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.

Follow these simple guidelines for a better game.
1. Just set a wound limit. 2d6 x 10 wounds. Opponent gets a chance at reroll. (X20 if you want a bigger game)
2. Limit 10+ wound model to 1 per 50 wounds in your army.
3. For formal games allow a army "pool" of some greater amount. This includes spawning units. Eg. 150 wounds with 2d6x10 game size.
4. Have fun.

The only glaring omission seems to be lack of missions...but that wont last long.

Update: 2d6x10 with an overall cap seems to allow for the "intent" of the game which is strategic deployment while the upper wound limit keep nagash and daemons in check for summoning. Also allows non summoning armies (or low model count armies) to have some flexability.

Also feigned rage is sooo 6th ed 40k guys. This is a fun set of rules imo.

Okay. So the points of an army list is given by the number of wounds?

Until a better way to play is thought of this seems to work the best for a fun game...

Setting some sort of FoC that limits how many of what types of scrolls can be used. 1 Hero, 1 rare, etc

I like the idea of limiting by wounds.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Okay. So the points of an army list is given by the number of wounds?

...just play how you want, don't force yourself to follow some arbitrary Ws comp rule.

Follow the Sudden Death rules if/as necessary.

Seriously people, this isn't difficult. I never realized tabletop gamers required such structure and direction. I thought they wanted some freedom??

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Okay. So the points of an army list is given by the number of wounds?

...just play how you want, don't force yourself to follow some arbitrary Ws comp rule.

Follow the Sudden Death rules if/as necessary.

Seriously people, this isn't difficult. I never realized tabletop gamers required such structure and direction. I thought they wanted some freedom??

Full disclosure: i'm a BIG WHFB fan, and a moderate GW fan (i have 3 large WHFB armies, and a large tau and sizeable Ad Mech armies). I also did game design work for Privateer as an Infernal several years ago. I say this only to illustrate i'm not a GW hater, and i've worked in the field professionally (as in ; compensated, my name is in majorly published book credits ; several of them), the latter being something most people can't say.



The rules are a mess dude. The sudden death rules make no distinction between being outnumbered 1:3 or 1:157. Zero. If you have 3 skinks vs. my 27 dragons, sure you can pick a dragon and if you kill it you win, or you can run for 6 turns. Sudden death has a static threshold but no scale. As there's no "weight" to army composition, and there's no delimiters, there can quickly be lopsided things going on. Sudden death is a half-assed measure to try to stop the worst of it, but it doesn't go far enough unfortunately.

Also, it doesn't take into account that there is no weight to any of the scrolls at all ; Archaon (who is bs good) is as evenly weighted as a unit of skaven slaves. If those skaven slaves 3:1 him in wounds, he can sudden death choose "eradicate these donkey-caves", and he's going to win barring all but the most horrid die rolling.


I get what they are trying to accomplish with the game, and if they tweaked about 20 things, there's a fun beer and pretzel game under the surface, but right now, day one of the drop, there's a lot of issues. A lot.

The game needs an FAQ or its playable, but ridiculous, in current format. My group has had hands on the rules since the leak, and we already have about a half dozen house rules.

 Haight wrote:

Full disclosure: i'm a BIG WHFB fan, and a moderate GW fan (i have 3 large WHFB armies, and a large tau and sizeable Ad Mech armies). I also did game design work for Privateer as an Infernal several years ago. I say this only to illustrate i'm not a GW hater, and i've worked in the field professionally (as in ; compensated, my name is in majorly published book credits ; several of them), the latter being something most people can't say.

See that's the thing for me - I've been quite a GW cynic for a couple years now. But I actually appreciate AoS.

 Haight wrote:

The rules are a mess dude. The sudden death rules make no distinction between being outnumbered 1:3 or 1:157. Zero. If you have 3 skinks vs. my 27 dragons, sure you can pick a dragon and if you kill it you win, or you can run for 6 turns. Sudden death has a static threshold but no scale. As there's no "weight" to army composition, and there's no delimiters, there can quickly be lopsided things going on. Sudden death is a half-assed measure to try to stop the worst of it, but it doesn't go far enough unfortunately.

Also, it doesn't take into account that there is no weight to any of the scrolls at all ; Archaon (who is bs good) is as evenly weighted as a unit of skaven slaves. If those skaven slaves 3:1 him in wounds, he can sudden death choose "eradicate these donkey-caves", and he's going to win barring all but the most horrid die rolling.

Again, I think you're missing the point. You and your opponent (hopefully a friend who is on the same page as you) decide what is fair and balanced. No more complaining about what unit or character is what points. No more forcing yourself to fit something under 2.5k pts. PLAY WHAT YOU WANT. Obviously you and your friend/opponent will probably discuss what is fair, but now you have freedom to field what you want. You really think your opponent would expect you to play outnumbered 10 to 1570?

 Haight wrote:

I get what they are trying to accomplish with the game, and if they tweaked about 20 things, there's a fun beer and pretzel game under the surface, but right now, day one of the drop, there's a lot of issues. A lot.

The game needs an FAQ or its playable, but ridiculous, in current format. My group has had hands on the rules since the leak, and we already have about a half dozen house rules.

Well, I guess you're just that type of gamer. This game clearly isn't for you, then. There's nothing wrong w/ that. But I don't feel GW deserves criticism for designing a game designed for easy, fun battles for kids to play. And I'm not being sarcastic. And again, I am a GW cynic.

I appreciate the fact that AoS is for kids, but really, it would not be hard for GW to create some balance, even if it's not the main part of the game. This would allow more experienced wargamers to play fair games. Sure, you can agree with your opponent on what you think is fair, but the likelihood is that, after a few turns, it will become apparent that it was not fair at which point the game is not fun for both parties. I can't look at an army on the tabletop that I don't play and estimate how many points it will be, and nor will AoS players fairly be able to do the same.

You see, I want to play Age of Sigmar and try and enjoy it, but I just can't get over how ridiculous the lack of points is. I don't care about the dumbed-down rules, the lack of a clear balancing mechanic is just downright ludicrous. It's not that I'm against playing a friend and dumping our entire collection on the table, but I'd like to tweak it so our collections are roughly the same power level, or know that my opponent's collection is X points less than mine and grant him some bonuses as a result. As it happens, I can't, and the game isn't fair. I'm happy to play a casual game, but I don't want to play an unbalanced game of AoS no more than I'd want to play 3k of old fantasy against my opponent's 2k.

If scrolls had some sort of numerical "points" value, even if it didn't come into army selection, people who want fair games could at least have them. Now however the community has to work to create balanced house rules for people, something it shouldn't have to do.

 The Shadow wrote:
. I can't look at an army on the tabletop that I don't play and estimate how many points it will be, and nor will AoS players fairly be able to do the same.

I think general rule of thumb is model and/or base size.

Large single model on a large base, it's probably in the 150~250pt range. A single small human or goblin? Probably in the 5~10pt range. A more exaggerated small model? Probably in the 10~15pt range. Cavalry? 30~50pt range depending on base size. An obvious heroic type model would probably be in the 100~200pt range as well, etc etc.

If I see my opponent fielding Karl Franz, 10 Greatswords, 10 Pistoliers, and 8 DGKs (and assuming he shares their Warscrolls so I can see how ridiculous Franz is lol), I know it'd be around fair/balanced if I fielded a Thane BSB, 20 Dwarf Warriors, 10 Ironbreakers, 4 Gyrocopters, and 2 WMs... And he wouldn't even be eligible to try Sudden Death on me.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 Haight wrote:

Full disclosure: i'm a BIG WHFB fan, and a moderate GW fan (i have 3 large WHFB armies, and a large tau and sizeable Ad Mech armies). I also did game design work for Privateer as an Infernal several years ago. I say this only to illustrate i'm not a GW hater, and i've worked in the field professionally (as in ; compensated, my name is in majorly published book credits ; several of them), the latter being something most people can't say.

See that's the thing for me - I've been quite a GW cynic for a couple years now. But I actually appreciate AoS.

 Haight wrote:

The rules are a mess dude. The sudden death rules make no distinction between being outnumbered 1:3 or 1:157. Zero. If you have 3 skinks vs. my 27 dragons, sure you can pick a dragon and if you kill it you win, or you can run for 6 turns. Sudden death has a static threshold but no scale. As there's no "weight" to army composition, and there's no delimiters, there can quickly be lopsided things going on. Sudden death is a half-assed measure to try to stop the worst of it, but it doesn't go far enough unfortunately.

Also, it doesn't take into account that there is no weight to any of the scrolls at all ; Archaon (who is bs good) is as evenly weighted as a unit of skaven slaves. If those skaven slaves 3:1 him in wounds, he can sudden death choose "eradicate these donkey-caves", and he's going to win barring all but the most horrid die rolling.

Again, I think you're missing the point. You and your opponent (hopefully a friend who is on the same page as you) decide what is fair and balanced. No more complaining about what unit or character is what points. No more forcing yourself to fit something under 2.5k pts. PLAY WHAT YOU WANT. Obviously you and your friend/opponent will probably discuss what is fair, but now you have freedom to field what you want. You really think your opponent would expect you to play outnumbered 10 to 1570?

 Haight wrote:

I get what they are trying to accomplish with the game, and if they tweaked about 20 things, there's a fun beer and pretzel game under the surface, but right now, day one of the drop, there's a lot of issues. A lot.

The game needs an FAQ or its playable, but ridiculous, in current format. My group has had hands on the rules since the leak, and we already have about a half dozen house rules.

Well, I guess you're just that type of gamer. This game clearly isn't for you, then. There's nothing wrong w/ that. But I don't feel GW deserves criticism for designing a game designed for easy, fun battles for kids to play. And I'm not being sarcastic. And again, I am a GW cynic.

All fair points, but i'll counter with a fair point of my own: if i play a mass marketed game, particularly minis, i should be able to drive to the next state over, and be able to play that game without having a meeting to hash out who's version of the home brew rules unfuckery we're going to use to play.


Bad game design is bad game design. Saying it's "simple and easy" does not shield them from having rules that are a complete hot mess.

 sfshilo wrote:
Follow these simple guidelines for a better game.
1. Just set a wound limit. 100 wounds seems about right for most games.
2. Limit 10+ wound model to 1 per 50 wounds in your army.
3. Have fun.

The only glaring omission seems to be lack of missions...but that wont last long.

To bad Multi Wound models lose wounds just as easy as everything else.

IMO Just have war scroll limitations (10 Scrolls) and Limit Wizards, take units as Base size, or Dbl size (if your opponent puts a Dbl size unit down, you can too etc..)

I rather have a 30man unit over a Bloodthirster, the ONLY good thing about Single man units is I can lose my it in battleshock.

 Haight wrote:

Also, it doesn't take into account that there is no weight to any of the scrolls at all ; Archaon (who is bs good) is as evenly weighted as a unit of skaven slaves. If those skaven slaves 3:1 him in wounds, he can sudden death choose "eradicate these donkey-caves", and he's going to win barring all but the most horrid die rolling.

24 Skavenslaves have a higher damage output than Archaon. Pitted against each other, yeah, Skaven lose because they can't actually get 24 models into melee range, but outside a vacuum, the two are on par.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Haight wrote:

Also, it doesn't take into account that there is no weight to any of the scrolls at all ; Archaon (who is bs good) is as evenly weighted as a unit of skaven slaves. If those skaven slaves 3:1 him in wounds, he can sudden death choose "eradicate these donkey-caves", and he's going to win barring all but the most horrid die rolling.

24 Skavenslaves have a higher damage output than Archaon. Pitted against each other, yeah, Skaven lose because they can't actually get 24 models into melee range, but outside a vacuum, the two are on par.

Agreed, but that's just it : in a vaccum. Archaon is going to slaughter them turn in and turn out but for very bad die rolling. Those 24 slaves vs. Archaon, archaon says "Sudden death bitches, i choose eradicate!" ... and its almost assuredly a sudden death victory.

In a pointless system, sudden death isn't a bad idea ... but it needs to scale somehow, not just a flat static 3:1 ratio of models / wounds.

I played two games today and the lack of points wasn't a hinderance. The biggest problem was how messy combats become with everyone making pile in moves left right and center lol.

We found 30-40 models is a better size. At least until we have learnt the rules a little better.

Anyway, it was LOTS of fun :-)

I think the idea of using wounds as points is foolish.

Remember, we're talking about GW here. So, instead, why not pick a monetary value (e.g. £300), and each player has to build an army that could be bought for that amount.

If GW is offering army-deals that actually offer a saving, then they'll obviously be treated as mini-Formations.

Not sure how you can deem it foolish with the other constraint in place.

Also saying large models are just wounds and attacks is pretty poor logic. The big models are all force multipliers with their rules.

Skaven grunt swarms killing a BT? Lol did you see his rules?

Limit the cheese, come up with a easy balance mech, and then critique you apes. (Theoryhammer is unbecoming)

In other words,

"This game is great! We don't need rules, we can make our own!"

A game, especially a wargame, requires a measure of structure. Without that structure you may as well get green army men push them across the table and shout "PEW PEW!!! You're dead!"

"No, I'm not!"

"Yes, you are!"

This game lacks structure and is barely worth the time to play with my 8 year old. When the "most important rule" is "We don't give a crap what you do, make up rules as you go" (exaggerated) it tells me they don't care enough to make a game, they just want people to buy models. This is the test; they want to see if people will truly keep buying their models after the games disappear.

It's got a LOT more structure than green army men. The ONLY structure it's missing is how to go about setting up an army.

Besides that, it's been demonstrably playable (and dare I say, fun?)

Rihgu wrote:
It's got a LOT more structure than green army men. The ONLY structure it's missing is how to go about setting up an army.

Besides that, it's been demonstrably playable (and dare I say, fun?)

But thats the thing everyone is Talking about when they say Structure, thats the only problem with the game and for many people its game breaking.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
It's got a LOT more structure than green army men. The ONLY structure it's missing is how to go about setting up an army.

Besides that, it's been demonstrably playable (and dare I say, fun?)

But thats the thing everyone is Talking about when they say Structure, thats the only problem with the game and for many people its game breaking.

Okay, then Moktor wasn't making his point clear, because there's very clear structure to the actions he was defining (attacking and killing other models).

 Moktor wrote:
In other words,

"This game is great! We don't need rules, we can make our own!"

A game, especially a wargame, requires a measure of structure. Without that structure you may as well get green army men push them across the table and shout "PEW PEW!!! You're dead!"

"No, I'm not!"

"Yes, you are!"

This game lacks structure and is barely worth the time to play with my 8 year old. When the "most important rule" is "We don't give a crap what you do, make up rules as you go" (exaggerated) it tells me they don't care enough to make a game, they just want people to buy models. This is the test; they want to see if people will truly keep buying their models after the games disappear.

warhammer has always been a collective hobby first and a wargame second... if they wanted this to be a wargame they would have released prebuilt models instead of ones we have to build and paint ourselves, the gaming is just a bonus.... and if the game is not worth your time to play with your 8 year old why not make it worth his time... by adding the things you loved and leaving out the ones you do not.... I am sure your 8 year old would appreciate making rules with you that is fun for both of you that he could easily understand

That is a pretty big deal. There is no such thing as a perfectly balanced game, but some players just want a relaxed game where nothing matters and you essentially push models around to kill time (this is not a nasty remark, btw), while others enjoy the competition of playing. I like knowing I have a reasonably even army and battle it out against another person.

Yahtzee can be fun, too, and that is essentially what GW games have become with the high level of random and lack of rules.

I won't deny people have fun, you can have fun playing beer pong, Candyland, or Othello. I'm just saying that they changed the game from a moderately decent strategic wargame into... well, this. I sold out when End Times started because of a bad feeling; apparently those bad feelings are right from time to time.

This feels like a bait and switch after years of Warhammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bitethythumb wrote:


warhammer has always been a collective hobby first and a wargame second... if they wanted this to be a wargame they would have released prebuilt models instead of ones we have to build and paint ourselves, the gaming is just a bonus.... and if the game is not worth your time to play with your 8 year old why not make it worth his time... by adding the things you loved and leaving out the ones you do not.... I am sure your 8 year old would appreciate making rules with you that is fun for both of you that he could easily understand

I'm not sure I completely agree with it being a wargame second, at least not to the degree that I believe you are implying. I remember starting back in the 90's myself, and it was a game. It was a game that required a hobby aspect, to be certain, but it was very much a game. That being said, why make any rules at all if you just want people to build and paint models? WHy is it you can get reasonably balanced rules AND good quality models from other companies? No one is larger than GW in this regard, so there is no excuse for the laziness they show here.

 Moktor wrote:
That is a pretty big deal. There is no such thing as a perfectly balanced game, but some players just want a relaxed game where nothing matters and you essentially push models around to kill time (this is not a nasty remark, btw), while others enjoy the competition of playing. I like knowing I have a reasonably even army and battle it out against another person.

Yahtzee can be fun, too, and that is essentially what GW games have become with the high level of random and lack of rules.

I won't deny people have fun, you can have fun playing beer pong, Candyland, or Othello. I'm just saying that they changed the game from a moderately decent strategic wargame into... well, this. I sold out when End Times started because of a bad feeling; apparently those bad feelings are right from time to time.

This feels like a bait and switch after years of Warhammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bitethythumb wrote:


warhammer has always been a collective hobby first and a wargame second... if they wanted this to be a wargame they would have released prebuilt models instead of ones we have to build and paint ourselves, the gaming is just a bonus.... and if the game is not worth your time to play with your 8 year old why not make it worth his time... by adding the things you loved and leaving out the ones you do not.... I am sure your 8 year old would appreciate making rules with you that is fun for both of you that he could easily understand

I'm not sure I completely agree with it being a wargame second, at least not to the degree that I believe you are implying. I remember starting back in the 90's myself, and it was a game. It was a game that required a hobby aspect, to be certain, but it was very much a game. That being said, why make any rules at all if you just want people to build and paint models? WHy is it you can get reasonably balanced rules AND good quality models from other companies? No one is larger than GW in this regard, so there is no excuse for the laziness they show here.

look at it this way... AoS is 1st edition... wait for a few more editions for it to grow.... that is how any good game is made, from ground up and slowly and lets be honest warhammer fantasy was a dying game, the sales were not there at least this way they are keeping the game somehow alive and I pretty sure we will get some extra large rulebook with extra rules to make it more complex and strategic heck maybe even more strategic than before...

rome was not built in a day.

So I only have to wait 10 or 20 years, and then I may start having fun? Nice. I wish I could return my models, or trade them for something.

People are acting like it's the only ruleset in existence to lack points limits. Look at the likes of FUBAR, or Tomorrows War. All really great games, but not a points value in sight. Instead of looking at AoS as "How can I WIN and be super COMPETITIVE" look at it for what it is, a game. Dig out some old Lord of the Rings scenarios or something.

If nothing else, this is the continuation of a game. They have been doing this for like 30 years.

Warmachine needed MK2 to go from "Fairly bad game" to "one of the top games." That was almost 10 years.

Malifaux is coming into the 2nd edition and is a solid game, see above.

Infinity just hit 3rd edition, and again improved to the point of noticing they cared about the game, the rules, and its players.

I play others, but these are among the most notable.

GW has been doing this for 30 years over 8+ editions and they still can't get their crap straight. I realize the time and money people have invested in this. I really do. I still have about $3000 in Eldar left to sell and it is hard forcing myself to list it. But I think there comes a time in all of our lives when we just have to realize that nothing will change. GW will not change. They know the competition and have seen how they make things work. I respect that there are pure hobbyists here, that is not who my message is directed at. I just ask that those of us here who are gamers don't sugarcoat, white knight, or fan boy the truth away. The truth is that the rules for this game are lazy, weak, and ineffective. They could have cut the rules down to the last paragraph, "the most important rule," and simply said "Do what you want."

I am not really a hater, I am frustrated and disappointed that the games I loved and sunk money into are being allowed to sink by a company who doesn't care. Sure, they have pretty boxes and the models are nice... but you know what? Other companies are making the same quality now (with a few others quickly catching up). That begs the question, "Where is the value?"

/shrug

I'm not angry, but I am sad.

Age of Sigmar really feels like they've finally said, "Fine, do what you want." The problem is, for some, that's fine. Like, as kids, there are plenty of variations on how people deal with rules. On one hand, some do just fine and enjoy making up rules and scenarios and what have you, taking even the simple bit of guidance and going hog wild. Then there are those that prefer having that structure, because it means no one can be an idiot and say, "No, your guys don't kill my guys because -stupid made up point-." Competitive doesn't mean cutthroat, it means that it ensures no one argues. That you know exactly what you are getting in to. And are far as Age of Sigmar is concerned, the only major problem in my eyes with it is that the responsibility of making a scenario where no one argues about how to do things is left for the players and the players alone. And that IS a problem, but it will only really effect those players who weren't already just doing their own thing.

So, I really do agree with Moktor. The biggest tragedy here is that a company so BIG like GW is the one who is giving up. They've had game balance issues for so long and now they say, "Screw it, do what you want." at least in a sense. If they had a solid rule system, it still wouldn't stop people from doing what they wanted. Instead the effort is obviously not there (well, in the rules, the models are sweet). I will try AoS, and one way or another, I'll have fun with the world, lore and the models I have. But GW could have easily done more, and I hope they DO do more in the near future and make this a full GAME.

[quote=flamingwalnut 654911 7955694 53cc7710dc923c24fbe73182fb54244c.jpg "No, your guys don't kill my guys because -stupid made up point-." Competitive doesn't mean cutthroat, it means that it ensures no one argues

Wondering if the people on this forum crying about AoS have actually tried it.

As others have said, basing army size off of wounds so far seems to be the best way to go about keeping things fair when playing strangers or in your FLGS. If you're playing close friends, you can be much more selective about what to and to not include. I realize a one wound skink is not the same as a one wound temple guard, but in this game, anything can hurt anything (heck horses are solid).

Also, measuring base to base seems like it's going to be the law of the land.

I have gotten in 5 games thus far with 3 different armies all at 75-125 wound games, and have had a blast. The mechanics are so easy to learn. Plus, the way you do the close combat sequence is surprisingly tactical.

It's just a matter of time before we see people that run tournaments creating more structured list building rules to try and even the playing field, just like they did when 7th Ed 40k came out. Either way, being a big WHFB fan for over 20 years had me shaking in my boots at the new edition and rule set, and now I find myself enjoying a ruleset more than I have in a while.