I can't be the only one to notice that AoS rules are on average way better written. This can be proved objectively by going to GW site and comparing the length of FAQs and errata in each game. Why is this? Are AoS authors given more time to work on their projects? I figure this thread will get more traction in this forum.

The AOS team has at least one tournament player who seems to actually understands the game (Ben Johnson) and has tried to consolidate the language used to ensure consistency. For whatever reason, the 40k team doesn't do this.

Wayniac wrote:
The AOS team has at least one tournament player who seems to actually understands the game (Ben Johnson) and has tried to consolidate the language used to ensure consistency. For whatever reason, the 40k team doesn't do this.

I've noticed BJ at the WD battle reports.
Seems to be a decent player.

AoS is one of the worst games ever made. It should be seen as an example of how not to write rules.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made. It should be seen as an example of how not to write rules.

It could go worse.
Have a look at PP. A few bad decisions and the game could be gone for good. :d

Wayniac wrote:
The AOS team has at least one tournament player who seems to actually understands the game (Ben Johnson) and has tried to consolidate the language used to ensure consistency. For whatever reason, the 40k team doesn't do this.

The new marine books are a lot more clearly written and more interesting (power aside). They've been learning from each other for a while now. They really should all be one team sharing best practices though.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made. It should be seen as an example of how not to write rules.

Is it still 2015!?

Sigmar was an absolute car fire at launch, but it's so much better now. Sure it's not the best game in the world, but it's generally great fun and nowhere near the worst out there.

This can be proved objectively

*looks at camera*

Here we go agaaaaain!!!

*canned laughter*

*roll credits*

If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Is it really that much of a chore to remember what all the shields in your army do? Geez.

They might be better written in the sense that they have less errors, they're not better written in the sense that it is a better gaming system.


The core system of AOS is an utter joke. Interesting options like choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Damage spilling means there is no difference between anti single target and anti-horde weapons. Combined with fixed wound values this means that AP is the only core stat which affects the target selection at all. You can't even stop stop units from shooting by engaging them in melee. The most meaningful roll is the one which decides whether you get the double turn. When first read the rules my conclusion was that it was an effort to write a game where nothing you did really mattered. You just roll some dice, stuff happens. You can't make wrong choices as the choices you make really do not matter.

Now the current team seems to be very skilled, and they have managed to add quite a bit of depth via all sort of bespoke special rules. Which is the only way to do it in AOS as the core of the system is utterly worthless. I'd be really interested in seeing what they could do with a game that has better core mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

Is it really that much of a chore to remember what all the shields in your army do? Geez.

Kinda. It is also stupid. Why would they work differently?

 Crimson wrote:
They might be better written in the sense that they have less errors, they're not better written in the sense that it is a better gaming system.

It's not even necessarily less errors. Longer FAQ and Errata just means more corrections had to be made. It's certainly a possibility that's because of a higher percentage of errors, but it can also be because of having more rules in the first place. Like there being more current Codexes than there are Battletomes, for instance. It can also be in part the result of a bigger playerbase, meaning more errors or broken combos / loopholes / whatever get found. AND it can be due to 40k simply having more complex rules, which means having more issues to iron out.

Put all this together, and "the FAQ and Errata are longer, which objectively proves AoS is better written than 40k" is a really silly claim to make. But… I'm starting to accept that as pretty common around here whenever someone busts out the words "objectively" or "factually".

 Stux wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Is it really that much of a chore to remember what all the shields in your army do? Geez.

"Shields" are an allegory for the general "let us de-standardize this rules system as much as possible to make players need to learn the absolute maximum number of strange edge-case interactions we didn't have time to test for in the name of "uniqueness"" design philosophy of Age of Sigmar.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

In short .... Dude don't just say everything that comes into your head. This opinion wasn't a good one.

 EnTyme wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

Because we're playing a zoomed-out wargame where fiddly details of the specific geometry of one unit fall way outside the level of granularity it's interesting to track. If you're playing D&D where there ten people is a large fight by all means draw a distinction between a buckler (+1 AC/-1 check penalty/5% spell failure/can wield weapons in that hand at a -1 to hit), a light shield (+1 AC/-1 check penalty/5% spell failure, can use that hand for things that are not weapons), a heavy shield (+2 AC/-2 check penalty/15% spell failure, occupies the hand), and a tower shield (+4 AC/+2 maximum Dexterity/-10 check penalty/50% spell failure, -2 to all attack rolls, may be used to grant total cover against non-touch ranged attacks in a turn you do not also attack). If you're playing a d6-based wargame where both sides are expected to field a hundred-plus models is there a point where what shape the shield is doesn't matter all that much? Why do square shields, round shields, and triangular shields all do the same thing?

 EnTyme wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

Because they always did for the previous 8 iterations of the game?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

Because we're playing a zoomed-out wargame where fiddly details of the specific geometry of one unit fall way outside the level of granularity it's interesting to track. If you're playing D&D where there ten people is a large fight by all means draw a distinction between a buckler (+1 AC/-1 check penalty/5% spell failure/can wield weapons in that hand at a -1 to hit), a light shield (+1 AC/-1 check penalty/5% spell failure, can use that hand for things that are not weapons), a heavy shield (+2 AC/-2 check penalty/15% spell failure, occupies the hand), and a tower shield (+4 AC/+2 maximum Dexterity/-10 check penalty/50% spell failure, -2 to all attack rolls, may be used to grant total cover against non-touch ranged attacks in a turn you do not also attack). If you're playing a d6-based wargame where both sides are expected to field a hundred-plus models is there a point where what shape the shield is doesn't matter all that much? Why do square shields, round shields, and triangular shields all do the same thing?

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

 Stux wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Is it really that much of a chore to remember what all the shields in your army do? Geez.

It's easier to remember keywords, yet people rejoiced at their removal.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Same reason as why meltagun in 40k works differently depending who wields it.

Players wanted bespoke rules so enjoy, you got what you wanted


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

Did french shields do different effect than roman ones? Maybe one played out ave maria after being struct!

tneva82 wrote:

Same reason as why meltagun in 40k works differently depending who wields it.

Does it?

tneva82 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Same reason as why meltagun in 40k works differently depending who wields it.

Except it doesn't (unless you are talking about BS).

A meltagun is a meltagun is a meltagun.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

So game balance requires one 2W/4+ unit's shields to give reroll 1s and another's to give a 5+ save against mortal wounds?

 Grimtuff wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Same reason as why meltagun in 40k works differently depending who wields it.

Except it doesn't (unless you are talking about BS).

A meltagun is a meltagun is a meltagun.

Except when it's a Heat Lance.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

So game balance requires one 2W/4+ unit's shields to give reroll 1s and another's to give a 5+ save against mortal wounds?

No, narrative is what causes that. Balance is what keeps them both from getting +1 save.

(I know, game rules based in the narrative, try not to have a heart attack).

tneva82 wrote:


Did french shields do different effect than roman ones? Maybe one played out ave maria after being struct!

Actually yes.

Whilst there are indeed common themes with regard to protective wear like shields; their shape, material, construction and the training and use in battle can result in huge changes in how they work. Look at the Romans, both the shape and the training they had allowed them to use shields to produce mobile units that could move across the battlefield whilst heavily shielded. Even though the "barbarians" they fought against also had shields they were a totally different affair.



AoS doesn't just have that, it also has species of totally different body construction and magic. It makes perfect sense that a shield by one race would not be the same as another and that even within the same race different sheilds would behave and operate differently. A Khinerai or Witch Aelf has a blade edged shield which not only protects but can also deal damage. A skaven, meanwhile, has a much more basic shield that isn't edged and thus isn't for killing with, its for protecting. Plus its more likely that a skaven would use its shield on a less regimented and a more personal level (barring units like Stormvermin). So they won't produce interlocked shield formations like the Mortek Guard can achieve.

So yes shields through history DO behave differently. It's not out of the question to choose to represent that in a tabletop game. Which is the cornerstone of the discussion, the choice. Game systems exist where shields and other items will be universal across different factions; similarly there are systems that are so highly detailed that individual weapons and equipment vary depending on the specific unit using them.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

But if you have a 4+ save with a re-roll, and get in cover, then that gives you 3+ with a re-roll, right? Which is statistically better than a straight 2+, by a significant margin (50%).

GW's designers having a poor grasp of probability is nothing new, though.

Overread wrote:Actually yes.

Whilst there are indeed common themes with regard to protective wear like shields; their shape, material, construction and the training and use in battle can result in huge changes in how they work. Look at the Romans, both the shape and the training they had allowed them to use shields to produce mobile units that could move across the battlefield whilst heavily shielded. Even though the "barbarians" they fought against also had shields they were a totally different affair.



AoS doesn't just have that, it also has species of totally different body construction and magic. It makes perfect sense that a shield by one race would not be the same as another and that even within the same race different sheilds would behave and operate differently. A Khinerai or Witch Aelf has a blade edged shield which not only protects but can also deal damage. A skaven, meanwhile, has a much more basic shield that isn't edged and thus isn't for killing with, its for protecting. Plus its more likely that a skaven would use its shield on a less regimented and a more personal level (barring units like Stormvermin). So they won't produce interlocked shield formations like the Mortek Guard can achieve.

So yes shields through history DO behave differently. It's not out of the question to choose to represent that in a tabletop game. Which is the cornerstone of the discussion, the choice. Game systems exist where shields and other items will be universal across different factions; similarly there are systems that are so highly detailed that individual weapons and equipment vary depending on the specific unit using them.

For how abstract AoS's stats are in general (eg everyone competent at melee hits at the same 3+), rivet-counting specificity in shields seems wholly inappropriate. As you said in your last sentence, there are games that treat equipment generically, and there are games that attempt to model minutiae, but they shouldn't be the same game.

 Overread wrote:



AoS doesn't just have that, it also has species of totally different body construction and magic. It makes perfect sense that a shield by one race would not be the same as another and that even within the same race different sheilds would behave and operate differently. A Khinerai or Witch Aelf has a blade edged shield which not only protects but can also deal damage. A skaven, meanwhile, has a much more basic shield that isn't edged and thus isn't for killing with, its for protecting. Plus its more likely that a skaven would use its shield on a less regimented and a more personal level (barring units like Stormvermin). So they won't produce interlocked shield formations like the Mortek Guard can achieve.

And every single one of these examples also helps convey the different feel and flavour of each faction, how they fight, what their values are, etc. The Daughters of Khaine revel in bloodshed and are narcissistic to the point of conducting war as a performance and ritual, with skill and aggression being paramount and defensive tactics or postures regarded as weak, sloppy, inelegant, unexciting, or pathetic. Skaven are undisciplined, cowardly, and 100% selfish to an absolute fault, with the sole interest of any given clanrat being to save his own skin while still maintaining (or advancing) his place in the cutthroat social hierarchy. Ossiarchs are highly disciplined, highly trained, elite legions of warriors with impeccable loyalty to the greater cause and the tactical acumen of their commanders.

Thus, the rules support the game, the lore, and the diversity therein.

 catbarf wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

But if you have a 4+ save with a re-roll, and get in cover, then that gives you 3+ with a re-roll, right? Which is statistically better than a straight 2+, by a significant margin (50%).

GW's designers having a poor grasp of probability is nothing new, though.

The shields only let you re-roll 1s, irrespective of your current save.

Furthermore, it all depends how effective you want Rend to be. Rend (essentially fantasy AP) has different effects on a 2+ than it does on a 3+ with a reroll, especially considering you cannot reroll saves that failed due to Rend (since it's a modifier and you do rerolls before modifiers).

nataliereed1984 wrote:

This can be proved objectively

*looks at camera*

Here we go agaaaaain!!!

*canned laughter*

*roll credits*

Indeed. I stopped reading at this phrase, proved the rest would be nonsense.

Yeah no. AOS and 40k rules are both pretty bad. Just different kinds of bad.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

So game balance requires one 2W/4+ unit's shields to give reroll 1s and another's to give a 5+ save against mortal wounds?

No, narrative is what causes that. Balance is what keeps them both from getting +1 save.

(I know, game rules based in the narrative, try not to have a heart attack).

And there are things that are too granular for the narrative to give them separate rules. All the Sequitors in my unit move 5" because that makes the game easier to play than saying "well, narratively these aren't robots, if we lined them all up and had a race some of them would be faster than others, so maybe they need different Move stats..."

To go to the opposite extreme let's take a look at Bolt Action for a moment. All the things that go on the 40k statline are still things Bolt Action needs to track; everyone has a move rate, WS, BS, S, T, W, A, and Ld. But all armies' infantry are defined as being either Veteran, Regular, or Inexperienced units because they don't differ from each other far enough to need to write out the full statline for everything. It's not very narratively characterful, but it makes the game incredibly easy to play because you don't need to memorize any statlines, once you've learned the numbers assigned to one unit you know the numbers assigned to all units.

So let's imagine that things can be standardized/easy to play at the expense of being unique and characterful, or they can be unique and characterful at the expense of being easy to play. Is it so hard to follow on from that and realize that I might disagree with GW about when something becomes a silly trade-off? Do we have different rules for Chaos Warriors with horns on their helmets and Chaos Warriors without horns on their helmets? Why not? Narratively they're different things, is that the only justification you need to add rules to your game? When does a game have too many rules?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

So game balance requires one 2W/4+ unit's shields to give reroll 1s and another's to give a 5+ save against mortal wounds?

No, narrative is what causes that. Balance is what keeps them both from getting +1 save.

(I know, game rules based in the narrative, try not to have a heart attack).

And there are things that are too granular for the narrative to give them separate rules. All the Sequitors in my unit move 5" because that makes the game easier to play than saying "well, narratively these aren't robots, if we lined them all up and had a race some of them would be faster than others, so maybe they need different Move stats..."

To go to the opposite extreme let's take a look at Bolt Action for a moment. All the things that go on the 40k statline are still things Bolt Action needs to track; everyone has a move rate, WS, BS, S, T, W, A, and Ld. But all armies' infantry are defined as being either Veteran, Regular, or Inexperienced units because they don't differ from each other far enough to need to write out the full statline for everything. It's not very narratively characterful, but it makes the game incredibly easy to play because you don't need to memorize any statlines, once you've learned the numbers assigned to one unit you know the numbers assigned to all units.

So let's imagine that things can be standardized/easy to play at the expense of being unique and characterful, or they can be unique and characterful at the expense of being easy to play. Is it so hard to follow on from that and realize that I might disagree with GW about when something becomes a silly trade-off? Do we have different rules for Chaos Warriors with horns on their helmets and Chaos Warriors without horns on their helmets? Why not? Narratively they're different things, is that the only justification you need to add rules to your game? When does a game have too many rules?

*shrug* That's not my place to judge. I don't find it too complicated, but if your assertion is that AOS is too complicated/too hard to play, then I can't disagree, as that's subjective. Me? I find it far easier to play than 40k.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah no. AOS and 40k rules are both pretty bad. Just different kinds of bad.

Thread in a nutshell.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made. It should be seen as an example of how not to write rules.

So you haven't played at all in 2.0, you shouldn't be talking then. It is clearly a good system and is a popular one. Some of the tournaments events are 300 players.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Yeah no. AOS and 40k rules are both pretty bad. Just different kinds of bad.

Thread in a nutshell.

While some might fee this way, 1 is clearly worst than the other from different peoples perspectives.

For me and my group, we like AOS better, even tho we all were die hard 40k players for many years, one game needs to be pretty bad for a dedicated group that did like 8th at the start (and was tired of 7th) to look for a new game, and when AoS 2.0 came out we tried it (we didn't like 1.0 at all) and we all jump ship to AoS. I'm talking about 20+ players.

8th has some very bad parts to it that AOS doesn't have, AoS while has some imbalances, its nothing like what 8th has.

I wonder if AoS is still having to deal with the place it started from on release. It still feels bogged down in a lot of that in how its going now, even if its better i still am constantly disappointed with it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
one game needs to be pretty bad for a dedicated group that did like 8th at the start (and was tired of 7th) to look for a new game

Not really, burnout is extremely common in all games after enough time. Easily happens to a gaming group when they all play the same game.

AoS is doing so badly that tournaments are actually filling up now and the system as a whole is turning a huge profit, 2 things that WHFB couldn’t consistently do.

I’ve seen far more players jump into AoS than WHFB due to a lower buy in cost and slightly simplified rules.


In regards to the whole shield topic, a shield isn’t just a shield and that’s it.
The entire reason shields differed throughout the ages was down to how they wanted them to be used.

Tactically, the romans ran a shield wall which gave far greater protection at the cost of a slower movement.

A lot of Viking shields were banded with the band being sharpened so it could also function as a second weapon.

A buckler was far lighter to allow more movement at the expense of less protection.

Most mounted shields were curved at the base (typical fantasy bret style) as the curve allowed movement while on horse back.

I’m sorry, but saying all shields are the same is just plain stupidity.

The AoS rules are NOT better written. Lol what a silly statement.

AoS has less balance and more abuse than current 40k, significantly so.

 Ishagu wrote:
The AoS rules are NOT better written. Lol what a silly statement.

AoS has less balance and more abuse than current 40k, significantly so.

I think it's more a matter of perspective to be honest. My group seems to be drifting away from 40k and more to Sigmar since the Marine supplements for balance reasons.

But honestly I think burnout is as much of an issue as which is the better game. Both have big flaws.

And in my group AoS has been utterly and completely abandoned in favour of 40k.

The AoS rules are all "flavour of the week" to a much greater extent than 40k. Some are written so badly they literally don't function, like in the recent case of some terrain rules that had to be completely changed shortly after release.

This entire topic is built on a factually incorrect premise.

Searching for superior writing in a GW system? Look at lotr. The game is running with the same basic core rules since18 years, updates are merely refinements, every unit is viable, the game is highly interactive and has more tactical depth than 40K ever had.

LOTR is a pretty good game, yes!

 Ishagu wrote:
LOTR is a pretty good game, yes!

LoTR is good game for man-things, yes yes! They'll be distracted by it, and we clamour up from beneath, yes yes!

Jackal90 wrote:


In regards to the whole shield topic, a shield isn’t just a shield and that’s it.
The entire reason shields differed throughout the ages was down to how they wanted them to be used.

Tactically, the romans ran a shield wall which gave far greater protection at the cost of a slower movement.

A lot of Viking shields were banded with the band being sharpened so it could also function as a second weapon.

A buckler was far lighter to allow more movement at the expense of less protection.

Most mounted shields were curved at the base (typical fantasy bret style) as the curve allowed movement while on horse back.

I’m sorry, but saying all shields are the same is just plain stupidity.

Except when it has been for the previous 8 iterations of the game and functions the same in other games of similar scale too.

In WMH a shield does exactly the same thing, no matter what Jack/Beast it is on. It works differently on infantry but it still has the same effect. Where the differences come in is the unit rules. AoS can do the same, but it chooses not to. The point people (and myself) are making is you should be able to look at a unit and know what it can do -"Oh, these have shields. So they have +1 to their save. Just like in every edition of WHFB in the past". The minutiae of that, such as Chaos Runeshields can be covered in a unit's special rules. But shields doing different things on the base rules is just daft and difference for difference's sake, which is GW's bread and butter.

 Ishagu wrote:
The AoS rules are NOT better written. Lol what a silly statement.

AoS has less balance and more abuse than current 40k, significantly so.

Of course, because previously in the fantasy environment 2+ rerollable saves, banner of the world dragon and telcos combo, huge steadfast blocks etc didn’t exist.
Wait.........
As someone who played fantasy heavily, the original AoS was a complete disaster that I ignored.
Now though it’s come back around quite nicely.
Yes there is imbalance, but nothing as bad as fantasy used to have.

So, balance in 40k..........
How many threads were there on iron hands alone talking about how broken it was?
Salamanders? They had the same.
Tau also caught a lot of hate for their power level.
At one stage a few weeks back the front page of Dakka was a majority of 40k complaint threads.
But this is balance?

The most balanced GW game to me is LoTR, but after that I’d easily say AoS above 40k.
Neither of the 2 are balanced to a top level, but 40k is far more abused in terms of how easily some armies can just break the game and cause everyone to hate them.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah no. AOS and 40k rules are both pretty bad. Just different kinds of bad.

there you go introducing nuance into the thread, you know how that upsets the indoctrinated

AoS is categorically not above 40k in ruled balance. I am baffled about anyond making such a statement. Looking at AoS over the last 3 years it's pretty comical that anyone would think that.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:


In regards to the whole shield topic, a shield isn’t just a shield and that’s it.
The entire reason shields differed throughout the ages was down to how they wanted them to be used.

Tactically, the romans ran a shield wall which gave far greater protection at the cost of a slower movement.

A lot of Viking shields were banded with the band being sharpened so it could also function as a second weapon.

A buckler was far lighter to allow more movement at the expense of less protection.

Most mounted shields were curved at the base (typical fantasy bret style) as the curve allowed movement while on horse back.

I’m sorry, but saying all shields are the same is just plain stupidity.

Except when it has been for the previous 8 iterations of the game and functions the same in other games of similar scale too.

In WMH a shield does exactly the same thing, no matter what Jack/Beast it is on. It works differently on infantry but it still has the same effect. Where the differences come in is the unit rules. AoS can do the same, but it chooses not to. The point people (and myself) are making is you should be able to look at a unit and know what it can do -"Oh, these have shields. So they have +1 to their save. Just like in every edition of WHFB in the past". The minutiae of that, such as Chaos Runeshields can be covered in a unit's special rules. But shields doing different things on the base rules is just daft and difference for difference's sake, which is GW's bread and butter.

Except AoS hasn’t had that many versions.
And even in WHFB shields were not the same at all.
There were 2 types of basic shields to begin with, then a lot of factions had addition rules or shield options that changed their function.
In AoS this is more for balance than anything as it prevents units gaining a 2+ save on an endless level.
I honesty don’t want to see an entire army rocking a 2+ save any more, but it seems that others do?
Imagine the basic troops for bonereapers.
It’s a heavy shield, so down to a 2+ save with petrifex, now give them mystic shield and boom, 2+ save with rerolls of 1 that easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
AoS is categorically not above 40k in ruled balance. I am baffled about anyond making such a statement. Looking at AoS over the last 3 years it's pretty comical that anyone would think that.

Why the last 3 years when the topic is about its levels of balance now?
And sure, why are all the complaint threads about OP issues 40k based and not AoS based?
Any input rather than saying the same thing without any basing for it?

AoS currently is not more balanced either.

It must be pointed out that this is no place to discuss AoS either way. This topic does not belong on the 40k forum.

 Ishagu wrote:
AoS currently is not more balanced either.

It must be pointed out that this is no place to discuss AoS either way. This topic does not belong on the 40k forum.

Good thing it’s on the AoS forum then and it’s talking about balance between the two systems.

Jackal90 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:


In regards to the whole shield topic, a shield isn’t just a shield and that’s it.
The entire reason shields differed throughout the ages was down to how they wanted them to be used.

Tactically, the romans ran a shield wall which gave far greater protection at the cost of a slower movement.

A lot of Viking shields were banded with the band being sharpened so it could also function as a second weapon.

A buckler was far lighter to allow more movement at the expense of less protection.

Most mounted shields were curved at the base (typical fantasy bret style) as the curve allowed movement while on horse back.

I’m sorry, but saying all shields are the same is just plain stupidity.

Except when it has been for the previous 8 iterations of the game and functions the same in other games of similar scale too.

In WMH a shield does exactly the same thing, no matter what Jack/Beast it is on. It works differently on infantry but it still has the same effect. Where the differences come in is the unit rules. AoS can do the same, but it chooses not to. The point people (and myself) are making is you should be able to look at a unit and know what it can do -"Oh, these have shields. So they have +1 to their save. Just like in every edition of WHFB in the past". The minutiae of that, such as Chaos Runeshields can be covered in a unit's special rules. But shields doing different things on the base rules is just daft and difference for difference's sake, which is GW's bread and butter.

Except AoS hasn’t had that many versions.
And even in WHFB shields were not the same at all.
There were 2 types of basic shields to begin with, then a lot of factions had addition rules or shield options that changed their function.
In AoS this is more for balance than anything as it prevents units gaining a 2+ save on an endless level.
I honesty don’t want to see an entire army rocking a 2+ save any more, but it seems that others do?
Imagine the basic troops for bonereapers.
It’s a heavy shield, so down to a 2+ save with petrifex, now give them mystic shield and boom, 2+ save with rerolls of 1 that easily.

That's why WHFB had armor save modifiers. Those scary 2+ saves get reduced to nothing real quick, especially against armies that can field guns. Not to mention that you were paying a lot of points for those 2+ save units and it was only certain units that could do it, so it wasn't as if entire armies had 2+ saves.
Iirc, you can only get 2+ saves if you were on a horse, had scaly skin, or had some item that granted more armor.
Only Brets could field entire armies of horses, Lizardmen didn't have the armor to stack with their scaly skin (saurus did not have access to light armor, only temple guard did. And it was still 3+ max), and I think only heroes and lords can do the latter.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:


In regards to the whole shield topic, a shield isn’t just a shield and that’s it.
The entire reason shields differed throughout the ages was down to how they wanted them to be used.

Tactically, the romans ran a shield wall which gave far greater protection at the cost of a slower movement.

A lot of Viking shields were banded with the band being sharpened so it could also function as a second weapon.

A buckler was far lighter to allow more movement at the expense of less protection.

Most mounted shields were curved at the base (typical fantasy bret style) as the curve allowed movement while on horse back.

I’m sorry, but saying all shields are the same is just plain stupidity.

Except when it has been for the previous 8 iterations of the game and functions the same in other games of similar scale too.

In WMH a shield does exactly the same thing, no matter what Jack/Beast it is on. It works differently on infantry but it still has the same effect. Where the differences come in is the unit rules. AoS can do the same, but it chooses not to. The point people (and myself) are making is you should be able to look at a unit and know what it can do -"Oh, these have shields. So they have +1 to their save. Just like in every edition of WHFB in the past". The minutiae of that, such as Chaos Runeshields can be covered in a unit's special rules. But shields doing different things on the base rules is just daft and difference for difference's sake, which is GW's bread and butter.

Except AoS hasn’t had that many versions.
And even in WHFB shields were not the same at all.
There were 2 types of basic shields to begin with, then a lot of factions had addition rules or shield options that changed their function.
In AoS this is more for balance than anything as it prevents units gaining a 2+ save on an endless level.
I honesty don’t want to see an entire army rocking a 2+ save any more, but it seems that others do?
Imagine the basic troops for bonereapers.
It’s a heavy shield, so down to a 2+ save with petrifex, now give them mystic shield and boom, 2+ save with rerolls of 1 that easily.

That's why WHFB had armor save modifiers. Not to mention that you were paying a lot of points for those 1+ save units and it was only certain units that could do it, so it wasn't as if entire armies had 1+ saves.
1+ saves may sound scary, but in practice they weren't that bad as long as you had the right equipment and spells for them.

Enter teclis, banner of the world dragon and a blob of Phoenix guard.
Saves are rerollable, teclis knocks out the spells, then what?
And what about 2++ saves?

That's one broken combination for a poorly balanced army that was introduced in 8th ed, which is considered to be the worst edition.
That's not really representative of the whole system, as no other army could do that.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That's one broken combination for a poorly balanced army that was introduced in 8th ed, which is considered to be the worst edition.
That's not really representative of the whole system. Try 7th ed, which had its problems but at least you can kill stuff.

I did prefer 7th overall to be fair.
But then 8th you had daemons as a whole too, which could literally break the game non stop.

Jackal90 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That's one broken combination for a poorly balanced army that was introduced in 8th ed, which is considered to be the worst edition.
That's not really representative of the whole system. Try 7th ed, which had its problems but at least you can kill stuff.

I did prefer 7th overall to be fair.
But then 8th you had daemons as a whole too, which could literally break the game non stop.

Oh yeah, Daemons were a problem. 8th ed was a clusterfeth in terms of balance. Its as if GW just gave up caring about WHFB, and then was surprised that no one began to care enough to buy their gak either.

From my experiences, while AOS has gotten a bit worse the past little bit, the middle ground is less of a rollercoaster than 40k while the two extremes are still out there.

Overall though I feel like the AOS rules are clearer and more concise than 40k, and that it feels like the AOS team has more of a clue than the 40k team.

It suffers from all of the same problems: A focus on models, with rules being an afterthought; heavy release schedule that reduces time to actually test; most likely books written in isolation without communication; and the old GW classic of not really caring about balance but pretending you do just enough to make people believe it.

However I do think AOS cares just a smidgen more than 40k does.

While some might fee this way, 1 is clearly worst than the other from different peoples perspectives.

Not arguing that at all. Some people also look at 3 keeper armies summoning in 2000 free extra points and say its not that big of a deal.

...
8th has some very bad parts to it that AOS doesn't have, AoS while has some imbalances, its nothing like what 8th has.

I found both games to be equally imbalanced, rife with obvious and blatant wtf moments and both allowed my public campaigns to be destroyed by a handful of guys that only play the game on Adepticon level.

As I said above, they are both bad sets of rules that if any independent game designer had written would never have taken off at all and would have been panned as being garbage. But because it was GW that wrote them, everyone plays them. Because everyone plays them. And everyone plays them, because everyone else plays them.

They have transcended to a level that I don't think Electronic Arts has ever achieved. They can literally shovel out whatever rules they want (EXCEPTION: if they leave off points, it will never get touched... reference AOS without official points 2015-2016 and fan comps weren't good enough because official points or no points was the battlecry), and they will be hugely successful, so long as they keep their PR train rolling and engage the customer base to make them feel like they are being heard.

One thing 8th 40k does not have is the free bastardized summoning that AOS has, and it also doesn't have the double turn. They both suffer from horrible internal and external balance and they both suffer from insufferable terrain rules that make the battlefield mostly meh where precision and maneuver are not really needed.

From that perspective if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose 40k as the better of the two, though I don't play either until a day they address the major issues I have pointed out above.

Good thing it’s on the AoS forum then and it’s talking about balance between the two systems.

This thread originated in the 40k forum and a mod moved it here.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Yeah no. AOS and 40k rules are both pretty bad. Just different kinds of bad.

Thread in a nutshell.

I have to agree having now played a little bit of Age of Sigmar over the last month and half. I have the newest battletome with Slaves to Darkness, and it still has a few things I am not sure about. I couldn't tell anyone with certainty if Chaos Warriors can mix weapons now. Nor how that would work if they can with some with shields and some without. Heck, as dumb as I think the 40k Assault weapon RAW is, runic shields has the same thing in that RAW it only works with two or more. It still isn't completely clear in the writing what effect, if any, taking a horn and/or banner have to that model and the regular weapons they carry. I know these items don't have any effect now, but as new player, it seemed off these upgrades were free with no downside, and it isn't like a standard AoS points aren't granular enough to have them cost a few point (like any given 40k wargear). Maybe if armies were built in 100 points but 2000 points seems like more than enough for this stuff to cost extra.

Speaking of points, a number of stuff is just given away for free via terrain and/or summoning. Which does put a player back if they didn't add them to their army. Sure, some summoning has to acquire points during the game, but in many cases, it is hard for an opponent to stop heaps of these points being made. Not to mention standard what is a point worth in any points based game has. Being a GW game, the points often really don't match up between units. I also suspect that realm/terrain bonuses usually add to imbalance more than level the playing field. Although, I haven't played games using the realm or terrain buff rules.

Balance seems just as all over the place like 40k. In my first game of AoS before the Battletome dropped, I received the biggest crushing defeat in any miniatures war game after playing the new hotness that is Bonereapers. It wasn't like opponent was an expert either, he had one or two games more than I did. He did position better than I did, but his units were just better than mine full stop. I don't think their would be any kind of play that I could have done that would defeat them in that game outside insane dice luck. Even in 40k, I feel I could at least offer resistance playing an out of the index army compared to that game. Even with a new Battletome, I don't see how I am going to defeat OSB. The book just narrowed the margin of luck I need after playing and positioning well.

I think people might might mistake the lack of layers upon layers of complication in Age of Sigmar. The game has a lot less rule gribblies compared to 40k. Though, things like Nurgle's Cycle, depravity/fate/plague points, and status effect bookkeeping are close. Age of Sigmar also does appear to have a little more going on for the player in meaningful player choices. Not a lot more, but enough that I noticed it. However, there are still a number of things that really do make the game, at least at a semi-casaul level, just as unbalanced as 40k from what I have seen.

Even as a AoS fanboy, this feels like a bait thread tbh. Particularly since it was posted in a 40K subforum initially.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...*shrug* That's not my place to judge. I don't find it too complicated, but if your assertion is that AOS is too complicated/too hard to play, then I can't disagree, as that's subjective. Me? I find it far easier to play than 40k.

My assertion is that AoS has chosen the wrong things to make complicated. They stripped out Strength v. Toughness, WS comparison, and ranged to-hit modifiers, but we're still rolling three dice per attack instead of doing something like LotR's armour-as-Toughness two-rolls system so it still takes about as much time to do. They cut the statline down from ten numbers to four, then expanded the weapon statline from 1-2 numbers and sometimes a textbox to five numbers and sometimes a textbox so the actual statblocks are larger. They stripped out the eight common Lores of Battle Magic and their 56 spells and 8 lore attributes, and yet there are now more spells than there ever were.

I feel like AoS has more rules and yet less interesting gameplay decision-making than WHFB ever had.

I feel like AoS has more rules and yet less interesting gameplay decision-making than WHFB ever had.

I think when you take into account the rules spread out across all of the warscrolls I agree it has more rules than WHFB.

I also firmly agree with the less interesting gameplay due to decisions being stripped out of the game and sloppy game play being promoted through the removal of precision in favor of statistics (as I see it anyway). However I see that as being intentional. Precision and layers of decisions/tactics make the game more difficult to pick up and goes in the opposite direction of GW's focus - which is a casual game focused on very casual players.

If AoS is really the superior ruleset when it comes to writing, explain either edition of Skirmish, especially when 1st Edition had a fully-published rules booklet to argue against the claims that it was a "throw away product". Right out of the gate there were obvious flaws in the mechanics of AoS and how they fit into such small-scale gaming (especially damage and Mortal Wounds), and not one of them was ever addressed even in the 2nd edition in White Dwarf as far as I know. It took Bottle to make the game playable at all with Hinterlands, with a handful of good rules additions that should have been blindingly obvious to even the newest official playtester.

Although in retrospect their lack of skill at rules writing actually LED to better rules writing, as Hinterlands being better than officially-produced rules was what pretty much got him hired at GW for Warcry.

 Stux wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
one game needs to be pretty bad for a dedicated group that did like 8th at the start (and was tired of 7th) to look for a new game

Not really, burnout is extremely common in all games after enough time. Easily happens to a gaming group when they all play the same game.

Its not burn out, its the stupid amount of rules catch up you have to do (literally 70+ pages of faqs for some armies), the 400%+ increase in shooting damage with almost nothing added in survivabilities other than "points are cheaper, bring more", and the insanely bad balance of the game. I love 40k, i'm excited to play my Quins with the new CA, but everytime i get the chance, its "why bother? Its either going to be I win by a mile, or they table me by turn 3, its always like that.

At least in AoS games are almost always very close, unless someone made a mistake, but in 40k you can make 0 mistakes and still lose by a mile.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


At least in AoS games are almost always very close, unless someone made a mistake, but in 40k you can make 0 mistakes and still lose by a mile.

Let's just say my experience with Age of Sigmar has been radically different than yours.

Why are you so passionate ? The original post was just talking about how the current rules of AoS were better written (assuming to before). And yes, that is true, the rule team is definitely refining the way they write them as more battletomes come with time. It's not talking about AoS being the best game ever.

But I do agree the title is kinda lacking in details.

About why, well the simple answer would be the experience of their writers. The game has a few years behind now and they keep collecting datas from tournaments and such. That helps.

And indeed, the size of the FAQ tend to be smaller than they used to be. Difference between AoS V1 and V2 is significant on that matter, I guess that's what the poster was talking about with objectivity.

Reading through this thread, nothing of value was learned.

Only thing I figured out is why the dakka forums have such a small AoS selection of subforums but a huge selection of 40k subforums.

There's much better places out there to talk about AoS without being hounded by a bunch of screaming squirrels about why their rabid opinions should matter.

drbored wrote:
Reading through this thread, nothing of value was learned.

Only thing I figured out is why the dakka forums have such a small AoS selection of subforums but a huge selection of 40k subforums.

There's much better places out there to talk about AoS without being hounded by a bunch of screaming squirrels about why their rabid opinions should matter.

If you are trying to criticise hyperbolic language, using it is probably not the best choice.

I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

What other places are there for AoS? The largest communities seem to be on social medias or reddit. Reddit doesn't approve a critique of the AoS or GW and social media tend to have more of a WIP blogs and occasional meltdown.

I find AoS to have a passable system that allows me to play a game with friends, however the enjoyment isn't on the level to make the game regular.

The Age of Sigmar ruleset is less prone to over-complication that 40k suffers from. AoS doesn't have gazillion stratagems or detachment rules. This means less unknown force multiplying. It doesn't necessarily mean AoS is better, but there is less FAQ-ing needed to patch loopholes.

I have to admit that I find the shield example quite weird. This isn't a Pen and Paper RP game so there is no need for the shield to be the same overall. It is better to think of units in Warhammer as abstractions of their capabilities instead of viewing them as RP Character sheets that can be used in a roleplaying campaign. If people want to roleplay in the Age of Sigmar there is an interesting roleplaying system coming out that may or may not standardize shield efficacy.

 auticus wrote:
I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

True enough - their gallery is really kicking ass with some awesome and inspiring army concepts.

 auticus wrote:
I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

You can even have a conversation there without the thread instantly devolving into the same arguments by the same 4-5 people over and over and over again....

 auticus wrote:
I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

Technically they have guidelines within the rules against excessive negative posting - basically trolling through heavy negative posting. There's certainly no rule against being critical.

Asides its mostly a rule that was a backlash against the early days of AoS when there was extreme anti-aos behaviour around the net. Granted much of it was warranted, however for those who enjoyed the game at launch and in the early days the TGA forums did aim to provide one spot where every single thread wasn't dominated by "I hate it its bad I hate it I hate GW I hate fans of it" etc...

 Overread wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

Technically they have guidelines within the rules against excessive negative posting - basically trolling through heavy negative posting. There's certainly no rule against being critical.

Asides its mostly a rule that was a backlash against the early days of AoS when there was extreme anti-aos behaviour around the net. Granted much of it was warranted, however for those who enjoyed the game at launch and in the early days the TGA forums did aim to provide one spot where every single thread wasn't dominated by "I hate it its bad I hate it I hate GW I hate fans of it" etc...

It changed, at one point it was basically "Everything is great and we love GW, don't criticize them" because the owner once sent me a message saying I was sounding "overly negative" by bringing up valid criticism and concerns with the game, the rules and its direction. Auticus was banned for the same (although I agree with him I do feel his statements sometimes can rub people the wrong way). It was lessened a short while later but make no mistake there was a small period where it was basically the unofficial GW forums where everything had to be praise (in part, I suspect, because at least one GW staff member viewed the forums). It still is the "unofficial GW forums" to an extent.

One of the things I like the most about Dakka, as compared to other forums, is it's NOT a pro-GW circlejerk or propaganda mill. You find praise when they do good and condemnation when they do bad, without the forum staff trying to push an agenda or think that if you silence criticism that means there is none or treat GW/Warhammer like the center of the universe.

Now on the topic I agree that I think a big reason why AOS "seems" better is there are more known factors. 40k has its insane detachment/allies/CP system which just blows the door open to abuse and imbalance when one faction might be fine, but as long as you can take cheap CP farms with another faction it becomes OP (Imperial Knights are a good example of this). AOS at least allies are restricted and each faction does what it does, so there is less "Ah-ha but if I take this too..." sort of things going on. Of course the factions have their own problem but IMHO AOS has better balance overall (not by a lot, and there are still major issues) by being less "kitchen sink" than 40k.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

drbored wrote:
Reading through this thread, nothing of value was learned.

Only thing I figured out is why the dakka forums have such a small AoS selection of subforums but a huge selection of 40k subforums.

There's much better places out there to talk about AoS without being hounded by a bunch of screaming squirrels about why their rabid opinions should matter.

If you are trying to criticise hyperbolic language, using it is probably not the best choice.

Not criticizing the choice of language. Criticizing the way that it is very aggressive. I realize this means my own aggressive hyperbole is hypocritical, but idgafeth, the point is made: Dakka isn't the greatest place to talk about AoS because everyone has a superiority boner for 40k that's mostly unfounded.

 captain collius wrote:
In short .... Dude don't just say everything that comes into your head. This opinion wasn't a good one.

Wow, that was outright sad. Do you tell that to everyone you do not agree with?

drbored wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

drbored wrote:
Reading through this thread, nothing of value was learned.

Only thing I figured out is why the dakka forums have such a small AoS selection of subforums but a huge selection of 40k subforums.

There's much better places out there to talk about AoS without being hounded by a bunch of screaming squirrels about why their rabid opinions should matter.

If you are trying to criticise hyperbolic language, using it is probably not the best choice.

Not criticizing the choice of language. Criticizing the way that it is very aggressive. I realize this means my own aggressive hyperbole is hypocritical, but idgafeth, the point is made: Dakka isn't the greatest place to talk about AoS because everyone has a superiority boner for 40k that's mostly unfounded.

If it helps I mainly play 30k and AT lol.
I honestly do believe that AoS is the better rule set over 40k currently though.

40k to me is at the turning point that AoS reached after its first year.
It’s just about shaping up but still needs some major tweaks to get there.
The biggest of which I’d say is allies.
The loose allies matrix on 40k for me is what causes the constant issues and “broken” choices.
In AoS this is heavily limited and can cost you army wide abilities to do.
If they can restrict it in 40k a bit more I think the game will come together a lot more.

9th 40k could be a rulebook telling you to solve battles by grabbing sticks from your yard, hitting each other for the combat phase and throwing models at one another for shooting.

It would still be bought enmass and make millions.

As per the launch of AoS, GW realised brand loyalty only goes so far for products that aren't 40k. It's meant that in order to actually shift stock, they need to give at least a tiny bit more of a damn about their rules writing. This is presumably why AoS' rules writing has improved quite considerably in the past couple of years, unlike 40k which has quickly fallen down 7th's pit of bloat, sourcebooks and hilariously bad balance even by GW's standards. Of course AoS is still a joke of a ruleset compared to pretty much anything else out there on the market, but y'know.

One argument which was brought up was that 40k has more rules, but in terms of unique codexes/battletomes they are about equal, as many 40k codexes are duplicates like with loyalist/renegade knights. Also codexes and battletomes have about the same number of rules, so AoS is objectively better written as it has less errata.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also a shoutout for overread for writing an intelligent post about how shields are used.

I think it helps AoS that its rules have largely been quite similar since the start. If you compare the rules from now to the very start you can see a clear connection which you just can't comparing 40k now to how it was at the start. Or in 7th or 6th and so on.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
One argument which was brought up was that 40k has more rules, but in terms of unique codexes/battletomes they are about equal, as many 40k codexes are duplicates like with loyalist/renegade knights. Also codexes and battletomes have about the same number of rules, so AoS is objectively better written as it has less errata.

That's still subjective though, because deciding that amount of errata is a reasonable measure of how good a rule set is would be itself a subjective decision.

I dont think it is given by any means - you could easily have a terribly written game with no errata!

 Overread wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

Technically they have guidelines within the rules against excessive negative posting - basically trolling through heavy negative posting. There's certainly no rule against being critical.

Asides its mostly a rule that was a backlash against the early days of AoS when there was extreme anti-aos behaviour around the net. Granted much of it was warranted, however for those who enjoyed the game at launch and in the early days the TGA forums did aim to provide one spot where every single thread wasn't dominated by "I hate it its bad I hate it I hate GW I hate fans of it" etc...

eaither way it means the overly negitive posters who contribute nothing but hyperbolic complaints aren't there, I wish Dakkadakka was similer sometimes. it gets annoying to have every 40k post hijacked by the same 2 or 3 people making the same argument

Put them on ignore. Thats why the ignore feature is there.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made. It should be seen as an example of how not to write rules.

Only thing worse than its rules is its fluff. It is litteraly the worst fantasy setting Ive ever seen. Whfb was one of the best.

To get to main topic- I think AoS' advantage in writing is that it had a clear goal, and that is to be as quick and easy as possible. Which it does with minimum hiccups at core rules level. Then of course GW did festoon it with piles of special rules, but that's what GW does, they think special rules equal depth.

40k meanwhile, despite claims of "clean start" with 8th, is still marooned in nostalgic layer of blubber like S/T chart and the fact that some factions "have to" have certain things, even if they don't work or otherwise are messy rulewise. I think it's why they invested so heavily into making the 8th ed a game where command abilities and stratagems and whatnots matter so much, it's a very clumsy way to circumvene the need for things to stay "familiar" to please the hardcore fans.

Then of course is the lore, which...i mean, nothing can be worse than 40k so no point in discussing it.

Cronch wrote:
they think special rules equal depth.

I'm not sure that's quite what's going on.

GW need to sell books, and new models. To do that, they need to include fresh abilities with each release.

You see this over time with most games. The big issue here specifically for GW though is that they're still clinging onto books being a big part of their business model, while other companies are increasingly moving to free or at least living rule sets, and just paying for models.

 Stux wrote:

Cronch wrote:
they think special rules equal depth.

I'm not sure that's quite what's going on.

GW need to sell books, and new models. To do that, they need to include fresh abilities with each release.

You see this over time with most games. The big issue here specifically for GW though is that they're still clinging onto books being a big part of their business model, while other companies are increasingly moving to free or at least living rule sets, and just paying for models.

I completely agree on that last point.
I do honestly feel though their overall sales would go up if books were free.
It would have everything easier to update and tweak to start with.
There is also that temptation there for players of being able to see the rules for everything, so it raises the likelihood they will branch out into other armies.

They can/should provide the barebones free or cheap (like the old 3rd edition slim softbacks) and then have larger books for things like Vigilus, campaigns and the like, or big collector type fluff books. The people who want that can and will buy them, while the people more interested in the game and know the fluff (you can only read so many times about how the Emperor created 20 legions of space marines, 2 went missing and half turned traitor during the Heresy) will just get the "game" book.

Free/digital would of course be better, but this is GW. A slim and cheap paperback/black and white book with just game info would be good and give them some form of income from it rather than a free PDF. That said though I do really like how AOS has all the warscrolls for free, and the books add extras (albeit they are more like codexes now and you "need" them). 40k should have done that too.

I think they now know that any money invested in fluff books or campaign books that don't have the competitive rules in them are largely wasted.

There are indeed some people that would buy them, but AOS 2015-2016 showed us that no one cared about the realmgate books because there was nothing required in them to play.

Based on my gw store manager, in our entire region (so, four GW stores), there were a total of six people that bought any of the realmgate books. Prior to that in whfb they had released Sigmar's Blood (a campaign in 8th edition) and that book sat on shelves untouched as well. Tamurkhan was a luxury book from forgeworld with the chaos dwarf list that was mainly bought for the chaos dwarf list. Had it just been a campaign book, I have a strong feeling that like Sigmar's Blood and the other campaign type books released, it too would have largely been untouched. There was also the Lustria campaign book that had equal non-interest. No competitive rules requirement == very low demand.

They are still in the mindset that books are a great source of revenue, and they are right so long as the books contain the required rules to play the game. Otherwise, if and when they go the route of providing all rules for free like other companies... and if they decide to continue investing in things like campaign books and art and fluff books, they will likely be publish-on-demand due to the very low demand for them.

tneva82 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Same reason as why meltagun in 40k works differently depending who wields it.

Players wanted bespoke rules so enjoy, you got what you wanted


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

Did french shields do different effect than roman ones? Maybe one played out ave maria after being struct!

Are you saying that this https://www.medievalcollectibles.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SC8436.png

might serve a slightly different purpose to this? https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1f255eafe98dd93fc61dd225c5b08dcb.webp

Because it looks to me like those were designed for VERY different purposes...If you're telling me I have to fight one other guy, maybe from a horse, I'll take the smaller, more solid piece of meta, and if your'e telling me I get to stand with a hundred other lads side to side and my job is to make a big wall, I'll take the big square one the size of my whole body.

Except French knights also fought in formation against other formations. The reason why medieval shields were smaller was because armor was better. Eventually shields would be abandoned completely so knights can wield heavier weapons.

Also, Roman shields weren't made of metal, and neither were most medieval shields. Its only really bucklers that were made of metal.
The Romans weren't the only ones to use a shield wall either; it was a common tactic in the early medieval period, and scutums weren't used then.

And yet medieval shieldwall was completely different to roman line in tactics and weapon.

And of course early medieval armor was literally no different to earlier periods armor, except for helmet shapes, so that argument is silly.

Tbh the whole argument is silly, because why stop at shields? Every model with a sword should have the same damage/rend, since it's a sword, they all work the same.

 auticus wrote:
I think they now know that any money invested in fluff books or campaign books that don't have the competitive rules in them are largely wasted.

There are indeed some people that would buy them, but AOS 2015-2016 showed us that no one cared about the realmgate books because there was nothing required in them to play.

Based on my gw store manager, in our entire region (so, four GW stores), there were a total of six people that bought any of the realmgate books. Prior to that in whfb they had released Sigmar's Blood (a campaign in 8th edition) and that book sat on shelves untouched as well. Tamurkhan was a luxury book from forgeworld with the chaos dwarf list that was mainly bought for the chaos dwarf list. Had it just been a campaign book, I have a strong feeling that like Sigmar's Blood and the other campaign type books released, it too would have largely been untouched. There was also the Lustria campaign book that had equal non-interest. No competitive rules requirement == very low demand.

They are still in the mindset that books are a great source of revenue, and they are right so long as the books contain the required rules to play the game. Otherwise, if and when they go the route of providing all rules for free like other companies... and if they decide to continue investing in things like campaign books and art and fluff books, they will likely be publish-on-demand due to the very low demand for them.

I agree that fluff books don't sell very well. Certain fluff books might sell as collectibles at an increased markup(Horus Heresy book come to mind), but the average Warhammer player has zero interest in pure fluff books in my experience. I think it is worse for Age of Sigmar as the fluff is relatively new comparatively to 40k/30k and WHFB.

I mean, I think the people who are die hard fluff enthusiast are probably buying Black Library books more. I could be wrong though.

In regards to "superiority of writing" I do think that AoS does one thing better than 40k. 40k has a lot of bespoke stratagems: stratagems that are only usable on a single unit. In AoS these things are just command abilities that are on the datasheet itself, whereas in 40k these are stratagems mixed in with the other stratagems. Personally I feel bespoke abilities/stratagems should just be on the datasheet itself instead of as a stratagem card.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I think they now know that any money invested in fluff books or campaign books that don't have the competitive rules in them are largely wasted.

There are indeed some people that would buy them, but AOS 2015-2016 showed us that no one cared about the realmgate books because there was nothing required in them to play.

Based on my gw store manager, in our entire region (so, four GW stores), there were a total of six people that bought any of the realmgate books. Prior to that in whfb they had released Sigmar's Blood (a campaign in 8th edition) and that book sat on shelves untouched as well. Tamurkhan was a luxury book from forgeworld with the chaos dwarf list that was mainly bought for the chaos dwarf list. Had it just been a campaign book, I have a strong feeling that like Sigmar's Blood and the other campaign type books released, it too would have largely been untouched. There was also the Lustria campaign book that had equal non-interest. No competitive rules requirement == very low demand.

They are still in the mindset that books are a great source of revenue, and they are right so long as the books contain the required rules to play the game. Otherwise, if and when they go the route of providing all rules for free like other companies... and if they decide to continue investing in things like campaign books and art and fluff books, they will likely be publish-on-demand due to the very low demand for them.

I agree that fluff books don't sell very well. Certain fluff books might sell as collectibles at an increased markup(Horus Heresy book come to mind), but the average Warhammer player has zero interest in pure fluff books in my experience. I think it is worse for Age of Sigmar as the fluff is relatively new comparatively to 40k/30k and WHFB.

I mean, I think the people who are die hard fluff enthusiast are probably buying Black Library books more. I could be wrong though.

Actually it's the opposite, AOS fluff is outstripping whfb by miles. According to the BL writers Gav and Josh Reynolds only some of the times of legend books have earned back their money, AOS books have. The new Soul Wars book that came with 2nd edition AOS has reached Horus Heresy numbers in terms of book sales according to Josh Reynolds.

I largely agree with him that sometimes perception on the internet doesn't match the cold hard numbers, the books are one case of this. I do agree overall, players prefer smaller fluff books when it comes to GW main releases. Hence why you have seen GW downsize them somewhat for both AOS and 40k.

At the end of the day, I don't see the point comparing, just play what you enjoy.

I'm not talking novels here, I'm talking about the fluff/campaign books that they try to push in the game store. I don't see the point in them publishing fluff / campaign books, but I understand why they push the art and fluff in their army books and inflate the cost of the book. It makes them money but I believe thats mostly solely because of the rules within being required. When there are no rules that are *required* in a release, I find it tends to not move at all.

The novels are a different matter altogether. I have no point of reference or data to discuss those intelligently on how well they sell.

I was also referring to the campaign/fluff books. The novels are at its own beast and are often very popular with people who aren't even playing the games. Went to a lecture with Dan Abnett and he talked about how a large swathe of readers got into Horus Heresy novels and none of them had any particular interest in the game itself.

If youre saying the campaign books are flying off shelves, i must live in a black hole region then that is an exception to the rules.

 auticus wrote:
If youre saying the campaign books are flying off shelves, i must live in a black hole region then that is an exception to the rules.

From your other posts you do seem to be in a very "high competitive" region of AoS players who seem to be focused purely upon the most powerful power play possible within the AoS system. Whilst they are not exclusive groups, the highly competitive players can have less interest in the lore/background/fluff of the game. Which would also match somewhat to your harder time finding fluffy/lore/narrative style games.

I'd love to hear from some other people who have something solid to the contrary in regards to those books moving well (like actual stores that can't keep those books in stock or something similar)

What was the last campaign book to drop? I believe it was firestorm correct? I'm talking book with no actual real rules to play the game with.

They seem to have stopped going that route, and I believe there's a strong reason for that. If they were selling so well I'd expect to see those type of offerings be continued.

 auticus wrote:
If youre saying the campaign books are flying off shelves, i must live in a black hole region then that is an exception to the rules.

The novels are flying off the shelves. Not the campaign books. I was referring to campaign/fluff books when I was talking about a niche market whereas the novels(being their own beast) are actually selling quite well. The novels appeal to a much wider audience that is completely removed from the game itself. This is a luxury that the fluff/campaign books don't have as they are marketed usually at existing players.

Ah ok i misunderstood, gotcha. Yeah i can see the novels doing good.

Honestly I think after things like the HH series BL is advertising itself better. I know way back in the "golden era" a lot of the fiction just wasn't really marketed as heavily nor as well. I think that BL has also pushed into more general book stores as well and the authors are getting far more of a name and fanbase for themselves as well.

I hope BL keeps pubishing the collected Old World legends books - I can see them picking up in sales when the OW game comes out in a few years; and at the very least they'll have the digital versions which won't cost anything to keep on sale even if the paperbacks fall out of print. Plus I really like the collections as they do simpilfy the BL listings