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.

People keep saying that AoS has bad rules. Assertion is not an argument or and explanation, so I don't understand why they are so bad. I've seen a fair amount of game mechanics and I have a bit of statistical background, it looks fine to me.

I want to know about the rules, from a game design and/or statistical point of view.
Especially considering that AoS is meant (i.e. designed) to be a casual, for fun and not for competition ruleset.

I realise that there is no army balancing system, not the question, leave it alone.

Before we start with shooting into combat; no, "I don't think it's right" is not a games design argument.

I don't think they are terrible... they just need to be a bit refined. Such as a point system.

Other then that I love how its a very easy game to learn and play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkBlack wrote:


I realise that there is no army balancing system, not the question, leave it alone.

.

These are part of the rules so yes it is the question.

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

These are part of the rules so yes it is the question.

They aren't, which is kinda the point...

My gripes with the AoS rules; I understand the possible 'cinematic ideal' behind model to model measuring(as well as throwing a bone to people who just happen to have large amounts of miniatures on square bases..), but bases are far easier to utilise.
Similarly, line of sight. Don't need to go the whole 'bell jar' hog like Warmachine (although I think it's good), just a clarification that complete limb, torso or head must be visible.
Sudden death; they need a basic rule for the free rules, but going by wounds would have been far better.

Putting crew on the warmachine scroll. A 'separate' crew unit warscroll would have cleared up the 'one unit or two' issue, and been more entertaining, especially as it would then allow crew units to wander between warmachines.

 DarkBlack wrote:
People keep saying that AoS has bad rules. Assertion is not an argument or and explanation, so I don't understand why they are so bad. I've seen a fair amount of game mechanics and I have a bit of statistical background, it looks fine to me.

I want to know about the rules, from a game design and/or statistical point of view.
Especially considering that AoS is meant (i.e. designed) to be a casual, for fun and not for competition ruleset.

I realise that there is no army balancing system, not the question, leave it alone.

Before we start with shooting into combat; no, "I don't think it's right" is not a games design argument.

The only real problem I have with the game is the almost total lack of an army building mechanism. Assuming two players have balanced armies, the game is pretty straightforward, if a little simple. Most games generally devolve into 'run at each other while shooting and then fight while shooting". This isn't inherently bad, but makes the game a little boring after you've played for a bit. You really need to play with the optional battle plans to give the game variety. The rules themselves, as evidenced by the relative emptiness of the AoS rule forum, are pretty tight... once the game gets started.

I don't think it's fair to gloss over the army building mechanism as that's a huge, game breaking flaw for many people. It's such a fundamental design flaw that many people can't get past it and even consider the rest of the rules... which are generally decent.

There are a few issues. Summoning is, I think, one of the biggest. It's not clear whether a unit that has been destroyed and removed from play can be re-summoned. My reading is that you can only summon units from reserves (i.e. the units you brought but chose not to deploy) and when they're dead they're removed from play and can't be re-summoned. Allowing re-summoning vastly changes the power level of summoning and even further unbalances the game.

 Kriswall wrote:
The only real problem I have with the game is the almost total lack of an army building mechanism. Assuming two players have balanced armies, the game is pretty straightforward, if a little simple. Most games generally devolve into 'run at each other while shooting and then fight while shooting". This isn't inherently bad, but makes the game a little boring after you've played for a bit. You really need to play with the optional battle plans to give the game variety. The rules themselves, as evidenced by the relative emptiness of the AoS rule forum, are pretty tight... once the game gets started.

I don't think it's fair to gloss over the army building mechanism as that's a huge, game breaking flaw for many people. It's such a fundamental design flaw that many people can't get past it and even consider the rest of the rules... which are generally decent.

I understand the issue, a system to facilitate pick up games would be nice. The point is that this is obvious and I don't want this thread to be only about it.

That said, I think the design idea was that 2 people rock up with a bunch of models and go "here's what I brought" (leaving the player with a smaller collection to ask that this or that be left out if need be). The models brought are "the army" (paragraph one) you use to deploy, summon and reinforce from. This is actually in line with what the designers were supposedly aiming for, so a sound decision from that point of view.

I think a lot of people glaze over the first paragraph as a little introduction, but it's actually important.

@Kriswall I'm familiar with your view on summoning, I've quoted you several times.

I like them. They leave a lot open for strategy and thinking, especially when it comes to battle lines and formations.

-

Damn it seems I'm the only one who like the joke rules. Seriously I find them great haha.

Moving thread to Games Design forum.

The AoS ruleset is not bad it (mostly) it feels like a huge wasted potential, but overall it is not bad.

The game is not balanced and this is the biggest wasted potential they did, balance each purchasable box as "a warscrol" and market it as such, they instead went with unlimited numbers, the special rules are attached"thematically" on units without thinking long term consequences like for example the digging scarabs and the unit surviving sudden death victory.

The measurement should have been from the base.

but beyond these the game system is not bad and that makes it a wasted potential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haechi wrote:
Damn it seems I'm the only one who like the joke rules. Seriously I find them great haha.

The point is for the game to make you want to do such things without forcing you to do it, if it forces you to "act silly" and not inspiring you to do so yourself, then the game is far from entertaining.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The only real problem I have with the game is the almost total lack of an army building mechanism. Assuming two players have balanced armies, the game is pretty straightforward, if a little simple. Most games generally devolve into 'run at each other while shooting and then fight while shooting". This isn't inherently bad, but makes the game a little boring after you've played for a bit. You really need to play with the optional battle plans to give the game variety. The rules themselves, as evidenced by the relative emptiness of the AoS rule forum, are pretty tight... once the game gets started.

I don't think it's fair to gloss over the army building mechanism as that's a huge, game breaking flaw for many people. It's such a fundamental design flaw that many people can't get past it and even consider the rest of the rules... which are generally decent.

I understand the issue, a system to facilitate pick up games would be nice. The point is that this is obvious and I don't want this thread to be only about it.

That said, I think the design idea was that 2 people rock up with a bunch of models and go "here's what I brought" (leaving the player with a smaller collection to ask that this or that be left out if need be). The models brought are "the army" (paragraph one) you use to deploy, summon and reinforce from. This is actually in line with what the designers were supposedly aiming for, so a sound decision from that point of view.

I think a lot of people glaze over the first paragraph as a little introduction, but it's actually important.

@Kriswall I'm familiar with your view on summoning, I've quoted you several times.

Haha. In a good way, I hope?

@Kriswall: In agreement.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Especially considering that AoS is meant (i.e. designed) to be a casual, for fun and not for competition ruleset.

I realise that there is no army balancing system, not the question, leave it alone.

Before we start with shooting into combat; no, "I don't think it's right" is not a games design argument.

Sorry but I am not sure that this is a good way to start the discussion. If a rule is bad (or perceived as bad), is bad. If my son plays hide and seek with his friends, and changes the rules in the way he punches in the face the kids he discovers, I have to question him on that and he cannot answer "but dad, this is intended by design. Is my casual way to play hide and seek".

The thing you listed could not be a big deal for you, but for me they are. I find the system absolutely terrible. Amateurish. And those elements contribute significantly to its horribleness.

1) Lack of force organisation. No structure for the army. Not necessarily troops/elite/whatever, but at least a warbands/battlegroup system. Note that this is not only detrimental for hardcore players, but even for some kind of collector (like me) that can play rarely but wants a structure in the army he is building and "whatever" is not an answer.

2) Lack of balance mechanism like points. Wounds do not work. And "40/WFB with points were unbalanced too" is not an argument. Unless the topic is "how bad is GW in balancing games?". If one posts here, there is a good chance is an old gamer. I would probably easily balance a game of AoS but (1) I was not an expert when I started, and we have to think to younger people (2) why should I do GW's job?

3) Shoot in melee. It kills both strategy and realism/immersion. This is particularly remarkable because rules that are just mediocre sacrifice one for another. Here we are a rule that has the worst of both worlds. This is catastrophically bad. And hilarious.

4) Incoherence among the items. What a shield does in AoS again? Uh.. it.. depends? Weren't the rules supposed to be simple and intuitive?

5) Fixed rolls. A goblin has the same chance to hit a zombie or a swordmaster. This is another terrible blow to immersion. The AC and tables could have been improved but were good and had a simple formula easy to remember after 1 match. To that you can the add all the special rules for weapons and whatnot. But if you kill the immersion you kill the fun. other system have simpler (lotr) of more complicated rules (warmahordes) but the interaction between models is "saved". This is enough for me to not use the system, actually.

6) Sudden death makes no sense. Is a poorly, poorly thought rule. Power for model ratio a bit skewed? Disaster. Is the one that affects the enjoyment (or lack of thereof) the less, but is probably the most naively conceived.

7) The weird terrain table in 4 pages of rules is.. weird? What about rivers, rocks, lava, floating stuff.. An move through terrain?

8) All these years, and we still roll a D6 for running We remove the AC/Wound table, but introduce 40k horrible d6 run. OH MY GODS

9) Cover. See 8 in a way. All these years, and we add cover to the defence. WAKE ME UP

10) No initiative. This kills any nuance I could look for in different troops and creatures in such diverse multiverse. To add a different feel to them. And kills immersion again. See 5, in a way. CANNOT WAKE UP

I could go on but you see the point. Is a mess. No reward for tactics, no immersion, no coherence, no appropriate priorities for a 4 pages ruleset. Is a mess. I have not even the strength to go on about Summoning.

But the message to bring home is not "muh tournament rules". The system looks like a parody of a wargame, but the its most heinous crime is the killing of immersion, which is the nr 1 reason to play a fantasy game.

-

I agree with my esteemed colleague that it belongs here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Moving thread to Games Design forum.

Please note - this thread should stick as close as possible to discussion of mechanics. For example, complaining about the setting changes would be off-topic.

Thanks!

Actually it does belong here, dissecting a game and evaluating its components and how the whole works together is something we do here.

My problem with AoS is there’s little value in movement. You can get a kind of flanking bonus where you can overlap but it’s very minor. And with the activation rules it’s very hard to pull off local force superiority unless you’re opponent almost helps you make that happen.

There’s a lot of game mechanics in terms of buffs and combos, but that stuff should be an extra consideration layered on top of movement warfare, instead in AoS it’s the whole game. That’s not the kind of game I like, and I don’t think it really works or makes the most out of the strengths of miniature gaming.

There’s actually a lot of stuff I do like. The new stat line is really good, keeps everything that mattered from WHFB, but is much simpler and more direct. Replacing rigid formations with looser warbands works well for what should be smaller scale games. But without rules to encourage positioning and the like all the games I played ended up with these big messy brawls.

Kaiyanwang wrote:
10) No initiative. This kills any nuance I could look for in different troops and creatures in such diverse multiverse.

Except initiative ever meant anything. Consider a High Elf, initiative 6, even though he’s just a rank and file grunt he's so speedy that he can attack before an Orc hero. But then that Orc hero attacks, he’s so cumbersome he has to attack last… but suddenly he’s not cumbersome, he’s actually got more weapon skill than the High Elf, and is so fast he attacks three times in the same time the High Elf attacked once. So exactly what did initiative mean?

It was just a weird, junky stat first put in the game when Cool was differentiated from Leadership, that continued as a weird legacy bit.

I've got quite a lot of thoughts concerning AoS. My first one is about the combat mechanism of To Hit, To Wound, To Save.

There are two main advantages of this:

1. It's already familiar to GW players from previous games.
2. It causes the rolling of lots of dice, which many people enjoy.

Downsides:
There are a lot of DRMs and exceptions that argue against simplicity and ease of play.
It creates negligible differences between units. Consider a unit with To Hit 4+, To Wound 4+ (-1 Rend) To Save 5+, fighting a unit with To Hit 3+, To Wound 5+, To Save 4+. They look very different but actually they are identical in their ability to damage each other. What is the point?
It is time consuming and unsuitable for high model count games, though, if AoS is intended to be a large skirmish game with about 30 models per side, this isn't a major issue.

Suggested Change
I would have reduced the sequence to To Hit, To Save, with fewer exceptions, and the effect of Rending added into the To Hit factor.


Weapon Ranges
Melee weapons with range 1, 2, 3 are a way of introducing the effect of ranks into the game to accomodate spears and pikes. Just have ranks, and save on all the fiddly measuring from model to model's closest point.

The question is, from the perspective of a product, does it need to be familiar with the core GW crowd? it seems it was created to bring new blood in and it fails, in my eyes, in doing that.

 sebster wrote:


Except initiative ever meant anything. Consider a High Elf, initiative 6, even though he’s just a rank and file grunt he's so speedy that he can attack before an Orc hero. But then that Orc hero attacks, he’s so cumbersome he has to attack last… but suddenly he’s not cumbersome, he’s actually got more weapon skill than the High Elf, and is so fast he attacks three times in the same time the High Elf attacked once. So exactly what did initiative mean?

It was just a weird, junky stat first put in the game when Cool was differentiated from Leadership, that continued as a weird legacy bit.

Look, maybe I am attached to legacy as much as the designers I criticise, but the initiative in my eyes is a combination of coordination of the troops, ability to react, and.. initiative. This is why Elves have it high, while orcs and dwarves have it low. Number of attacks is more related to aggression. I do not see it related to how quickly are delivered. Not only ferociousness, but recklessness too (you keep going even if exposed, as a good hero/villain does). Moreover, in this fantasy game an hero/officer is often well trained and finds more chances in the melee for an opening (this is combined with his/her AC score).

One of the reasons the elf feels different from the temple guard is not only how often, and how hard strikes but when, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Weapon Ranges
Melee weapons with range 1, 2, 3 are a way of introducing the effect of ranks into the game to accomodate spears and pikes. Just have ranks, and save on all the fiddly measuring from model to model's closest point.

Measure could be clumsy (I am not a big fan of Reach in warmachine, albeit I appreciate the tactical implications) but one could use a mechanic similar to the support in lotr.
If you have range 1, you melee. With range 2, you can melee OR support a model in melee (like spears in lotr). Range 3 you can support a supporter, like pikes in lotr. In that way there is no measurement.

Initiative was reaction time (not speed), WS was overall skill in close combat, and attacks was ferocity / aggression / killing intent / number of arms / whatever. They are not the same.

The High Elf had incredible reactions, but compared to the orc wasn't as vicious and not that experienced in combat.

The Orc is a bit sluggish, due to his size and relatively slow reaction speed, but he's more experienced at fighting and attacks with the viciousness and bloodlust of a wild animal.

Its why Saurus had 2 attacks; because they were pretty much wild animals, and the extra attack on their basic soldiers was supposed to represent how ferocious they are compared to other races.
Since they were reptiles though they were a bit sluggish, so they had the lowest ini value in the game.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The question is, from the perspective of a product, does it need to be familiar with the core GW crowd? it seems it was created to bring new blood in and it fails, in my eyes, in doing that.

I considered that point, and I feel that GW reckon that most of the new players for AoS will be brought in by existing players of GW's other games. Having the same basic mechanisms in all the games is an advantage to the explainer, if it's actually more difficult for the new guy.

And this is where GW disappoint with AoS. When Wargames Research Group stopped development of Ancients 7th edition, and brought out De Bellis Antiquitatis, they junked nearly every aspect of the rules and built up everything from the beginning. Almost the only thing they kept was the unit base sizes, so people could easily use their old armies.

GW have done the opposite. In junking an old game, they've replaced it with something that in many ways is very similar to WHFB and 40K, and the only thing you have to change is your armies.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

3) Shoot in melee. It kills both strategy and realism/immersion. This is particularly remarkable because rules that are just mediocre sacrifice one for another. Here we are a rule that has the worst of both worlds. This is catastrophically bad. And hilarious.
9) Cover. See 8 in a way. All these years, and we add cover to the defence. WAKE ME UP
10) No initiative. This kills any nuance I could look for in different troops and creatures in such diverse multiverse. To add a different feel to them. And kills immersion again. See 5, in a way. CANNOT WAKE UP

I see a lot of people having a problem with AoS because of preconceived "sacred cows", that translates to "this is wrong because it's not like it was explained (and I envisioned it) when I started wargaming".

Initiative is just a way of making high damage low defense troops to be viable and to add flavour to how troops work, it does not add realism. Separate to hit, to wound and save rolls give plenty of flavour. The combination of these variables affect how effective troops are against other combinations of stats and how well buffs work on said unit.

At a scale where the exact weapons, position and line of sight matter, I don't see why shooting into combat is such a big deal, hitting a group of people, esp. when SOME of them are fighting another group of people is not that hard for a competent soldier, more so if they are fighting a monster. Yes you might hit your own troops, but I don't see it as enough of a risk to warrant the complication of simulating it. Friendly troops in another unit should block line of sight though. The field of soldiers fighting one on one all over a field that Hollywood loves is not a thing, men stayed in their unit (and out of the enemy unit) unless they were being run down.
From a game design point of view, shooting into combat usually allows too many attacks on a unit that cannot do anything about shooting (because of the combat) and allows free extra attacks to a shooting unit in combat. In a high damage low defense game like AoS the former does not matter and the latter is balanced by only shhooting once per game turn without I-go-u-go.

What is great about cover in AoS is that it is so simple, it is cumbersome to have extra rules for different types and then modify this or that opponent. Admittedly it is clearly a mechanic more than a simulation. I makes you harder to kill if you are in a defensive position though, which what it needs to do. Noting that AoS is a low defense system, it was probably done this was so that it has less of an impact (so camping units are easier to kill), negative modifiers to the opponent's to hit would have been a bigger deal and and only made sense for shooting (see point about how great simplicity is).

What seems to be lost on people is that is a free formation system (i.e. you choose where individual models are in relation to others in the unit) like AoS makes many rules to simulate the formation of units unnecessary. Geometry, not rules does that.
For example: AoS does not need a modifier for being flanked because the flanking unit can get so many more models in to attack a unit that can't respond very well.
Why does no one seem to optimize their formations? If you just shove your guys to the fight (probably in the middle) and hop it goes well then YOU, not the game, has no tactics.

For me, mechanically the only real issues are the model-to-model measurement, which simply doesn't work when a model's base can protrude further than the required measurement distance, and the Sudden Death implementation - in a game where a snotling is 'worth' as much as a greater daemon, granting bonuses solely for being outnumbered is just insane.



That and the fact that it's just another fantasy skirmish game in what has in recent years become a very crowded pool of similar style games. The shift from mass-battle WHFB to skirmish-scale AoS removed the one thing that actually made WHFB stand out from the crowd.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Suggested Change
I would have reduced the sequence to To Hit, To Save, with fewer exceptions, and the effect of Rending added into the To Hit factor.

Units that were very skilful should apply a modifier against to hit rolls against them, and tough units should apply a mod against to wound rolls. Not just rending, which is just continuing GW’s fixation with making sure armour is generally pretty useless.

It would have produced an interesting set of match up strategies where you’d want units with more accurate attacks to take on units with a modifier to the to hit roll, and troops with high strength attacks to target enemy units with a modifier to the toughness roll.

Melee weapons with range 1, 2, 3 are a way of introducing the effect of ranks into the game to accomodate spears and pikes. Just have ranks, and save on all the fiddly measuring from model to model's closest point.

Yeah, something along those lines would have given a clear mechanical difference to weapon types, and remove some of the messiness.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Initiative was reaction time (not speed), WS was overall skill in close combat, and attacks was ferocity / aggression / killing intent / number of arms / whatever. They are not the same.

But what is that actually representing? The High Elf strikes first because he’s ‘reacting’ first… and then just stands there while the Orc hero attacks three times. Once that’s done then the High Elf ‘reacts’ first again, before then going back to a passive state. It’s bizarre.

High elf throws the first punch, and if he doesn't kill the orc the orc attacks while the elf is preparing for the next strike.
Keep in mind that initiative can also refer to the capacity to quickly capitalise on a weak point.
It really isn't that hard to visualise.

Where it does get a bit weird when its simultaneous initiative. I guess the implication is they cross counter or something.

Kilkrazy +1

The basic combat mechanics need work to eliminate unnecessary time sinks in dice rolling. Rolling to hit, wound, armor is 3 random resolutions for 1 task. Rolling melee and casualty would streamline it while preserving each player's interaction. Things like better skill, speed, aggressiveness, etc. would factor into the melee role while strength, effectiveness of weaponry, armor would factor into the casualty roll. Breaking up combat into individual "swings" reeks of D&D holdover.

Likewise, shooting could be simplified to roll to hit and save. Ineffective fire (fail to wound) is covered by a miss.

Initiative should play a factor in when units activate. This would also require getting away from a straight IGOUGO structure.

 DarkBlack wrote:
People keep saying that AoS has bad rules.

Especially considering that AoS is meant (i.e. designed) to be a casual, for fun and not for competition ruleset.

I realise that there is no army balancing system, not the question, leave it alone.

The AoS core rules are a fine model of economy, and I have not much problem there.

The AoS unit rules and stats are a fething disaster. There are too many special rules that aren't well balanced, and too many variations for the sake of variation. For example, Monsters should all have 12 Wounds to start, no more, no less, with the same step increments as the monster degrades to its death, but that simply isn't the case. So it's massive, unnecessary complexity that is neither casual nor fun.

There are many people who like points. I am OK with them in or out.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
High elf throws the first punch, and if he doesn't kill the orc the orc attacks while the elf is preparing for the next strike.
Keep in mind that initiative can also refer to the capacity to quickly capitalise on a weak point.
It really isn't that hard to visualise.

It's easy to visualise, as long as we are willing to make whatever leaps necessary to justify it. But as a means of representing actual combat its total gibberish.

Just ask yourself if you've ever heard of a combat, either in the real world or in any fantasy series, that described one side having the advantage of attacking first, not because of weapons like spears, but because they had better 'reactions'. Then it described the other side making more attacks per model, because they were 'faster' despite their slower reactions. And after that happened, then the first side suddenly got their 'reaction' advantage back again.

Did I say the other side was faster? Number of attacks isn't speed.

You seem to conflating initiative with speed again. Initiative just means being able to throw the first blow and exploit gaps in defenses. That's why its called "initiative." Its about reaction time, not raw speed.

Have you really not seen any bit of fiction, where spear wielding or even ranged weapon wielding soldiers were cut down by a swordsman, because they didn't react fast enough?
Having a good weapon with reach helps, but it isn't an instant win.