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 can't be the only one to notice that AoS rules are on average way better written. This can be proved objectively by going to GW site and comparing the length of FAQs and errata in each game. Why is this? Are AoS authors given more time to work on their projects? I figure this thread will get more traction in this forum.

The AOS team has at least one tournament player who seems to actually understands the game (Ben Johnson) and has tried to consolidate the language used to ensure consistency. For whatever reason, the 40k team doesn't do this.

Wayniac wrote:
The AOS team has at least one tournament player who seems to actually understands the game (Ben Johnson) and has tried to consolidate the language used to ensure consistency. For whatever reason, the 40k team doesn't do this.

I've noticed BJ at the WD battle reports.
Seems to be a decent player.

AoS is one of the worst games ever made. It should be seen as an example of how not to write rules.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made. It should be seen as an example of how not to write rules.

It could go worse.
Have a look at PP. A few bad decisions and the game could be gone for good. :d

Wayniac wrote:
The AOS team has at least one tournament player who seems to actually understands the game (Ben Johnson) and has tried to consolidate the language used to ensure consistency. For whatever reason, the 40k team doesn't do this.

The new marine books are a lot more clearly written and more interesting (power aside). They've been learning from each other for a while now. They really should all be one team sharing best practices though.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made. It should be seen as an example of how not to write rules.

Is it still 2015!?

Sigmar was an absolute car fire at launch, but it's so much better now. Sure it's not the best game in the world, but it's generally great fun and nowhere near the worst out there.

This can be proved objectively

*looks at camera*

Here we go agaaaaain!!!

*canned laughter*

*roll credits*

If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Is it really that much of a chore to remember what all the shields in your army do? Geez.

They might be better written in the sense that they have less errors, they're not better written in the sense that it is a better gaming system.


The core system of AOS is an utter joke. Interesting options like choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Damage spilling means there is no difference between anti single target and anti-horde weapons. Combined with fixed wound values this means that AP is the only core stat which affects the target selection at all. You can't even stop stop units from shooting by engaging them in melee. The most meaningful roll is the one which decides whether you get the double turn. When first read the rules my conclusion was that it was an effort to write a game where nothing you did really mattered. You just roll some dice, stuff happens. You can't make wrong choices as the choices you make really do not matter.

Now the current team seems to be very skilled, and they have managed to add quite a bit of depth via all sort of bespoke special rules. Which is the only way to do it in AOS as the core of the system is utterly worthless. I'd be really interested in seeing what they could do with a game that has better core mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

Is it really that much of a chore to remember what all the shields in your army do? Geez.

Kinda. It is also stupid. Why would they work differently?

 Crimson wrote:
They might be better written in the sense that they have less errors, they're not better written in the sense that it is a better gaming system.

It's not even necessarily less errors. Longer FAQ and Errata just means more corrections had to be made. It's certainly a possibility that's because of a higher percentage of errors, but it can also be because of having more rules in the first place. Like there being more current Codexes than there are Battletomes, for instance. It can also be in part the result of a bigger playerbase, meaning more errors or broken combos / loopholes / whatever get found. AND it can be due to 40k simply having more complex rules, which means having more issues to iron out.

Put all this together, and "the FAQ and Errata are longer, which objectively proves AoS is better written than 40k" is a really silly claim to make. But… I'm starting to accept that as pretty common around here whenever someone busts out the words "objectively" or "factually".

 Stux wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Is it really that much of a chore to remember what all the shields in your army do? Geez.

"Shields" are an allegory for the general "let us de-standardize this rules system as much as possible to make players need to learn the absolute maximum number of strange edge-case interactions we didn't have time to test for in the name of "uniqueness"" design philosophy of Age of Sigmar.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

In short .... Dude don't just say everything that comes into your head. This opinion wasn't a good one.

 EnTyme wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

Because we're playing a zoomed-out wargame where fiddly details of the specific geometry of one unit fall way outside the level of granularity it's interesting to track. If you're playing D&D where there ten people is a large fight by all means draw a distinction between a buckler (+1 AC/-1 check penalty/5% spell failure/can wield weapons in that hand at a -1 to hit), a light shield (+1 AC/-1 check penalty/5% spell failure, can use that hand for things that are not weapons), a heavy shield (+2 AC/-2 check penalty/15% spell failure, occupies the hand), and a tower shield (+4 AC/+2 maximum Dexterity/-10 check penalty/50% spell failure, -2 to all attack rolls, may be used to grant total cover against non-touch ranged attacks in a turn you do not also attack). If you're playing a d6-based wargame where both sides are expected to field a hundred-plus models is there a point where what shape the shield is doesn't matter all that much? Why do square shields, round shields, and triangular shields all do the same thing?

 EnTyme wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

Because they always did for the previous 8 iterations of the game?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

Because we're playing a zoomed-out wargame where fiddly details of the specific geometry of one unit fall way outside the level of granularity it's interesting to track. If you're playing D&D where there ten people is a large fight by all means draw a distinction between a buckler (+1 AC/-1 check penalty/5% spell failure/can wield weapons in that hand at a -1 to hit), a light shield (+1 AC/-1 check penalty/5% spell failure, can use that hand for things that are not weapons), a heavy shield (+2 AC/-2 check penalty/15% spell failure, occupies the hand), and a tower shield (+4 AC/+2 maximum Dexterity/-10 check penalty/50% spell failure, -2 to all attack rolls, may be used to grant total cover against non-touch ranged attacks in a turn you do not also attack). If you're playing a d6-based wargame where both sides are expected to field a hundred-plus models is there a point where what shape the shield is doesn't matter all that much? Why do square shields, round shields, and triangular shields all do the same thing?

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

 Stux wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Is it really that much of a chore to remember what all the shields in your army do? Geez.

It's easier to remember keywords, yet people rejoiced at their removal.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Same reason as why meltagun in 40k works differently depending who wields it.

Players wanted bespoke rules so enjoy, you got what you wanted


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Why would these shields do the same thing as these shields?

Did french shields do different effect than roman ones? Maybe one played out ave maria after being struct!

tneva82 wrote:

Same reason as why meltagun in 40k works differently depending who wields it.

Does it?

tneva82 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Same reason as why meltagun in 40k works differently depending who wields it.

Except it doesn't (unless you are talking about BS).

A meltagun is a meltagun is a meltagun.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

So game balance requires one 2W/4+ unit's shields to give reroll 1s and another's to give a 5+ save against mortal wounds?

 Grimtuff wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the AoS rules were better written why does a "shield" do a different thing in every army and why do I need to read a paragraph of text in every unit entry to figure out what it does this time? Or for that matter why do I need to read through a paragraph of text about how my models [adverbly verb] to figure out what anyone's equipped with?

Same reason as why meltagun in 40k works differently depending who wields it.

Except it doesn't (unless you are talking about BS).

A meltagun is a meltagun is a meltagun.

Except when it's a Heat Lance.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

So game balance requires one 2W/4+ unit's shields to give reroll 1s and another's to give a 5+ save against mortal wounds?

No, narrative is what causes that. Balance is what keeps them both from getting +1 save.

(I know, game rules based in the narrative, try not to have a heart attack).

tneva82 wrote:


Did french shields do different effect than roman ones? Maybe one played out ave maria after being struct!

Actually yes.

Whilst there are indeed common themes with regard to protective wear like shields; their shape, material, construction and the training and use in battle can result in huge changes in how they work. Look at the Romans, both the shape and the training they had allowed them to use shields to produce mobile units that could move across the battlefield whilst heavily shielded. Even though the "barbarians" they fought against also had shields they were a totally different affair.



AoS doesn't just have that, it also has species of totally different body construction and magic. It makes perfect sense that a shield by one race would not be the same as another and that even within the same race different sheilds would behave and operate differently. A Khinerai or Witch Aelf has a blade edged shield which not only protects but can also deal damage. A skaven, meanwhile, has a much more basic shield that isn't edged and thus isn't for killing with, its for protecting. Plus its more likely that a skaven would use its shield on a less regimented and a more personal level (barring units like Stormvermin). So they won't produce interlocked shield formations like the Mortek Guard can achieve.

So yes shields through history DO behave differently. It's not out of the question to choose to represent that in a tabletop game. Which is the cornerstone of the discussion, the choice. Game systems exist where shields and other items will be universal across different factions; similarly there are systems that are so highly detailed that individual weapons and equipment vary depending on the specific unit using them.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

But if you have a 4+ save with a re-roll, and get in cover, then that gives you 3+ with a re-roll, right? Which is statistically better than a straight 2+, by a significant margin (50%).

GW's designers having a poor grasp of probability is nothing new, though.

Overread wrote:Actually yes.

Whilst there are indeed common themes with regard to protective wear like shields; their shape, material, construction and the training and use in battle can result in huge changes in how they work. Look at the Romans, both the shape and the training they had allowed them to use shields to produce mobile units that could move across the battlefield whilst heavily shielded. Even though the "barbarians" they fought against also had shields they were a totally different affair.



AoS doesn't just have that, it also has species of totally different body construction and magic. It makes perfect sense that a shield by one race would not be the same as another and that even within the same race different sheilds would behave and operate differently. A Khinerai or Witch Aelf has a blade edged shield which not only protects but can also deal damage. A skaven, meanwhile, has a much more basic shield that isn't edged and thus isn't for killing with, its for protecting. Plus its more likely that a skaven would use its shield on a less regimented and a more personal level (barring units like Stormvermin). So they won't produce interlocked shield formations like the Mortek Guard can achieve.

So yes shields through history DO behave differently. It's not out of the question to choose to represent that in a tabletop game. Which is the cornerstone of the discussion, the choice. Game systems exist where shields and other items will be universal across different factions; similarly there are systems that are so highly detailed that individual weapons and equipment vary depending on the specific unit using them.

For how abstract AoS's stats are in general (eg everyone competent at melee hits at the same 3+), rivet-counting specificity in shields seems wholly inappropriate. As you said in your last sentence, there are games that treat equipment generically, and there are games that attempt to model minutiae, but they shouldn't be the same game.

 Overread wrote:



AoS doesn't just have that, it also has species of totally different body construction and magic. It makes perfect sense that a shield by one race would not be the same as another and that even within the same race different sheilds would behave and operate differently. A Khinerai or Witch Aelf has a blade edged shield which not only protects but can also deal damage. A skaven, meanwhile, has a much more basic shield that isn't edged and thus isn't for killing with, its for protecting. Plus its more likely that a skaven would use its shield on a less regimented and a more personal level (barring units like Stormvermin). So they won't produce interlocked shield formations like the Mortek Guard can achieve.

And every single one of these examples also helps convey the different feel and flavour of each faction, how they fight, what their values are, etc. The Daughters of Khaine revel in bloodshed and are narcissistic to the point of conducting war as a performance and ritual, with skill and aggression being paramount and defensive tactics or postures regarded as weak, sloppy, inelegant, unexciting, or pathetic. Skaven are undisciplined, cowardly, and 100% selfish to an absolute fault, with the sole interest of any given clanrat being to save his own skin while still maintaining (or advancing) his place in the cutthroat social hierarchy. Ossiarchs are highly disciplined, highly trained, elite legions of warriors with impeccable loyalty to the greater cause and the tactical acumen of their commanders.

Thus, the rules support the game, the lore, and the diversity therein.