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'm fine with Monsters having different numbers of wounds. It seems to me that this allows the designer to make different size monsters with different abilities.

The lack of balancing is my biggest gripe with the system itself, and the unbalancing that comes from there on.

Model to Model measurement should never even have been considered, they should have kept it base to base.

However, I do like the way they tackle monsters, with strength deteriorating as the wounds are chipped away.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
People keep saying that AoS has bad rules.

Especially considering that AoS is meant (i.e. designed) to be a casual, for fun and not for competition ruleset.

I realise that there is no army balancing system, not the question, leave it alone.

The AoS core rules are a fine model of economy, and I have not much problem there.

The AoS unit rules and stats are a fething disaster. There are too many special rules that aren't well balanced, and too many variations for the sake of variation. For example, Monsters should all have 12 Wounds to start, no more, no less, with the same step increments as the monster degrades to its death, but that simply isn't the case. So it's massive, unnecessary complexity that is neither casual nor fun.

There are many people who like points. I am OK with them in or out.

Unit complexity like this is a pain when there are several different places to find rules, but with warscrolls it is fine.

I disagree. For example, having shields as a special rule is one thing. Having it as several different special rules depending on the war scroll for no real good reason (IE pavises v. bucklers) is poor design.

It is the inconsistency (IE variety for its own sake) that is a major issue.

Indeed, internal consistency is quite important aspect of game design.

Internal consistency of systems and mechanics, yes. Internal consistency of data is a different matter.

Shields ought to work as shields. If there are different special rules associated with different units' shields, that isn't a problem in itself. I reckon the shield special rules ought to be combative and ideally defensive in nature. A shield that grants the ability to fly or breathe underwater is not an intuitive thing. A shield that protects better against thunderbolts or poison would be.

All true; however, AoS notionally being a simple wargame, shields should be nothing more than a +1 to Defense in all uses. If tower / gromril, +2. Simple and consistent.

 jmurph wrote:
I disagree. For example, having shields as a special rule is one thing. Having it as several different special rules depending on the war scroll for no real good reason (IE pavises v. bucklers) is poor design.

It is the inconsistency (IE variety for its own sake) that is a major issue.

No. Not all shields are the same, even more so if magic is thrown in.

What makes warscrolls great is that you can make each unit as unique as you like, because it is easy to keep track if all the rules are in one place and you don't need to add special rules and exceptions to the core rules.

Unit rules don't have to be several lists of special rules that get cobbled together to make the unit envisioned.

 DarkBlack wrote:

No. Not all shields are the same, even more so if magic is thrown in.

What makes warscrolls great is that you can make each unit as unique as you like, because it is easy to keep track if all the rules are in one place and you don't need to add special rules and exceptions to the core rules.

Unit rules don't have to be several lists of special rules that get cobbled together to make the unit envisioned.

But that is not what I said. Shields should not have a dozen or so different rules for what are functionally identical items. Sure, a magic shield might be radically different, but do you honestly believe that different rules for a human shield, an orc shield, a lizardman shield, etc. is good design? Even if they don't want to start with a universal rule, at least having a template (basic infantry shields do X) would keep consistency and simplicity. It would also emphasize the uniqueness of magic or special shields.

AoS is simple, simplistic even, in its core rules, but the special rules are not simple because there are so many of them.

However, players only need concern themselves with the special rules actually in play, and these are all printed on the war scrools in play.

In other words the design is simply: Follow rules on war scrolls.

If you want to simplify the war scrools, that's another thing. The same argument can be extended to magic, movement rates, other types of special rules.

It is a change of market philosophy.

Gw have screwed the pooch on games design and have belatedly recognised they aren't much good at it. Their solution was to rebrand themselves purely as toy company selling the 'finest wargaming models in the world' as their core competency. To be fair there is some merit to this approach and it ids defendable, though subjective.

As a result they completely abdicated responsibility for game balance by making it not relevant to the current ruleset. If you can choose whatever you like in your warscrolls there is no balance and you either play along with that or self police according to ones own opinion of value.
It is a cleverer system than it first appears and is not the reason for AoS failure.

AoS and the marketing strategy sucks for the following rules.

- The rules mechanics are very simplistic for a game requiring very expensive and high quality components.
Its the sort of game you would expect to fit a cheap bag of soft plastic Airfix soldiers, not high priced high detail miniatures that people take time to paint.

- GW relies on its IP, their main advantage was that they were the first on the scene after TSR to make it big in the fantasy milieu and have a lot of incumbency. They recognise the value of the 40K franchise, but have largely despised their fantasy birthright. People gave a feth about Karaz a Karak or Altdorf or Ulthuan. Nobody really cares if the Fyredwarves defeat the Urroks or not.
Total War Warhammer might open their eyes to the continued appeal of GW's fantasy IP, and their policy could be reversed.

- Games Worskshop pride themselves on their model quality, however esculpting has opened the door far and wide, high quality miniatures are not the province or a handful of gaming companies, just about anyone can set up a Kickstarter scheme, buy an esculpt program, and find a graphics artist to operate it as they are two a penny in the games industry. Then start importing in bulk from a factory that casts from an uploaded specification in China.


Age of Sigmars failure has little to do with the rules themselves and I need not address them. The level of complexity is fine for a miniatures game, just not the miniatures the company market beyond the starter set Sigmarines.
Sigmarines will help, they arent a bad idea in terms of marketing strategy but GW are largely relying on incumbency of the existing player base to carry over between games.

Age of Sigmar doesn't need to be purged with fire, it can continue and even be a main part of GW line. But they need to make cheap simple sculpts for at least three or four models lines for little Timmies to buy and paint with pocket money that fit the simplistic and accessible AoS gameplay.

Second they need to stop pissing on the customers who have invested in Warhammer and continue to support WHFB with an official 9th edition, they can do that though mail order only if needs be. So long its done. Seperating AoS as a divergemnt timeline could achieve this, GW have already changed the 26th century timeline to change Storm of Chaos into End Times, they can allow the timelines to formally diverge rather than be retconned. It could work something like this: Holy Sigmar, possibly even aided by Slaanesh as a matter of mutual convenience, the Dark Prince did not want the world to end as It was having too much fun (this part was canon by the way). Sigmar asked Slaanesh to help Him quietly sever the strands of fate so that fate would divide into different ends, in one the world would continue to its end and Sigmar would quietly wait to save what little remained, in another the world perpetuate forever and Archaon would wonder what went wrong with his great destiny.
This just indicative, one example of how it could be done.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:

3) Shoot in melee. It kills both strategy and realism/immersion. This is particularly remarkable because rules that are just mediocre sacrifice one for another. Here we are a rule that has the worst of both worlds. This is catastrophically bad. And hilarious.
9) Cover. See 8 in a way. All these years, and we add cover to the defence. WAKE ME UP
10) No initiative. This kills any nuance I could look for in different troops and creatures in such diverse multiverse. To add a different feel to them. And kills immersion again. See 5, in a way. CANNOT WAKE UP

I see a lot of people having a problem with AoS because of preconceived "sacred cows", that translates to "this is wrong because it's not like it was explained (and I envisioned it) when I started wargaming".

Initiative is just a way of making high damage low defense troops to be viable and to add flavour to how troops work, it does not add realism. Separate to hit, to wound and save rolls give plenty of flavour. The combination of these variables affect how effective troops are against other combinations of stats and how well buffs work on said unit.

At a scale where the exact weapons, position and line of sight matter, I don't see why shooting into combat is such a big deal, hitting a group of people, esp. when SOME of them are fighting another group of people is not that hard for a competent soldier, more so if they are fighting a monster. Yes you might hit your own troops, but I don't see it as enough of a risk to warrant the complication of simulating it. Friendly troops in another unit should block line of sight though. The field of soldiers fighting one on one all over a field that Hollywood loves is not a thing, men stayed in their unit (and out of the enemy unit) unless they were being run down.
From a game design point of view, shooting into combat usually allows too many attacks on a unit that cannot do anything about shooting (because of the combat) and allows free extra attacks to a shooting unit in combat. In a high damage low defense game like AoS the former does not matter and the latter is balanced by only shhooting once per game turn without I-go-u-go.

What is great about cover in AoS is that it is so simple, it is cumbersome to have extra rules for different types and then modify this or that opponent. Admittedly it is clearly a mechanic more than a simulation. I makes you harder to kill if you are in a defensive position though, which what it needs to do. Noting that AoS is a low defense system, it was probably done this was so that it has less of an impact (so camping units are easier to kill), negative modifiers to the opponent's to hit would have been a bigger deal and and only made sense for shooting (see point about how great simplicity is).

What seems to be lost on people is that is a free formation system (i.e. you choose where individual models are in relation to others in the unit) like AoS makes many rules to simulate the formation of units unnecessary. Geometry, not rules does that.
For example: AoS does not need a modifier for being flanked because the flanking unit can get so many more models in to attack a unit that can't respond very well.
Why does no one seem to optimize their formations? If you just shove your guys to the fight (probably in the middle) and hop it goes well then YOU, not the game, has no tactics.

I think CthulusSpy is answering excellently to the initiative thing - I just quote him. In case, think about the battle of the last alliance on the first Lotr movie. Look what happens when the orcs charge the elves.

Shooting in combat is a big deal, because deprives me of the option of charge where and when to suppress such fire. And the fact that you say that in the game does not matter is really a bad sign. Furthermore, you did not address the immersion part - how is even possible that I can pull the bow in that situation.

Cover: -1/-2 to shoot s cumberstone? I mean at least we can vary a bit the rolls. As stated by people above, the stats of the models in general are tragically flat.

You assume I was missing warhammer FB. I compare this to other skirmish. Skirmish like warmachine (orientation of the model matters) or lotr, in which the order of troops and who has shields, spears, bows, where the model is, where are the commanders, drums and banners, and the shape of the formation matter a lot. Yes, what you do say is valid. Is like the minimum thing in a skirmish game with melee and is not a surprise, nor original, and many systems just do it better.

 jmurph wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

No. Not all shields are the same, even more so if magic is thrown in.

What makes warscrolls great is that you can make each unit as unique as you like, because it is easy to keep track if all the rules are in one place and you don't need to add special rules and exceptions to the core rules.

Unit rules don't have to be several lists of special rules that get cobbled together to make the unit envisioned.

But that is not what I said. Shields should not have a dozen or so different rules for what are functionally identical items.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AoS is simple, simplistic even, in its core rules, but the special rules are not simple because there are so many of them.

However, players only need concern themselves with the special rules actually in play, and these are all printed on the war scrools in play.

The problem is that there are too many special rules in play for AoS to be a "simple" game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AoS is simple, simplistic even, in its core rules, but the special rules are not simple because there are so many of them.

However, players only need concern themselves with the special rules actually in play, and these are all printed on the war scrools in play.

The problem is that there are too many special rules in play for AoS to be a "simple" game.

That isnt a problem, and many successful games use the same methodology used by AoS, the best example is Magic the Gathering. You have a set odf core rules and abilities, then you also get the individually abilities on the individual card. warscrolls are like that and that isn't a problem, in fact it enriches the game if there are a lot of special rules on the warscroll to act as gameplay modifiers to the core set of simple rules. That system can work very well.

The rules could certainly be changed, and the change will be subjective so there is little point in saying what should go with what as other will have thier own opinion. As a core concept Age of Sigmar was reasonably well handled as a gaming system. Its rules do not let it down, the lack of points also do not let it down.

What lets it down is appending that system onto Warhammer. The sort of ruleset AoS offers would be best tied to a range of cheap PPP miniatures, a bit like Wizkids and Hasbros product lines on this genre.
GW miniatures are sold to back a different type of hobby. You dont spend what you need to spend to buy a Warhammer army to play the sort of game AoS offers, you need something with more breadth and depth to it.

I think the 4-page rules are great. A simple rules set is an excellent idea for a war game.

The rules could be improved. Measuring from base to base instead of model to model. There could also be a points system. More terrain war scrolls would be nice (river, swamp, hill, etc.). Unit special rules could be more standardized and less unique.

Strengths of AoS -- bring the models you want to bring. No requirements. You can get a bonus by bringing a formation, but you aren't forced into a formation.

Fast games, an hour or two instead of four to eight hours.

Weakness of AoS -- lots of special rules, units, terrain, time of war, battle plan, etc.

4 pages isn't enough for any decent set of rules for something more than a board game. Less universal rules means more army specific rules that you have to look up each army book for which is rather annoying. Not only that but the lack of certain specifics in the main rules means people find as many loopholes as they can. People mentioned since bases didn't matter you could technically position bases on top of each other and have a crap ton of dudes positioned all on each other. More rules means less ridiculous stunts like that. Sure loopholes could exist because GW sucks at making rules (see their FAQ's and now their decision to not make them) but I find there'd be fewer ridiculous stunts pulled.

That and no points values, army restrictions or nothing. At first even trying to put some form of balance to the game in a GW store (at least at the local one) was met with swift action to end it. Without points you don't even know what's equivalent to what or anything. I mean sure it wasn't absolutely balanced before but failing to add any sort of balancing mechanism doesn't make it more balanced it just makes it infinitely less balanced. I'm not even saying 4 monster vs 10 models but more like 10 grave guard vs 30 clanrats. How do we know how potent each unit is now and how to balance them? They truly just threw out cool stats and didn't give a crap about balance.

As has been said you don't set incredible prices for a drinking game. If you have 4 pages of rules and super simple play I expect super low prices and super low cost of entry. That is not what you get.

The ridiculous rules humor that seem like something a 5 year old would laugh at are also insulting. Like you seriously expect me to spend hundreds on this? I could much more easily just play games on the computer for cheap or get a better experience for cheaper elsewhere.

For me what miffed me about AoS is that they killed 'warhammer fantasy' to create it and then branded fantasy players as not being 'true' fans and created a sort of divide in the fan-base by pitting them against each other. At this point GW can just shove their game up their usual place.

IMO A.O.S highlights what is wrong with GW plc game development.It is non existent!

The core concepts of A.O.S from a game design point of view are good.
But the development of these core concepts into a fully functioning war game, just has not happened.

(Compared to other rule sets .)

Its like the devs agreed on the basic core concepts of the game, then the sales department printed it !

4 pages of rules are not that bad for making a wargame (or about 4) its the execution that matters more.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
IMO A.O.S highlights what is wrong with GW plc game development.It is non existent!

Does GW even have game developers? it has always gave me the impression they have only designers, not developers, or designers that also act as developers.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:


The ridiculous rules humor that seem like something a 5 year old would laugh at are also insulting. Like you seriously expect me to spend hundreds on this? I could much more easily just play games on the computer for cheap or get a better experience for cheaper elsewhere.

That was an horrible PR move. What should one get from that?

- That the designers are juvenile hacks?
- That the authors feel contempt for the player base?
- That the intelligence of the designers is one that find such jokes funny, explaining why they considered AoS a finished product?
- That they are desperate and underpaid and they wrote such rules out of spite for the company?
- That they did actually wanted AoS look what it is - a rushed, shallow and unfinished product?

What should I bring home for that rules? That I cannot even make up my jokes at the gaming table? A bit like with conversions (no mail order of bits since years) I have to make the jokes GW invents? How does this does not feel disconnected with dumping the marine and raising the Stormcats staue?

I think the point is that people should lighten up - it's just a game.

That's the wrong way to inspire people to that feeling it if you are a game designer.

Doing silly things for the silliness of it, should never be in the rules.

Oh, no doubt it wasn't the best set of decisions. But it is clear that GW's designers were completely dismayed over what Fantasy had become.

That is their fault.

All the rules humor is pretty much removed from AoS at this point, its not in the Great Alliance books or any of the war scrolls in the Age of Sigmar books.

The "amusing" rules, though, were not an integral part of the game design, and could simply be ignored like any other special rule.

Whereas in Panzer Pranks (Chaosium, 1980) combat was resolved, if I recall it correctly, by playing the paper/scissors/stone game. If you thought this rule was silly and refused to use it, the game would become unplayable as there was no way to resolve an attack.

From that angle I do not think the "amusing" rules were a core design error of AoS, although they predictably turned out to be a marketing error.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think the point is that people should lighten up - it's just a game.

So fans 'lightened up' after the prequels and revisions of 'Star Wars'.

Yeah it's just a game alright. It only cost people hundreds if not thousands to play but basically throwing the game out with not a lot of warning or none at all. Having your big announcement be that your game is dead and is being replaced by a childish version of itself where you bounce dice of your balls and growl like a monkey for re-rolls to hit. Not only that if you don't like it you can just leave the store as you're not wanted. Oh and the big things AoS has done is mostly just circle bases on all our fantasy models so that we can't play and given us 3 updated armies (chaos which is only there so sigmarines have an enemy, sigmarines and dwarfs which to my knowledge nobody I know has bought them). They basically killed our universe, scrawled something on toilet paper and handed it in for the rules and expected us to buy into this. Fantasy players were more angry how GW made us out to be the bad guys and set us against the AoS wargamers as that is the remains of our much enjoyed game.

Oh and how would you feel if one of your great games had it's world destroyed and you were all fighting in some weird warp bubble verse where your old game pretty much became unplayable as model lines were being killed off, bases were being replaced and the game you loved now has people leaving it as it's a dead game that will never be updated with new models, rules or attention so if you had an out-of-date army like beastmen, skaven or bretonnia. As a skaven player with our 8 page FAQ and in desperate need for a new army book I was hoping after 6 or so years I'd get my ****ing army update and just so you know End Times was no replacement for a good solid army book. End Times was a game of OP units anyway for the most part. Oh and that's another thing. End Times advertised fantasy in a big way and I invested probably 150 dollars at least on it as it was HUGE. Then when the world is destroyed there's nothing and I figure 9th might still happen only to find out the big announcement is it's dead. That's like somebody celebrating your grandma died. It wasn't a game for us but it was hyped up to be just that. GW f'ed up and they f'ed up bad but at this point knowing what the fans want or catering to those fans is beyond them. I'd imagine they think tau and eldar are popular because of pretty or big models rather than how OP they are. You know as if you couldn't give everybody big OP models. At that point though it's less a game of armies fighting and more a game of a few centerpiece models and that's not what I got into the game for since '07.

Also GW needs to use more creativity than just throwing in Space Marines. You can tell the effort was very half-***ed and lazy. Sad bit is I liked warriors of chaos and the lack of space marines in fantasy. It made warriors of chaos actually scary to face in combat. Sigmarines just takes that away and without normal humans as the main faction it's less relatable. I can't relate to some faceless sigmarine but I certainly know what the peasant picking up arms to defend his family thinks. I can't like most of whatever they do with AoS with that alone. The good guys under siege idea is a lot more fun because bad guys need to be a threat as others have stated. Otherwise you don't care and the baddies are just there to be stomped that day of the week. Even with 40k it wasn't totally like fantasy's level of desperation. 40k had space marines and a massive empire that was slowly crumbling. So what if they lose 10 worlds as they have like a million more to replace it with. If the empire loses a province due to an enemy they have about 11 left. That's right 12 provinces. Imagine the look of horror on an empire peasant's face if some great enemy just laid waste to 3 provinces without any sign of stopping. It was a huge deal in comparison (or would be if plot armor wasn't a thing). Guess we all found out that GW's profits matter the most though. That way you get a weird story of nagash defending the empire for some really odd reason (huh?). Well at least that's what I heard even if it was temporary.

 Manchu wrote:
I agree with my esteemed colleague that it belongs here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Moving thread to Games Design forum.

Please note - this thread should stick as close as possible to discussion of mechanics. For example, complaining about the setting changes would be off-topic.

Thanks!

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think the point is that people should lighten up - it's just a game.

Oh and how would you feel if one of your great games had it's world destroyed

Go re-read my sig.

I'm a Dogs of War player, so you can just shut the hell up until your precious Skaven get perma-Squatted.

Hey my Bretonnians are almost in the same boat. There are warscrolls, for now, but the product line has disappeared and the faction hasnt been transfered over.

But seeing as I refuse to move on from WHFB, it doesnt matter much.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think the point is that people should lighten up - it's just a game.

Oh and how would you feel if one of your great games had it's world destroyed

Go re-read my sig.

I'm a Dogs of War player, so you can just shut the hell up until your precious Skaven get perma-Squatted.

How big was the game and is it still allowed in a GW? Currently in the usa you can't play warhammer fantasy at a GW. It took a lot of money to play warhammer fantasy but probably not as much for 'dogs of war'. Not only that but it's a specialist game whereas Fantasy was a primary one. It was the flagship game for GW at a point. I mean it's like Disney without mickey mouse or DC comics without superman. It's kind of a bigger and more in depth game.

-----

Oh sorry I'm getting back on topic then. The biggest issue with the rules was 'no points' amounts. Lots of different army books, the BRB was 4 pages which isn't a lot of army-wide rules (doesn't explain lots of odd situations so it's prone to people taking advantage of anything) and the childish rules humor. That's mostly it from a rules standpoint.