PPC - Comp rules discussion thread

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.

**Attilla**

Behold!

The first version of the PPC Comp has been released. It adresses how the PPC handles things in Age of Sigmar, such as summoning, measuring, shooting into melee and more.

Remember that this is a work in progress, so it's never a better time to voice your opinions on it than now!

**Araknir**

My take on this (as we tested your points system last saturday) :

1) Force Org can be nice, and I think intersting in scenario play, but I feel that there is no real need for it. Characters are generally force multiplier and not combat powerhouses. Monsters are nice but can be easily tarpited or reduced in power with a few wounds. War machines are powerful, but also vulnerable.
Globally, a combined arms army will always be more powerfull than one focused on a single kind of troop.

2) We tested one variant where a wizard could only sustain a single invocation per castable spell he has. Killing the summoner kills the summoned units. We also state that summoned units cannot cast spells the turn they enter play. Adding the possibility to display at 18" of the caster or summoned unit may be interesting too.

3) Shooting into melee : we tested a heavy shooting army (Skyre skavens) and this never struck us as overpowered. Ranges are usually on the low end of the scale, and having some unit (like a heavily wounded cygor) unable to shoot (range 3") would really make shooting for normal units (outside of warmachines) pointless. On the other end, a lot of warmachines have minimum ranges, which makes them unable to shoot at the unit in their 3".
When you value the shooting, do not forget that you only shoot on your turn, while melee attacks works also on your opponent's turn.

4) I don't find retreating that powerful. Yes you can disengage easily and then what ? you get out with your move, and do nothing else during the turn. Most of the time, the mortal wounds would be anectodical, and would close the door to some nice warscroll power that would be the same.

5) Base to base. Freedom of basing as long as it is not obvious modeling for advantage. We are also pretty permissive on the measurement.

6) No opinion on those. Usually, just apply the rule everytime in the most powerful meaning and price accordingly.

7) Screening sounds good, Systematic look out sir cheapen the ability of units that have it (like necromancers). Heroes are not that powerful that they need to be sniped in preference to actual units.

8) Rolls of 1 : comes rarely enough (with non-stacking buffs) that it's not a necessity. Effect on games would be negligible imho (and so is unnecessary). Also, when you manage to build such a situation, I find it rewarding to be reliable for once in a GW game.

9) Casting limitation : Depends on the kind of buff/malediction. For the ones lasting until the next hero phase of the player, I find stacking of the same spell exploitable (multiple mystic shield). However some spells have permanent effects (the one from Festus for exemple) and I find it interesting to allow them to stack.

**Attilla**

Thanks for some well written input, a good start to this discussion indeed!

**lobbywatson**

Attilla wrote:
Hi,

This thread is for discussing comp for Age of Sigmar. While it might be somewhat specifically related to the PPC, it should be helpful however you play. Please voice your opinions on the following, and come up with your own:

1) FORCE ORGANISATION
Do we need limitations to list builing? Should we go the 40k way and have a few slots for different keywords (1-3 Heroes, 0-3 Monster etc) or the old WFB way and use percentages (Up to 25% or 50% Heroes etc)? Or is there even a better alternative?
[size=12][size=18]
Yes but it doesn't need to be insane restrictive. We have been using 50% max heros and 25% max warmachine, monsters. [/size][/size]

2) SUMMONING LIMITATIONS
So far, each summoning costs alot of points, and can only be bought as upgrades to one of your wizards. We would like to make summoning cheaper, but add that you can dispel a summon while being within 18" of the wizard OR the summoned unit.

So far we have found it to be decent, its very strong now but we have been house ruling all summons can be dispelled regardless if a enemy wizard in in range. If not we have seen it is far to easy to hang back with Nagash and suffer no consequences.

3) SHOOTING INTO MELEE
The rules states you can fire freely into melee (and out of), and unless this proves to be extremely powerful we would like to keep it this way. It feels wrong, but its the rules as is... What do you guys think? Keep it as is, and make points accordingly, or keep it but limit it, or not be able to fire into melee at all?

We have a hard rule no shooting into or out of melee. Also no magic missiles.

4) RETREATING
We think that the rules for retreating can be abused - it's far to easy to leave combat and do so without any risk. We propose that retreating can only be done in a straight line away from an enemy, and that you roll a dice for every model retreating. On every roll of 6, the unit retreating takes a mortal wound.

We haven't seen this really get abused all that much I cannot rightfully comment on it.

5) MEASUREMENTS
What we'd prefer is the old measuring base to base, with models put on the base they came with. For converting squares to bases, it's a simple 20mm square goes on 25mm round, 25mm square goes on 32mm round. We really hate overlapping our bases, and when measuring model to model, the larger bases becomes to much of a burden.

Base to base.

6) "SILLY" RULES
So far, the points costs in the PPC has been made from the assumption that the "silly" rules such as dancing while rolling dice, riding imaginary horses etc are always active. No need to dance if you don't want to (but kudos to you if you do!).

I refuse to acknowledge these rules....

7) SCREENING AND LOOK OUT SIR
We play so that staying behind other units gives you cover, but we don't use any "Look Out Sir" rules to transfer shooting hits from heroes to units. How do you guys play, and what do you prefer?

We have been playing cover as well but no look out sir.

8) ROLLS OF "1"
Although it does not say so in the rules, we play the usual that there are no auto-successes, so any rolls of 1 to hit, to wound, and armour saves are always a failure. If you buff a unit to 1+ saves, a roll of 1 is always a failure anyway. For charging, and other rolls that involve more dice to be rolled for a single test, all dice must be 1s to fail.

1's auto fail unless you have a rule for reroll. [b]

[b]7) CASTING LIMITATIONS
We think that you should not be able to cast the same buffing or hexing spell twice on the same target. For example, cast Mystic Shield one time to improve save rolls, but no casting a second one on the same target to improve it even further.
On the same subject, should unbinding need line of sight to the casting wizard, or be able to be done anyway?

We have allowed it. Mainly due to 1's auto failing.

I will update this first page with whatever results we get from our discussions.

**Attilla**

Haldir wrote:
I've been thinking about a tournament type packet. 3 rounds using the 3 standard deployments in the rule book. Each scenario has 12 points of objectives with a bonus point for killing the enemy general and another bonus point for a fully painted army.
I.E. first deployment (which is like dawn of war) -- 1 obj. In table center and 1 18" to the left and 1 18" to the right. -- each worth 2 pt.
2 more obj. Each one 12" behind the obj. In the center of the table. These would be worth 3 pts. each.

So everyone has a decent chance to at least accrue a few points each round , hopefully! This should make list building and maneuver pertinent to the overall game. Hopefully tactical decisions as well. Suggestions?

Forgot to mention deployment would be up to 12" on your table side.

That scenario could surely fit inside a comp pack, as its a pretty basic scoring one. We've always found it fun to have the closest objective worth less to your own side, and the enemy one worth more, maybe that's an idea for this scenario as well?
- Should we add classics such as slay the general for extra points? Any extras for killing off enemy units, or should this one be strictly objectives-based?
- I also think we need to point out that a unit retreating during its previous turn can not claim an objective.

**Haldir**

I like the rule for heroes getting a cover save behind friendly units. I also like the way you've handled summoning by putting in the extra point cost. Also I think all units should be limited to receiving only one blessing/ability from a hero or spell caster. Allowing stacking will lead to broken combos. The retreating from combat , I kind of like the idea of a straight line and perhaps being removed on a roll of a 6?

**Attilla**

Thanks lobbywatson and Haldir for your replies. A few more and we can start compile a list.

Here's another thought: would it be good or bad to have all ranged attacks have -1 on hit roll when shooting at single infantry-sized (non-monster, non-mounted) models? That would be an easy way of making the hero sniping abit harder. That and the possibility to be screened to get +1 save as well, of course.

**Hulksmash**

1) Percentage, not force org. 50% Characters (this is hero hammer again and they aren't that spectacular)

2) I'm more a fan of only being able to control as many units as you can cast spells and tablewide dispel.

3) I'm fine with shooting into and out of melee. I say leave it alone. I know you can shoot if in melee and then fight but considering how bad most of the shooting units are in CC I don't think it's a concern.

4) Retreat is fine as is from what I've seen and heard.

5) Measure base to base. Much simpler than inacting other rules.

6) They automatically take effect (or never happen in Greasus and Settras case)

7) Good with cover and I don't think you need a look out sir. If people are pumping into the heroes they'll get shredded by your infantry. Plus wounds went up to compensate for this.

8) Rolls of "1" always fail.

**Haldir**

I'm not a fan of shooting into CC , just doesn't feel right. I think a FOC is much cleaner and easier than a comp system. I wonder if obj. Secured for troops might be a good idea? Physic phase is waaay OP in 40K. for my taste. From what I've seen of magic here so far , Is it adds flavor to the game without dominating it. Which is a good thing! Just don't allow stacking on units and I actually think it's pretty good.

**Sigvatr**

Attilla wrote:
Thanks lobbywatson and Haldir for your replies. A few more and we can start compile a list.

Here's another thought: would it be good or bad to have all ranged attacks have -1 on hit roll when shooting at single infantry-sized (non-monster, non-mounted) models? That would be an easy way of making the hero sniping abit harder. That and the possibility to be screened to get +1 save as well, of course.

Disagree with the save bonus. On a regular table, there's enough terrain to hide your hero / general behind it. Heroes are very powerful on their own and the weaker ones usually come with in-built protection (e.g. Goblins).

**Haldir**

I think a plus 1 save from ranged weapons for your heroes/characters should suffice. That seems like a decent trade off.

Also last night I was setting up the 3 standard deployments with obj.'s . I think a 7 turn game should work well . That will give infantry time to advance , set up charges etc. and prolong the fun

! After discussing with friends they don't like the roll off each round. Could,be a bit heavy , perhaps just do the IGYG like 40K.

**DaftPunk**

Attilla wrote:
Hi,

This thread is for discussing comp for Age of Sigmar. While it might be somewhat specifically related to the PPC, it should be helpful however you play. Please voice your opinions on the following, and come up with your own:

1) FORCE ORGANISATION
Do we need limitations to list builing? Should we go the 40k way and have a few slots for different keywords (1-3 Heroes, 0-3 Monster etc) or the old WFB way and use percentages (Up to 25% or 50% Heroes etc)? Or is there even a better alternative?

I would say go for a percentage system, that way it scales well with games anywhere from 500 points to 2500 points.

2) SUMMONING LIMITATIONS
So far, each summoning costs alot of points, and can only be bought as upgrades to one of your wizards. We would like to make summoning cheaper, but add that you can dispel a summon while being within 18" of the wizard OR the summoned unit.

I'm actually going to go with Lobbywatson on this one, you can reduce the summoning costs if you just allow wizards to dispel each other no matter where there at on the board. Simply choose the wizard you wish to dispel with and remember/use a marker that he used up all his dispels for that turn, rinse and repeat if theirs more wizards.

3) SHOOTING INTO MELEE
The rules states you can fire freely into melee (and out of), and unless this proves to be extremely powerful we would like to keep it this way. It feels wrong, but its the rules as is... What do you guys think? Keep it as is, and make points accordingly, or keep it but limit it, or not be able to fire into melee at all?

Leave it as is, most ranged units have short ranges like 18 inches and fair poorly in melee combat. High point costs can balance out those few units that excel in both melee and ranged

4) RETREATING
We think that the rules for retreating can be abused - it's far to easy to leave combat and do so without any risk. We propose that retreating can only be done in a straight line away from an enemy, and that you roll a dice for every model retreating. On every roll of 6, the unit retreating takes a mortal wound.

I'm on the fence about this one, I don't see what you can really do after retreating seeing as how you cant do anything after pulling back. Perhaps a compromise can be made, like having them move in a straight line towards your board edge but not have them take any wounds?

5) MEASUREMENTS
What we'd prefer is the old measuring base to base, with models put on the base they came with. For converting squares to bases, it's a simple 20mm square goes on 25mm round, 25mm square goes on 32mm round. We really hate overlapping our bases, and when measuring model to model, the larger bases becomes to much of a burden.

While I don't like the idea of overriding a RAW rule in the game I just can't think of a simpler and more efficient way to play the game without going back to bases. When we host tournaments were looking for a way to prevent arguments between the players, and this will help towards that, so I have to choose the basing method. On a note though I think that units should be able to mix into each other in combat, just as long as no bases are overlapping.

6) "SILLY" RULES
So far, the points costs in the PPC has been made from the assumption that the "silly" rules such as dancing while rolling dice, riding imaginary horses etc are always active. No need to dance if you don't want to (but kudos to you if you do!).

This is a good way of approaching it, so I don't think any improvement needs to happen here, just my opinion though.

7) SCREENING AND LOOK OUT SIR
We play so that staying behind other units gives you cover, but we don't use any "Look Out Sir" rules to transfer shooting hits from heroes to units. How do you guys play, and what do you prefer?

Ah this is perfect, I was wondering what a good medium between protecting heroes but not making them overpowered going up the battlefield would be like, and I think I found it. Definitely can get behind a soft approach like this.

8) ROLLS OF "1"
Although it does not say so in the rules, we play the usual that there are no auto-successes, so any rolls of 1 to hit, to wound, and armour saves are always a failure. If you buff a unit to 1+ saves, a roll of 1 is always a failure anyway. For charging, and other rolls that involve more dice to be rolled for a single test, all dice must be 1s to fail.

Another rule I can completely get behind, at first I didn't think it would be that big of a deal but theirs just some army's that don't have a lot of rending in there army lists, and they shouldn't be penalized for fighting what would be AoS "deathstars"

7) CASTING LIMITATIONS
We think that you should not be able to cast the same buffing or hexing spell twice on the same target. For example, cast Mystic Shield one time to improve save rolls, but no casting a second one on the same target to improve it even further.
On the same subject, should unbinding need line of sight to the casting wizard, or be able to be done anyway?

I would go the Lobbywatson way and say allow it since ones always fail under the new comp (hopefully). You can always just focus the mages buffing up one unit to a 2+ also.

8) BATTLE SCENARIOS
How many, and how different, should scenarios be. I've always found it good to have at least a few basic ones inside a comp pack for players who doesn't want to make up their own.

Probably 3 to 5 scenarios for your average tourney depending on turnout. There should be some that are somewhat similar (King of the hill/Control two points) to way different (Zone Control/Regicide) those are just examples though.

I will update this first page with whatever results we get from our discussions.

So that's my two cents on it, thanks for posting this in another thread so we can discuss comp and point costs separately, and keep up the good work Attilla, we appreciate it.

**Haldir**

Did anybody see the points list on BOLS? I was checking the points , theirs seems higher? Any thoughts?

Apologies guys I think I posted this in the wrong thread.

**Attilla**

Thank you all very much!

I just released the v0.1 version of the PPC comp document at our blog now. It was hard defining many of the aspects, since you all made very good points in many different directions. I've talked to the rest of the group here, and this is what we feel is a "bare minimum" change requirement for the PPC, as we strive to be as close to RAW as possible.

The rules changes of this document will take effect with army points cost lists v0.4.

Also, this is still very much a work in progress document, so its not too late to re-define things and add stuff. So fire away with all those creative minds of yours!

Haldir wrote:Did anybody see the points list on BOLS? I was checking the points , theirs seems higher? Any thoughts?

Didn't see any, would appreciate a link as its always interesting to see.

**Haldir**

Attlila Im sorry I don't know how to do a link. One of the few things 24 years of police work hasn't taught me

! It's on the first or second page of BOLS. Their points our higher than ours? They seemed a little off but I'm not really an expert.

**Haldir**

Hi guys , we will be play testing on Thursday night -- I`ll be using Elfs and Eternals from the last 2 starter sets while my friend will be fielding Orruks and Goblins.

We will be testing the following changes:

1: Any unit with the hero or Wizard key word and at least 50% obscured by a friendly unit targeted by a ranged attack receives a +1 to their armor save
2: Any unit with the hero or Wizard key word and at least 50% obscured by a friendly unit targeted by a magic or special attack gets a 5+ invulnerable save
3: Any unit traveling through any area defined as rough terrain (ruins ,forests , streams , hills) has their movement & run moves reduced by 2"
4: Any unit retreating out of CC must do so in a straight line , said unit can take no further action that turn , each model in the unit must roll a die , on a 6 it takes a D3 mortal wounds , a unit can`t claim an obj. on the turn it retreated
5: No shooting into CC of any kind.
6: Measuring is from the models base
7: No rolling for imitative at the end of the round , IGYG
8: No stacking of buffs received from magic spells (1 per unit).
9: No stacking of buffs from special abilities (1 per unit). ------ At most a unit can have 1 buff from magic and 1 from a special ability given by another unit.
10: The game will end at the end of the seventh turn

We will be playing with obj.`s missions (worth a total of 12 pts.) using the standard deployments from the rule book. There with an additional point for slaying the enemy general plus another point for bringing a fully painted army.

These 10 tweaks and Attilla`a points have me very excited to get some games in

**Araknir**

Honestly, with your rules, I don't see why I would invest in shooting troops like archer. They would be utterly useless by turn 2 if the opponent has any kind of fast troop. Given the range of most units, it is next to impossible to keep them from being in danger range without putting them in a high risk situation.

**Haldir**

The type of missions I`m working on will have 5 obj.`s so plenty of room for maneuver and hopefully time to shoot.

I.E. -- Dawn of War deployment -- 1 obj. in center of table -- 1 obj.15" to the left -- 1 15" obj. to the right -- 2 obj.`s each 12" behind the center one
-- center obj. is worth 4 pt. the others each worth 2 pt.

I`m thinking that this should avoid the scrum in the middle and provide for ranged shooting and maneuver. But again I won`t know for sure as these rules and missions are in the play test mode and open to change. My friend will be bringing a mass horde of Goblins so I will need ranged shooting to help.

The thoughts behind the no stacking were because if not someone will always find a broken combo. I`ve seen this in 40K where through the use of magic/physic phase someone always finds something broken that takes the fun out of the game.

At some point I think even using some form of modified Maelstrom might be worth considering.

**Attilla**

Not rolling for initiative makes the ranged units somewhat more reliable, as you can measure and advance where needed without the risk of having your opponent have two turns in a row. I fear the cost of ranged units might be slightly too high though, since they are calulated for being able to fire in melee. Going to be real fun hear what happens in your battle! If you have the oppurtunity to take some pictures it would be great as well!

My group has played some games recently using a slightly modified version of your scenario, and it was great fun! When the comp document 0.2 is released I will include it as one of the three "standard" PPC scenarios.

Cheers!

**Haldir**

I'm glad to hear you found them helpful , you are doing a lot of good work here. I'm happy to be able to contribute something. The other scenarios I was working on as part of a tournament packet.

Hammer and Anvil deployment -- 1 obj. In center -- 1 obj. 12" to the left -- 1 obj. 12" to the right -- 2 obj.'s 12 behind center one
-- center obj. worth 4 pts. all others 2 pts.
Bonus point for brininging a fully painted army and another for killing the enemy general

Table quarters -- opponents deploy in opposite table quarters
1 obj. In table center (4 pts.) 1 obj. In each table quarter 15" in (short table edge)and 12" up (long table edge) -- 2 pts. Each
Again bonus point for fully painted army and killing enemy general. Must deploy at least 12" from table center.

Over 3 rounds each player can generate up to 42 points. This type of format can help people at least accrue some points each round (no one likes coming away with zero). As well as semi-nerf Death Stars . You could have the most brutal unit in the game but it can still only claim one obj.

After more play testing I would still not be averse to some type of FOC. Hope all this helps.

Also these deployments are almost the exact same as the ones listed in the rules . Trying to stay as close to the original rules as possible with a few tweaks to put in some form of balance.

**Attilla**

Besides adding three scenarios, I'll be changing the screening to provide cover instead of -1 to hit, as that feel more in line with the rules in general.

Shooting into melee will still be -1 to hit, though.

Thoughts on this?

**Haldir**

I like the cover save. The shooting into combat I'm open either way , not at all or a minus 1. Also does the minus 1 count for shooting through friendly units? Also true line of sight is important , that's why I put the 50% obscured. To be honest I think the minus 1 or not at all could both work. Might just come down to play testing.

**Attilla**

Haldir wrote:
I like the cover save. The shooting into combat I'm open either way , not at all or a minus 1. Also does the minus 1 count for shooting through friendly units? Also true line of sight is important , that's why I put the 50% obscured. To be honest I think the minus 1 or not at all could both work. Might just come down to play testing.

Well, shooting through a friendly unit (other than members if your own unit) would count as screening for the target, i.e. the target has +1 save from being in cover. If you are firing inside a melee, into a melee, or out of melee, you get -1 to hit.

When we have playtested, it felt that ranged units didn't really do much dmg even by firing inside their melee, so maybe some of the ranged units are abit overcosted. We'll have to play more to be certain.

When was it you had your game? Eager to find out how it went

**Haldir**

My buddy forgot his Goblins in NY

! So we put off till Friday. My wife built all the Eternals from the starter set and I've ordered a box of Judicators another of Liberators and both special characters!! I read all the fluff in the book that come with the starter ,fun stuff. Now I will need more overtime after seeing the sneak peaks from the WD!!

Tonight we ride the storm!!!!

**Attilla**

Read through the new rules for Stormcast Protectors...damn they will go well with our screening rules:

GW wrote:Subtract 1 from the hit rolls of enemy shooting attacks that target a unit of Protectors, or which must cross a unit of protectors to hit a model that lies beyond them

So, a unit behind a Protector unit will gain +1 save from being screened, as well as providing a -1 penalty to hit for the unit shooting at them. Good protection for wizards and the like! Pretty cool!

**Haldir**

I just got the new White Dwarf and read that. That`s great , maybe GW is listening

!

On another note for new people entering the game. My buddy had a Golden Daemon winning Goblin Army that he put a lot of effort into. He had reservations about how different AOS was from Fantasy. After people realize that AOS is not Fantasy and a completely new game hopefully they`ll become more receptive to the new game.

Also for wound allocation , there seems to be very different views on how to allocate. Perhaps we should post here how we will do it with our comp and points adjustments.

**Attilla**

Released the first draft of the first official PPC scenario. Haldir, do you recognize it?

Find it on our blog, here!

**Haldir**

Looks very familiar !! I`m hoping to get an event at the LGS sometime in late September or early October. I can also host an event for up to 6 people at my place.

**Attilla**

Managed to post another scenario today, this time its a pretty standard kill points one with Slay the general and Linebreaker for some bonus victory points.

Tell me if you think we should change or tweak something. It is supposed to be around the same level of total victory points as the Capture scenario when playing around 2000 pts. This is only important in tournaments, for casual play any scenario will work with any total points.

**Haldir**

Attilla. I just checked , but I can't find it ? Also I really like the rules put in for summoning , good stuff!