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.

Something I've cooked up and playtested over about 10 games.

They've all been pretty close so far, so there's that. Games take around 2 hours.

Please offer any feedback or criticism you might have. While all feedback is valued an appreciated, I am looking for feedback in 4 main areas.

- Is it minimalist?

Does this ruleset add so many rules that it is no longer AoS? Does it mean you have to learn a whole new game?

- Is it fast?

Does it add unnecessary record keeping or difficulty to the game? One of Sigmars main draws is it's speed of play.

- Is it fair?

Did we miss something somewhere? Is there still something broke here that would break an attempt at a fun and balanced tournament?

- Is it strategic

Do the objectives and extra victory conditions add enough incentive to avoid a big pile of models mid board? I realize this mostly will be covered by scenarios, but we are trying to add something at the root level.

More specific feedback is also requested on our small changes.

Please feel free to make suggestions as well!

Thanks,

TF


Edit: Forgot the Link, Sorry.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_YI4jZrGimQj8PmEvc1d39Kym8bNqI13rnx5QtpmPCQ/edit

Are you planning on including the rules, or do we have to guess?

I noticed the Nova ruleset for the first time today.

There's a few similarities in my set and theirs.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

Something I've cooked up and playtested over about 10 games.

They've all been pretty close so far, so there's that. Games take around 2 hours.

Please offer any feedback or criticism you might have. While all feedback is valued an appreciated, I am looking for feedback in 4 main areas.

- Is it minimalist?

Does this ruleset add so many rules that it is no longer AoS? Does it mean you have to learn a whole new game?

- Is it fast?

Does it add unnecessary record keeping or difficulty to the game? One of Sigmars main draws is it's speed of play.

- Is it fair?

Did we miss something somewhere? Is there still something broke here that would break an attempt at a fun and balanced tournament?

- Is it strategic

Do the objectives and extra victory conditions add enough incentive to avoid a big pile of models mid board? I realize this mostly will be covered by scenarios, but we are trying to add something at the root level.

More specific feedback is also requested on our small changes.

Please feel free to make suggestions as well!

Thanks,

TF


Edit: Forgot the Link, Sorry.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_YI4jZrGimQj8PmEvc1d39Kym8bNqI13rnx5QtpmPCQ/edit

You're making the game needlessly complicated.

Specific feedback...

1. Wounds is demonstrably a terrible measure of effectiveness. Your rule set allows me to play 100 wounds of Ogre Ironguts vs. 100 wounds of Night Goblins. This isn't even remotely a fair match. The Ogre player wins every game with little to no effort.

2. You don't define characters. Do you mean Heroes? Is a Wizard a character? Etc, etc.

3. Tossing out the 'silly rules' is a 10 second house rule and doesn't require an entirely new rule set.

4. Summoned units already come from a 'summoning pool'. You might know it as Reserves. You might want to re-read the core rules. You both show up with the models you think you might want to play with, deploy some of them and leave the others in Reserves. If your opponent shows up with 10 Daemon Princes, you can see them sitting there and deploy accordingly, knowing that they're likely to be summoned.

5. Summoned units already don't return to a 'summoning pool'. When a unit is destroyed, it is removed from play. At no point are we told to put it back in Reserves. If you want to summon 10 Daemon Princes over the course of a game, you need to show up with 10 Daemon Princes in Reserves. You don't need new rules... you just need to understand and enforce the existing ones.

6. Summonable units are already known ahead of time as they'll be sitting there in your Reserves pile. No need to add this. Again, know the core rules and use them.

7. Your victory points/objective markers is skewed towards high wound count models. It's easier to get 5 Monsters within 4" of an objective than it is to get 50 1 wound models.

8. Overall, your victory objectives should just be re-written as game specific scenarios. I.e., in tournament round 1, we'll have objective markers. This is how they work. In tournament round 2, we'll have... etc. Don't change the core rules.

9. Limiting ranged attacks while within 3" of an enemy model means that most ranged units will become useless if your opponent takes any fast cavalry. If I can charge on turn 1 or 2, I've effectively negated your shooting. Most ranged units stink in melee, so I'll likely be able to hold them up for long enough to render them useless. These changes are totally unnecessary and fundamentally change the game.

10. The nuts and bolts... well, the only thing I like is measuring base to base. This one is just practically easier. Everything else is unnecessary. Stacking Mystic Shield? Kill their Wizards. 2 Terrain pieces per army? Why? What is the issue with the standard method? Etc, etc.

In short, what you're written is no longer Age of Sigmar. It also makes me think you don't full understand how elements of the game work under the core rules.

So...
It's not minimalist. You've significantly increased the number of rules people need to know.
It's not fast. Increasing the number of rules slows down play as people have to look things up.
It's not fair. You've significantly nerfed whole segments of the playable unit population, effectively giving a huge advantage to melee armies.
Is it more strategic? Maybe? The core rules support Battle Plans with custom objectives. Why not just write a few and use them?

At no point are we told that summoned units must come from reserves.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
At no point are we told that summoned units must come from reserves.

Where do they come from?

"In order to play, you must first muster your army from the miniatures in your collection." - Step 1, grab a bunch of models/units you own.

"The players then alternate setting up unit, one at a time..." - Step 2, deploy some of the models you mustered.

"Any remaining units are held in reserve playing no part unless fate lends a hand." - Step 3, whatever you didn't deploy goes in reserves.

When you start the game, every model you mustered is either on the table or in reserve. You can't summon a model already on the table, so it must come from reserve. Dead models are removed from play. Summoning doesn't RETURN a model that has been removed from play to play.

So, I'm curious. Where do you propose summoned models come from?

 Kriswall wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:

Something I've cooked up and playtested over about 10 games.

They've all been pretty close so far, so there's that. Games take around 2 hours.

Please offer any feedback or criticism you might have. While all feedback is valued an appreciated, I am looking for feedback in 4 main areas.

- Is it minimalist?

Does this ruleset add so many rules that it is no longer AoS? Does it mean you have to learn a whole new game?

- Is it fast?

Does it add unnecessary record keeping or difficulty to the game? One of Sigmars main draws is it's speed of play.

- Is it fair?

Did we miss something somewhere? Is there still something broke here that would break an attempt at a fun and balanced tournament?

- Is it strategic

Do the objectives and extra victory conditions add enough incentive to avoid a big pile of models mid board? I realize this mostly will be covered by scenarios, but we are trying to add something at the root level.

More specific feedback is also requested on our small changes.

Please feel free to make suggestions as well!

Thanks,

TF


Edit: Forgot the Link, Sorry.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_YI4jZrGimQj8PmEvc1d39Kym8bNqI13rnx5QtpmPCQ/edit

You're making the game needlessly complicated.

Specific feedback...

1. Wounds is demonstrably a terrible measure of effectiveness. Your rule set allows me to play 100 wounds of Ogre Ironguts vs. 100 wounds of Night Goblins. This isn't even remotely a fair match. The Ogre player wins every game with little to no effort.

2. You don't define characters. Do you mean Heroes? Is a Wizard a character? Etc, etc.

3. Tossing out the 'silly rules' is a 10 second house rule and doesn't require an entirely new rule set.

4. Summoned units already come from a 'summoning pool'. You might know it as Reserves. You might want to re-read the core rules. You both show up with the models you think you might want to play with, deploy some of them and leave the others in Reserves. If your opponent shows up with 10 Daemon Princes, you can see them sitting there and deploy accordingly, knowing that they're likely to be summoned.

5. Summoned units already don't return to a 'summoning pool'. When a unit is destroyed, it is removed from play. At no point are we told to put it back in Reserves. If you want to summon 10 Daemon Princes over the course of a game, you need to show up with 10 Daemon Princes in Reserves. You don't need new rules... you just need to understand and enforce the existing ones.

6. Summonable units are already known ahead of time as they'll be sitting there in your Reserves pile. No need to add this. Again, know the core rules and use them.

7. Your victory points/objective markers is skewed towards high wound count models. It's easier to get 5 Monsters within 4" of an objective than it is to get 50 1 wound models.

8. Overall, your victory objectives should just be re-written as game specific scenarios. I.e., in tournament round 1, we'll have objective markers. This is how they work. In tournament round 2, we'll have... etc. Don't change the core rules.

9. Limiting ranged attacks while within 3" of an enemy model means that most ranged units will become useless if your opponent takes any fast cavalry. If I can charge on turn 1 or 2, I've effectively negated your shooting. Most ranged units stink in melee, so I'll likely be able to hold them up for long enough to render them useless. These changes are totally unnecessary and fundamentally change the game.

10. The nuts and bolts... well, the only thing I like is measuring base to base. This one is just practically easier. Everything else is unnecessary. Stacking Mystic Shield? Kill their Wizards. 2 Terrain pieces per army? Why? What is the issue with the standard method? Etc, etc.

In short, what you're written is no longer Age of Sigmar. It also makes me think you don't full understand how elements of the game work under the core rules.

So...
It's not minimalist. You've significantly increased the number of rules people need to know.
It's not fast. Increasing the number of rules slows down play as people have to look things up.
It's not fair. You've significantly nerfed whole segments of the playable unit population, effectively giving a huge advantage to melee armies.
Is it more strategic? Maybe? The core rules support Battle Plans with custom objectives. Why not just write a few and use them?

I cringed a little when your name popped up.

This goes on the inherent understanding that as written, the game does not maintain structural balance required for tournament play.

I'll address your comments however.

1. 1. Wounds is demonstrably a terrible measure of effectiveness. Your rule set allows me to play 100 wounds of Ogre Ironguts vs. 100 wounds of Night Goblins. This isn't even remotely a fair match. The Ogre player wins every game with little to no effort.

I disagree, only within the scope of playing with objectives. There are 25 ogres on the board, and 100 goblins. If we split that into the wound cap, we reach 7 ogres vs 20 goblins. With 3 attacks each, ogres will hit +- 10 times, wound +- 6 times, and do 12 wounds before saves (of a 5+). The goblins will attack 20 times, hitting on 3's or 4's thanks to unruly rabble (I will assume 4's), hit 10 times, and wound 5 times. The goblins also have bows, allowing them to shoot and kite the ogres.

Further, with more models and more units, Goblins have an easier time capturing scenario objectives. I'm not certain it's as pre-destined the gobs always lose as you think.

2. You don't define characters. Do you mean Heroes? Is a Wizard a character? Etc, etc.

I'll be sure to specify units with the Hero Keyword. I do not intend to limit pink horrors or the like with this rule.

3. Tossing out the 'silly rules' is a 10 second house rule and doesn't require an entirely new rule set.

Perhaps your area is different. Most places I play ban special characters from tournaments. This ruleset is aimed at tournaments. The "silly rules" presented are anathema to that.

4. Summoned units already come from a 'summoning pool'. You might know it as Reserves. You might want to re-read the core rules. You both show up with the models you think you might want to play with, deploy some of them and leave the others in Reserves. If your opponent shows up with 10 Daemon Princes, you can see them sitting there and deploy accordingly, knowing that they're likely to be summoned.

I feel as if you are just being inflammatory at this point. I have read the core rules and reserves. In the context of a game limited to wounds, as pointless as you perceive that to be, it would make little sense to allow unlimited summoning. Summoning is powerful and balance affecting, and in part of making a tournament rule-set I feel it needs reigned in. Thank you for the contrary opinion. If more people think summoning should be used as is, then I'll consider swapping back to the base rules for such.

This ties into 5 and 6, which I will not be replying to specifically. Again, in this rule-set, I do not feel that the base rules for summoning are acceptable for an enjoyable gaming environment. Quickly, tournaments would just turn into summoning fests, where your solution of "kill the wizard" would become nearly impossible due to the volume of summoned units in your way.

7. Your victory points/objective markers is skewed towards high wound count models. It's easier to get 5 Monsters within 4" of an objective than it is to get 50 1 wound models.

Thanks, I had been flipping back and forth between model and wound based scoring. I was worried by the wound would put multi wound models at a disadvantage, but in consideration of your point about combat effectiveness, perhaps this is a boost they need. This is a change I will likely make.

8. Overall, your victory objectives should just be re-written as game specific scenarios. I.e., in tournament round 1, we'll have objective markers. This is how they work. In tournament round 2, we'll have... etc. Don't change the core rules.

I respect your opinion that the game be played unchanged, I just disagree that it can lead to a favorable tournament atmosphere.

9. Limiting ranged attacks while within 3" of an enemy model means that most ranged units will become useless if your opponent takes any fast cavalry. If I can charge on turn 1 or 2, I've effectively negated your shooting. Most ranged units stink in melee, so I'll likely be able to hold them up for long enough to render them useless. These changes are totally unnecessary and fundamentally change the game.

I am confused. I made no changes to shooting, only clarified that units could shoot into and out of melee but during their close combat activation must use their melee profile. Did I use inappropriate wording?

Others.

I only intend for two terrain pieces to be magical, not two terrain pieces period. The reason for this is to avoid rolling and designating 15 magical terrain effects in a time sensitive environment.

Nova prevented Mystic stacking because of the power of many units of pink horrors, elf cav mages, and other wizard units that are not heroes. I think it's a healthy change.




I get the feeling you are against comping or altering Sigmar at all, which is fine. I appreciate you taking the time to look through the system as it grows.

It's not minimalist. You've significantly increased the number of rules people need to know.
It's not fast. Increasing the number of rules slows down play as people have to look things up.
It's not fair. You've significantly nerfed whole segments of the playable unit population, effectively giving a huge advantage to melee armies.
Is it more strategic? Maybe? The core rules support Battle Plans with custom objectives. Why not just write a few and use them?

I'll take that as a big ol' F from Kriswall. Hopefully, you're part of the minority. Perhaps I should have pointed out these questions might be best asked when compared to other comp systems, which I suspect you might also dislike intensely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
At no point are we told that summoned units must come from reserves.

Where do they come from?

"In order to play, you must first muster your army from the miniatures in your collection." - Step 1, grab a bunch of models/units you own.

"The players then alternate setting up unit, one at a time..." - Step 2, deploy some of the models you mustered.

"Any remaining units are held in reserve playing no part unless fate lends a hand." - Step 3, whatever you didn't deploy goes in reserves.

When you start the game, every model you mustered is either on the table or in reserve. You can't summon a model already on the table, so it must come from reserve. Dead models are removed from play. Summoning doesn't RETURN a model that has been removed from play to play.

So, I'm curious. Where do you propose summoned models come from?

This is not the purpose of this thread. You've made your intent well known, and assumed it to be fact in other threads there. When I created the summon pool, it was to remove any arguments about what may be summoned, when it may be summoned, limit how much could be summoned, add strategy other than "I bought that" to summoning, and to clarify whether it becomes summonable again after death, in which there is no 100% ironhard raw.

 Kriswall wrote:
Summoning doesn't RETURN a model that has been removed from play to play.

Why not? Where does it say it cant? Certainly this was how it worked in 8th, but regardless there is no rule or statement that says or implies that summoning must come from reserves.

Anyways, after reading through the ruleset, I think you made a lot of good changes and clarifications. However, it does not address the problem of one wound being unequal to another. Tons of comp systems have attempted to balance based off wounds count and I have yet to see one that works. The objectives also favor large multi-wound models; it is easier to put 18 wounds of Glottkin within range of an objective than 18 1-wound infantry models.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Summoning doesn't RETURN a model that has been removed from play to play.

Why not? Where does it say it cant? Certainly this was how it worked in 8th, but regardless there is no rule or statement that says or implies that summoning must come from reserves.

Anyways, after reading through the ruleset, I think you made a lot of good changes and clarifications. However, it does not address the problem of one wound being unequal to another. Tons of comp systems have attempted to balance based off wounds count and I have yet to see one that works. The objectives also favor large multi-wound models; it is easier to put 18 wounds of Glottkin within range of an objective than 18 1-wound infantry models.

That's the rub, isn't it?

I'm not 100% convinced 100 wounds of Goblins auto loses to 100 wounds of Ogres, but many folks are. In a less extreme example, slaves are inferior to clanrats.

I think this can be balanced out with strategic use of command abilities, but perhaps not. Many units get ignored in points value games because of being ineffective, and I suspect it will be impossible to make this go away with AoS.

I am going to change the scoring rule from wounds to models when controlling objectives. Perhaps this gives some advantage back to the small guys, as they are allowed to have more models per unit with the wound cap of 30.

Another problem I've yet to find an answer to is unit abilities keyed off having multiple models. In this comp, Chaos Warriors will never number 20, though they get a bonus for 20+ models in a unit. I need to find the right verbage to say that if a unit is prevented from reaching a size based incentive, they have that incentive while at max wounds.

 Thunderfrog wrote:
I am going to change the scoring rule from wounds to models when controlling objectives. Perhaps this gives some advantage back to the small guys, as they are allowed to have more models per unit with the wound cap of 30.

Another problem I've yet to find an answer to is unit abilities keyed off having multiple models. In this comp, Chaos Warriors will never number 20, though they get a bonus for 20+ models in a unit. I need to find the right verbage to say that if a unit is prevented from reaching a size based incentive, they have that incentive while at max wounds.

That change to the scoring is a good idea. As for the other problem, perhaps increase the maximum unit size to a large number, but for units that get benefits at bigger sizes have models cost more wounds the bigger the unit gets (stealing an idea from PPC here)?

I'm considering an option for models with a hit + wound of 9 or better, that they get 1 free wound for every two wounds bought.

So the 4+ , 5+ goblins would get 50 free wounds in a 100 wound game.

I havent got to play against 150 gobbos yet, so I don't know if that's a bonkers idea.

Ha! I think it's kind of funny that my name made you cringe. I like that the guy who consistently recommends sportsmanship as a balancing mechanic makes people cringe. I guess recommending 'don't be a jerk' is uncomfortable?

I applaud the efforts to adds house rules to fix the perceived flaws in the game from an organized play standpoint. I don't think those efforts will be successful without community buy in, though. Everyday I see a new comp system appear in the proposed rules forum. What makes this one different? It seems like every comp system can be summarized as follows...

1. Add pre-made lists. Use (points/wounds/model count/keywords) to tell you what you can bring.
2. Ban or nerf summoning.
3. Ban or nerf shooting from/into combat.
4. Sundry other minor changes that would be better served as line items in an event pack's frequently asked question.

Now my points...

1. I don't mind pre-made lists. They do run entirely counter to the core rules, though. You need a way of measuring one unit's effectiveness against another. Wounds is generally bad as 12 Night Goblins will never take down an average 12 wound Monster. An arbitrary points system is probably your best bet here. The Azyr Comp system is attempting this, but is having a hard time because it's so hard to take a model's potential synergies into account. A Bloodreaver unit gets 1 attack per model normally. If they're within 12" of a Khorne Totem model, they get 2 attacks each, doubling their damage potential. How do I reflect this change in effectiveness in my army construction guidelines. The whole is often worth more than the sum of its parts. This is more true in Age of Sigmar, with its unit synergies, than it was in 8th Edition. As such, imposing limits on how to build a list that results in balanced lists is going to be VERY hard.

2. Summoning is fine as is if you clarify that only units from your reserves can be summoned and that once destroyed, a unit doesn't return to reserves. You can limit the number of units in reserves if you want. "No more than 25% of your army can be held back in reserves and must be counted for Sudden Death purposes as being on the table at the start of the game." Or you can add additional restrictions. I think "Summoned units can't perform any actions in the Hero Phase during which they were summoned" fixes 90% of the issues people have with summoning. This could be a line item in an event pack.

3. I have yet to see shooting be a problem in this game. Ranges are comparatively short in this game, so at most you might get two rounds of shooting (assuming your opponent doesn't get two turns in a row) before getting assaulted. Most ranged units are terrible in close combat and will likely lose additional models to Battleshock when attacked. If you do feel the need to modify shooting while within 3" of an enemy model, I would do the following... "Any MODEL (not unit) that is within 3" of an enemy model can only direct its attacks towards enemy units within 3". Any model directing attacks at an enemy unit that is within 3" of a friendly model must roll a D6. On a roll of 1, the attack hits the friendly unit instead of the enemy unit."

4. The rest of the things should be handled as line items in an event pack. "All distances are to be measured from the base. Bases are not to overlap." "Terrain for Round 1 is to be setup as such."

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think you need to be realistic. If you want a set of house rules to make YOUR event successful, do that. If you want a set of house rules to make ALL events successful, you will likely fail. Different players want different things. Clearly define your goal and then work towards it.

I like what I'm seeing but I'm gonna try these rules with the "chaff unit cost half a quarter/half a wound each" rule I've been thinking about trying to make those units more useful.

Zombies would cost .25 wounds per model, Clanrats would cost .5, etc.

How do you establish what a chaff unit is?

I've been considering something like "If to hit and to wound = 10 or more..."