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

Behold!

The first version of the PPC Comp has been released. It adresses how the PPC handles things in Age of Sigmar, such as summoning, measuring, shooting into melee and more.

Remember that this is a work in progress, so it's never a better time to voice your opinions on it than now!

Thanks for some well written input, a good start to this discussion indeed!

Haldir wrote:
I've been thinking about a tournament type packet. 3 rounds using the 3 standard deployments in the rule book. Each scenario has 12 points of objectives with a bonus point for killing the enemy general and another bonus point for a fully painted army.
I.E. first deployment (which is like dawn of war) -- 1 obj. In table center and 1 18" to the left and 1 18" to the right. -- each worth 2 pt.
2 more obj. Each one 12" behind the obj. In the center of the table. These would be worth 3 pts. each.

So everyone has a decent chance to at least accrue a few points each round , hopefully! This should make list building and maneuver pertinent to the overall game. Hopefully tactical decisions as well. Suggestions?

Forgot to mention deployment would be up to 12" on your table side.

That scenario could surely fit inside a comp pack, as its a pretty basic scoring one. We've always found it fun to have the closest objective worth less to your own side, and the enemy one worth more, maybe that's an idea for this scenario as well?
- Should we add classics such as slay the general for extra points? Any extras for killing off enemy units, or should this one be strictly objectives-based?
- I also think we need to point out that a unit retreating during its previous turn can not claim an objective.

Thanks lobbywatson and Haldir for your replies. A few more and we can start compile a list.

Here's another thought: would it be good or bad to have all ranged attacks have -1 on hit roll when shooting at single infantry-sized (non-monster, non-mounted) models? That would be an easy way of making the hero sniping abit harder. That and the possibility to be screened to get +1 save as well, of course.

Thank you all very much!

I just released the v0.1 version of the PPC comp document at our blog now. It was hard defining many of the aspects, since you all made very good points in many different directions. I've talked to the rest of the group here, and this is what we feel is a "bare minimum" change requirement for the PPC, as we strive to be as close to RAW as possible.

The rules changes of this document will take effect with army points cost lists v0.4.

Also, this is still very much a work in progress document, so its not too late to re-define things and add stuff. So fire away with all those creative minds of yours!

Haldir wrote:Did anybody see the points list on BOLS? I was checking the points , theirs seems higher? Any thoughts?

Didn't see any, would appreciate a link as its always interesting to see.

Not rolling for initiative makes the ranged units somewhat more reliable, as you can measure and advance where needed without the risk of having your opponent have two turns in a row. I fear the cost of ranged units might be slightly too high though, since they are calulated for being able to fire in melee. Going to be real fun hear what happens in your battle! If you have the oppurtunity to take some pictures it would be great as well!

My group has played some games recently using a slightly modified version of your scenario, and it was great fun! When the comp document 0.2 is released I will include it as one of the three "standard" PPC scenarios.

Cheers!

Besides adding three scenarios, I'll be changing the screening to provide cover instead of -1 to hit, as that feel more in line with the rules in general.

Shooting into melee will still be -1 to hit, though.

Thoughts on this?

Haldir wrote:
I like the cover save. The shooting into combat I'm open either way , not at all or a minus 1. Also does the minus 1 count for shooting through friendly units? Also true line of sight is important , that's why I put the 50% obscured. To be honest I think the minus 1 or not at all could both work. Might just come down to play testing.

Well, shooting through a friendly unit (other than members if your own unit) would count as screening for the target, i.e. the target has +1 save from being in cover. If you are firing inside a melee, into a melee, or out of melee, you get -1 to hit.

When we have playtested, it felt that ranged units didn't really do much dmg even by firing inside their melee, so maybe some of the ranged units are abit overcosted. We'll have to play more to be certain.

When was it you had your game? Eager to find out how it went

Read through the new rules for Stormcast Protectors...damn they will go well with our screening rules:

GW wrote:Subtract 1 from the hit rolls of enemy shooting attacks that target a unit of Protectors, or which must cross a unit of protectors to hit a model that lies beyond them

So, a unit behind a Protector unit will gain +1 save from being screened, as well as providing a -1 penalty to hit for the unit shooting at them. Good protection for wizards and the like! Pretty cool!

Released the first draft of the first official PPC scenario. Haldir, do you recognize it?

Find it on our blog, here!

Managed to post another scenario today, this time its a pretty standard kill points one with Slay the general and Linebreaker for some bonus victory points.

Tell me if you think we should change or tweak something. It is supposed to be around the same level of total victory points as the Capture scenario when playing around 2000 pts. This is only important in tournaments, for casual play any scenario will work with any total points.

Strange, it should be right there on the first page of the blog. Its not yet in the comp doc, I want to finish all three before I put them in there.

Please check again with this link

Haldir wrote:
Again I think the work you did on summoning was really good stuff. I'm thinking of using it for my next 40K event.

I think it could prove nice as well, the idea originally came to me from Andreas 2.0. I think we might need to tweak the points costs up and down until we reach a good value, but that can only be done from extensive playtesting.

v0.2 of the PPC Comp Pack is up, and has gotten a facelift too

Check it out at the blog!

True, that's how I envision it, but its not how I've written it.

But would it not be simpler and easier to talk about base sizes instead? A smaller based nodel can not screen a larger based one.

Hello, and welcome to the PPC, coruptcopy!

Thanks for all the valuable input, I will answer them right away:

coruptcopy wrote:
1-2 Heroes
0-2 Monsters
No Hero duplication
Maybe we just add in 0-2 Warmachines?
But that kind of system then really calls into question the battalion WarScrolls.
Secondly, if we are doing percentages, then how does that work with Battalion WarScrolls?
is there any reason not to include Wizards on that list or are all Wizards also Heroes in the game so far?

I also think using Warscrolls as limits, make it harder to differentiate between elite units and "core" units. If you limit by Warscrolls, you could take Nagash in a 1500pt game, for example. I want to like the Warscroll idea, since it feels so easy and intuitive, but I think it will need many other limitations as well, making it not worth it
For percentages and battalions, it's just as you thought - you pay for each unit individually and count towards the percentage limit.
As for wizards, I think that all single model Wizards (i.e. hero wizards) have the hero keyword. There are some units that can also cast spells, but as long as we set their cost properly I hope we don't have to make an extra limit on the amount of wizards you can bring.

cc wrote:I like dispelling from anywhere on the board, personally too, so that you don't just hide your Wizard in the back. The points cost does seem high. I'm wondering if the whole maintaining summoning thing someone else mentioned here might not be the way to go?
Second point on summoning, so far in our playtesting, we've learned that summoning CORE single wound guys is a waste since those wounds count towards you being tabled, so people are only going to summon multi-wound models.

I too am starting to believe we don't need as high cost as we have to our summoning spells, since you first need to succeed, and then an enemy can pretty much always try to unbind. Will think about this some more, and if it becomes a problem we might add the summoning maintenance you talk about. We try to add as few limitations as possible, though.
We don't play using tableing rules, so can't really comment on that - we use the old, tried and tested, victory points for wiping units in combination with objective grabbing. Check out the blog for the three scenarios we play competitively.

cc wrote:
Initially I was very concerned about shooting into/out of melee, but after a few playtest games, it became pretty clear that Ranged units locked in melee are in some serious trouble. As for shooting into Melee that they aren't involved in, it didn't seem nearly as overpowered as I thought. If you put in the plus one cover save thing, then I think this might be balanced. If you are shooting into melee, after all, with all the blades moving and such, there should be a higher chance of deflection, right? I feel like completely removing the ability to shoot into/out of melee will seriously nerf ranged units and again we should try to stay as true to the original rules as possible. I don't think this is as broken as we think it is. As others have pointed out, it's just new to us, so we are freaking out about it.

Agreed, at first my group said a big NO to any kind of shooting in melee. But then we tried it because we want to play as RAW as possible...and it didn't feel that bad in the end. At the moment, we give a penalty to the hit roll for firing into or out of melee. This is so we don't have to put even higher cost to ranged units, just because they might find themselves in melee.

cc wrote:
Since when retreating, unless if you have a special rule, you cannot shoot or charge that round, I don't feel this rule is broken and needs changed at all. Running from combat removes you from that combat that round, but your opponent can still shoot at you and/or charge you next round. Secondly, since movement+run is on average going to be MOVE+3 and MOVE plus Charge of the unit chasing you down is going to be that units MOVE+7 (2D6 roll to charge) they are pretty likely to just catch you again if you retreat, so once more, no need to nerf this, imo

Also agreed. We removed this entirely. Our main concerns were that you could very easily retreat from a combat and grab an objective - but we will solve this by just putting this info in the objective scenario description instead.

cc wrote:
I like cover saves of plus one, but I do NOT like Look Out Sir. The rule is just too easy to abuse. I'd cut it from 40k if I could. In fact, just not allowing Heroes/single model characters to join units seems to fix all the issues with characters in 40k. If I can't hide my super awesome Wizard in AoS in a huge unit of single wound models, then that Wizard has to protect himself. At the same time, screening seems to make sense to me. I would agree with later comments that it should likely be the 50% rule though. After all, a huge monster shouldn't get a cover save for hiding behind some Clan Rats. Haha!/b]

Agreed, not much to add

cc wrote:
[b]Agreed. Stacking the same buff/hex on the same unit is just OP. We shouldn't have large units that normally have a 5+ save running around with a 2+ because I took three wizards that are running behind them. That's just not cool. However, you should be able to cast the same spell multiple times in the same turn with different wizards. You just need different targets. So I can buff three units in my previous example, just not the same unit three separate times.
Unbinding is tough. I don't like the idea of hiding my Wizard in the back lines and having him summon in hordes of units with no repercussions. Perhaps we should drop the line of sight and the 18" and just have it be any other wizard on the board can try to unbind one spell per turn.
Secondly, have we considered any downside to casting? I haven't read through the entire rules comp pack yet, so correct me if you've done this, but what if rolling a double 1 when casting is a perils kind of like in 40k? This would at least make it so that there is some risk to your casting other than it might not go off. As is, I'm going to take a Great Unclean One every game and just summon in Hordes of Drones every turn because why not? Or just have him cast his heal friend/hurt enemy line spell every turn because there is no risk that he's going to get hurt. Maybe if you roll double 1's on a cast, the caster takes a mortal wound. Or maybe the caster loses that spell? Or maybe we make a D6 chart that you roll on if you roll double 1's. The wizard automatically suffers ONE Mortal Wound and then see chart:
1= Wizard explodes from arcane power: remove him from play.
2= Wizard's brain overloads: he forgets this spell and cannot cast it again this game.
3= Wizard randomly releases a Magic Missile at a unit within range instead of casting the spell.
4= A gust of magic wind blows: Wizard is moved D6" away from the targeted unit/area of the spell.
5= Wizard is stunned. He cannot attempt to cast/unbind a spell until after your next Hero Phase has ended.
6= Wizard sees the damage coming and can actually use his armor save to try to prevent the Wound.
Something like that? Thoughts?

So far we have allowed multiple stacking of spells and buffs, since it is the RAW. I personally don't like it, and I hope we will come to consensus that we should limit it to one buff of the same name on the same unit. As for unbinding, I would enjoy for it to work anywhere, and not just within 18". Such a short range will mean your wizard can just hang back 18" behind your unit and buff them almost automatically. Any way we choose to do can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing points costs, though
I'm not very fond of adding a table to AoS, but if we don't "unlimit" the dispel range, we might add a "perils of the warp" danger like you suggest with the double 1:s...pretty interesting idea!

cc wrote:
Love what you all are doing here. Keep up the good work. I'll try to get more playtesting in soon.

Glad to have you with us, cc!

Araknir wrote:
For dispelling, I think a nice "compromise" would be to keep the 18" range

I like this! If we are to put something in, I think this will be it.

krodarklorr wrote:
That being said, I play Tomb Kings and really love the summoning aspect of AoS.
Now, unless you're bringing Nagash/Arkhan, summoning is a wasted expense.

Thanks krodarklorr, it's very good to get feedback from players using the armies that summon stuff. I have begun feeling the same way when I look at the summoning costs we have. Not only do you need to cast the summon instead of for example a +1 armour save bonus on a good unit, but even if you succeed, your summoning can be dispelled. I think a decrease in summoning costs is in order, and will playtest and think about it some more. The issue is finding the right cost for it...but if it's too expensive now and too cheap in the next version, the third will possibly nail it

It makes perfect sense

Let's make a very inofficiell vote here to get how people feel about this:

A spell that summons 40p on a 5+, and can be dispelled from anywhere should cost what...0p, 20p, 40p, or 60p?

Think hard about it and please let me know your thoughts?

This is interesting, so far we have people wanting the summoning spels to be free, to cost a small amount of points, or to cost as much as possible! I will run some numbers on each spell before I change anything.

About screening, I believe base size is the way to go, where small bases cannot screen medium ones, and medium ones cannot screen large ones etc. It will be easy to write it into the rules as soon as a few more models have been re-released from GW. I'll add it for the comp pack v0.3.

I will also add a few warscrolls for regular terrain such as Woods, Hills etc for next version.

If anyone's interested in the next steps of the PPC, once v0.5 for every list is done:

PPC Coming Weeks

namiel wrote:limiting the size of the case

Thanks for the post, namiel...but not entirely sure I can fit it into the PPC

Haldir wrote:Looking forward to logging in some hours at my LGS

Haldir, please take some photos and post, it would be awesome!

NinthMusketeer wrote:One game even came down to my opponent's general (his last model in play) killing my general (GUO, my last model in play) and dying in the process, leaving both of us tabled on the 7th turn of the game.

Haha what an awesome sight!

NinthMusketeer wrote:
PPC has taken off with others at the FLGS too, who seem to be getting good results as well.

That's really cool! Be sure to point this way if they find anything they feel is odd!

NinthMusketeer wrote:
So thank you and great job Attilla, keep up the good work!

Thanks for the thanks, and thank you for contributing, mate!

thejughead wrote:I want to understand why Chaos sorcerers can only summon Death units and Chaos Lords have a crushing limiter to their ability. Why would I bother with a chaos lord only to give me a 10 man unit of marauders? According to your PPC units can daemons can summon 150 points worth of a unit with slightly better odds and possibility of dispel. This in my opinion is not balanced.

Good to have someone point out stuff with the WoC, now that it has become their turn to become v0.5!

The death unit is indeed a typo.

I will take a look at Chaos Lord again now that it has become WoC's turn to become v0.5, even though he does have a very tactically flexible Command Ability - recieving 40p of troops every other turn could be very vital in objective points based games! But when comparing the ability to any other summoning spell, you have to keep in mind that the others need to pay a large amount of points to even get the spell in the first place.
Once all lists are v0.5, I will turn my eyes towards summoning and tweak the points of all such spells. Depending on the result, the Chaos Lord will have his ability tweaked as well.

NinthMusketeer wrote:On a separate note, I've gotten a lot more games in with a number of different models and I am noticing that Ironguts still seem to be outperforming their points. The thing is, 6 Ironguts is much more likely to get all its attacks in melee than its equivalent of normal infantry; between less models and a 2" melee range they have no trouble putting out their average of 18 wounds (not counting saves), and since an individual model can take 3 wounds before the unit loses its attack power they tend to keep their edge a bit more than most units as they take damage. I think a slight increase of 3-5 ppm would do the trick.

Also been noticing Putrid Blightkings over-performing for similar reasons, but mainly because every 6 to hit becomes d6 automatic hits. If these were attacks rather than auto-hits it would be one thing, but as-is they are quite potent right out the gate and respond very well to any sort of buff/re-roll. I'd say again that 3-5 ppm more would be ideal (adjusting the base unit cost appropriately).

Funny you should mention that - I came to the exact same conclusion when I finished the Lizardmen yesterday and found out that the Kroxigor costs exactly as much as the Ironguts. I could not lower the cost of Kroxigor, which instead lead me to raise the Ironguts to 64 pts! So nice catch there

I will soon play WoC Nurgle myself, so I have looked at units such as the Blight Kings and to my own dismay I know they must raise in cost for this next update. As will the Stormcast Decimators/Retributors/Protectors once their turn arrives. I would very much appreciate if your group could take a look at the WoC after they turn v0.5 and see if the balance feels better.

Once v0.5 is done, and summoning costs tweaked, I will begin working on v0.6 which focuses on monsters. I will save your feedback on Giants until then

thejughead wrote:I'm sorry but I'm going to stick with simpler comp methods. This feels like trying to make AoS into eighth which it ain't.

No need to be sorry for that. In my opinion that is the beauty of AoS - there is a comp for everyone. Some want list building like in 8th, others prefer other ways. However, you could just as easily say that other comps try to make AoS into Warmahordes which it aint, or a third comp tries to make it into Wrath of Kings which it aint. That is as untrue as it is true depending on your view

I will take your comments on Warriors of Chaos into consideration, and I thank you for letting us know instead of just abandoning PPC before telling us - that way others will benefit from your findings!

Something I'm considering doing for the PPC, that you might be interested in:

Age of Sigmar PPC Unit Cards

Let me know if you think this could be a good idea.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'd be really interested, but only after the lists had been (relatively) finalized, otherwise the points value listed might change.

Yeah, before v0.8-v1.0 somewhere it just wouldn't be any ... point ...in doing this project

Thanks Smellingsalts, always nice to hear the work we do is appreciated

I think that as soon as the current lists have become stable enough, it will be very easy to keep up with future releases as well. All new Stormcast that has been released will be added for the v0.6 release in a few days. and any released after that will swiftly be added in semi-updates (v0.6b,c,d etc).

Hey all! Been some days since I've written here now. Since then, Dwarfs and Stormcast have become v0.6 and can be found here.

GuitaRasmus wrote:Hi Attilla - and great to see that you're still at it! Very much appreciating the work you're putting into this system, we've had some great and nicely balanced games using it - I hope you've been able to use some of Andreas 2.0 and my ideas?

Anyway, been trying a few games with the Chaos 0.5;

As much as it pains me, the cost of blight kings (of which I use 2 x 5 man units) seems more reasonable set at 200 points - they were too good for their cost before.

Still unsure about the giant - it IS good, but it has a VERY random damage output, and several other random effects (like falling on doubles) - I think it is about right at the moment. Compared to the blight kings (at the same cost), it has fewer attacks, fewer wounds, worse save and is more unreliable.

However; I think the chaos trolls are overcosted, compared to the O&G variants - they all roll a D6 pr. model, and heal d3 wounds pr. model on 2+. The chaos variants roll a d6 pr. unit and heals d3 wounds pr. unit. The mutation rule does not make up for this disadvantage, seeing as it's effectively only a 50% chance for each troll of having an additional attack. The Stone Trolls are costed at 175 pt, the rivers and regulars at 190 - I think the chaos trolls are more reasonably priced at Stone Troll level or a bit lower - they're much less survivable.

Hi GuitaRasmus! Thanks, and I've sure had some very good use out of your ideas - cheers for that!

I got my own Blight Kings for my Nurgle army just days before I made the update, so it sure pains me as well...but yeah they are very good and 40p seems better.

The Giant will stay at 200p for at least awhile longer, as it's not certain if it should go up or down...it then would seem it's pretty solid at where it is. We would need more reports on units such as the giant to change it now.

The Chaos Trolls, as NinthM says, doesn't really benefit from the strange wordings with their heal since you assign wounds to only one model until it dies. Its damage output is greater than a Orc & Goblins Troll, but it is not that great to even out the abilities of Trolls or River Trolls. I think a small change towards Stone Trolls is indeed in order for that reason. I will put them at 180p/60p for now.

Solaris wrote:I was thinking whether it would be beneficial or not to assign a points cost to the general of an army. That way, different command abilities could be priced for, without affecting the basic price of the character. I think this could go a long way in helping balancing characters.

NinthMusketeer wrote:upgrade this hero with X command ability for Y points

It's very interesting you bring this up, as this is something I've been thinking hard about on my walks home from work the past two weeks. I've yet to discuss it with my group, as I'm still on the fence about it. On one hand, it could be a good choice to have the Command Ability as a purchasable upgrade. That way you can pick and choose which ones you want or not. If you play someone like Archaon, you could use them all, but otherwise you would only pay for the one you can actually use. On the other hand, it does add another layer of complexity to the point cost lists. I'm not sure if it's worth it, but would love to have it discussed further.

Smellingsalts wrote:
I would urge that if you make a rule that allows you to buy Command Abilities individually, that you divorce it entirely from the army points cost page and keep it in your rules modifications. The reason is that while I really like your points cost system , I do not like some of your rules changes. For instance, while not firing into a combat and getting negative mods for firing into combat seems reasonable to people who were used to the conventions of other mini games, you can make an argument that firing into combat is perfectly reasonable (Legolas in the LOTR movies, Hawkeye in the Avengers, etc). I would just like to use the points system and my own rules mods. Thanks!

It would be even better if you point out which rules are off in your opinion and why - maybe we can change or remove them then. Like for instance, the -1 to hit into combat, do you think the points are balanced even without that rule? If there's enough that believe that they are, there's no point in keeping that rule at all in the PPC. It's really up to the community, and the community is us all Feel very free to speak your mind in this place, we are all in it to improve the game, not to make unneccessary limits to it.

Smellingsalts wrote:
Thanks for the encouragement Attilla. Actually there are only 3 sections I don't use from the Comp. Full disclosure, I own a game store, so most of my issues are geared towards growing the community.The first is the Allies rule. Allowing allies grows the community. I remember when Apocalypse came out for 40K. Most of the entrenched community did not like that you could use any models in your collection, but the community grew. Then 6th edition 40K hit, and it allowed unbound armies. Again people grumbled, and again the community grew. AOS has an unfolding story in which Sigmar is actively seeking out allies. I think the only 2 sides that shouldn't be in the same army are Order and Chaos. The other two rules are Shooting into melee and Screening modifiers. This is purely a game balance decision. I used to play Dark Elves and Wood Elves in 8th Edition WFB. Shooting in AOS is nowhere near what it once was. I know that there are some exceptions, and I guess if you just set up across from one another and run at each other then the shooting army could be effective. But if you play the scenarios from the book, there are so many ways to get to a shooting line. Simply going through a Baleful Gate can get you there. Also, if you allow Allies, the traditional non-shooting armies can match arrow fire with opponents. I am currently playing a Chaos army. The current synergy that I can create lets me charge or run an extra 4 inches (Bloodstoker+musician), re-roll failed charges (General ability), and the Chaos Lord can Pile in 6 inches (mark of Khorne). So I can literally charge at the latest turn 2 most gun lines. Once missile troops are engaged, they really suck. In the old days, Dwarf gun lines would take you apart. now they can't stand and fire. In the old days, when I got to the dwarf gun line, they pulled out axe and shield or two handed weapons and went mano a mano. Now they try to hit me with the butts of their guns (needing 5+). I think if you add the modifiers you then have to decrease the cost of missile troops. At that point you are juggling game mechanics and really for little gain. Anyway, that's my opinion.

I think that as the homebrew comps, including the PPC, didn't fully know what to expect from the game, we put many limitations "just in case" it would break the game, or because it felt like the way it *should* be. Shooting and allies are two of these limitations, along with screening/look-out-sir.

I will talk it over with the rest of the PPC group tomorrow when we meet, and since it seems to be the desire here, we will probably remove the -1 to hit in melee from the PPC comp and balance ranged options if need be from reports.

For allies, the AoS way is to include any allies for any army. That...just don't sit well with us. If we are to remove this limitation from the comp, we need to discuss if it should be removed completely, or as NinthMusketeer pointed out, on a % and faction basis. For example, should Order be ably to ally with Chaos? Do you need one hero from the allied faction, as this is a minimum PPC requirement when you purchase your main force. Should there be a maximum % on how many points you can place in allies?