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.

Played my second game of AoS last night, this time with slightly larger forces. The second time around, my opponent and I both noticed we played a bunch of things wrong in our first game. I know that in the past when a new edition of Fantasy or 40k came out, the wording of some rules changed subtly but had a pretty big effect. And those can be easy to miss because everyone is so used to doing things the old way. Anyway, I found a couple of things like that last night. Looks like "flee" is still in the game, as are flank charges. The game is actually a lot closer to Fantasy than it looks on paper, I think. Anyway, interesting stuff.

Please keep in mind I'm not claiming to be an expert or anything. I'm learning as I go along like everyone else, so if you see something that looks like we did wrong, please feel free to point it out. Might be good to get a compendium of such "easter egg" discoveries going somewhere? I don't mean easter eggs in the exploitative sense, just rules that work differently when you look into them more closely. Link to blog post below. Have a read if you're so inclined.

Age of Sigmar Second Game Thoughts

Thanks for this blog post! I had already noticed a lot of what was said, but the entire flank charge section was lost on me.

Somehow, with only 4 pages of move, I still missed that you could only pile in to the closest model. I was thinking that you could pile in past the unit you charged to get a vulnerable unit behind them. Whoops!

Sure. I'm glad you liked it. I play a lot of Epic Armageddon, and the assault and combat mechanics are interesting and unique in that game. In Epic as well, you are compelled to counter charge the closest enemy model - whether it is a part of the assault or not. This leads to some very, very interesting tactical options for players, especially the player setting up an assault. Epic is probably one of the best rule sets GW ever made, and I see them borrowing bits and pieces from it for this game.

Good post
I'm interested in your balancing thoughts and summoning as well?

I don't know. It says models piling in must move "towards" the closest model. Does this mean a model can't move around a friendly model to get to the closest enemy model? It doesn't say directly toward the closest enemy model.

Bede19025 wrote:
I don't know. It says models piling in must move "towards" the closest model. Does this mean a model can't move around a friendly model to get to the closest enemy model? It doesn't say directly toward the closest enemy model.

I'm assuming that's exactly what it means or it would have said you could sidestep friendly models. It's worded in pretty unambiguous terms, I think. "Up to 3 inches toward the closest enemy model". I'm almost certain they are taking a page out of the Epic playbook here, which as I mentioned I play quite a lot of. The compulsion to move toward the nearest enemy model has some very interesting effects on pinning models in place, dictating their movement, and also drawing other units into assaults, etc. It's a subtle rule that creates many scenarios which reward thoughtful movement and planning - and conversely can punish careless movement and planning. In Epic, I've rolled up entire flanks using this rule before. The more you play, the more it will reveal itself to be a pretty significant rule.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:

Bede19025 wrote:
I don't know. It says models piling in must move "towards" the closest model. Does this mean a model can't move around a friendly model to get to the closest enemy model? It doesn't say directly toward the closest enemy model.

I'm assuming that's exactly what it means or it would have said you could sidestep friendly models. It's worded in pretty unambiguous terms, I think. "Up to 3 inches toward the closest enemy model". I'm almost certain they are taking a page out of the Epic playbook here, which as I mentioned I play quite a lot of. The compulsion to move toward the nearest enemy model has some very interesting effects on pinning models in place, dictating their movement, and also drawing other units into assaults, etc. It's a subtle rule that creates many scenarios which reward thoughtful movement and planning - and conversely can punish careless movement and planning. In Epic, I've rolled up entire flanks using this rule before. The more you play, the more it will reveal itself to be a pretty significant rule.

The problem is it is not against the rules to simply go around the model (model not base) to get to your enemy.

Any decent ruleset would have an explanation on this but as it sits, as you say, open ended.

HOWEVER having to move models directly can be a house rule which could make some situations ok, but then why would your opponent bother using formations at all if you could be flanks and held up so easily?

Swastakowey - I'm already well aware of your generally negative view of Age of Sigmar and I'm going to warn you (and everyone else) right now not to use this thread as an opportunity to bash the game or the rules. Comments like "Any decent rule set..." don't belong here. I'm not asking for anyone's opinion on whether the rules are "decent" or not. We are talking facts and interpretations only here. I will not have this thread derailed into yet another discussion regarding whether everyone likes it or not.

I'm seeing two pieces of evidence that point toward the conclusion that I have reached as being correct - "toward the closest model" and "cannot be moved across other models". I'm not sure where you're coming to your conclusion that it is "open ended" and not against the rules to simply go around the model. If you "go around" the model by sidestepping, you're not moving "toward" the closest enemy model. Any movement that is not DIRECTLY toward the closest enemy model is precluded by this rule. So you can't go around. "Toward" the closest enemy model is very clear.

Maybe you can cite a rule or two that can help us see how you are reaching that conclusion? I'm certainly open to the idea that I have misinterpreted it.

Why bother using formations? Ok, I guess don't bother using "formations". I guess if you can manage to run your army in a giant conga line stretching the 6' breadth of the table, go for it. I've always found it challenging in Epic to do such things and win consistently. You kind of need models to be near to each other for combat support and to maneuver around terrain, etc.

Nice article there. I really enjoyed reading it. Looking forward to more of them.

Take rules discussions to the relevant subforum. That isn't the General Discussion/Background one, in case you aren't certain. I've cleaned up off topic posts, further OT posts will see further action taken.

Thanks for the compliments!

For those interested, the rules discussion can be found here - and it's actually pretty civil! There does appear to be a lack of clarity surrounding the "towards closest enemy model" rule, but we're trying to work through it. I think the intent is "directly toward", but others have added good points as well.

Aside from the rules, please do let me know any thoughts you have on the article, or if there are any topics you would like me to cover in my next post.

Thanks!

Im also finding this game has a ton of depth, and is similiar to aos, I would like to do some test games with units having 40+ models to see how formations work in that situation. Im curious to see how "fantasy" a bigger game will feel, as of now ive only done small scale games to make sure I understand the game

Really great article! Thanks for posting :-)

Indeed - good article - have posted on our club forum

Top article.

We'd already spotted many of the other points raised. However, that pile-in one... we'll need to revisit that next time we play.

Another thing I've seen done wrong is damage. It goes:
Roll to hit
Roll to wound
Saves are rolled
Damage inflicted

If you do three wounds three saves are made. For each save that is failed the amount of damage is then inflicted.

Example:
Attacks 1 / Hit 3+ / Wound 3+ / Dmg 3
You make the attack. Roll one die to hit. Roll one die to wound. If the save fails, that wound does 3 damage.

ShaneTB wrote:
Top article.

We'd already spotted many of the other points raised. However, that pile-in one... we'll need to revisit that next time we play.

Another thing I've seen done wrong is damage. It goes:
Roll to hit
Roll to wound
Saves are rolled
Damage inflicted

If you do three wounds three saves are made. For each save that is failed the amount of damage is then inflicted.

Example:
Attacks 1 / Hit 3+ / Wound 3+ / Dmg 3
You make the attack. Roll one die to hit. Roll one die to wound. If the save fails, that wound does 3 damage.

Thanks so much for the compliments! I know it's trite to say this, but it really does mean a lot. Makes me happy to know people are enjoying it.

Yes! You are right. We caught this one in our first game and were blown away. We played it wrong until about halfway through, and then played it right for the second half. My friend's Minotaurs made very short work of my Marauders once we started playing it right! Three wounds per hit at -2 rend just cleaves right through throwaway infantry. Very cool from both a gameplay and "rule of cool" standpoint.