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.

Simple enough question, I've heard many people complain about the rules, and the main vex appears to be the lack of a points system , and it seems to me the only one on the rules alone. So now we know the is going to be a points system (assuming that it is fair at this point, though I doubt it will), how does everybody feel about aos and its rules. Any haters now thinking of starting, or has the same reasons for you disliking the game not been addressed?

Yes. I despised what I saw/heard about AOS (I played Fantasy the last time like around 1998). While I constantly considered playing 40k again, AOS never even registered on my radar although I liked how some of the figures looked.

With the points though, I've been thinking about it constantly and might jump in when my local GW store does a league/campaign. For someone who has "crusaded" (not really but I've been pretty open about my dislike) against GW for about a decade now, that's huge to me.

Most of its fine - base to base makes more sense than from weapons but otherwise its a bit like Dragon Rampant which we are currently enjoying.............

The points system is a step in the right direction and something they should have had to begin with.

The problem is that the game mechanics are still bad and need to be made much more complex.

They need to implement a restrictive force organization chart for armies for competitive play.

Even if they got those things, they've still pissed of many of the fans of the old world who are hesitant to get on board or have already moved on.

I will give it a go. Still not extremely excited by it, but for a high fantasy skirmish game with a wide variety of pre-made units and crazy monsters, it can work fine I guess.

I've got all these minis so I've nothing to lose by giving it a go now that my biggest complaint has been fixed. Will drop down to the local GW one of these days and see about a PUG.

I dont like the rules as much as fantasy battle but I also dont hate them like alot of others and I can see myself having fun games with them. Now that games workshop has breathed new life into the PuG scene with points im betting I can actually find a game soon.

I'm coming from a bit of a different place since I've been playing with points for a while already, but I've come to appreciate the simplicity in the AoS ruleset. Yeah, it does result in some stupid things going on but at the end of the day its more fun for me than having to deal with the fiddly details of WHFB or 40k. Granted, there are some pieces of the rules cut out when we play. Base to base measurement and ignoring major victory rules are extremely common everywhere, while the comp I use makes some adjustments to summoning, and my group generally ignores rolling for initiative.

I maybe wrong but I thought I read there were going to work with tournament holders on making points systems for competitive games but open play will have the same rules? I mean I guess you can still just use the tournament point list, but I wonder if you played a pick up game in a local GW store how it would work there.

I think that I wouldn't have been happy if it was just points. But GW being the absolute brainboxes that they are, go and make 3 game modes. Thank you GW, recently you have made me start saying that, and i am glad for it.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
They need to implement a restrictive force organization chart for armies for competitive play.

I'm 100% against a restrictive force organization. I like formations, you get a bonus if you follow a restrictive force organization, but you aren't required to follow a restrictive organization.

If you follow a restrictive force organization, many battles in novels where a group of allied forces are brought together wouldn't be legal battles. For example, in the Gotrek and Felix novels you often have humans, dwarves, elves, etc. working together against one or more opposing forces.

The only rules that I think could use some modifications are: measuring from base to base (instead of models), stacking identical bonuses (i.e. I think you should get +1 save from cover and +1 save from mystic armor, but not 2 or more +1s from 2 or more casts of mystic armor), and clarifications on how you combine summoning with a points system.

And I am 100% for it.

Nobody is going to take a lowly spearman when they can take an army of bloodthristers. Call me old fashioned but I like my armies to look like armies. All armies should have restrictions, it's what makes the game interesting. Having to decide what the army's overall strengths and weaknesses are, rather than taking just the best of the best.

If you want to be unrestricted, they have a whole system of playing where you can forget points and restrictions. But for me, if we are seriously talking about an actual competitive "game". There needs to be restrictions imposed.

Those restrictions can come naturally with the points/pool choices though.

I know the SCGT guys love the direction of AoS having armies we've never seen before. I don't think the matched play system is going to box people in that hard. They do have some restrictions currently against spamming units.

I expect like the SCGT rules now there will be incentives to take all sorts of units because of different scenarios. But I don't know what input GW will have and how much it will change current SCGT.

Points theoretically should be able to balance the game. But in the real world that's not going to happen perfectly.

Without force organization restrictions, we're just going to get a rehash of whatever 40K has become.

I'd rather there be loose/nonexistent restrictions and point things so that taking monster-mash or super-friends simply isn't as effective as running armies which are at least a little rounded. Unfortunately the three winning armies at the big SGCT tourney were 2 monster mash and 1 super friends, so that doesn't bode well if GW uses that comp as a model.

Or we're going to get something like the SCGT, which retains the spirit of AoS in letting you follow what you like and the type of army you want.

One guy took 5 star drakes and celestant prime. He couldn't win half the missions, but just enjoyed playing with them. The scenarios put in incentives to take a variety of units.

Nothing's ever going to be perfect.

Edit: SCGT is a living document (or was prior to this announcement) and I expect the matched play rules will be too. If they find they are favouring one type of choice well over others, I expect it will be changed. I don't think there's anything to be worried about.

coldgaming wrote:
Or we're going to get something like the SCGT, which retains the spirit of AoS in letting you follow what you like and the type of army you want.

One guy took 5 star drakes and celestant prime. He couldn't win half the missions, but just enjoyed playing with them. The scenarios put in incentives to take a variety of units.

Nothing's ever going to be perfect.

Edit: SCGT is a living document (or was prior to this announcement) and I expect the matched play rules will be too. If they find they are favouring one type of choice well over others, I expect it will be changed. I don't think there's anything to be worried about.

I think that's what concerns me most actually, because looking at the winning lists it seems like a handful of token unit options alongside as many monsters/characters that could be crammed in. It makes me think those units were only included to help with the scenarios, meaning they wouldn't be worth taking otherwise.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
And I am 100% for it.

Nobody is going to take a lowly spearman when they can take an army of bloodthristers. Call me old fashioned but I like my armies to look like armies.

That's not even remotely true. The only time I've ever ran into someone doing of that nature(spamming monsters), it was someone who pulled that crap in WHFB 8th as well. So let's not pretend that it couldn't happen with points and force restrictions, shall we?

All armies should have restrictions, it's what makes the game interesting. Having to decide what the army's overall strengths and weaknesses are, rather than taking just the best of the best.
If you want to be unrestricted, they have a whole system of playing where you can forget points and restrictions. But for me, if we are seriously talking about an actual competitive "game". There needs to be restrictions imposed.

No, there doesn't. Players just need to not be dicks. And if they choose to be dicks, stomp around on them a bit with the same attitude.

During the first Escalation League that I played in for Age of Sigmar, we had someone bring for the first week(the mission was "The Trap" from the main rulebook with restrictions of 3 different Warscroll choices, at least one of which had to have the keyword of "Hero" on it. You couldn't take Monsters or Warmachines for week one but you could take duplicates of any Warscroll) ten units of ten Dark Elf Darkshards(Crossbowmen), Shadowblade, and a Master with Battle Standard.

Because of the way that "The Trap" works, if the Invader(the player with the most models) knows they're facing a low model count army they can build to ensure that Sudden Death rules are in effect(the Scenario specifically states that they will be in effect if the Ambusher is outnumbered by at least 2:1) and can cheese the hell out of it--which is what he did.

Anyone who chose the "Assassinate" Sudden Death rule would have to deal with a shell game of "Where's the Assassin?" because it allowed him to select Shadowblade as the Assassination target. He played that against me first rather than any of the new players that had gotten in with AoS' launch, and I had an inkling he was going to try something like that(the weeks leading up to the League start he kept asking the regulars how many models their armies had and wouldn't comment on what he was bringing beyond Dark Elves) so I picked Blunt instead of Assassinate and made sure everyone else knew to do the same.

He didn't play for the rest of the league.

I'll have to wait and see how well the points balance the game. If they do a good job I'lll probably dust off my WoC collection and have a go at it. From my understanding 48 Chaos Warriors, 6 Skullcrushers and a Lord is a pretty good sized army in AoS.

That's not even remotely true.

Thats why we don't have entire armies of riptides and stormsurges in 40K right?

It's not that abuse can't happen in any rules set. But abuse is harder to achieve with restrictions and points.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

That's not even remotely true.

Thats why we don't have entire armies of riptides and stormsurges in 40K right?

It's not that abuse can't happen in any rules set. But abuse is harder to achieve with restrictions and points.

You know that we actually do have "entire armies of Riptides and Stormsurges in 40k", right?

Riptide Wing formation is a standalone consisting of 3-9 Riptides. It can be paired with a Heavy Retribution Cadre(3-9 Stormsurges and 1-3 Ghostkeels) as a standalone formation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

That's not even remotely true.

Thats why we don't have entire armies of riptides and stormsurges in 40K right?

It's not that abuse can't happen in any rules set. But abuse is harder to achieve with restrictions and points.

You know that we actually do have "entire armies of Riptides and Stormsurges in 40k", right?

Riptide Wing formation is a standalone consisting of 3-9 Riptides. It can be paired with a Heavy Retribution Cadre(3-9 Stormsurges and 1-3 Ghostkeels) as a standalone formation.

How does that refute his point?

Well his initial point was that no one (let's assume that was meant as an exaggeration) would take core unless forced. Plenty of us have been playing with and against armies with weaker units for months. Amazingly we don't need to be policed to make armies that look like armies

I'm hoping that's not the sort of attitude toward the game that will creep in with points tbh

Well his initial point was that no one (let's assume that was meant as an exaggeration) would take core unless forced. Plenty of us have been playing with and against armies with weaker units for months. Amazingly we don't need to be policed to make armies that look like armies

I'm hoping that's not the sort of attitude toward the game that will creep in with points tbh

Yes, I was purposefully exaggerating my point, of course people willing play with core units. And it's true that more or less any army can win against any other army (baring perhaps and entire army of Guardsmen with las guns vs. an entire army of Imperial Knights).

Correct me if I'm wrong because I've only played a handful of games of AOS, but it seems like there's less of a disparity between weaker soldiers and elite ones than there was in fantasy or 40K?

I think most of the people that would be open to abusive lists don't play much AOS, but just because the average person wouldn't murder someone doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law against murder (if you catch my meaning).

The point that I'm trying to make is that people inherently try to win and find loop holes to their advantage. I just feel strongly that restrictions should be imposed to reduce spamming of the most elite units and degrade the game for the average person who is trying to play for the narrative whilst still maintaining form of competitive lean.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong because I've only played a handful of games of AOS, but it seems like there's less of a disparity between weaker soldiers and elite ones than there was in fantasy or 40K?

Oh no, that gap is still there in full, if anything it has expanded. Not to say this is a good or bad thing, I'm pretty sure its to allow intermediate levels of elite with the simplified stat line. Think about it as a guardsman being left the same while a tactical marine becomes 2 wounds and double the attacks; the scale got bigger.

As someone who's been pretty disgusted by AoS, I will likely give it a go now. I like the look of a lot of the latest releases, and I can live with simple rules (in theory), but the lack of points was a terrible design decision, and it made AoS simple a non-starter for me.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

The problem is that the game mechanics are still bad and need to be made much more complex.

Don't need complex. Complex doesn't equal fun or make a game more fun. Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit is really simple but fun and lots of variety and tactics. It's not complex and Age of Sigmar doesn't need to be complex either.

They need to implement a restrictive force organization chart for armies for competitive play.

No, just no. Why restrictive? Want restrictive, just play 40K. All we are back to is only certain units/minis will be used and a lot of other minis will just sit on the shelf. Again, back to 40K. It will be same old same old. At least with AoS it's a new beginning and we are getting so much varied armies out there, we have no cookie cutter lists, and don't want to see cookie cutter lists. Why not just field what we want? What is so wrong with that? Restricting what ever, just takes freedom away from the player.

At the same time only save throws and wounds affect the potency of attacks unlike previously. Brutus yeah I see where you're coming from, I'm interested to see where they go with this. As long as they keep putting the same amount of resources into campaigns and comp (casual by its nature won't need as much) then we'll all be happy.

Whew, at first I thought you meant restrictions on races and how much variety you could be allowed to make.

If it's a core, special and rare organization for competitive play then I don't see a large problem with that.

I love the massive varieties people can create but I think the competitive players are all going to agree on a system like that anyway.

There's always open and narrative events for massive and crazy awesome forces to be played in.

The only restriction at the core of this Matched Play should be that units must be from the same Grand Alliance (Order, Chaos, etc).

You start there. And see how it plays.

That is what the SCGT did. The feedback has been overwhelming positive.

The restrictions were in the scenarios. One player couldn't win two games as he took only big models and that meant he didn't flexibility . But that's cool vs winning. I just hope Matched Play encourages the same behaviour.


As for rules, they're fine measuring aside. We have played with vanilla measuring rules and on the tabletop there were no issues. But measuring from base is quicker and simpler; so we do that.

That is our only house rule at the moment.

No points has not been an issue. We've had way closer games with no points than other games with points.
That said, I do welcome this Matched Play if it is a living document that is periodically reviewed with community feedback (not just "waaah, X is overpowered but I've never actually played it, waaah)".


In short: I'm all for Matched Play as an option if it embraces what AoS is trying to achieve.


Edit:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Without force organization restrictions, we're just going to get a rehash of whatever 40K has become.

40k isn't a good example. That suffers from two key things:
1) It is neither open nor restrictive enough
2) The points are all over the place and static
Do not expect Matched Play to have organisation restrictions outside of picking a single Grand Alliance.

I like the general form for the SCGT. Restricted to Alliance is understandable and the points system is pretty straight forward.

It's not going to provide the knife-edge balance some people are hoping for, but as has been pointed out, AoS isn't a game designed to balance on that anyway.

I think it would work better if, like SCGT, there are specific organised play scenarios as well.