Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews

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.

**Manchu**

It does not necessarily have to be so, unlike with game mastery design.

**The Shadow**

ConanMan wrote:
as it is, killing something "tough" is the same as killing something "squishy" a lot of the time..

This is another good point that I've been meaning to bring up, after reading through the free KoW rules on Friday.

Kings of War, and many other games, operate on a similar system in that many stats are simply given as a dice roll, however, whereas AoS gives each unit a stat which dictates what they need to wound the enemy, most other games will have a "defence" stat which dictates what enemy units need to wound them. This I think is an equally simple system but one that avoids the problem of a model being able to wound a dragon just as easily as a goblin. It also doesn't help that - from what I've seen - there seems to be no rules in AoS which make enemy units wound on -1 (and hence make tough units appropriately so), whereas in these other games there are plenty of units which are given +1 to wound (and hence making killing units suitable so). Just another improvement GW could have made to AoS had they thought a bit more about it.

**Kilkrazy**

I don't understand the term 'game mastery design'.

**Manchu**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't understand the term 'game mastery design'.

Game mastery is the part of the game where players figure out optimal "builds." Some games are designed to emphasize this aspect of play. Generally speaking, games designed for game mastery play start with the assumption that the players will do anything short of cheating to create the most powerful build (i.e., win); therefore, tightly and clearly written rules are much more important than in games designed without that assumption. Power in turn generally relates not only to inflicting/enduring damage but also doing so reliably (i.e., eliminating chance). Points are extremely valuable to game mastery design because whether units/abilities/upgrades/etc are under- or overcosted is one of the chief factors in determining whether it is optimal or suboptimal. Suboptimal choices are an inherent part of this design schema. For example, how many MtG cards are (literally and figuratively) worthless in a given pack? Hence why competitive players buy singles. But WotC keeps printing and selling (profitably!) packs of cards.

**frozenwastes**

It's sometimes called system mastery in RPG circles

**JohnHwangDD**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't understand the term 'game mastery design'.

It's a nicer way of saying "Munchkined" or "Min-maxed".

**Kilkrazy**

Right, okay, so, the point of the game is partly to figure out the best builds.

It always seemed to me that 40K was not intended to be played like that but it was possible because the way the list and points worked was not balanced.

**Manchu**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It always seemed to me that 40K was not intended to be played like that

I agree and FWIW I think GW thinks so, too. But lots of people posting on Dakka think 40k and WHFB should be "competitive" games (in the sense of game mastery; not in the simpler sense that each player would like to win the game). In fact, a subset of those people seem to believe that is the only type of game. These posters describe AoS as "incomplete" and needing to be houseruled/"fixed" to be playable.

Kilkrazy wrote:
but it was possible because the way the list and points worked was not balanced.

Honestly, the whole rhetoric of "balance" proceeds from the assumption of game mastery.

**JohnHwangDD**

Manchu wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
It always seemed to me that 40K was not intended to be played like that
I agree and FWIW I think GW thinks so, too. But lots of people posting on Dakka think 40k and WHFB should be "competitive" games (in the sense of game mastery; not in the simpler sense that each player would like to win the game). In fact, a subset of those people seem to believe that is the only type of game. These posters describe AoS as "incomplete" and needing to be houseruled/"fixed" to be playable.
Kilkrazy wrote:
but it was possible because the way the list and points worked was not balanced.
Honestly, the whole rhetoric of "balance" proceeds from the assumption of game mastery.

Completely agreed. Competitive GW gaming reminds me of any number of silly things that one can do, but shouldn't. IMO, more people here need to play something like Richard Garfield's The Great Dalmuti, which is a great silly game, loads of fun. Sure, one can keep score, but that's not really the point.

As a filthy casual, I'm firmly of the belief that GW games are more for the experience, than the result.

**BobtheInquisitor**

rexscarlet wrote:
I struggled with whether to write this. It seems like a foregone conclusion at this point that “Age of Sigmar” will still be played. There’s probably nothing anyone can say to change that; the hand wringing only serves to promote the Game even more.
The thing exists, after all, purely to make money and engender controversy because it’s making money and then make more money off of the controversy it engendered. It has us cornered. If we complain about it, we’re doing exactly what they want us to do.
It’s not like anyone involved in producing this smoldering pile of gaming sewage would necessarily disagree with the criticisms anyway. They know exactly what they’ve done. It’s not as though they thought the game was remotely fair and balanced. It wasn’t like when a King first learned of Chess, or Go, and knew these were epic games destined to become the greatest gaming achievements of all time.
I imagine whoever first cooked up the idea to make a new Age of Sigmar game release probably didn’t even play it. They kind of got the gist and thought, “eh, it’s garbage but it’ll probably make a billion dollars because we can vomit just about anything into the trough and players will come in droves to devour it.”
So before we even get to the content itself, rancid as it is, we already know that the game is cynical and worthless, and, as I’ve previously discussed, born purely out of a desire to bilk Fan-Boyz out of their disposable income. It has no other purpose. It serves no other function. It is an empty vessel (well, a vessel filled with Majiks and Armor, but empty besides that). It’s not art, and anyone who pays to play it is degrading themselves, and I’m not even talking about cheese, broken, and loopholes yet.
It’s a marketing ploy disguised as a game, which is something you could admittedly say about most Games Workshop Products. The difference is that, whereas something like “X-Wing” is a vapid and silly yet relatively harmless game for Star Wars merchandise, “Age of Sigmar” is anything but harmless. It is actively poisonous. Toxic. A spiritual carcinogen. A putrid lump of nothingness.

Man, I sure hope you don't have any expectations for Star wars 7 or Batman VS Superman.

GW pretty much killed the 'mutual respect' part of my customer relationship with them years ago. Now, I just buy exactly what I want and use it how I want, and I see nothing degrading or toxic about it. They've done a lot to harm their brand, and maybe I spend less with them than I would with a warmer company, but they aren't exactly collapsing society. Maybe I'm just tainted already; I'll still buy a candy bar every now and then if I really need a fix, even though the internet tells me Nestle kills babies. When GW starts killing actual human babies, then I probably won't be able to justify buying any more ~~Stormcast Eternals~~ Custodes. Or if they raise their prices another 10%.

**flamingkillamajig**

I just don't understand what's wrong with wanting a points system.

The lore was raped, we got space marines, there are 4 pages of rules in the BRB, things were simplified hard and basically everything any veteran of warhammer fantasy loved about the game was destroyed except the armies. The gameplay is way different.

However despite all this i would play with a points system or some restrictions and somehow you basically imply fans like this are bad?

I'll have you guys know i didn't mind End Times even till the whole world blew up. The game wasn't balanced and was a constant arms race for the best toys (what GW is known for) but there was at least a clue of how many points each thing was.

Now that each army has a book at the same time in a PDF with 'age of sigmar' it'd be good for balance rather than 'power creep'. I just want a points system or restrictions and i don't think asking for such is a big complaint considering all fantasy players had to put up with. It'd be less crazy if you took a game out from the warp than what 'Age of Sigmar' became.

**The Shadow**

But this is thing: one of the brilliant things about 40k and many other wargames is that you can play it however you want. You can do your best to put together an optimal list and then do intense, competitive battle with other players and their optimal lists to really push yourself; or you can put together a list that comprises of models you like, or fluffy models, or whatever you happen to own, and have a much more laid-back game. That's the beauty of those games.

With AoS though, only the latter is possible, thanks to the lack of points values, decent scenarios and the generally terrible ruleset. So that means that many people will still enjoy playing that game, but unfortunately makes it a whole less appealing to many players.

**JohnHwangDD**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Now, I just buy exactly what I want and use it how I want, and I see nothing degrading or toxic about it.

I don't quite understand - isn't that how everybody should be relating to GW and other sellers? Buy what you want, and use it as you will? Shouldn't we all be taking control of our own gaming?

**NinthMusketeer**

I still radically disagree with the idea that points aren't an important part of the game. I have never played in a wargame tournament because I hate the competitive mentality it cultivates. I avoid players who optimize their lists to the point of abuse. I am a casual player by all definitions, yet I would still like the game far, far more if it had a points or equivalent system. Taking a balance scale that went from 1 to 10 and making it go from 1 to 100 is not an improvement. Players who want points are entirely left to their own devices here (or hell, even players who want some semblance of a balanced game). If you don't care for that sort of thing then no one is forcing you to use it if it is there, there is no downside to having a points system.

If you want to play a casual narrative game where each player just puts down what they feel like that's fine and there's nothing wrong with that. What IS wrong is implying that players who do want some structure are somehow wrong for wanting and enjoying that.

And yes, the game does have to be house ruled to be playable. Perhaps those house rules take the form of a gentlemen's agreement not to do certain things, but it is required because otherwise you wind up with a very one-sided battle. Heck, I've already had problems where me and an opponent brought forces we believed were balanced to the table, expecting they were evenly matched for a good battle only to find one side dominated the other and one player had slim chances from the onset. And that is completely unintentional. We laugh it off and adjust things, but at least with a points system there would be somewhere to start.

**BobtheInquisitor**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Now, I just buy exactly what I want and use it how I want, and I see nothing degrading or toxic about it.

I don't quite understand - isn't that how everybody should be relating to GW and other sellers? Buy what you want, and use it as you will? Shouldn't we all be taking control of our own gaming?

I can see you're new to wargaming...

I suppose if I cared about playing the game a lot, and could only play it against other random customers in my local community, I would need to be wary of how the community will respond to each of my purchases. Wouldn't want to be known as a cheesebeard or a mental 12 year old.

On another note, though, I did lose it the second time the AoS rule book hinted that the AoS minis would look really nice in a display case. You know, if you should buy them for some reason other than displaying them and then decide you want to display them. In a display case. Where minis get displayed, as minis do.

Coming soon: Games Workshop Age of Sigmar Display Cases! Collect your minis in our collectible Glass Hammerers of Sigmar transparent sigmarminum Display Case or in our equally collectible Lightcrusher of Khorne crystal skull Display Case. Why not both?

**dragonelf**

Wanting a balancing mechanic is usually nothing to do with being competitive. I wish people who keep saying this get it into their heads. ALL games have a balancing mechanic: 11 on each side for football, 3 darts each, the same pieces on each side in chess etc. It is not fun to have to do the donkey work yourself. That is what games designers are for. Yes, some people will try and break every system, but the majority of us, it makes it easier to arrange games design our armies and have fun.

**BobtheInquisitor**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
there is no downside to having a points system.

Now, I'm not attacking the very idea of a points system, and I have no beef with points players, but I have to nitpick and point out that literally every rumor thread about a new GW release ever has demonstrated the massive downside of having a points system. I'm pretty sure some Dakkaites have lost years off their lives from the swing in blood pressure. And God forbid anyone should want to read about anything other than dozens of pages of rules whining and teeth gnashing. Terms like "nerf", "buff" or "balance" only make sense in a point system, where they also appear to increase the amount of human suffering in the world/internet. But I guess we all enjoy gaming products in our own ways.

So, yeah, I guess points have a lot of positive uses for a lot of people, but sometimes they turn people cruel.

**The Shadow**

Some great posts there from Ninthmusketeer and dragonelf: a points system doesn't make a game less "fun" nor does it cultivate a WAAC mentality, it just creates at least SOME balance, which is something many, many people want to see in AoS.

**infinite_array**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
there is no downside to having a points system.

Now, I'm not attacking the very idea of a points system, and I have no beef with points players, but I have to nitpick and point out that literally every rumor thread about a new GW release ever has demonstrated the massive downside of having a points system. I'm pretty sure some Dakkaites have lost years off their lives from the swing in blood pressure. And God forbid anyone should want to read about anything other than dozens of pages of rules whining and teeth gnashing. Terms like "nerf", "buff" or "balance" only make sense in a point system, where they also appear to increase the amount of human suffering in the world/internet. But I guess we all enjoy gaming products in our own ways.

So, yeah, I guess points have a lot of positive uses for a lot of people, but sometimes they turn people cruel.

But that's not a problem with points systems - that's a problem with GW being unable to spend the time and effort to properly playtest their game and correct mistakes when they arise.

So, instead of fixing the system that was already in place - which was possible, since you can easily find plenty of wargames that use points and don't have that wailing and gnashing of teeth - they decided to through out the baby with the bathwater, as well as the bath, the sink, the cabinets, the mirror and the family dog for good measure.

And terms like nerf, buff, and balance can still make sense in a system without points. Take model ranges, for example. Two units with equal weapon abilities and ranges are "balanced." Increasing one unit's range by an inch is a "buff," and decreasing the other unit's range by half an inch is a "nerf". Suddenly, imbalance. And no points needed.

**flamingkillamajig**

A game without a points system is like doing a scientific experiment without a measuring system and just eying it. You have to realize how insane that is? Sure sometimes the points aren't super accurate but it's a simple gauge. The points don't cause the balance issues you talk of they actually decrease them. The bigger issue with nerfing and such is more from having 15 armies that don't all get balanced at the same time. If there is a fix it'll be because armies get consolidated and all the books are simultaneously released and therefore no power creep due to age.

**Talys**

The issue I have with the concept of game mastery in wargames with list building is that too much emphasis is placed on list building, and not enough on predicting, outsmarting, and entrapping your opponent.

This is particularly an issue in when 95% of tournament lists are derivatives of popular Internet theme lists -- meaning, with a small amount of research, not years of play, a player can master a critical element of the game. It also affords an impatient player an insurmountable advantage over a patient one who wishes to just learn the fame and evolve their army organically. In most war games an awesome list in the hands of a mediocre player yields very good results, particularly in the pickup scene. Likewise, just trying things out without the benefit of Internet research will cause an inordinate number of losses.

It's not a problem unique to GW games; people playing WMH have exactly the same issue. You can't just buy models you think look cool that sound like they could mesh together and then expect to win. The AoS solution may be too draconian, because in a way, it removes that whole aspect of the game mastery. Or at least devolves it to just being able to identify such lists prior to play.

**JohnHwangDD**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Now, I just buy exactly what I want and use it how I want, and I see nothing degrading or toxic about it.

I don't quite understand - isn't that how everybody should be relating to GW and other sellers? Buy what you want, and use it as you will? Shouldn't we all be taking control of our own gaming?

I can see you're new to wargaming...

the AoS rule book hinted that the AoS minis would look really nice in a display case.

I took a 4+ year break from Fantasy after 8th came out, so yeah, this whole "fantasy" thing is kinda new to me. Despite playing a smidge of 5E, a bunch of 6E and some 7E, no I really don't "get" how I'm "supposed" to Warhammer Fantasy.

Of the things that I own (and AoS isn't among them), AoS would be toward the back of the things that I would potentially display in a case. DreamForge Leviathan, Eldar Wraithknight, Kingdom Death : Monster monsters (coming soon!) would all have higher priority. I may well look into cabinets for these large items.

**Manchu**

There are a couple of issues that keep coming up in this conversation and I think they merit closer scrutiny.

Firstly, balance and fairness are different. Fairness in gaming broadly means that all players have a reasonable chance at winning, at least as a matter of the rules. Balance by contrast has to do with whether a given play (depending on the type of game, a choice, move, action, etc) can be countered. The obvious example is roshambo. The rule that scissors counter paper counters rock counters scissors has nothing to do with fairness. Similarly, the fact that each player has the same number of chessman has nothing to do with balance. Rather, balance in chess is a matter of how the pieces move. This principle is easier to see with go than chess: balance in go is a matter of where the players place the stones.

Secondly, I think many people understand points based on a misunderstanding of money -- or more precisely, value. The price of an apple is not actually an objective summary of an apple's characteristics. Rather, its price is itself one of the apple's characteristics as it exists in a market. A given apple is of itself the same no matter where it is sold but it sells for different prices in different places and not just because of how much it costs to get an apple to those places but also because people in those places are willing to pay different amounts, for a variety of reasons. Now, imagine that someone could control how much apples cost in order to encourage people to buy more or less of them. This is what game designers do with points. Points are not an objective measurement of a unit's value but rather part of the unit's value. This is why you hear players talk about something being over- or undercosted.

**Silent Puffin?**

Talys wrote:
The issue I have with the concept of game mastery in wargames with list building is that too much emphasis is placed on list building, and not enough on predicting, outsmarting, and entrapping your opponent.

This is entirely a game design issue. If unit A has better rules/stats/abilities/whatever than unit B but both cost the same points then only unit A will see the table in 'competitive' lists, although both would still be used in themed lists etc. If unit A and unit B were still different but properly costed then both would see the table. This obviously requires work and research but it is far from impossible to do.

As AoS doesn't have points values unit B may see the table more often (may) but unit A will still be used more frequently as it is more effective.

Internet lists are a scourge but their cure is designing a good, coherent and well balanced game; not just giving up all pretence of army building and balance.

**Jambles**

Sure, games with a focus on narrative purpose rather than mechanics are a real thing: Dungeons and Dragons has done just fine by providing a rough guideline and more or less letting the players do whatever the hell they want.

On the other side of the spectrum, you've got the hyper-tactical competitive puzzle type games, with a strict focus on making competition between players as fair as possible, ostensibly in order to see who is better at that game and it's interdependent systems. Chess is the obvious example - I like to point to Street Fighter and other fighting games too.

I don't think there's an inherently better or worse way to structure your game. It can clearly work either way.

Of course this is a big change - and change is scary, because humans. Was that the right call? I dunno. I really enjoy building lists for 40k, trying to figure out what works and what doesn't, building a cohesive whole that fits together on the page and the tabletop. If that was to go away, I don't think I'd play that new edition personally. I'm clearly not the only one who thinks so.

But perhaps, I'm just the old man grumbling at the kids on the lawn with their legos and their power rangers. Maybe this way IS better, and in ten years we'll be wondering why we ever bothered with crap like lists and points?

**Manchu**

TBH I sometimes find listbuilding fun too, even if it's just building themed lists and trying to get everything in at a certain cost. It's still a challenge, and can be fun, even if you are not cranking out a tourney build. But I don't think it is an essential part of games overall, as some folks believe.

**Kilkrazy**

Talys wrote:
The issue I have with the concept of game mastery in wargames with list building is that too much emphasis is placed on list building, and not enough on predicting, outsmarting, and entrapping your opponent.

...
...

This is the crux of it.

There are well-proven, popular historical competition rulesets that use army lists and points and are regarded as balanced for competition or casual play (WRG). There also are rulesets that use army lists but not points, and are regarded as balanced (DBA).

There are also historical rules that compose your army by rolling it up on statistical tables to get a realistic composition of forces. This of course does not necessarily result in a balanced game, but it is not intended to.

What don't exist are historical sets that let you choose whatever you like, with or without points and/or lists.

40K certainly has a strong tendency to net-lists and so on.

I don't see that AOS gets rid of this by not having lists or points. There still will be weaker and stronger units and people who want to min-max them will find ways to discover and use them.

**JohnHwangDD**

Kilkrazy wrote:
There still will be weaker and stronger units and people who want to min-max them will find ways to discover and use them.

Sure, but what's the point? AOS says that players can keep deploying, so there's nothing really to min-max. It's not like you necessarily run out of points, though you might run out of models.

**Swastakowey**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
There still will be weaker and stronger units and people who want to min-max them will find ways to discover and use them.

Sure, but what's the point? AOS says that players can keep deploying, so there's nothing really to min-max. It's not like you necessarily run out of points, though you might run out of models.

You can maximize your units in your space provided. Why take up precious space with simple spearmen when you can take elite throat slicers which have 3X the wounds and have the same base size?

Or maybe you want to take up the most spcae with the least amount of models. So you take the best kind of ogres you have and unless your opponent places fewer models than you chances are you have made the best bang for buck given your space.

Table space and models owned are the new points system in this. Unfortunately this worst kind of points system for a game like this.

Min Maxing your armies has never been easier really.

**Kilkrazy**

What's the point of min-maxing in 40K?

If people want to min-max they will do it unless the game rules or the other players stop them.