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.

 sebster wrote:


Consider instead that there's no initiative stat. Everyone strikes at once, except for some models and some weapons that get a Strikes First rule, and some models and some weapons get a Strikes Last rule. Then you could say that spears receive Strikes First against models that charged that turn.

Well, in this way is like to have all Init 2, two-handers (say) Init 1, and Pikes and Cavalry-lances-not-vs-pikes (say) init 3.

Is enough to give immersion, but kills not complexity. Could be an elegant way if other paradigms are not preferred (like, say, each model acts full and then passes like in WMH, or there is a combat roll and only winners strike rolls to wound and wounding is not easy, like Lotr).

Not bad.

I think there's 4 majors flaws with the rules:

Some of them are counter-intuitive (shooting out of combat, gaining cover from being on a wall but not behind it)

Some of them result in overly fiddly player interaction (measuring from the models, combat ranges, having to move troops 3 times per turn)

Some of them are just badly written (is that how cover is meant to work? How does summoning work?)

Some of them are overly convoluted (how many shields are there?)

All of these serve to break immersion and turn what appears to be a simple game on the surface (4 pages of rules) into a complex slog, whilst at the same time having removed a lot of the tactical elements (shooting out of, no unit facings).

Some of that could have been fixed at a proofreading stage, but most of it is just poor design. Good design involves writing clear, intuitive rules that do their best to maintain immersion.

Some of it is good though - units getting weaker as they take damage is brilliant.

Thank you for the clarification, Kilkrazy. Didn't realize by Ancients they actually meant Ancients through early Renaissance! In that case, I can see why they might distinguish. Though kind of not, since hoplites aren't going to face gendarmes, so all that really matter is the relative strengths and weaknesses of what actually would be in the field (so Norman cav might not be heavy compared to later knights, but they filled the role and were the heaviest thing that was hitting the field at that time). But I digress...

Also a flying fire-spitting elephant sounds awesome.

The fact that GW can't (won't?) decide on a battle scale (individual? warbands? armies?) hugely impedes coherent rules. But, if we accept that GW defines themselves as a model company now and the rules are essentially just a gimmick to sell models, does it matter? That is, if GW isn't even bothering to call themselves a wargaming company, why should they be bothered with good rules design so long as their main product is selling? And if that is the case, I don't know that's it's worth the effort to try to invest time critiquing or improving the ruleset. It is what it is.

 jmurph wrote:
But, if we accept that GW defines themselves as a model company now and the rules are essentially just a gimmick to sell models, does it matter?

Indeed. Which is too bad. Because if it's just a question of making models, gimmick rules shouldn't be necessary.

For those looking for a more historical/technological approach to list writing in a "fantasy" game, I'd really recommend Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit Strategy Battle Game (soon to be rebranded as Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game). Every unit and every option is very rationally laid out. This of course is partly a result of the races all (or mostly) sharing a phenotype, as it were, as well as roughly the same kind of equipment. It's also a result of Tolkien's work being an explicitly Christian fantasy and therefore assuming an ordered, historical approach.

Contrast this to Warhammer Fantasy - either Old World or AoS - in which Chaos rather than Cosmos is the basis of the setting. In Warhammer Fantasy, the Psychic is preeminent over the Material. Technology is meaningless in the face of true magic, which ignores any and every natural law upon which science is even possible. In this kind of world, it matters less what something is than what it symbolizes - as in a dream. (The appearance of) heavy armor in AoS, for example, stands for toughness generally rather than being a literal constant X applied universally, as in SBG.

 jmurph wrote:
Thank you for the clarification, Kilkrazy. Didn't realize by Ancients they actually meant Ancients through early Renaissance! In that case, I can see why they might distinguish. Though kind of not, since hoplites aren't going to face gendarmes, so all that really matter is the relative strengths and weaknesses of what actually would be in the field ... ...

Ancients has always allowed "fantasy" match-ups between say Old Kingdom Egyptian and English 100 Years War because players like different armies from a huge swathe of history and at tournaments they need to be able to fight each other.

WRG's next set of rules, De Bellis Antiquitatis, classifies troops by battlefield function and behaviour rather than weapon/armour/morale type, and also has been very successful.

In looking at non-historical match-ups, the problems are usually worst at the extremes. Old Kingdom Egyptians, with no cavalry and almost no armour or heavy weapons, are going to have trouble against a heavily armoured force with good cavalry, such as a good Crusader army. This is inevitable. The historical example is conquistadors versus Incas or Aztecs. That said, some contemporary match-ups are difficult, Parthians versus Republican Romans, for instance, not because of the technology but due to the composition of the forces.

 Manchu wrote:
For those looking for a more historical/technological approach to list writing in a "fantasy" game, I'd really recommend Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit Strategy Battle Game (soon to be rebranded as Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game). Every unit and every option is very rationally laid out. This of course is partly a result of the races all (or mostly) sharing a phenotype, as it were, as well as roughly the same kind of equipment. It's also a result of Tolkien's work being an explicitly Christian fantasy and therefore assuming an ordered, historical approach.

Contrast this to Warhammer Fantasy - either Old World or AoS - in which Chaos rather than Cosmos is the basis of the setting. In Warhammer Fantasy, the Psychic is preeminent over the Material. Technology is meaningless in the face of true magic, which ignores any and every natural law upon which science is even possible. In this kind of world, it matters less what something is than what it symbolizes - as in a dream. (The appearance of) heavy armor in AoS, for example, stands for toughness generally rather than being a literal constant X applied universally, as in SBG.

That is an excellent summary of the theoretical frameworks of the settings. Indeed, AoS just seems to be a large amalgam of concepts pitted in conflict in an nebulous, semi-mythical setting completely divorced from any concept of absolute reality. It's why the very mundane concepts of Strength , Toughness, Armor, don't seem a very good fit as they are legacy ratings from a system rooted much more in history with fantasy add ons ala D&D. Heck, if AoS doubled down on the whole this is a game of warring ideas and concepts with the physical side as just a visible manifestation of a much more abstract and esoteric struggle, it might be a much more interesting game. But it would likely also be too "out there" for the target markets (What do you mean my dragon model is merely one manifestation of primal fury, destruction and mortal fear of being devoured?).

Herzlos wrote:

Some of them are just badly written (is that how cover is meant to work? How does summoning work?)

Just on these points, summoning works exactly as written. It's just the lingering notion of 'balance' that has people looking for get out clauses in the semantics.

As for cover, yes and no. The 'generic' terrain rule is +1sv if on a terrain piece - but like units, specific terrain has specific rules on their scroll.
Which is where the rules for being /next/ to a wall are.
Not necessarily great design doing it like that, but it's there.

WRG is a good solid rules set. We played fantasy and historical battles with the WRG rules set for years.

The advantage of WHFB, AoS, and pure fantasy rule sets is you get more fantasy flavor. WRG gives you solid battle rules, but less fantasy flavor.

If army sizes >1000 figures, a system like WRG will handle the dice rolling much better than AoS.

 jmurph wrote:
But it would likely also be too "out there" for the target markets

The game we got has proven too out there for many "legacy" customers (whether they are the target is highly debatable) - but I suspect the designers retained the basic mechanical concepts because they are "genetically" related to 40k, from which AoS came and which will I reckon eventually be fully AoSified.

When was the last time that the main online rulebook (a total of 4 pages) was updated?