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.

One thing I think people forget with Realm rules is allied wizards.

If you take realm rules and spells then allied mages become far more effective as they can now use the realm lore. Otherwise they get stuck without their native lore and without being able to take their allied faction lore - so they only have their warscroll abilities, the bog standard spells (arcane bolt, mystic shield) and their unbind.

Unless GW changes how allied wizards can take spell lores that gives one good reason to consider realm rules a bonus. I do agree though that they need some adjustment and that if the game takes realm things into the tournament scene then we might consider some kind of sideboard feature of say 100 points (since Endless spells are affected by realm selection); and/or being allowed to change equipped artifcats/items on heroes/leaders.

auticus wrote:
So in reviewing the game now and having seen or played in a few dozen games, some conclusions that I have come to.

* Our campaign starting up in September won't have any houserules. The changes in 2.0 are a good compromise, and include a lot of rules we had already houseruled the past three years.

* Listbuilding's importance is still very important. If you build a list that cannot summon a decent amount of free points or does not spam mortal wounds, and you are up against a list that does one or both of those things, the game is for the most part already finished before the first die is cast.

* The realm rules are pretty narrative and fun but really annoy competitive players with their random effects.

* Malign spells are a fun addition but only a scant few are regularly seen, indicating a balance issue with the spells. Additionally a lot of competitive players are calling for their removal at official major tournaments.

* The new terrain rules slim down the number of terrain warscrolls and brought back some semblance of intuitive rules, and break up the battlefield now.

Overall I give AOS a firm 6.5 / 10. There are some minor tweaks that I'd like to see, but overall the only real complaint that I personally have is that free summoning is now a cornerstone of listbuilding alongside spamming mortal wounds, and that perturbs me a little bit.

I'm curious why competitive players are against Endless Spells.

 EnTyme wrote:

auticus wrote:
So in reviewing the game now and having seen or played in a few dozen games, some conclusions that I have come to.

* Our campaign starting up in September won't have any houserules. The changes in 2.0 are a good compromise, and include a lot of rules we had already houseruled the past three years.

* Listbuilding's importance is still very important. If you build a list that cannot summon a decent amount of free points or does not spam mortal wounds, and you are up against a list that does one or both of those things, the game is for the most part already finished before the first die is cast.

* The realm rules are pretty narrative and fun but really annoy competitive players with their random effects.

* Malign spells are a fun addition but only a scant few are regularly seen, indicating a balance issue with the spells. Additionally a lot of competitive players are calling for their removal at official major tournaments.

* The new terrain rules slim down the number of terrain warscrolls and brought back some semblance of intuitive rules, and break up the battlefield now.

Overall I give AOS a firm 6.5 / 10. There are some minor tweaks that I'd like to see, but overall the only real complaint that I personally have is that free summoning is now a cornerstone of listbuilding alongside spamming mortal wounds, and that perturbs me a little bit.

I'm curious why competitive players are against Endless Spells.

I Haven't heard this at all, every comp list I've seen is taking advantage of endless spells (usually Cogs, I think?)

I can't really answer that as I'm more of a narrative player and love them.

My guess would be the less rules bloat in the tournaments the better.

Everyone around me loves at least cogs and the portal. They're also in favor of the realm rules for events. And with Nova and likely LVO running realm rules for their big AoS tournaments I think the realm/malign stuff is going to stick.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Everyone around me loves at least cogs and the portal. They're also in favor of the realm rules for events. And with Nova and likely LVO running realm rules for their big AoS tournaments I think the realm/malign stuff is going to stick.

Are they running realm rules or just realm artefacts?

Essentially in each round the mission tells you what round you're playing on. So army building you say the realm you're from and you can select artifacts. Then when you get to your first game you're playing in the fire realm and all mages know the fire spells. Then game two you in Shyish and all mages know the Shyish spells. Etc...

Plays really really well and gives a bump to those armies without their own lores.

auticus wrote:
* The realm rules are pretty narrative and fun but really annoy competitive players with their random effects.

* Malign spells are a fun addition but only a scant few are regularly seen, indicating a balance issue with the spells. Additionally a lot of competitive players are calling for their removal at official major tournaments.

Realm artifacts yes/no? Also first I've heard of removing the endless spells, their inclusion IMO does more to offer variety to those subfactions that don't have a spell lore than unnecessarily power up strong battletomes (said in light of the spell portal nerf).

Overall I give AOS a firm 6.5 / 10.

I was going to say maaaybe 7/10, however compared to other games I play, 6.5 feels generous enough. Fun and worth putting some time and money into, but not as rewarding or engaging as better balanced wargames, due in large part to a strong potential for asymmetrical match-ups stemming from widespread imbalances in list power, subfaction power (i.e. battletome yes/no?) and player mindset.

- Salvage

Realm artifacts I think can be fun but the problem I'm running into is now everyone wants to be from the realm of light. Which is contrary to narrative.

To get around this, a narrative I do set in a specific place will have specific forces that fit the story that are from specific locations, so the ones from the realm of light are the ones we know are legit from there. Stormcast, for example, in our Firestorm campaign are allowed to hail from Azyr or Aqshy for this campaign. Sigmar isn't pulling legions from Ghur or Shyish (and there are no mentions of them in the realm of light right now) to find an artifact in Aqshy when he has forces in Aqshy and Azyr that can be used.

6.5 / 7 is about fine. Its fun enough for me to dedicate resources to it now without needing a ton of houserules and scratches the skirmish level itch.

Still looking for that army-scale game and developing one but AOS is solid with a couple of deeper flaws in balance that can put a wet blanket over everything if playing with people that want something different out of the game.

But thats true of a lot of games.

auticus wrote:
So in reviewing the game now and having seen or played in a few dozen games, some conclusions that I have come to.

* Our campaign starting up in September won't have any houserules. The changes in 2.0 are a good compromise, and include a lot of rules we had already houseruled the past three years.

* Listbuilding's importance is still very important. If you build a list that cannot summon a decent amount of free points or does not spam mortal wounds, and you are up against a list that does one or both of those things, the game is for the most part already finished before the first die is cast.

* The realm rules are pretty narrative and fun but really annoy competitive players with their random effects.

* Malign spells are a fun addition but only a scant few are regularly seen, indicating a balance issue with the spells. Additionally a lot of competitive players are calling for their removal at official major tournaments.

* The new terrain rules slim down the number of terrain warscrolls and brought back some semblance of intuitive rules, and break up the battlefield now.

Overall I give AOS a firm 6.5 / 10. There are some minor tweaks that I'd like to see, but overall the only real complaint that I personally have is that free summoning is now a cornerstone of listbuilding alongside spamming mortal wounds, and that perturbs me a little bit.

I really appreciate your thoughts, agree on some points, minor disagree on others, but was wondering if you would mind giving us a few of your scores for other mini-wargames, just for context? What would you score some of your all-time favorites, versus most reviled games?

Sure thing!

Warhammer Fantasy 5th edition - 5/10 - fun, but very hero hammer based. Almost like playing D&D with some cheer leader units supporting. Disappointing for a game I got in to play with armies.
Warhammer Fantasy 6th edition - 9/10 - very balanced out of the gate. Maneuver mattered a lot. Fairly deep. Toward the end had balance issues with codex creep that drops the score to 7/10 but going off of the first three years this is one of my favorite systems.
Warhammer Fantasy 7th edition - 6/10 - very unbalanced, very static
Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition - 7/10 - brought some fun back, but the GW team messed up balance yet again and the stupid 6 dice for the win tactic plus the stupidity of unbound unit size hurt it

Hail Caesar - 8/10 - very detailed, feels like an army game, very solid. Quibbles with a couple minor things.

Kings of War - 6/10 - very solid system, but very bland as well. My lower score here is from a narrative player perspective. KOW is geared more toward competitive players I find, and if I was a competitive player I'd rank it an 8.

Warmachine Mark 1 - 7/10 - solid system. GGave GW some good competition back in the day. Some balance issues and the obvious takes of the day soiled it a bit for me plus the community's severe restriction on conversions.

Age of Sigmar 1.0 on release - 3/10 - no balance, no real support, no real direction. A garbage mess that I only stuck with and wrote a comp system for because of my financial investment in the system over the past twenty years with my models.

Age of Sigmar post GHB days - 4/10 - the points system was not balanced, and a lot of rules that I couldn't stand, lack of immersion, lack of intuition, played a lot to me like a CCG with pretty models.

Battletech - 7/10 - very fun - very customizable - dinged for its over complicated ruleset and difficulty to find rules.

Warhammer 40k 3rd & 4th edition - 6/10 - very simple in terms of gameplay. Solid narrative. Severe balance issues. Idiocy in some of their mechanics like the rhino rush. Would rank higher but watched a guard player get tabled in 1 turn at a tournament ... and he hadn't gone yet. (Blood Angels rhino rushed him)

Warhammer 40k 5th edition - 5/10 - tighter rules, attrocious balance. Got out of gaming for a bit because of this edition.

X Wing - 5/10 - easy rules. Combo based CCG style game with spaceship models. The other games based on the same engine were never played, which speaks volumes to me. Its main appeal was that it was star wars and it was space fighter battles and you don't need a ton of stuff.

Battlefleet gothic - 7/10 - clunky rules at times as it was based on a naval rules battle system that they ported into space. Had some fairly deep tactics provided you weren't playing against a cheese weasel that would break the game (as always with GW games balance was an issue)

Warmaster and Warmaster Ancients - 8/10 - solid rules, solid gameplay, deep tactics.

Epic - 6/10 - ok rules, the earlier version much deeper than their latest attempt. Balance issues abounded.

Frostgrave - 6/10 - ok rules, balance issues, some spells obviously better than others.

Dragon Rampant - 4/10 - too simple. Loses a lot of flavor and character in being too simple.

Advanced Squad Leader - 9/10 - very deep very complex, but very rewarding to master.

Lol... and our stormcast player built a 200+ shot a turn list. I'm glad for the new forest rule doubly so now lmao. Curious for the gencon results.

auticus wrote:
Lol... and our stormcast player built a 200+ shot a turn list. I'm glad for the new forest rule doubly so now lmao. Curious for the gencon results.

Suddenly it becomes clear why Ulgu exists.

 Marmatag wrote:

auticus wrote:
Lol... and our stormcast player built a 200+ shot a turn list. I'm glad for the new forest rule doubly so now lmao. Curious for the gencon results.

Suddenly it becomes clear why Ulgu exists.

I'm genuinely curious as to what the hell kind of a list is going to be 200+ shots a turn.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

auticus wrote:
Lol... and our stormcast player built a 200+ shot a turn list. I'm glad for the new forest rule doubly so now lmao. Curious for the gencon results.

Suddenly it becomes clear why Ulgu exists.

I'm genuinely curious as to what the hell kind of a list is going to be 200+ shots a turn.

Heldenhammer (command trait is to shoot or fight in the hero phase, FAQ'd to only be usable once per turn per unit), 12 Hurricane Crossbow Raptors (6 shots base, 9 if you don't move). Use the CA that's 208 shots a turn.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Heldenhammer (command trait is to shoot or fight in the hero phase, FAQ'd to only be usable once per turn per unit), 12 Hurricane Crossbow Raptors (6 shots base, 9 if you don't move). Use the CA that's 208 shots a turn.

And that trick is remarkably cheap. I daresay the greatest cost is having to run Anvils of the Heldenhammer, which don't look to have that amazing of mandatory traits / items / rules beyond the CA.

(Also here's me facepalming that there's a unit in this game that shoots 6 times per dude, let alone 9 )

- Salvage

 Boss Salvage wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Heldenhammer (command trait is to shoot or fight in the hero phase, FAQ'd to only be usable once per turn per unit), 12 Hurricane Crossbow Raptors (6 shots base, 9 if you don't move). Use the CA that's 208 shots a turn.

And that trick is remarkably cheap. I daresay the greatest cost is having to run Anvils of the Heldenhammer, which don't look to have that amazing of mandatory traits / items / rules beyond the CA.

(Also here's me facepalming that there's a unit in this game that shoots 6 times per dude, let alone 9 )

- Salvage

I've play tested running 2x units of 9 Raptors and using the CA on both for 324 shots as well. It gets more expensive when you move past one unit but it is a nasty build. Its also one of the reasons I like the forest changes - my opponent has the capacity to hide from it and possibly screen out a relictor translocate as well.

 Boss Salvage wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Heldenhammer (command trait is to shoot or fight in the hero phase, FAQ'd to only be usable once per turn per unit), 12 Hurricane Crossbow Raptors (6 shots base, 9 if you don't move). Use the CA that's 208 shots a turn.

And that trick is remarkably cheap. I daresay the greatest cost is having to run Anvils of the Heldenhammer, which don't look to have that amazing of mandatory traits / items / rules beyond the CA.

(Also here's me facepalming that there's a unit in this game that shoots 6 times per dude, let alone 9 )

- Salvage

Interesting.

I've been planning on running Anvils personally(I love the fluff of them being 'heroes of the world that was' and them 'mastering death as a weapon'), and holy hell that just makes a Vanguard Auxiliary Chamber(+1A for every missile weapon that is not on a Hero) like I was going to run that much more terrifying.
As silly as the trait may look, it makes it so that Gryph-Hounds and Aetherwings don't have to take Battleshock tests which is huge for them.

This is one of those things some of us were talking about earlier. That amount of attacks at range is a bit much imo.

By a bit much you mean absurd right lol

...yeah.

I know they need to be different from Judicators boltstorm crossbows but 9 shots each, becoming 18 by a command trait, is ridiculous.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This is one of those things some of us were talking about earlier. That amount of attacks at range is a bit much imo.

Ehhh...
Hurricane Crossbows are 4+/4+ at 18"(Raptor Primes are 3+/4+ with no option for an Aetherwing) with 1 damage and 0 Rend--subtracting 1 from Charge Rolls for enemy units within 12" of them.

Honestly, I'd be more scared of the shot output from Raptors with Longstrikes doing the setup Farseer suggested.

2 units of 9 means 36 shots, 2+/3+ at 24"(30" if they don't move) with a Rend of -2 and natural 6s to hit doing 2 MWs instead.

Bump it to 3 units of 6 to do a Vanguard Justicar Conclave and add their Aetherwings in, they get to reroll hit rolls of 1 if the target is within 18" of any Aetherwings--and you can bring a Vanguard Auxiliary Chamber to add an additional 18 shots to the mix, for a whopping 54 shots at 2+/3+ rerolling 1s to Hit and with natural 6s doing 2 Mortal Wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
...yeah.

I know they need to be different from Judicators boltstorm crossbows but 9 shots each, becoming 18 by a command trait, is ridiculous.

9 shots at 18", provided they didn't previously move, becoming 18 by giving you a Hero shooting phase.

It's a lot of shots that might do something or they might not. It's the same thing as the Reavers for Idoneth getting in 9".

This is the thing I kept getting at with the idea of "ranged dominance". Yes, it's a lot of shots. But it's also a hefty investment.

2 units of 9 Raptors is 840 points. And they're NOT Battleline.

Might sound nasty with that amount of shots but with the forest rules, Prismatic Palisade etc no pure shooting list is going to be winning tournaments any time soon.

Right but remember not every game is a tournament game. That kind of thing against casuals in a casual environment will poison the well.

 Mymearan wrote:
Might sound nasty with that amount of shots but with the forest rules, Prismatic Palisade etc no pure shooting list is going to be winning tournaments any time soon.

More than that, it's going to have a 50/50 shot of failing miserably thanks to the 4+/4+ and then add in the 0 Rend...

To a lot of people, the fact that it won't win any tournaments doesn't really matter. It's the fact that if I turned up for a random pick up game, and faced that, (or probably dozens of other builds), without expecting it, I would have zero chance of winning. Which would make for a very boring and unfun game.

To stat it out.

324 shots. 162 hits. 81 wounds.

6+ save = 67.5 wounds
5+ save = 54.3 wounds
4+ save = 40.5 wounds
3+ save = 26.7 wounds
2+ save = 13.5 wounds

So situational. Considering that this is about 1/4 of the army and thus 1/4 of the output, against a 2+ unit you're not doing much but you also get the rest of your army to contribute as well additionally.

Against most anything else you should be wiping out a unit at the very least if not more depending on target priority.

My blight kings at 4+ save (10 of them) are at 41 wounds and should be erased in one turn of shooting by this combo.

My chaffe is going to be erased in one turn as well.

A double turn... thats going to be a non-game.

But against those builds that are primarily 2+ and 3+, they may not care as much.

This is the same play experience as the kunnin rukk. Maybe not a big deal in tournaments, but a casual community wrecking ball and cold war instigator that gets everyone in your group to escalate builds into tournament level builds.

auticus wrote:
This is the same play experience as the kunnin rukk. Maybe not a big deal in tournaments, but a casual community wrecking ball and cold war instigator that gets everyone in your group to escalate builds into tournament level builds.

This right here is the problem. It's not that such a list is good in a tournament, it's that it's the sort of unfun trash list that's going to piss off the locals because it feels ridiculously OP (whether it is or isn't is not relevant). All it takes is for "Bob" to show up with such a list at a casual game night, and people are going to either get so frustrated that they dial back playing the game or start to look for power lists just to stand a fighting chance against it. Like you said, auticus, it absolutely "poisons the well". And there are a lot of lists like that; not good in a tournament, but obnoxious enough that they will kill off a casual community by virtue of being a one-trick pony gimmick list that nobody has fun playing against.

Those types of lists are often more unfun than the tournament killer lists. I've seen a few people who just can't stop wanting to build some "kewl awesome killer list" that, while it may not be a tournament-caliber or even "good" list is gimmicky enough that it will make people hate the game by how unfun it is.

Wayniac wrote:
it's that it's the sort of unfun trash list that's going to piss off the locals

In typical GeeDub fashion, I've found my local scene is all dudes wanting 2k (or whatever the next tournament level is) games of facehammer. I can get 1k games in with newbies or actual friends, but even then the dial is pretty much on 10 at all times, unless AOS is their first mini game and they're just using what their entry set came with. Our local 40k community actually has more intentionally middle of the power curve games going on then AOS does, which is admittedly unexpected, with how derpy AOS can be at times. To that end I'm retooling for 2k and a mostly-competent Tizz list, but since it's still all daemons it's inevitably a touch meh.

Whiiiiich is to say that I expect this level of wombo-combo from AOS builds, as much as I dislike it it's part of the game. Here's some additional love for forests / terrain doing something to inject some more tactics into AOS.

- Salvage

Wayniac wrote:

This right here is the problem. It's not that such a list is good in a tournament, it's that it's the sort of unfun trash list that's going to piss off the locals because it feels ridiculously OP (whether it is or isn't is not relevant). All it takes is for "Bob" to show up with such a list at a casual game night, and people are going to either get so frustrated that they dial back playing the game or start to look for power lists just to stand a fighting chance against it. Like you said, auticus, it absolutely "poisons the well". And there are a lot of lists like that; not good in a tournament, but obnoxious enough that they will kill off a casual community by virtue of being a one-trick pony gimmick list that nobody has fun playing against.

Those types of lists are often more unfun than the tournament killer lists. I've seen a few people who just can't stop wanting to build some "kewl awesome killer list" that, while it may not be a tournament-caliber or even "good" list is gimmicky enough that it will make people hate the game by how unfun it is.

The funny part is that in my experience those individuals are the ones who also won't shut up about how their army isn't "viable" in tournaments.

That said, while it can "poison the well"...if the player's not an ass it can also be an interesting draw. I've had experiences in Infinity where people despised a certain style of list, until I tell them we can swap armies and they see how it's not "easy mode" like they were just griping about.