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.

On paper I thought the rules looked clunky and random, very much like 8th and 6th-7th ed 40k.

I've barely tried them, but the intro game felt very much that way. Too much dice rolling, not enough decision making actually effecting the game.

With points I would be more interested in trying the game to see if the rules match my admittedly potentially wrong perception of them, but I still have no interest in the fluff and the models are still expensive so there is a big barrier of entry still. If I do go buy and paint up a small warband of dark elves then I'd certainly get down to my local GW when I have time to try it. If.

I think for the most part, the rules are fine as is or could do with some minor tweaking. I don't think there's a need for huge amendments or to go back to rank and flank. It's a different style of game, and people just need to learn to live with it, or play a different game.

What I'm hoping they add into the Matched Play document are some more advanced rules for particular aspects of the game. For the most part, the rules work out of the box, but I think a few things could be tweaked.

Summoning definitely needs to be house ruled in some form. Hopefully something along the lines of a summoning pool, or summoned units count towards your total army points.

I'm hoping that base-to-base measuring will just be put into the Matched Play document. Otherwise everyone will just house rule it anyway.

Cover I think is the other thing that needs to be addressed. I think my pet peeve with the system is that if you're in cover, you get a bonus, but if you're behind cover, you get none. Hopefully some kind of mechanism is introduced to make line of sight blocking more of a thing rather than "Hey, my guys can see the head of your wizard in the middle of all his followers, so we're going to snipe him down".

It's still a badly written turd of a game, but with points the biggest hurdle is overcome - I now don't need to waste ages trying to guess at balance and can get into the game, so it's now at least sort-of playable. At least with a pick-up game option I *could* now play it somewhere.

So it's getting there

I might even keep some mini's aside for a small Lizardman force for the occasional game.

I'm hoping against hoping that the matched play element is not only points but specific scenarios, a la PP's steamroller.

Because a number of the scenarios already published are great fun but would be ruined if forces were roughly on both sides.

It's convinced me to consider a Shadow Warriors warband, so that's a plus.

I never said that AoS wasn't a very simple and easy to learn, fast paced game, which makes it perfect to introduce the family kids to the wonders of wargaming. A balancing tool will help them understand the necessity of balancing in addition to fun, and will provide the groundworks for them to the expand to other games... under my direct supervision, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoperPG wrote:
I'm hoping against hoping that the matched play element is not only points but specific scenarios, a la PP's steamroller.

Because a number of the scenarios already published are great fun but would be ruined if forces were roughly on both sides.

I feel the same way. That's why I'll be crafting specific scenarios for the kids, mostly based out of Mordheim.

Points have nothing to do IMO with the core rules themselves. I'll just reiterate my thoughts on the game for the n-th time.

1. It is simple. Simple to learn, simple to start collecting. This is a big plus for people that want a simple past time hobby or a simple excuse to collect miniatures. Facing doesn't matter, directional assault doesn't exist - things that do matter are: are you behind terrain to get cover, are you in combat with the appropriate enemy for your unit.

2. It is random. Random like "roll dice and watch if some cool effect, with a lot of descriptive text, happens". Other games may handle random effects in two ways - either they give you an almost certain less powerful effect or quite improbable but more powerful effect. AoS gives you a 50-50 chance in far too many situations. When judged in the context of a game that tests the skill of the player it is worse than the above two options. For me that is perfectly ok because...

3. The game just presents you with an easy and not-that-much-engaging way to battle your stormcast hero against 5 bloodbound champions, or re-create a battle from the story of the world and see if it comes different than in the lore. I like it this way and that's why I like AoS alot and see nothing wrong with its rules.

For me, adding points will not change any of the above, but as Manchu has been rightly (IMO) saying in other threads, it may warp the perspective of new players and make them see AoS as something that it isn't and therefore cause unnecessary pain, anguish and self flaggelation. Again, that is in my humble opinion so don't get offended.

I liked AOS rules because they were simple. I got tired of having to spend a ton of my time in games with my nose in a book to see if I got something wrong.

The older I have gotten, the simpler I want my games.

I like Infinity a lot but I HATE how complicated the rules are.

Frostgrave is another game I like, and has relatively simple rules.

If I were ruler of the AOS world I would incorporate a little bit more granularity, such as facings and formations and the like, but other than that AOS was one of my preferred games.

With points being official, my region is moving towards competitive AOS at the expense of narrative, so I'm sitting out for the next couple of years to watch what happens.

Don't need complex. Complex doesn't equal fun or make a game more fun. Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit is really simple but fun and lots of variety and tactics. It's not complex and Age of Sigmar doesn't need to be complex either.

No, just no. Why restrictive? Want restrictive, just play 40K. All we are back to is only certain units/minis will be used and a lot of other minis will just sit on the shelf. Again, back to 40K. It will be same old same old. At least with AoS it's a new beginning and we are getting so much varied armies out there, we have no cookie cutter lists, and don't want to see cookie cutter lists. Why not just field what we want? What is so wrong with that? Restricting what ever, just takes freedom away from the player.

This is true, Complexity doesn't necessarily mean good. However, the point I was trying (and failing) to get across is that I feel the AOS rules set is not complex enough to create a fully immersive and tactical game at this level.

40K is no longer in any way restrictive, and is probably the most abused game out there right now.

The argument that certain mini's will never be used again holds no water because that is already the case with no points costs. In fact that problem is exacerbated by the fact the 1 goblin = 1 chaos lord because they are all priced the same i.e. nothing. You can look at a stat card and read the rules and clearly decide right off the bat that one thing is more powerful than another, and just spam those things and ignore completely the average soldier. With points, it recognizes that not all things are equal and forces you make a decision based on cost and remaining points allotment.

This follows into my next point about restrictions. Having mandatory core units is a good thing and forces you to take sub par units that you normally wouldn't. This will ensure that more units will be purchased off the shelf that would normally be ignored. The key here is to make core units points efficient and effective for their intended purpose.

Cookie cutter lists don't need to happen if points costs are done properly. A pipe dream perhaps, but the points system isn't the issue, it's implementation of the points cost that people can never seem to get right.

You can field what you want, you always could. It's called unbound or whatever. They full out said that there are 3 ways to play. I enjoy playing with all my models as much as the next person, but certainly not when it's a pick up game or tournament where a level playing field is everything. In order to create an effective competitive system, there needs to be restrictions or the game just spirals out of control like 40K.

We want the same thing out of the game I think. The problem is the free reign system does not make a balanced game, it makes it more susceptible to abuse and simultaneously pushes away a large portion of the gaming community.

If we consider that AOS was intended to replace Fantasy because it wasn't selling and the intent was that AOS would sell more and bring new players in. All polls conducted online that I have seen have shown that at best 2/3rds of the gaming population are unhappy with AOS, and at worst about 3/4ths are unhappy. Obviously these are online polls and don't necessarily represent the gaming community absolutely, but I would consider them to be at least a moderately accurate representation. Then in these cases AOS has failed to do what was required of it, and it's problems need to be addressed. The main one being points and competitive play.

I say this in a more humorous way than anything, but the points thing kind of reminds me of socialism.

It doesn't work perfectly because we just haven't done it right yet. It's not socialism that is the problem, but the people in charge. Nevermind the history, focus on the theory.

Let's hope Dan Heelan doesn't follow in Stalin's footsteps!

If the points system can follow the comp trend of receiving regular updates across the board with the lofty aim of better balance, AoS will suddenly become a golden age for points costs and meta lol

Who would have thought!?

Exciting time and I am over the moon about it.

 Bottle wrote:
Let's hope Dan Heelan doesn't follow in Stalin's footsteps!

If the points system can follow the comp trend of receiving regular updates across the board with the lofty aim of better balance, AoS will suddenly become a golden age for points costs and meta lol

Who would have thought!?

Exciting time and I am over the moon about it.

I'm very optimistic as well. Though I hope Dan and the rest can weather the storm. Everyone who already followed Heelanhammer and SCGT stuff seems very happy about this, and those who didn't really know about them are more wary. Before this announcement I was daydreaming about these guys getting a role in AoS's future. They are perfect and agree on all the sensible house rules, are fans of the base game, believe in the spirit of what AoS is about, aren't trying to turn the game into previous editions, etc.

Might be a reach here but it sounded like Wayne hinted at the narrative rules on Twitter. He's always been much more into that side of the game than tourney play. Frustrating week of anticipation for the joint Heelanhammer - Facehammer - Bad Dice podcast on all this coming out.

Yes, I cannot wait for the new podcasts too! Throwing out wild specualtion, but maybe Matt is involved in the narrative stuff too? After all he was a guest a few weeks ago - Dan and Wayne seemed to really like his approach, plus he has connections at Lenton already and lastly writes and publishes rules as his profession.

And he has been suspiciously quiet as of late ;-)

Matt?

 Bottle wrote:
If the points system can follow the comp trend of receiving regular updates across the board with the lofty aim of better balance, AoS will suddenly become a golden age for points costs and meta

I have been using the phrase "tacking on" to describe adding points to AoS but now I realize I ought to explain what I mean. In a design where the probabilities are mostly level, it is possible to find the relative incremental value of modifiers. So in a game like SBG, armor costs X no matter who wears it because it provides the same benefit to the wearer, whoever s/he is (i.e., all other things are equal). SBG is not perfectly rational, of course; Heroes have special rules that are all but impossible to cost because they don't consist of incremental modifiers. But Heroes with special rules make up a small portion of any list. By contrast, every AoS unit has special rules. Special rules are arguably what defines an AoS unit most of all, which means the defining characteristic of a unit is going to be costed more arbitrarily than not. Adjusting these arbitrary costs will not be very meaningful given the special rules in question are intentionally swingy. If you want an example of how this kind of points system "creates balance" you need look no farther than 40k from 4th to the present; that is, where points cost ceases to have any pretense of calculating the "worth" of the unit and becomes a separate stat in itself (such that X unit is good primarily because it is cheap or the designer/comp writer discourages use of Y unit by jacking up its cost). This sounds more like a mess than a golden age to me.

There are key differences between 40k and (hopefully) the AoS matched play (and I'm using SCGT as my frame of reference here).

1. 40k points values are static until the faction is revised - as the meta shifts stuff that was optimal for x points can become less so.

AoS points will be fluid and can be adjusted, tweaked and revised.

2. 40k points values are assigned as "what feels right". I think that is what the studio recently said at an open day in Lenton.

AoS points will be assigned by expert and seasoned tourney players and based upon tournament feedback.

The problem (as described in detail above) is that any points will be arbitrary even as relative to each other, which (1) frequency of revision does not impact and (2) "expertise" of reviser does not impact. And there's no reason to believe GW is going to leave revision up to any third-party with this game, as the points are coming from GW "in association with" (could mean anything) some TOs. If you want to see what a transparent/constant revision system looks like, check out our proposed rules subforum for 40k, as well as a good amount of YMDC.

I don't really care, Manchu. Sorry. A comp allows me to add list building and strategy to my games which is something I really enjoy. A good point system for me is one that allows for multiple strategies with no clear winner between them. The better the point system the larger amount of varied but all strategically strong builds it allows. That's why SCGT was a great comp - you can see the variety of lists that placed in the top 10. And that's why with further refinement it will be even better.

You're right that if the points are locked and never revised it will likely fall into many of the pitfalls of 40k. I hope that is not the case.

The rules were great before, the only issue aos had was balance. I never had many issues with balance using the wounds/keywords restriction, but points is a good step for tournament play.

This can only make a great game better. Now the only downside is the price

> official comp will only create and not solve problems
> I don't care

GW's response:

Haha, well it's more that I don't think you're right that the points values are 100% arbitrary and I don't think you're right that having someone with expertise assign them isn't going to create a better system. But at this point I don't really care for the debate which is largely why I left the last thread and came here to talk about my excitement with coldgaming who shares similar optimistic views as me (or has too accepted the darkside of the comp).

Sounds like you would just like to add list building to the fun you are already having with AoS, which is fair enough. I like list building, too, but as a kind of mini-game it really suffers when the larger game is truly unbalanceable because of core design decisions (including the decision to disregard balance).

Probably true, I have spoken quite a few times on these boards how I miss list building and the strategy that comes with it. I have also played lots of uncomped AoS and have often found the games tactically shallow because I don't know if my decisions (such a summoning new units) is a.) a good move, b,) breaking some sort of social contract and making me "that guy" or c.) simply tipping the game too far in my favour making it unwinnable (or close to) for my opponent.

I also see a comp/points as a convenient way of playing more tactically as a result.

As mentioned above - I think I find the strength of a comp to be the variety of builds it allows. The more the better. It's true that no comp allows for infinite builds - but then it loses the strategy of list building and tactics in-game as discussed above. I want a happy medium of all three.

At least AoS units are far less configurable than 40K units. There are usually only two or three basic options.

Although that is a bit of a downside if what you really want out of points is list building.

Yes, it could be seen as so when for example under SCGT there is no reason not to have a Battle Wizard riding a horse when it is the same pools cost regardless and the horse makes the wizard better with no drawbacks.

For people that want that granularity that's what PPC and SDK are good for.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At least AoS units are far less configurable than 40K units. There are usually only two or three basic options.

As an example here, Stormcast Liberators.
Once you take special abilities and buffs available just in-faction, there is no contest between arming them with swords or hammers - hammers win out, and this will be evident on a long enough time line.
But I haven't seen a comp system yet that displays that.
Let alone units that get to pick between range, damage and accuracy.

If an official comp brings more people in, fantastic. But I worry people will be expecting something amazing and being disappointed.

It sounds like degree of granularity is going to be one issue facing any official comp. If I have deduced GW's motivations correctly, they won't be interested in really drilling down.

 Bottle wrote:
Probably true, I have spoken quite a few times on these boards how I miss list building and the strategy that comes with it. I have also played lots of uncomped AoS and have often found the games tactically shallow because I don't know if my decisions (such a summoning new units) is a.) a good move, b,) breaking some sort of social contract and making me "that guy" or c.) simply tipping the game too far in my favour making it unwinnable (or close to) for my opponent.

I also see a comp/points as a convenient way of playing more tactically as a result.

As mentioned above - I think I find the strength of a comp to be the variety of builds it allows. The more the better. It's true that no comp allows for infinite builds - but then it loses the strategy of list building and tactics in-game as discussed above. I want a happy medium of all three.

Totally agree, your first bit sums up why I hated AoS until I found a comp I liked, and your second bit is why I've loved it so much since then.

RoperPG wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At least AoS units are far less configurable than 40K units. There are usually only two or three basic options.

As an example here, Stormcast Liberators.
Once you take special abilities and buffs available just in-faction, there is no contest between arming them with swords or hammers - hammers win out, and this will be evident on a long enough time line

While hammers do win out overall, it isn't that clear-cut because depending on one's army build and opponent the swords can be better, and in many situations there is no functional difference. I know my Slaanesh army that dishes out hit penalties prefers to see hammer-liberators on the other side of the board.

To the point the OP made, for me it's wait and see. I am a pick-up game player, and even with working hard to make it work AoS just doesn't really work as a game that can be played with a random stranger. Even with that I was still bringing armies to the local shop, but after a few months AoS died completely.

Maybe this will get it kick-started again, who knows. It seems like too little too late. Everyone that kept playing AoS already figured out how to manage the game, and seem to both not want points nor do they want the players who stopped playing to start again. (This venom is very clear from the guys GW hired to make the points, they said that points were a reward for the faithful who stayed, and the dirty tournament players can stay away.)

I know this is all new and we don't even have the rules yet, but it just seems to fracture the already fractured player base even further.

 Manchu wrote:
Although that is a bit of a downside if what you really want out of points is list building.

I'd agree with this if picking options for 40k units wasn't such a brain-dead exercise, where usually one of the four options is almost always taken.

 pox wrote:
To the point the OP made, for me it's wait and see. I am a pick-up game player, and even with working hard to make it work AoS just doesn't really work as a game that can be played with a random stranger.

I've had no problem playing AoS with random strangers. I've played with no points, with Path of Glory, and with points (SDK and PPC). Not everyone agrees to the house rules I prefer, but most people are open-minded on house rules.