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.

One thing I noticed was when the first AoS White Dwarf was released with that free model, the model has a copyright date of 2014. So they had the models for at least 6 months and if you combine that with fluff and artwork that happen before model are sculpted and cast it would need to be AT LEAST a year before we saw it.

When did End Times start? AoS would have been planned before that, and think how long that would have taken to write and develop... its definitely not the 4-5 days people have mentioned.

We get that some people don't like AoS but if you SERIOUSLY think it took 4-5 days to develop the game you are either trolling or have no idea what you are talking about.

I'd like to change my answer to 4.

Nerm86 wrote:
One thing I noticed was when the first AoS White Dwarf was released with that free model, the model has a copyright date of 2014. So they had the models for at least 6 months and if you combine that with fluff and artwork that happen before model are sculpted and cast it would need to be AT LEAST a year before we saw it.

When did End Times start? AoS would have been planned before that, and think how long that would have taken to write and develop... its definitely not the 4-5 days people have mentioned.

We get that some people don't like AoS but if you SERIOUSLY think it took 4-5 days to develop the game you are either trolling or have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because the had the models & compyright doesn't mean they were developing the rules that entire time, or even most of that time. Its entirely possible they spent 4-5 days to make the rules in 2014 then spent a large amount of time designing the models (which are far more complex and well-done than the rules imo). Assume for a moment that they DID make the rules for AoS in 5 days. What sort of problems would you expect to see with that ruleset? Now look at the problems with the AoS ruleset. YMMV, but when I do that there's a large match between problems I would expect to see and problems I actually do see.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Nerm86 wrote:
One thing I noticed was when the first AoS White Dwarf was released with that free model, the model has a copyright date of 2014. So they had the models for at least 6 months and if you combine that with fluff and artwork that happen before model are sculpted and cast it would need to be AT LEAST a year before we saw it.

When did End Times start? AoS would have been planned before that, and think how long that would have taken to write and develop... its definitely not the 4-5 days people have mentioned.

We get that some people don't like AoS but if you SERIOUSLY think it took 4-5 days to develop the game you are either trolling or have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because the had the models & compyright doesn't mean they were developing the rules that entire time, or even most of that time. Its entirely possible they spent 4-5 days to make the rules in 2014 then spent a large amount of time designing the models (which are far more complex and well-done than the rules imo). Assume for a moment that they DID make the rules for AoS in 5 days. What sort of problems would you expect to see with that ruleset? Now look at the problems with the AoS ruleset. YMMV, but when I do that there's a large match between problems I would expect to see and problems I actually do see.

I feel like you need to provide examples to really get your point across because at the moment I don't see the relation. The majority of issues I've seen people have with the rules are either about vagueness in wording, lack of points, or a dislike of the direction compared to other wargames.

A lot of the issues with how vaguely things are worded (such as piling bases, being about to shoot a model if you can see the top of its spear, carrions, etc) seem like they are mostly results of GW trying to fit a whole core ruleset onto 4 pages and then use as few words as possible on the warscrolls. I wouldn't be surprised to hear it actually took a lot of time to boil down the rules this small when you consider just how many directions various rules could have been designed. It's possible that they started from scratch and just happened to think of everything that ended up in the game on a first try, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn they considered a lot of different sudden death types, rule variations, and triggering conditions to settle on the current system.

The lack of points and the radically different direction with the game was clearly a choice and not a result of them rushing. I'd argue its actually not all that surprising considering GW have been printing the "golden rule" in the core rulebooks for ages now. The amount of words they spend talking about how AoS should be about having a dialogue with your opponent, the free, simpler rules, and heavy focus on pushing campaign and formation books suggests they want to move into a more casual hobby market. Its actually pretty reminiscent of the changes in business model happening for AAA video games where casual free to play is an increasingly valued content delivery method due to its ability to pull in wide demographics of new players.

Again, I'm curious to hear specifically what examples of problems you had in mind when you made your statement since I'm seeing something else entirely.

Jack Flask wrote:

I feel like you need to provide examples to really get your point across because at the moment I don't see the relation. The majority of issues I've seen people have with the rules are either about vagueness in wording, lack of points, or a dislike of the direction compared to other wargames.

...

Again, I'm curious to hear specifically what examples of problems you had in mind when you made your statement since I'm seeing something else entirely.

This... totally this. Exalted

There is a difference between the time intervening between the decision to write AoS and the date it was published, and the amount of man hours needed to design the product. Obviously a large company like GW develops plans a couple of years in advance, because they have to take into account a complex supply train to manufacture and distribute new products. (Luckily they don't have to worry about marketing, which saves a lot of effort.)

However if you are looking at the actual work involved in writing the rules, what's in AoS is nearly all taken out of 40K or WHFB, with some relatively small modifications.

Let's look at the construction of the rules:

Battlefield Setup
Old rules: Table size.
New rules: Table to select terrain, Selection of deployment zones by half tables.


Force Selection and Deployment
Old: Nothing.
New: No balance factors (Points, etc.) Deploy units alternately within your deployment zone. Each unit is a unit with identical equipment and cannot be merged with any other unit. Sudden Death rule for outnumbered armies.

Turn Sequence
Old: The outline of the Turn Sequence
New: Dice for Initiative each turn. New phases in the sequence.

New: Hero Phase
Command Rule
Magic Rule

Old: Movement Phase
It's the same as 40K.
Movement stat is the same as WHFB.

Old: Shooting Phase
It's the same as 40K.
New: No cover saves. BS is replaced by To Hit stat. The S stat is replaced by To Wound stat. Save is replaced by To Save with Rending modifiers. Mortal wounds. No invulnerable saves.

Old: Charge Phase
Same as 40K.

Old: Combat Phase
Same as 40K.
New: The I stat is replaced by alternation of attacking unit. The WS stat is replaced by the To Hit stat. IDK if weapon ranges were in WHFB. The same changes to Wound and Save mechanism as in the SHooting phase..

New: Battleshock Phase
Bravery stat and Battleshock mechanism replaces Ld stat and mechanism.

Terrain Rules
New: Standard terrain types have special rules to give modifiers for various actions.

War Scrolls
New: Stat line is a modification of the old stat line. Each unit has at least one special rule.

The surprising thing really is how similar AoS is to the core rules of 40K and WHFB.

Can we really be expected to believe that dozens of designers spent months thinking up revolutionary new movement rules, and how to replace the To Hit, To Wound, To Save mechanism, then decided what they had was already good enough? The game has to include walking and flying units that move around the table top, the movement has to be measured, and so on. Much easier to believe they just kept the same rules because they work, and let's face it, people like them.

Once you remove movement and combat from the workload, there isn't very much else in the core ruleset. The bulk of the work overall is the new special rules in the war scrolls.

I don't deny that people may have been thinking about AoS two years ago, it's just impossible to believe that several designers have been working on it continuously for that long.There just isn't enough work to be done.

Jack Flask wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Nerm86 wrote:
One thing I noticed was when the first AoS White Dwarf was released with that free model, the model has a copyright date of 2014. So they had the models for at least 6 months and if you combine that with fluff and artwork that happen before model are sculpted and cast it would need to be AT LEAST a year before we saw it.

When did End Times start? AoS would have been planned before that, and think how long that would have taken to write and develop... its definitely not the 4-5 days people have mentioned.

We get that some people don't like AoS but if you SERIOUSLY think it took 4-5 days to develop the game you are either trolling or have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because the had the models & compyright doesn't mean they were developing the rules that entire time, or even most of that time. Its entirely possible they spent 4-5 days to make the rules in 2014 then spent a large amount of time designing the models (which are far more complex and well-done than the rules imo). Assume for a moment that they DID make the rules for AoS in 5 days. What sort of problems would you expect to see with that ruleset? Now look at the problems with the AoS ruleset. YMMV, but when I do that there's a large match between problems I would expect to see and problems I actually do see.

I feel like you need to provide examples to really get your point across because at the moment I don't see the relation. The majority of issues I've seen people have with the rules are either about vagueness in wording, lack of points, or a dislike of the direction compared to other wargames.

A lot of the issues with how vaguely things are worded (such as piling bases, being about to shoot a model if you can see the top of its spear, carrions, etc) seem like they are mostly results of GW trying to fit a whole core ruleset onto 4 pages and then use as few words as possible on the warscrolls. I wouldn't be surprised to hear it actually took a lot of time to boil down the rules this small when you consider just how many directions various rules could have been designed. It's possible that they started from scratch and just happened to think of everything that ended up in the game on a first try, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn they considered a lot of different sudden death types, rule variations, and triggering conditions to settle on the current system.

The lack of points and the radically different direction with the game was clearly a choice and not a result of them rushing. I'd argue its actually not all that surprising considering GW have been printing the "golden rule" in the core rulebooks for ages now. The amount of words they spend talking about how AoS should be about having a dialogue with your opponent, the free, simpler rules, and heavy focus on pushing campaign and formation books suggests they want to move into a more casual hobby market. Its actually pretty reminiscent of the changes in business model happening for AAA video games where casual free to play is an increasingly valued content delivery method due to its ability to pull in wide demographics of new players.

Again, I'm curious to hear specifically what examples of problems you had in mind when you made your statement since I'm seeing something else entirely.

Fair enough. Though I will say again that I don't think they wrote the rules in under a week, I'm just saying that it's not an irrational opinion to have. Anyways, examples in no particular order:

-Model to model measurement: can bases stack on top of each other? Can models stack on top of each other? If yes, how much? If no, what constitutes stacking? On a related note, where does base end and model begin? If my wood elf is modeled standing on a 2" tree and the tree is part of his base then he can never be hit by 1" melee weapons unless the swinging model is sufficiently large, or has a particularly flamboyant hat. Even if that problem is resolved we come to flying units...

-Does piling in "towards the closest enemy model" mean I have to end closer than I started, that the entire move must be continuously bringing me closer, or that I can only go directly towards it in a straight line?

-Sudden death. Does this only trigger at the start of the battle? If it can be triggered during a battle, then what happens if the model count evens out, or even reverses?

-Skaven Doombell and Kyros Fateweaver combo. You may say its against the rules but I say it isn't. Let's roll a dice: on a 4+ I win automatically my first turn. You like sudden death rules? Meet my single tomb scarab. Yes, these and other stupid combos are just that, but in a properly designed game they wouldn't even exist.

-Dual-wielding models: am I using the profile for the weapon once or am I doubling it? For some models it seems obvious, for others not so much.

-Bonus stacking combined with no auto-fail on a 1 means multiple mystic shields make a model invulnerable to conventional wounds.

-Special characters are now hardly so; you can take as many of the same one as you like. Granted they seem to be fixing this with new releases, but that further suggests it was something intended that slipped through the cracks of a rushed ruleset.

-Rolling for initiative at the start of each turn can decide games independent of tactics, planning, or any actual skill. This makes it seem like a rule that was never tested or even thought through properly. The triumph table certainly speaks to the latter as well.

-Lost unit coherancy. If a unit loses coherency then "it must reform the next time it moves" what if the models do not have sufficient movement to do so? Can they not move at all? What if they are in melee? Can they not make pile-in moves?

-On a similar note, units must be set up and end moves in coherency, but what about adding models to an existing unit? Presumably they must be added in coherency (though RAW they don't have to), but are they added one at a time or all at once?

-War machines. Are warmachine and crew 1 warscroll? If so, why are they separated like that and how are they treated as a unit? Crew get cover from a war machine, so do I assign wounds before rolling saves? Either way, do crew 'belong' to a certain war machine? Can they count for multiple war machines if they are within range of more than one? If they are separate scrolls, then how do war machines work if I have no crew on the table? Do the rules from the crew's warscrolls function even if they aren't on the board? Presumably so, but either way this precedent is linked to...

-Summoning. Specifically, do the warscroll abilities to be summoned apply even if the model is not on the table? The logical answer is no, but then that conflicts with the logical answer to war machine crew.

-I see problems in a number of individual warscrolls. The giant has a rule for falling over that involves literally putting the model on its side (which is silly to begin with...) then dealing wounds to models it "lands on" but has no indication as to what that actually means. Does the giant model need to contact the enemy model, or just be directly over it? How does a scenic base on the giant play into this? The High Elf Bolt Thrower has the same problems as other warmachines plus conflict between the attack profile and the chart, and further Ithilmar bolts are never statistically better than Repeating bolts so why does this option even exist?

Many of these questions can be figured out with a decent application of RAI, house rules, and common sense, but the point is that such issues aren't present (or at least not nearly as frequent) in well-designed and playtested rulesets. They aren't utterly crippling flaws but more than just obscure quibbles; exactly the sort of thing (IMO) that would slip through a rushed design process.

I don't think GW rushed the design process, they just don't care about writing precise rules. Not just that, they don't care about writing unambiguous rules in clear, plain English. The problem is that people start to interpret and invent new things to explain stuff.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think GW rushed the design process, they just don't care about writing precise rules. Not just that, they don't care about writing unambiguous rules in clear, plain English. The problem is that people start to interpret and invent new things to explain stuff.

That's a consequence of the English language being ambiguous. Even a sentence like "the turtle raced against the hare. It was victorious." can be parsed two different ways. The only way to be unambiguous with English is to describe the same thing multiple ways (pictures don't hurt), which runs counter to the 4 page design philosophy (they could've dumped the triumph tables and added a 5th page).

That being said, most people's opinion on what is ambiguous in AoS is them using rules and standards from different games (and wishing AoS was one of them). Like the two weapons argument. What's written makes it obvious that you don't double the weapon line, but people read what they want to read, and they want twice the attacks. There's a reason why reading comprehension is on the SATs - not everybody is particularly good at it. Also, some of the ambiguity, such as balancing forces, is intentional.

There is a basic problem with GW writing ambiguously, as well as a lack of definitions, glossary of terms and so on. Whilst adding these would make the rules longer, there is no excuse for failure to write clear English explanation of their intentions.

Take this sentence from the AoS rules:

Missile weapons can be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can be used in the combat phase.

Now look at this version:

Missile weapons can only be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can only be used in the combat phase.

My version is unambiguous because I have written it better. It didn't take me a degree in English Language.

I've never found a rulebook which wasn't needless ambiguous in extremely weird ways. About a decade ago, I used to play board games with a friend who would argue every single rule he could in his favor (even when he just argued the exact opposite in the previous game) and parsing the English language in new and unusual ways was his specialty. There wasn't a game around that he couldn't argue into tedium. (we stopped playing board games because of this and focused on video games, which had no ambiguity). I just don't think it's a GW exclusive problem.

I see it as the difference between TADS and Inform - both interactive fiction authoring tools. TADS is an object orientated scripting language, familiar to any programmer, and with a very explicit structure. Inform is natural language and rules based, so you would write "Apple is an object with the description 'xyz'. It is in the Lounge." Rather than defining an apple, you define the things that make it an apple (if that makes sense).

Complex rule orientated games, like 40k or Warmachine, are similar to TADS. It is very explicit and structural, familiar and comfortable to nerds everywhere (myself included). AoS is more rule based. Rather than explicitly defining its structure, it defines what the game can do, and the structure is sort of invisibly built in the background. If it says that Missile weapons can be used in the shooting phase, that's all it means. What the shooting phase is and represents is then inferred. The rules define what a zone of control does, not is.

If you aren't familiar with TADS or Inform, this example won't make much sense, but my point is that AoS describes the rules using a fundamentally different approach than something like 40k does. And it can feel a bit weird and maybe even a bit overly permissive.

Language ambiguity is a problem that needs to be addressed with every written set of rules, not addressing it (intentionally or no) cuts down dramatically on the time it take to develop a ruleset. Relying on reasonable interpretation of the rules can work for certain situations, like for a casual game that goes alongside models which customers buy primarily for collection purposes (which is why GW -thinks- their models sell), but not for a game that has a broad playerbase and is competing against the rest of the wargames market (what AoS actually is). The reality is that one person's reasonable is another person's powergaming, and just because ambiguity will be a inevitably be a problem doesn't mean the frequency/severity isn't a factor.

Probably the afternoon break between the back breaking labor of moving mr kirbs considerable amount of money down into the vaults, and washing him down during his sponge bath.

Do we have a list of all the ambiguous points of contention in the AoS ruleset?

Off the top of my head, I can only think of one place where language is the real problem (summoned units count as casualties, or summoned causalities counted as casualties?), and one where games using terms differently leads to assumptions (slain models removed play - from the table or from the entire game?)

My list just 6 posts back wouldn't be a bad place to start....

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is a basic problem with GW writing ambiguously, as well as a lack of definitions, glossary of terms and so on. Whilst adding these would make the rules longer, there is no excuse for failure to write clear English explanation of their intentions.

Take this sentence from the AoS rules:

Missile weapons can be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can be used in the combat phase.

Now look at this version:

Missile weapons can only be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can only be used in the combat phase.

My version is unambiguous because I have written it better. It didn't take me a degree in English Language.

Your version is not the same thing though. You're adding in restrictions that don't exist in GW's version and would preclude special rules that allow out of sequence attacks. For example, I'm pretty sure one of the High Elf ranged units can fire 40k style Overwatch. Your version wouldn't allow use of the missile weapons as it wouldn't be during a shooting phase.

I've edited technical documents in the past. It's VERY important not to change meaning when you try to clarify a sentence.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Nerm86 wrote:
One thing I noticed was when the first AoS White Dwarf was released with that free model, the model has a copyright date of 2014. So they had the models for at least 6 months and if you combine that with fluff and artwork that happen before model are sculpted and cast it would need to be AT LEAST a year before we saw it.

When did End Times start? AoS would have been planned before that, and think how long that would have taken to write and develop... its definitely not the 4-5 days people have mentioned.

We get that some people don't like AoS but if you SERIOUSLY think it took 4-5 days to develop the game you are either trolling or have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because the had the models & compyright doesn't mean they were developing the rules that entire time, or even most of that time. Its entirely possible they spent 4-5 days to make the rules in 2014 then spent a large amount of time designing the models (which are far more complex and well-done than the rules imo). Assume for a moment that they DID make the rules for AoS in 5 days. What sort of problems would you expect to see with that ruleset? Now look at the problems with the AoS ruleset. YMMV, but when I do that there's a large match between problems I would expect to see and problems I actually do see.

I feel like you need to provide examples to really get your point across because at the moment I don't see the relation. The majority of issues I've seen people have with the rules are either about vagueness in wording, lack of points, or a dislike of the direction compared to other wargames.

A lot of the issues with how vaguely things are worded (such as piling bases, being about to shoot a model if you can see the top of its spear, carrions, etc) seem like they are mostly results of GW trying to fit a whole core ruleset onto 4 pages and then use as few words as possible on the warscrolls. I wouldn't be surprised to hear it actually took a lot of time to boil down the rules this small when you consider just how many directions various rules could have been designed. It's possible that they started from scratch and just happened to think of everything that ended up in the game on a first try, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn they considered a lot of different sudden death types, rule variations, and triggering conditions to settle on the current system.

The lack of points and the radically different direction with the game was clearly a choice and not a result of them rushing. I'd argue its actually not all that surprising considering GW have been printing the "golden rule" in the core rulebooks for ages now. The amount of words they spend talking about how AoS should be about having a dialogue with your opponent, the free, simpler rules, and heavy focus on pushing campaign and formation books suggests they want to move into a more casual hobby market. Its actually pretty reminiscent of the changes in business model happening for AAA video games where casual free to play is an increasingly valued content delivery method due to its ability to pull in wide demographics of new players.

Again, I'm curious to hear specifically what examples of problems you had in mind when you made your statement since I'm seeing something else entirely.

Fair enough. Though I will say again that I don't think they wrote the rules in under a week, I'm just saying that it's not an irrational opinion to have. Anyways, examples in no particular order:

-Model to model measurement: can bases stack on top of each other? Can models stack on top of each other? If yes, how much? If no, what constitutes stacking? On a related note, where does base end and model begin? If my wood elf is modeled standing on a 2" tree and the tree is part of his base then he can never be hit by 1" melee weapons unless the swinging model is sufficiently large, or has a particularly flamboyant hat. Even if that problem is resolved we come to flying units...

-Does piling in "towards the closest enemy model" mean I have to end closer than I started, that the entire move must be continuously bringing me closer, or that I can only go directly towards it in a straight line?

-Sudden death. Does this only trigger at the start of the battle? If it can be triggered during a battle, then what happens if the model count evens out, or even reverses?

-Skaven Doombell and Kyros Fateweaver combo. You may say its against the rules but I say it isn't. Let's roll a dice: on a 4+ I win automatically my first turn. You like sudden death rules? Meet my single tomb scarab. Yes, these and other stupid combos are just that, but in a properly designed game they wouldn't even exist.

-Dual-wielding models: am I using the profile for the weapon once or am I doubling it? For some models it seems obvious, for others not so much.

-Bonus stacking combined with no auto-fail on a 1 means multiple mystic shields make a model invulnerable to conventional wounds.

-Special characters are now hardly so; you can take as many of the same one as you like. Granted they seem to be fixing this with new releases, but that further suggests it was something intended that slipped through the cracks of a rushed ruleset.

-Rolling for initiative at the start of each turn can decide games independent of tactics, planning, or any actual skill. This makes it seem like a rule that was never tested or even thought through properly. The triumph table certainly speaks to the latter as well.

-Lost unit coherancy. If a unit loses coherency then "it must reform the next time it moves" what if the models do not have sufficient movement to do so? Can they not move at all? What if they are in melee? Can they not make pile-in moves?

-On a similar note, units must be set up and end moves in coherency, but what about adding models to an existing unit? Presumably they must be added in coherency (though RAW they don't have to), but are they added one at a time or all at once?

-War machines. Are warmachine and crew 1 warscroll? If so, why are they separated like that and how are they treated as a unit? Crew get cover from a war machine, so do I assign wounds before rolling saves? Either way, do crew 'belong' to a certain war machine? Can they count for multiple war machines if they are within range of more than one? If they are separate scrolls, then how do war machines work if I have no crew on the table? Do the rules from the crew's warscrolls function even if they aren't on the board? Presumably so, but either way this precedent is linked to...

-Summoning. Specifically, do the warscroll abilities to be summoned apply even if the model is not on the table? The logical answer is no, but then that conflicts with the logical answer to war machine crew.

-I see problems in a number of individual warscrolls. The giant has a rule for falling over that involves literally putting the model on its side (which is silly to begin with...) then dealing wounds to models it "lands on" but has no indication as to what that actually means. Does the giant model need to contact the enemy model, or just be directly over it? How does a scenic base on the giant play into this? The High Elf Bolt Thrower has the same problems as other warmachines plus conflict between the attack profile and the chart, and further Ithilmar bolts are never statistically better than Repeating bolts so why does this option even exist?

Many of these questions can be figured out with a decent application of RAI, house rules, and common sense, but the point is that such issues aren't present (or at least not nearly as frequent) in well-designed and playtested rulesets. They aren't utterly crippling flaws but more than just obscure quibbles; exactly the sort of thing (IMO) that would slip through a rushed design process.

Not all of these are under contention at a community level. You might want to take your concerns to You Make Da Call and you'll likely find that a community consensus exists. You're also adding value judgments to your comments above. "The logical answer is no". Why? Logically, in the absence of a rule telling me to ignore rules, I would follow all rules on all War Scrolls I brought to the battle. Just because some units were kept in Reserves doesn't logically mean I should ignore their rules.

 Kriswall wrote:
Not all of these are under contention at a community level. You might want to take your concerns to You Make Da Call and you'll likely find that a community consensus exists. You're also adding value judgments to your comments above. "The logical answer is no". Why? Logically, in the absence of a rule telling me to ignore rules, I would follow all rules on all War Scrolls I brought to the battle. Just because some units were kept in Reserves doesn't logically mean I should ignore their rules.

I was answering a question as to problems I saw that I thought could arise from a rushed design job, relating to the original topic of the thread. Not to derail too much, but I say that because the RAI seem to be that units which aren't in play don't have their rules apply to the game. For example, Epidemius' tally never states he has to be on the board, but I doubt every nurgle models should be getting the benefits if he isn't present. However, it doesn't matter if the answer is yes or no because it creates rules issues either way (and if the answer is "sometimes" then that reeks of poor design even more). At any rate, your difference in opinion highlights the fact that what one person considers the reasonable/logical answer may not seem so to another player; both our opinions have legitimate evidence so who's to say which one of us is right, if either? The rules don't (beyond 1-3 your way 4-6 my way), and its things like that which make people think GW did not put much time/effort into the design. Certainly me and those I play with have reached conclusions on the issues I raised (or haven't had to deal with them in game) but that is outside the game's design, especially because many of the resolutions come from outright house ruling.

Your version is not the same thing though. You're adding in restrictions that don't exist in GW's version and would preclude special rules that allow out of sequence attacks. For example, I'm pretty sure one of the High Elf ranged units can fire 40k style Overwatch. Your version wouldn't allow use of the missile weapons as it wouldn't be during a shooting phase.

Unless you mean to suggest that missile weapons can be used as melee weapons in combat, and melee weapons can be used in the shooting phase, then his version is the same thing (but clearer). Plenty of the warscrolls 'break' the conventional rules but that isn't to say that the conventional rules can be broken otherwise. A baseline assumption in GW games is that individual unit rules trump the main rulebook, if you don't make that assumption then the games fall apart.

Ultimately I am confused at what you are trying to say here, so perhaps I am misunderstanding your angle.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Not all of these are under contention at a community level. You might want to take your concerns to You Make Da Call and you'll likely find that a community consensus exists. You're also adding value judgments to your comments above. "The logical answer is no". Why? Logically, in the absence of a rule telling me to ignore rules, I would follow all rules on all War Scrolls I brought to the battle. Just because some units were kept in Reserves doesn't logically mean I should ignore their rules.

I was answering a question as to problems I saw that I thought could arise from a rushed design job, relating to the original topic of the thread. Not to derail too much, but I say that because the RAI seem to be that units which aren't in play don't have their rules apply to the game. For example, Epidemius' tally never states he has to be on the board, but I doubt every nurgle models should be getting the benefits if he isn't present. However, it doesn't matter if the answer is yes or no because it creates rules issues either way (and if the answer is "sometimes" then that reeks of poor design even more). At any rate, your difference in opinion highlights the fact that what one person considers the reasonable/logical answer may not seem so to another player; both our opinions have legitimate evidence so who's to say which one of us is right, if either? The rules don't (beyond 1-3 your way 4-6 my way), and its things like that which make people think GW did not put much time/effort into the design. Certainly me and those I play with have reached conclusions on the issues I raised (or haven't had to deal with them in game) but that is outside the game's design, especially because many of the resolutions come from outright house ruling.

Your version is not the same thing though. You're adding in restrictions that don't exist in GW's version and would preclude special rules that allow out of sequence attacks. For example, I'm pretty sure one of the High Elf ranged units can fire 40k style Overwatch. Your version wouldn't allow use of the missile weapons as it wouldn't be during a shooting phase.

Unless you mean to suggest that missile weapons can be used as melee weapons in combat, and melee weapons can be used in the shooting phase, then his version is the same thing (but clearer). Plenty of the warscrolls 'break' the conventional rules but that isn't to say that the conventional rules can be broken otherwise. A baseline assumption in GW games is that individual unit rules trump the main rulebook, if you don't make that assumption then the games fall apart.

Ultimately I am confused at what you are trying to say here, so perhaps I am misunderstanding your angle.

Point 1 - I would generally agree that abilities can only be used when a model is on the table. Epidemius's Tally thing is an ability. The various summon spells aren't abilities as they aren't listed in the abilities section. My stance remains that abilities require that a model be on the table while non-abilities such as the Magic section don't. And to stave off a potential rebuttal, the core rules require a model to be on the table to cast a spell or unbind a spell. There is no general requirement that a model be on the table to confer a spell to another unit/type of unit.

Point 2 - If I'm told that missile weapons can only be used in the shooting phase, then I'm also being told that missile weapons CAN'T be used during other phases. There are some units that allow you to make a shooting attack whenever an enemy units moves to within 1/2". Sisters of Avelorn is a good example. Placing an additional restriction saying they can only use their bows during the shooting phase creates a conflct with the war scroll. The standard wording creates no such conflict. Why would you want to add additional wording to create additional restrictions that serve only to create conflicts that weren't there before?

 Kriswall wrote:

Spoiler:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Not all of these are under contention at a community level. You might want to take your concerns to You Make Da Call and you'll likely find that a community consensus exists. You're also adding value judgments to your comments above. "The logical answer is no". Why? Logically, in the absence of a rule telling me to ignore rules, I would follow all rules on all War Scrolls I brought to the battle. Just because some units were kept in Reserves doesn't logically mean I should ignore their rules.

I was answering a question as to problems I saw that I thought could arise from a rushed design job, relating to the original topic of the thread. Not to derail too much, but I say that because the RAI seem to be that units which aren't in play don't have their rules apply to the game. For example, Epidemius' tally never states he has to be on the board, but I doubt every nurgle models should be getting the benefits if he isn't present. However, it doesn't matter if the answer is yes or no because it creates rules issues either way (and if the answer is "sometimes" then that reeks of poor design even more). At any rate, your difference in opinion highlights the fact that what one person considers the reasonable/logical answer may not seem so to another player; both our opinions have legitimate evidence so who's to say which one of us is right, if either? The rules don't (beyond 1-3 your way 4-6 my way), and its things like that which make people think GW did not put much time/effort into the design. Certainly me and those I play with have reached conclusions on the issues I raised (or haven't had to deal with them in game) but that is outside the game's design, especially because many of the resolutions come from outright house ruling.

Your version is not the same thing though. You're adding in restrictions that don't exist in GW's version and would preclude special rules that allow out of sequence attacks. For example, I'm pretty sure one of the High Elf ranged units can fire 40k style Overwatch. Your version wouldn't allow use of the missile weapons as it wouldn't be during a shooting phase.

Unless you mean to suggest that missile weapons can be used as melee weapons in combat, and melee weapons can be used in the shooting phase, then his version is the same thing (but clearer). Plenty of the warscrolls 'break' the conventional rules but that isn't to say that the conventional rules can be broken otherwise. A baseline assumption in GW games is that individual unit rules trump the main rulebook, if you don't make that assumption then the games fall apart.

Ultimately I am confused at what you are trying to say here, so perhaps I am misunderstanding your angle.

Point 1 - I would generally agree that abilities can only be used when a model is on the table. Epidemius's Tally thing is an ability. The various summon spells aren't abilities as they aren't listed in the abilities section. My stance remains that abilities require that a model be on the table while non-abilities such as the Magic section don't. And to stave off a potential rebuttal, the core rules require a model to be on the table to cast a spell or unbind a spell. There is no general requirement that a model be on the table to confer a spell to another unit/type of unit.

Point 2 - If I'm told that missile weapons can only be used in the shooting phase, then I'm also being told that missile weapons CAN'T be used during other phases. There are some units that allow you to make a shooting attack whenever an enemy units moves to within 1/2". Sisters of Avelorn is a good example. Placing an additional restriction saying they can only use their bows during the shooting phase creates a conflct with the war scroll. The standard wording creates no such conflict. Why would you want to add additional wording to create additional restrictions that serve only to create conflicts that weren't there before?

Well on point one I personally disagree, but I also respect the reasoning you used to arrive at that conclusion. On point two, I see that with the wording we have now, no one uses missile weapons outside the shooting phase anyway unless they have a specific rule permitting to do so. I read that as the original rule effectively meaning that shooting weapons can only be used in the relevant phase, just being vague about it. I read GW's rules with the idea that there is an unspoken assumption that specific model rules trump the main rules, so either way a model with a rule allowing it to fire outside the shooting phase can do so. The difference is that the vague version could potentially be spun to allow a unit firing its missile weapons in the combat phase, while the specific version disallows that. Ultimately its trivial (because seriously, who is going to do that?) and I (think I) understand your point, but I believe Killkrazy meant to use it as an example of simple fixes to vague wording rather than an actual rule change that should be present. At this point we are getting a bit off topic so I'll let you finish off this line of the discussion.

Even after 8 editions of development, WFB still needed multiple FAQ's during it's lifecycle.

I think NinthMusketeer's (quite comprehensive!) list of things he finds odd/ambiguous in the main rules is remarkably small given this is a "1st edition" ruleset.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Do we have a list of all the ambiguous points of contention in the AoS ruleset?

...

You may have set a challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is a basic problem with GW writing ambiguously, as well as a lack of definitions, glossary of terms and so on. Whilst adding these would make the rules longer, there is no excuse for failure to write clear English explanation of their intentions.

Take this sentence from the AoS rules:

Missile weapons can be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can be used in the combat phase.

Now look at this version:

Missile weapons can only be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can only be used in the combat phase.

My version is unambiguous because I have written it better. It didn't take me a degree in English Language.

Your version is not the same thing though. You're adding in restrictions that don't exist in GW's version and would preclude special rules that allow out of sequence attacks. For example, I'm pretty sure one of the High Elf ranged units can fire 40k style Overwatch. Your version wouldn't allow use of the missile weapons as it wouldn't be during a shooting phase.

I've edited technical documents in the past. It's VERY important not to change meaning when you try to clarify a sentence.

If you are not sure it would be a good idea to check on the precise wording of the High Elf rule, so that we can discuss the situation from a position of knowledge.

I wrote my ideas for a tabletop game a few years ago. Pretty sure what I came up with in one day was more rules than they have in AoS. I worked on it for a total of 1 week of actual writing (only a couple of hours a day) and 2-3 weeks of just thinking. I finallyI realized no one will ever play it, I have no money to launch a game etc. before I dropped it.

I came up with 30 pages in that time.

So yea, pretty sure they popped those rules out in less than a week. Play testing I am sure took longer, another couple of week for the war scrolls.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Do we have a list of all the ambiguous points of contention in the AoS ruleset?

...

You may have set a challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is a basic problem with GW writing ambiguously, as well as a lack of definitions, glossary of terms and so on. Whilst adding these would make the rules longer, there is no excuse for failure to write clear English explanation of their intentions.

Take this sentence from the AoS rules:

Missile weapons can be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can be used in the combat phase.

Now look at this version:

Missile weapons can only be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can only be used in the combat phase.

My version is unambiguous because I have written it better. It didn't take me a degree in English Language.

Your version is not the same thing though. You're adding in restrictions that don't exist in GW's version and would preclude special rules that allow out of sequence attacks. For example, I'm pretty sure one of the High Elf ranged units can fire 40k style Overwatch. Your version wouldn't allow use of the missile weapons as it wouldn't be during a shooting phase.

I've edited technical documents in the past. It's VERY important not to change meaning when you try to clarify a sentence.

If you are not sure it would be a good idea to check on the precise wording of the High Elf rule, so that we can discuss the situation from a position of knowledge.

Sigh. I'm 100% sure. I checked. I was at work. There are measurably units in the game that can use missile weapons in phases other than the shooting phase. Happy? I see no reason to change the wording to introduce a rules conflict that did not exist previously.

We wrote:
I wrote my ideas for a tabletop game a few years ago. Pretty sure what I came up with in one day was more rules than they have in AoS. I worked on it for a total of 1 week of actual writing (only a couple of hours a day) and 2-3 weeks of just thinking. I finallyI realized no one will ever play it, I have no money to launch a game etc. before I dropped it.

I came up with 30 pages in that time.

So yea, pretty sure they popped those rules out in less than a week. Play testing I am sure took longer, another couple of week for the war scrolls.

That's not how things work though... you can do a million of anything, but quality is what matters.

Again, I'm curious to hear specifically what examples of problems you had in mind when you made your statement since I'm seeing something else entirely.

I'll give my example. When we started to test AoS I noticed that my dwarfs struggle fighting beefed up special characters, powerful magic users and cavalery. When we tried to play scenarios the lack of speed was a huge problem. The anwser to all those problems was runing 4-5 cannons and mass crossbowman,and when I say mass I mean enough to shot, but not so many I would give ID buff to my opponent, at least most of the time.

The cannons delt with heros and monsters the crossbow dudes cleaned chaff, There was no way for me deal with magic, but I guess every army needs a weaker side.
But after a few games, accodring to the 4page rules, every non dwarf players decided that artilery, which their army didn't have, is either too OP, not interective or not fun to play against. We already played a modified comp system as without it the system is unplayable at all, so I didn't realy have the option to say no. So the slot for machines were cut and suddenly I could run max 2 machines in a "normal" sized game. This drasticly lowered my chance against most of the other armies played. Now if there were points in the game I could take X points of cannons, or 25% or what ever GW decided was balanced for all armies. I wouldn't need to ask other people to let me have a chance to win and have fun, because the chance of 10 people saying ok to 1 person, when it doesn't help them at all is close to 0.

That is my "other" problem with AoS. That the supposed rules set, flawed as it may be, leaves you at the totaly mercy of your opponent AFTER you already bought an army. Heck I can't even use half my models in the avarge AoS game and a secondary market for dwarf models doesn't realy exist.

I've been poking away at a Dogs of War list, and I can tell you that building a comprehensive AoS army list is a non-trivial undertaking. I would not be surprised if GW spent quite a while on EACH army. - there are a LOT of units, and there is a whole core of rules templating for the game and for each army that happened behind the scenes. Someone curated the various mechanics and selected special rules as appropriate to each army and unit, and that takes time, especially when you're starting with a clean sheet, so to speak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

We wrote:
I wrote my ideas for a tabletop game a few years ago. Pretty sure what I came up with in one day was more rules than they have in AoS. I worked on it for a total of 1 week of actual writing (only a couple of hours a day) and 2-3 weeks of just thinking. I finallyI realized no one will ever play it, I have no money to launch a game etc. before I dropped it.

I came up with 30 pages in that time.

So yea, pretty sure they popped those rules out in less than a week. Play testing I am sure took longer, another couple of week for the war scrolls.

It is much harder to write 4 pages of rules than 30 - ask any editor.

Age of Sigmar? Rules one week. Warscrolls six months. Only because of the sheer quantity of unit entries to cover.

Then at the end, Games Workshop ran it by one independent playtester. And the meeting went like this:

Honestly I think, even just looking at the rule set, AoS must have taken a lot of time to come up with. I am not a fan of AoS (I feel it has many good ideas that were woefully bungled on implementation). It is fun/easy to make jokes that they made the whole thing on napkins in a bar but realistically that is disingenuous -- obviously they put a huge amount of thought and work into their major relaunch of an entire product line!

AoS is such a drastic departure from warhammer. I guarantee it took a long time to write rules so obviously flawed. If they had done them quickly, the flaws would have been more apparent to the design team. AoS screams that it is the result of a long iterative process in which lots of ideas were tried, discarded, tweaked, revamped, etc. Over time the design staff probably felt AoS had become a lean, simple, and fun game, that addressed many of the flaws with WHFB 8th edition in new and creative ways. And really none of that is untrue, but they clearly lost the ability to see AoS as their customers would when first presented with it.

This is likely why GW was so shocked when the reception to AoS was controversial/mixed. They'd spent probably upwards of a year slowly talking themselves into how brilliant and awesome the new rules were without considering that they also managed to dump most of what many people also loved about fantasy while creating a whole slew of new issues (which we've all rehashed a thousand times so I will not bother mentioning!).


Finally, just a response on balance in AoS (ie on statement that AoS is fairly "balanced" vs previous editions) Others have already pointed out that there really can't be "balance" from a rules perspective, I won't belabor that. However, I totally agree the various armies feel "balanced" vs each other in terms of what is available, how the rules work vs each other, how the warscrolls are built overall, etc. This is likely a factor of getting to create all of the warscrolls at once, by the same team of people following the same design ethics. When compared with warhammer, or 40k, or whatever, where each codex is written sequentially with large gaps in between, rarely by the same person, over the course of many years. All I am getting at is it really isn't too surprising if the warscrolls feel a little more cohesive at a high level, and that is certainly a good thing. But that definitely is not the same thing as the "balance" that many criticize AoS for lacking.

-Propo Fol

You are absolutely right.

I think the reason why there is such an outcry against AoS is because it actually is very similar to the core of 40K. The movement and fighting rules are slightly modified, and there is a new army list and deployment mechanism.

GW may have felt that with 40K being a very popular game, people would enjoy the similarity of mechanisms. However most people already were playing 40K not Fantasy. The people who played Fantasy did so because of the differences to 40K, such as formations.

GW dropped formations, points and the Old Worlde from AoS, all three things which a significant number of players liked, and it's no surprise there is an outcry.

At the same time, a lot of people who like 40K and wanted to dip their toes into Fantasy, have been given a simple entry point, so it's swings and roundabouts.