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.

I do the same as well when I and my opponent feel it would be better to play on a board that makes sense for the story (yes, I still like to "forge a narrative" behind my games, even for non GW games).

It's not a question of being bad rules (after all, there is nothing wrong in rolling some dice on random tables, right?) - rather being unnecessary in a specific and mutual mood.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Can you give me an example of a rule you find objectively good, yet choose to ignore?

In AoS specifically?

Awakening Sylvaneth in the Rotwater Blight Time of War sheet. Nothing wrong with it, I just tend to have all the trees on the table already.

Umm...

Battalions tend to get used only on special occasions.

Ah, got a good one! Terrain! Almost never use the scenery table in the core rules, preferring instead to use specific Warscrolls. Again, nothing wrong with it (and it gets pulled out now and again), just prefer other options. Do a similar thing in WHFB, actually - a lot of people round here religiously roll up random terrain, whereas I prefer placing stuff and _maybe_ using a special rule for it.

No AoS specifically. So these are either rules you feel are redundant, or have better equivalents, but you still use from time to time?

What I should have said (and I apologise if this looks like I'm moving the goalposts), is if there are any rules you feel are objectively good but choose to ignore permanenty, in the same way people are houseruling the measuring, cover, shooting in combat?

Like, are there any rules you feel are good, but would house-rule out?

Personally, I've always ignored the mysterious terrain stuff in 40K in terms of streamlining. I've no idea if it's a good thing or not, I just didn't feel it added any value. Ditto in Malifaux I always decline to cut my opponents deck - the rules say you should offer but I feel that if I'm playing them I trust them enough.

People have mentioned the random terrain rules a few times, and I just wanted to point out that the rules actually say that you should pick a rule for each piece from the table or roll a dice.

It does say to do it for each terrain piece, though, which is kinda weird maybe? I don't know if every tree should have to be damned, arcane, inspiring, deadly, mystical or sinister. But RAW you can at least pick which of those six things the tree is without having to roll on the table.

The only houserules we've been using are measuring from bases, and we've started generating mysterious terrain when models are set up / move within 3" of it as we found it was flavouring deployment.

I can understand people modding rules when they don't like them, but for the life of me I can't understand why - if you thought the rule was 'good' - you wouldn't use it.

That was largely my point - people ignoring the rules is an indication that they don't like them (for some reason).

I like the idea of only discovering the mysterious type of terrain when you're in range - much more realistic! I'm going to steal that for our Frostgrave campaign.

Define objectively good.

It seems to me that you are saying that if players decide to ignore a rule, it makes it a bad rule. That's absolutely fair in business terms (quality means what the custoemr wants) but I don't see how it helps the argument about whether people 'ought' to play AoS or not.

The fact is, people that like AoS clearly think the rules are good enough and aren't going to change their mind because of someone else's idea of them being objectively bad.

From a practical angle, the AoS rules say measure from the model. Lots of people measure from the base. It's hardly shaking Hell to its very foundations.

I personally believe there are better ways of organising that part of the game, but does that make the way it is now 'bad'? I mean, it works. I would only say it's bad in the sense that I easily came up with a better rule which the design team apparently either didn't think of or ignored.

Herzlos wrote:


What I should have said (and I apologise if this looks like I'm moving the goalposts), is if there are any rules you feel are objectively good but choose to ignore permanenty, in the same way people are houseruling the measuring, cover, shooting in combat?

Like, are there any rules you feel are good, but would house-rule out?

I think the closest I can get to that is that we limit what can go up the walls of a Dreadhold. In theory, anything can as it is just another piece of scenery, but we have ruled that cavalry cannot (but that Warhounds can, after watching Police Dogs scramble up walls ).

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I personally believe there are better ways of organising that part of the game, but does that make the way it is now 'bad'? I mean, it works. I would only say it's bad in the sense that I easily came up with a better rule which the design team apparently either didn't think of or ignored.

The measuring from the base thing? AoS was designed to be compatible with miniatures with square bases and round bases - and possibly no bases at all or even elaborate scenic bases. If all the models have the same base type, I have no problem with measuring from the base, but AoS couldn't make that assumption.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Define objectively good.

Something like "without obvious flaws"?

Measuring from the model - fails the above statement because it's open to modelling for advantage
Measuring from the base - matches and can be deemed objectively good?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I personally believe there are better ways of organising that part of the game, but does that make the way it is now 'bad'? I mean, it works. I would only say it's bad in the sense that I easily came up with a better rule which the design team apparently either didn't think of or ignored.

The measuring from the base thing? AoS was designed to be compatible with miniatures with square bases and round bases - and possibly no bases at all or even elaborate scenic bases. If all the models have the same base type, I have no problem with measuring from the base, but AoS couldn't make that assumption.

My idea is that instead of melee weapons having ranges of 1, 2 or 3 inches, they would have ranges of 1, 2 or 3 base widths. A figure with a range 1 weapon needs to be in base-to-base contact. Range two means that the figure must be in contact with a figure that is on contact. And so on...

This does away with several problems: No more prissy measuring of ranges in melee, no more worries about figure poses, or base sizes, and no more climbing on to big bases.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I personally believe there are better ways of organising that part of the game, but does that make the way it is now 'bad'? I mean, it works. I would only say it's bad in the sense that I easily came up with a better rule which the design team apparently either didn't think of or ignored.

The measuring from the base thing? AoS was designed to be compatible with miniatures with square bases and round bases - and possibly no bases at all or even elaborate scenic bases. If all the models have the same base type, I have no problem with measuring from the base, but AoS couldn't make that assumption.

And doesn't it say something about the set of rules that it can't make that assumption? It couldn't for a valid reason, GW was changing bases and smart enough not to invalidate everyone's armies, but having an excuse and being excusable are two different things.

Besides, simply saying the base is a part of the model fixes a ton of problems. That bloodthirster that is jumping on a tiny pillar of flame in the middle of the base? Instead of climbing on it to get at it it attacks you by measuring from it's base and you do the same back.

That guy trying to model for advantage by making his base tiny? He barely has any reach to swing back at you.

The guy that wants to make a beautiful, elaborate, scenic base? Nothing at all stopping him.

Now I'd call that an objectively better system as it achieves the same thing, allowing people freedom to base creatively and use old models, while taking away the flaw that is creating issues. It is even, apparently, what most people are doing to deal with the situation anyway, so it wouldn't have been poorly received by the community, unlike the rule we got.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My idea is that instead of melee weapons having ranges of 1, 2 or 3 inches, they would have ranges of 1, 2 or 3 base widths. A figure with a range 1 weapon needs to be in base-to-base contact. Range two means that the figure must be in contact with a figure that is on contact. And so on...

This does away with several problems: No more prissy measuring of ranges in melee, no more worries about figure poses, or base sizes, and no more climbing on to big bases.

I remember Lord of the Rings having something similar. Models had to be in base to base, but spears could be in base to base with a friendly model in base to base and fight over the shoulder. Pikes could then be in base to base with a spearman and fight over his shoulder. It seemed like a good system, though my experience with actually playing LotR was limited to an excited 13 year old's interpretation of the rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

My idea is that instead of melee weapons having ranges of 1, 2 or 3 inches, they would have ranges of 1, 2 or 3 base widths. A figure with a range 1 weapon needs to be in base-to-base contact. Range two means that the figure must be in contact with a figure that is on contact. And so on...

This does away with several problems: No more prissy measuring of ranges in melee, no more worries about figure poses, or base sizes, and no more climbing on to big bases.

I don't understand. Which base size are you using? The figures all have different sizes (and shapes) for their bases, including oblong ovals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

And doesn't it say something about the set of rules that it can't make that assumption? It couldn't for a valid reason, GW was changing bases and smart enough not to invalidate everyone's armies, but having an excuse and being excusable are two different things.

Besides, simply saying the base is a part of the model fixes a ton of problems. That bloodthirster that is jumping on a tiny pillar of flame in the middle of the base? Instead of climbing on it to get at it it attacks you by measuring from it's base and you do the same back.

Now we're getting into game design, and I think the various approaches I've seen (volumes, silhouettes, ignore bases, bases part of model) - I think all of them have various benefits and drawbacks, none of them objectively superior to the other. It's more about the kind of game experience you want to make, and I think AoS eschews mechanical accuracy for speed in common actions. Most of AoS works fine most of the time, but there are edge cases where it is ambiguous or exploitable, and AoS just shrugs and says, "it works most of the time, just roll some dice for the rest". AoS takes a laissez faire approach, and I think that's fine for the type of game AoS is trying to be. I think AoS would be significantly impaired by volumes (what volume is Archaon?), and treating the base as part of the model could have far reaching side effects for the purposes of LoS and range (if a corner of the base is peeking out, can it see other models? Can you measure range from the base, causing comically oversized bases to have a greater range?)

 Sqorgar wrote:
AoS just shrugs and says, "it works most of the time, just roll some dice for the rest".

That's the definition of bad game design, deciding something is ok when there will be fringe cases where the rules don't work is letting rules that in some cases won't work go to print. That is objectively bad.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think AoS would be significantly impaired by volumes (what volume is Archaon?), and treating the base as part of the model could have far reaching side effects for the purposes of LoS and range (if a corner of the base is peeking out, can it see other models? Can you measure range from the base, causing comically oversized bases to have a greater range?)

Forget volume, as I said just make base part of the model. Can you see the base? Yes? You can see the model, shoot it. Measure from any part of the model for range, is the base part of the model? Yes, so shoot. It would only require the following change:

Distances in Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
are measured in inches ("), between the
closest points of the models or units you’re
measuring to and from. You can measure
distances whenever you wish. A model’s
base isn’t considered part of the model – it’s
just there to help the model stand up – so
don’t include it when measuring distances.

To:

Distances in Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
are measured in inches ("), between the
closest points of the models or units you’re
measuring to and from. You can measure
distances whenever you wish. A model’s
base is considered part of the model
include it when measuring distances.

I didn't even add anything, just removed eleven and a half words.

(I actually checked to see if they touched on how to draw LOS and all it said was get down for a model eye view and see if they can see. Literally that was it, so I have to assume that means a spear tip poking up over a wall means a man can be shot as they can see part of his model and thus a base being visible is no less silly/wrong/whatever.)

As for comically large bases getting greater range, yes that could be a thing but I thought 'that guy is a d , don't play him, was already an acceptable response to people abusing the AoS rules, so I'd say it counts there if someone wants to mount their Archaon on a foot wide base or something.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

My idea is that instead of melee weapons having ranges of 1, 2 or 3 inches, they would have ranges of 1, 2 or 3 base widths. A figure with a range 1 weapon needs to be in base-to-base contact. Range two means that the figure must be in contact with a figure that is on contact. And so on...

This does away with several problems: No more prissy measuring of ranges in melee, no more worries about figure poses, or base sizes, and no more climbing on to big bases.

I don't understand. Which base size are you using? The figures all have different sizes (and shapes) for their bases, including oblong ovals.

...

Any base size. The point of "ranges" for melee weapons is that it limits the number of attacks that attackers can deliver, based on whether then can get figures into range to hit.

Doing this by base contact rather than inches measured from the model does the same job, but much easier.

 jonolikespie wrote:

As for comically large bases getting greater range, yes that could be a thing but I thought 'that guy is a d , don't play him, was already an acceptable response to people abusing the AoS rules, so I'd say it counts there if someone wants to mount their Archaon on a foot wide base or something.

I've never been able to figure out if having an oversized based is an advantage or not; it gives you creater range but less density. So whilst you can be in base contact with more things, you can't get more of your own units into combat. The range works both ways; if you can reach your opponent, they can reach you. So I reckon it's probably a wash.

Different shapes might allow you some advantage as you can rotate to change the range, but that doesn't exist with round bases, and it's no more broken than having pikemen with horizontal pikes.

There comes a point at which the designer has to compromise the 'accuracy' of the rules to make the game playable.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

My idea is that instead of melee weapons having ranges of 1, 2 or 3 inches, they would have ranges of 1, 2 or 3 base widths. A figure with a range 1 weapon needs to be in base-to-base contact. Range two means that the figure must be in contact with a figure that is on contact. And so on...

This does away with several problems: No more prissy measuring of ranges in melee, no more worries about figure poses, or base sizes, and no more climbing on to big bases.

I don't understand. Which base size are you using? The figures all have different sizes (and shapes) for their bases, including oblong ovals.

...

Any base size. The point of "ranges" for melee weapons is that it limits the number of attacks that attackers can deliver, based on whether then can get figures into range to hit.

Doing this by base contact rather than inches measured from the model does the same job, but much easier.

I get that for base to base contact, but you said range 2 is that the figure is in contact with a figure that is in contact - wouldn't that suggest that a grunt could attack somebody on the other side of Archaon? Position a carnasaur or two correctly and a range 3 could melee attack halfway across the board.

Of your own unit. in AoS attacks are done by unit.

I don't know if there are any units with multiple large base monsters in them, but if so, I probably would regard it a fair compromise for getting rid of the necessity to measure distances between models.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
AoS just shrugs and says, "it works most of the time, just roll some dice for the rest".

That's the definition of bad game design, deciding something is ok when there will be fringe cases where the rules don't work is letting rules that in some cases won't work go to print. That is objectively bad.

First of all, you can't "objectively" have better taste. Game design is all subjective, or do you want to explain to my seven year old daughter how Tic Tac Toe is a bad game because the first player always wins, and that she shouldn't play it because it is a bad game? You can't spend every second of life looking only for the optimal, most efficient move forward. Sometimes, you just gotta sit back and enjoy things for what they are. A game is as good as what a player gets out of it, and I think AoS is something I get much enjoyment from, and therefore consider it a good game in all ways that personally matter to me.

Second, all games have edge cases where the spirit of the rules fail under the letter of the rules. You ever play Checkers against someone who just sits their pieces in the corners and never moves them or just keeps moving one piece back and forth between the only two safe spots on the board? Ugh. AoS is not a deep, meticulous strategy game built from a complex system of interlocking elements, each one dependent and related to each other one, so "good enough" is... wait for it... good enough.

As for comically large bases getting greater range, yes that could be a thing but I thought 'that guy is a d , don't play him, was already an acceptable response to people abusing the AoS rules, so I'd say it counts there if someone wants to mount their Archaon on a foot wide base or something.

To quote a classic joke, "We already know what you are, we're just haggling price". You already agree that the laissez faire approach that AoS takes is appropriate enough for some circumstances, we're just disagreeing on which ones.

Again. You can enjoy a bad game. I enjoy many bad games. My other main hobby is terrible horror movies (I buy any horror film that features nazis and/or zombies and costs less than $5, or any Japanese LARP, and whilst some have been disappointing some others have been immense in their terribleness).

A bad rule is (objectively) one that breaks immersion by causing the players to try and figure out how it works. As shown, removing 11.5 words makes the measuring rule pretty unambiguous.

"D6'ing for it" is a total cop out and an excuse to poor rules. I understand that you can't account for every eventuality in a set of rules but you ought to try and make it as clear as possible to minimise the risk of that happening.

It depends on your philosophy with regard to the game. I'm not sweating every inch, scared to make the wrong choice or blowing a blood vessel because a rule is ambiguous. Some games in my past, I have had that kind of an approach, where the finest details had to be ironed out officially or it would cause me endless frustration. Nobody is wrong for enjoying what they do. Trying to frame it in objective terms is silly.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
AoS just shrugs and says, "it works most of the time, just roll some dice for the rest".

That's the definition of bad game design, deciding something is ok when there will be fringe cases where the rules don't work is letting rules that in some cases won't work go to print. That is objectively bad.

First of all, you can't "objectively" have better taste.

No, nothing about that is taste. It is meaningless if you enjoy AoS or I don't enjoy it. You agreed the rules sometimes don't work in this case. That makes it bad as it doesn't work.

Other games having problems in their rules is irrelevant. If a rule doesn't work is is bad, that's it. If you want to talk about other rules in games that don't work though please give some examples from other tabletop games. From your checkers example I can already tell you that you can't choose not to move, that means you'e stopped playing the game. Moving back and forth across safe squares only is not a broken rule, it is a player being an idiot as the opposition will then just surround and massacre you.
Tic Tac Toe is not a deep, meticulous strategy game built from a complex system of interlocking elements, each one dependent and related to each other one, but as a game the mechanics are solid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

As for comically large bases getting greater range, yes that could be a thing but I thought 'that guy is a d , don't play him, was already an acceptable response to people abusing the AoS rules, so I'd say it counts there if someone wants to mount their Archaon on a foot wide base or something.

To quote a classic joke, "We already know what you are, we're just haggling price". You already agree that the laissez faire approach that AoS takes is appropriate enough for some circumstances, we're just disagreeing on which ones.

I think that the whole 'he's not playing the game the way I think it should be played, don't play him' is the worst of this, so no I don't agree but weren't you one of the people arguing that is how you make no points balanced?

There are two aspects to game design, one is what you want to achieve in the game, -- results -- the other is how it is done -- mechanics.

In general, a good design will choose the simpler of two mechanics to achieve the same result, because it makes the game easier to learn and quicker to play.

From this viewpoint, GW should not have chosen the time-consuming To Hit, To Wound, To Save mechanism for combat resolution.

But, if GW wanted players to do lots of dice rolling, because a lot of people like rolling lots of dice, perhaps this was a good design decision.

Well GW have had the design philosophy of "we just want gamers to remember that time they rolled a 6 and won" since like late 5th ed 40k/early 8th ed fantasy.

I kinda like the measuring from the model. It's refreshing having the model be an actual part of the game mechanics instead of being able to replace it with a picture glued to the base and having it work exactly the same way.

There are bigger problems with the rule, if you're ever played the game, than putting a little model on the base of a huge one.

Firstly, the measurement rules say that no part of the model may move further than the move stat of the model, meaning pivoting isn't free. That's okay for huge models, but for little guys it's really fiddly to try and pay attention to how far the point of the sword moved or whatever.

Secondly, the biggest issue isn't that it encourages you to run up large models' bases. Okay, that happens, but it's pretty easy to handle (though I can see how someone who had put a lot of work into their basing might find it objectionable). What happens constantly is that in melee you're presented with the option of trying to pile in your troops onto the bases of other models in the unit to get their swords or whatever close enough to attack the enemy.

It's not a big deal if you're playing Sigmarines and have units of no more than five models, but I play the bloodbound with their units of a million angry half-naked men and it's a huge gameplay issue.

Also, someone mentioned line of sight. That isn't explained well in the rules either. A few things mention you need to be able to see your target to do them, but it doesn't really go into what that means. Can a model see out the back of its head? If it can't, you could charge a unit in the back and it wouldn't be able to attack you. Imagine if you charged a huge thing in the back and it took a while to turn around because no part of it could move more than its move stat!

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Firstly, the measurement rules say that no part of the model may move further than the move stat of the model, meaning pivoting isn't free. That's okay for huge models, but for little guys it's really fiddly to try and pay attention to how far the point of the sword moved or whatever.

I only worry about that with the big models. Most of the time, the extremities don't stick out far enough to make a difference, and when they do (like lizardman spears + tails), you can just measure from the tip of the extremity traveling the farthest. In a game of inches, a mm or two here won't break the game - not compared to the randomness of rolling a dozen dice.

Secondly, the biggest issue isn't that it encourages you to run up large models' bases. Okay, that happens, but it's pretty easy to handle (though I can see how someone who had put a lot of work into their basing might find it objectionable). What happens constantly is that in melee you're presented with the option of trying to pile in your troops onto the bases of other models in the unit to get their swords or whatever close enough to attack the enemy.

Technically, the rules say that bases aren't measured when counting range - it doesn't say that you can pile on other bases. You can assume that, I guess, but I've always played that base-to-base is melee range, using the model to model measuring for ranged and extended weapons like spears. I don't have any flying models, but I'd probably use model-to-model measuring for those as well. I find overlapping bases to be confusing, slow, and visually offensive.

Technically, melee range is from the model's weapon to anywhere on the opposing model that is less than 1" (or sometimes 2"). This means that things like the Chaos Chariot, with its oval base, is virtually impossible to melee from the side with 1" weapons. There's really three options here:

1) Base-to-base is melee range, overriding other measuring factors.
2) You can climb up on the base to get closer.
3) Just accept it and factor into your strategy that you need ranged or 2" melee to hit the model from the side.

I think 1 is the best option, though I'd be okay with 3 if it were agreed upon up front. I'm just not a fan of "base jumping". I also think that cramming a bunch of figures together to maximize the number of hits is too fiddly and runs counter to the spirit of the game.

Also, someone mentioned line of sight. That isn't explained well in the rules either. A few things mention you need to be able to see your target to do them, but it doesn't really go into what that means. Can a model see out the back of its head? If it can't, you could charge a unit in the back and it wouldn't be able to attack you. Imagine if you charged a huge thing in the back and it took a while to turn around because no part of it could move more than its move stat!

Units don't really represent a single, static figure, but more an amorphous blob of guys constantly moving and fighting. It's why you can shoot one guy and have another die, or why you only get cover when the entire unit is within cover. There's no facing - you can just assume the guy turns around before he fires. The only reason the monster would need to turn around is if it had an advantage through an extended extremity.

In both those cases, the reason I think they're interesting is they add a little more nuance to positioning. If you can't attack out your back, flanking becomes more useful and facing becomes more meaningful. If you can't just turn for free then facing becomes more meaningful. If you can't charge backwards and attack then facing is more meaningful. You get the idea. And I mean, even if it's a little guy rotation can easily account for an inch or more of movement.

It's the same with the piling in thing. A more restrictive reading of piling in makes positioning more meaningful, and that's interesting.

 jonolikespie wrote:

akai wrote:The several times I played against people that absolutely want to play RAW with direct measurement to models, we have a piece of paper to write down how many miniatures move into an opposing model's base so that we don't ruin the paint and base.

That sounds awful.

Playing like that was not too bad. It's similar to not placing models on a hill incline/decline because it will topple over when playing WFB.

Units don't really represent a single, static figure, but more an amorphous blob of guys constantly moving and fighting. It's why you can shoot one guy and have another die, or why you only get cover when the entire unit is within cover. There's no facing - you can just assume the guy turns around before he fires. The only reason the monster would need to turn around is if it had an advantage through an extended extremity.

But if units are deemed to be moving about, why is measuring done from things like spear tips?

I love AoS and find the whole "measure from model rather than base" thing silly. In fact it's the only rule I tend to house rule out. I don't think it was intended to make the game very fiddly, working out mm as that seems opposed to the spirit of how the rest of the game is played.

Of course that's just my interpretation and how I play it, if anyone gets a kick out of doing it differently all power to you. That's what 'The Most Important Rule' is all about after all.

Pile ins are the only other real confusion, I don't really mind though and play it that you can circle around an enemy base that you are already in contact with. I'd have no problem if my opponent disagreed though as it is a little ambiguous and both ways of playing seem fine to me.

So yeah those two rules are of poor quality, the first just because I don't really like it and I feel they didn't think through the consequences and the second due to poor writing.

The rest of the rules I have had no issues with.