I think AoS eschews mechanical accuracy for speed in common actions. Most of AoS works fine most of the time, but there are edge cases where it is ambiguous or exploitable, and AoS just shrugs and says, "it works most of the time, just roll some dice for the rest". AoS takes a laissez faire approach, and I think that's fine for the type of game AoS is trying to be. I think AoS would be significantly impaired by volumes (what volume is Archaon?), and treating the base as part of the model could have far reaching side effects for the purposes of LoS and range (if a corner of the base is peeking out, can it see other models? Can you measure range from the base, causing comically oversized bases to have a greater range?)

 Sqorgar wrote:
AoS just shrugs and says, "it works most of the time, just roll some dice for the rest".

That's the definition of bad game design, deciding something is ok when there will be fringe cases where the rules don't work is letting rules that in some cases won't work go to print. That is objectively bad.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think AoS would be significantly impaired by volumes (what volume is Archaon?), and treating the base as part of the model could have far reaching side effects for the purposes of LoS and range (if a corner of the base is peeking out, can it see other models? Can you measure range from the base, causing comically oversized bases to have a greater range?)

Forget volume, as I said just make base part of the model. Can you see the base? Yes? You can see the model, shoot it. Measure from any part of the model for range, is the base part of the model? Yes, so shoot. It would only require the following change:

Distances in Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
are measured in inches ("), between the
closest points of the models or units you’re
measuring to and from. You can measure
distances whenever you wish. A model’s
base isn’t considered part of the model – it’s
just there to help the model stand up – so
don’t include it when measuring distances.

To:

Distances in Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
are measured in inches ("), between the
closest points of the models or units you’re
measuring to and from. You can measure
distances whenever you wish. A model’s
base is considered part of the model
include it when measuring distances.

I didn't even add anything, just removed eleven and a half words.

(I actually checked to see if they touched on how to draw LOS and all it said was get down for a model eye view and see if they can see. Literally that was it, so I have to assume that means a spear tip poking up over a wall means a man can be shot as they can see part of his model and thus a base being visible is no less silly/wrong/whatever.)

As for comically large bases getting greater range, yes that could be a thing but I thought 'that guy is a d , don't play him, was already an acceptable response to people abusing the AoS rules, so I'd say it counts there if someone wants to mount their Archaon on a foot wide base or something.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

My idea is that instead of melee weapons having ranges of 1, 2 or 3 inches, they would have ranges of 1, 2 or 3 base widths. A figure with a range 1 weapon needs to be in base-to-base contact. Range two means that the figure must be in contact with a figure that is on contact. And so on...

This does away with several problems: No more prissy measuring of ranges in melee, no more worries about figure poses, or base sizes, and no more climbing on to big bases.

I don't understand. Which base size are you using? The figures all have different sizes (and shapes) for their bases, including oblong ovals.

...

Any base size. The point of "ranges" for melee weapons is that it limits the number of attacks that attackers can deliver, based on whether then can get figures into range to hit.

Doing this by base contact rather than inches measured from the model does the same job, but much easier.

 jonolikespie wrote:

As for comically large bases getting greater range, yes that could be a thing but I thought 'that guy is a d , don't play him, was already an acceptable response to people abusing the AoS rules, so I'd say it counts there if someone wants to mount their Archaon on a foot wide base or something.

I've never been able to figure out if having an oversized based is an advantage or not; it gives you creater range but less density. So whilst you can be in base contact with more things, you can't get more of your own units into combat. The range works both ways; if you can reach your opponent, they can reach you. So I reckon it's probably a wash.

Different shapes might allow you some advantage as you can rotate to change the range, but that doesn't exist with round bases, and it's no more broken than having pikemen with horizontal pikes.

There comes a point at which the designer has to compromise the 'accuracy' of the rules to make the game playable.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

My idea is that instead of melee weapons having ranges of 1, 2 or 3 inches, they would have ranges of 1, 2 or 3 base widths. A figure with a range 1 weapon needs to be in base-to-base contact. Range two means that the figure must be in contact with a figure that is on contact. And so on...

This does away with several problems: No more prissy measuring of ranges in melee, no more worries about figure poses, or base sizes, and no more climbing on to big bases.

I don't understand. Which base size are you using? The figures all have different sizes (and shapes) for their bases, including oblong ovals.

...

Any base size. The point of "ranges" for melee weapons is that it limits the number of attacks that attackers can deliver, based on whether then can get figures into range to hit.

Doing this by base contact rather than inches measured from the model does the same job, but much easier.

I get that for base to base contact, but you said range 2 is that the figure is in contact with a figure that is in contact - wouldn't that suggest that a grunt could attack somebody on the other side of Archaon? Position a carnasaur or two correctly and a range 3 could melee attack halfway across the board.

Of your own unit. in AoS attacks are done by unit.

I don't know if there are any units with multiple large base monsters in them, but if so, I probably would regard it a fair compromise for getting rid of the necessity to measure distances between models.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
AoS just shrugs and says, "it works most of the time, just roll some dice for the rest".

That's the definition of bad game design, deciding something is ok when there will be fringe cases where the rules don't work is letting rules that in some cases won't work go to print. That is objectively bad.

First of all, you can't "objectively" have better taste. Game design is all subjective, or do you want to explain to my seven year old daughter how Tic Tac Toe is a bad game because the first player always wins, and that she shouldn't play it because it is a bad game? You can't spend every second of life looking only for the optimal, most efficient move forward. Sometimes, you just gotta sit back and enjoy things for what they are. A game is as good as what a player gets out of it, and I think AoS is something I get much enjoyment from, and therefore consider it a good game in all ways that personally matter to me.

Second, all games have edge cases where the spirit of the rules fail under the letter of the rules. You ever play Checkers against someone who just sits their pieces in the corners and never moves them or just keeps moving one piece back and forth between the only two safe spots on the board? Ugh. AoS is not a deep, meticulous strategy game built from a complex system of interlocking elements, each one dependent and related to each other one, so "good enough" is... wait for it... good enough.

As for comically large bases getting greater range, yes that could be a thing but I thought 'that guy is a d , don't play him, was already an acceptable response to people abusing the AoS rules, so I'd say it counts there if someone wants to mount their Archaon on a foot wide base or something.

To quote a classic joke, "We already know what you are, we're just haggling price". You already agree that the laissez faire approach that AoS takes is appropriate enough for some circumstances, we're just disagreeing on which ones.

Again. You can enjoy a bad game. I enjoy many bad games. My other main hobby is terrible horror movies (I buy any horror film that features nazis and/or zombies and costs less than $5, or any Japanese LARP, and whilst some have been disappointing some others have been immense in their terribleness).

A bad rule is (objectively) one that breaks immersion by causing the players to try and figure out how it works. As shown, removing 11.5 words makes the measuring rule pretty unambiguous.

"D6'ing for it" is a total cop out and an excuse to poor rules. I understand that you can't account for every eventuality in a set of rules but you ought to try and make it as clear as possible to minimise the risk of that happening.

It depends on your philosophy with regard to the game. I'm not sweating every inch, scared to make the wrong choice or blowing a blood vessel because a rule is ambiguous. Some games in my past, I have had that kind of an approach, where the finest details had to be ironed out officially or it would cause me endless frustration. Nobody is wrong for enjoying what they do. Trying to frame it in objective terms is silly.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
AoS just shrugs and says, "it works most of the time, just roll some dice for the rest".

That's the definition of bad game design, deciding something is ok when there will be fringe cases where the rules don't work is letting rules that in some cases won't work go to print. That is objectively bad.

First of all, you can't "objectively" have better taste.

No, nothing about that is taste. It is meaningless if you enjoy AoS or I don't enjoy it. You agreed the rules sometimes don't work in this case. That makes it bad as it doesn't work.

Other games having problems in their rules is irrelevant. If a rule doesn't work is is bad, that's it. If you want to talk about other rules in games that don't work though please give some examples from other tabletop games. From your checkers example I can already tell you that you can't choose not to move, that means you'e stopped playing the game. Moving back and forth across safe squares only is not a broken rule, it is a player being an idiot as the opposition will then just surround and massacre you.
Tic Tac Toe is not a deep, meticulous strategy game built from a complex system of interlocking elements, each one dependent and related to each other one, but as a game the mechanics are solid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

As for comically large bases getting greater range, yes that could be a thing but I thought 'that guy is a d , don't play him, was already an acceptable response to people abusing the AoS rules, so I'd say it counts there if someone wants to mount their Archaon on a foot wide base or something.

To quote a classic joke, "We already know what you are, we're just haggling price". You already agree that the laissez faire approach that AoS takes is appropriate enough for some circumstances, we're just disagreeing on which ones.

I think that the whole 'he's not playing the game the way I think it should be played, don't play him' is the worst of this, so no I don't agree but weren't you one of the people arguing that is how you make no points balanced?

There are two aspects to game design, one is what you want to achieve in the game, -- results -- the other is how it is done -- mechanics.

In general, a good design will choose the simpler of two mechanics to achieve the same result, because it makes the game easier to learn and quicker to play.

From this viewpoint, GW should not have chosen the time-consuming To Hit, To Wound, To Save mechanism for combat resolution.

But, if GW wanted players to do lots of dice rolling, because a lot of people like rolling lots of dice, perhaps this was a good design decision.

Well GW have had the design philosophy of "we just want gamers to remember that time they rolled a 6 and won" since like late 5th ed 40k/early 8th ed fantasy.

I kinda like the measuring from the model. It's refreshing having the model be an actual part of the game mechanics instead of being able to replace it with a picture glued to the base and having it work exactly the same way.

There are bigger problems with the rule, if you're ever played the game, than putting a little model on the base of a huge one.

Firstly, the measurement rules say that no part of the model may move further than the move stat of the model, meaning pivoting isn't free. That's okay for huge models, but for little guys it's really fiddly to try and pay attention to how far the point of the sword moved or whatever.

Secondly, the biggest issue isn't that it encourages you to run up large models' bases. Okay, that happens, but it's pretty easy to handle (though I can see how someone who had put a lot of work into their basing might find it objectionable). What happens constantly is that in melee you're presented with the option of trying to pile in your troops onto the bases of other models in the unit to get their swords or whatever close enough to attack the enemy.

It's not a big deal if you're playing Sigmarines and have units of no more than five models, but I play the bloodbound with their units of a million angry half-naked men and it's a huge gameplay issue.

Also, someone mentioned line of sight. That isn't explained well in the rules either. A few things mention you need to be able to see your target to do them, but it doesn't really go into what that means. Can a model see out the back of its head? If it can't, you could charge a unit in the back and it wouldn't be able to attack you. Imagine if you charged a huge thing in the back and it took a while to turn around because no part of it could move more than its move stat!

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Firstly, the measurement rules say that no part of the model may move further than the move stat of the model, meaning pivoting isn't free. That's okay for huge models, but for little guys it's really fiddly to try and pay attention to how far the point of the sword moved or whatever.

I only worry about that with the big models. Most of the time, the extremities don't stick out far enough to make a difference, and when they do (like lizardman spears + tails), you can just measure from the tip of the extremity traveling the farthest. In a game of inches, a mm or two here won't break the game - not compared to the randomness of rolling a dozen dice.

Secondly, the biggest issue isn't that it encourages you to run up large models' bases. Okay, that happens, but it's pretty easy to handle (though I can see how someone who had put a lot of work into their basing might find it objectionable). What happens constantly is that in melee you're presented with the option of trying to pile in your troops onto the bases of other models in the unit to get their swords or whatever close enough to attack the enemy.

Technically, the rules say that bases aren't measured when counting range - it doesn't say that you can pile on other bases. You can assume that, I guess, but I've always played that base-to-base is melee range, using the model to model measuring for ranged and extended weapons like spears. I don't have any flying models, but I'd probably use model-to-model measuring for those as well. I find overlapping bases to be confusing, slow, and visually offensive.

Technically, melee range is from the model's weapon to anywhere on the opposing model that is less than 1" (or sometimes 2"). This means that things like the Chaos Chariot, with its oval base, is virtually impossible to melee from the side with 1" weapons. There's really three options here:

1) Base-to-base is melee range, overriding other measuring factors.
2) You can climb up on the base to get closer.
3) Just accept it and factor into your strategy that you need ranged or 2" melee to hit the model from the side.

I think 1 is the best option, though I'd be okay with 3 if it were agreed upon up front. I'm just not a fan of "base jumping". I also think that cramming a bunch of figures together to maximize the number of hits is too fiddly and runs counter to the spirit of the game.

Also, someone mentioned line of sight. That isn't explained well in the rules either. A few things mention you need to be able to see your target to do them, but it doesn't really go into what that means. Can a model see out the back of its head? If it can't, you could charge a unit in the back and it wouldn't be able to attack you. Imagine if you charged a huge thing in the back and it took a while to turn around because no part of it could move more than its move stat!

Units don't really represent a single, static figure, but more an amorphous blob of guys constantly moving and fighting. It's why you can shoot one guy and have another die, or why you only get cover when the entire unit is within cover. There's no facing - you can just assume the guy turns around before he fires. The only reason the monster would need to turn around is if it had an advantage through an extended extremity.

In both those cases, the reason I think they're interesting is they add a little more nuance to positioning. If you can't attack out your back, flanking becomes more useful and facing becomes more meaningful. If you can't just turn for free then facing becomes more meaningful. If you can't charge backwards and attack then facing is more meaningful. You get the idea. And I mean, even if it's a little guy rotation can easily account for an inch or more of movement.

It's the same with the piling in thing. A more restrictive reading of piling in makes positioning more meaningful, and that's interesting.

 jonolikespie wrote:

akai wrote:The several times I played against people that absolutely want to play RAW with direct measurement to models, we have a piece of paper to write down how many miniatures move into an opposing model's base so that we don't ruin the paint and base.

That sounds awful.

Playing like that was not too bad. It's similar to not placing models on a hill incline/decline because it will topple over when playing WFB.

Units don't really represent a single, static figure, but more an amorphous blob of guys constantly moving and fighting. It's why you can shoot one guy and have another die, or why you only get cover when the entire unit is within cover. There's no facing - you can just assume the guy turns around before he fires. The only reason the monster would need to turn around is if it had an advantage through an extended extremity.

But if units are deemed to be moving about, why is measuring done from things like spear tips?

I love AoS and find the whole "measure from model rather than base" thing silly. In fact it's the only rule I tend to house rule out. I don't think it was intended to make the game very fiddly, working out mm as that seems opposed to the spirit of how the rest of the game is played.

Of course that's just my interpretation and how I play it, if anyone gets a kick out of doing it differently all power to you. That's what 'The Most Important Rule' is all about after all.

Pile ins are the only other real confusion, I don't really mind though and play it that you can circle around an enemy base that you are already in contact with. I'd have no problem if my opponent disagreed though as it is a little ambiguous and both ways of playing seem fine to me.

So yeah those two rules are of poor quality, the first just because I don't really like it and I feel they didn't think through the consequences and the second due to poor writing.

The rest of the rules I have had no issues with.

*edit* quoted the wrong person.

It's shallow, lazy, weird, silly, bloated by special rules, broken for any serious play and written with a marketing department checklist in hand. It is, deliberately or not, a big feth off towards the playerbase of the game it replaced.

It could be somehow excused as just another silly "fun" little game if it was a different company in a different context.

In current circumstances and context, the quality of AoS rules is abysmal.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's shallow, lazy, weird, silly, bloated by special rules, broken for any serious play and written with a marketing department checklist in hand. It is, deliberately or not, a big feth off towards the playerbase of the game it replaced.

It could be somehow excused as just another silly "fun" little game if it was a different company in a different context.

In current circumstances and context, the quality of AoS rules is abysmal.

I think AoS's problem, like 40k, is that the game designers can't agree on what it is supposed to be. Is it a simple, easy to learn ruleset or is it a deep, rules intensive game? The core rules seem to imply the former while the warscrolls/books imply the latter. Is AoS a quick skirmish game with focus on what every model is carrying/how many wounds they have or is it a mass battle game? Was AoS's intent to lower the cost barrier or is it to milk the remaining fans of every penny?

These contradictions are what make AoS the odd ruleset that it is. AoS has the makings for a quality platoon level game if they would just cut the fat out.

There isn't a huge disconnect between the simple core rules and involved unit rules. That's deliberate. The same mindset built magic the gathering (a game originally conceptualized to have no 'core rules' at all, and have all game rules on the card).

The execution is lacking, but frankly I like the idea. In a game that wants to have a narrative tone, it pays to give individual units the design space to do unique things mechanically to bring that narrative to life on the table.

Were this a new game from someone else and not GW's replacement for Warhammer, I'd consider it an interesting, though clearly not fully baked, first draft of a game that showed a fair amount of promise.

I am a fan of the warscrolls too, although it is a lot to remember and can really slow down the game when the opponent is constantly flicking from page to page on their smartphone.

If I ever make it to a Warhammer World tournament, my "best player" votes are likely to go to opponents with a great grasp of their army rules because it really makes the experience much smoother.

The thing I like the most about the warscrolls is how nicely they could be converted into a deck of cards for each faction.

GW, please make faction decks of warscrolls like the 40k tactical objectives decks.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's shallow, lazy, weird, silly, bloated by special rules, broken for any serious play and written with a marketing department checklist in hand. It is, deliberately or not, a big feth off towards the playerbase of the game it replaced.

It could be somehow excused as just another silly "fun" little game if it was a different company in a different context.

In current circumstances and context, the quality of AoS rules is abysmal.

I think AoS's problem, like 40k, is that the game designers can't agree on what it is supposed to be. Is it a simple, easy to learn ruleset or is it a deep, rules intensive game? The core rules seem to imply the former while the warscrolls/books imply the latter. Is AoS a quick skirmish game with focus on what every model is carrying/how many wounds they have or is it a mass battle game? Was AoS's intent to lower the cost barrier or is it to milk the remaining fans of every penny?

These contradictions are what make AoS the odd ruleset that it is. AoS has the makings for a quality platoon level game if they would just cut the fat out.

It's a quick, easy to learn ruleset that covers the absolute basics of skirmish combat, moving and fighting, and adds feth tons of exceptions and special rules to provide all the different models and monsters with marginally different capabilities that have cool names.

Yet the core mechanics, despite being so stripped down, are clunky and time-consuming.

I am not saying this is a bad thing, because a lot of people want a simple game that involves scads of special rules and dice rolling.

The clunkyness is definitely a bad thing. I like the idea of simple core rules, detailed unit rules, but the core rules need to be absolutely clear and play as smoothly as possible for that to work well, and AoS has, to put it as kindly as possible, room to improve here.

I am a fan of the warscrolls too, although it is a lot to remember and can really slow down the game when the opponent is constantly flicking from page to page on their smartphone.

If I ever make it to a Warhammer World tournament, my "best player" votes are likely to go to opponents with a great grasp of their army rules because it really makes the experience much smoother.

The thing I like the most about the warscrolls is how nicely they could be converted into a deck of cards for each faction.

If I do go to one that is exactly what I'll be doing - printing off the units I'm using. I don't have a smart phone to flip through them with