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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Yeah no. AOS and 40k rules are both pretty bad. Just different kinds of bad.

Thread in a nutshell.

I have to agree having now played a little bit of Age of Sigmar over the last month and half. I have the newest battletome with Slaves to Darkness, and it still has a few things I am not sure about. I couldn't tell anyone with certainty if Chaos Warriors can mix weapons now. Nor how that would work if they can with some with shields and some without. Heck, as dumb as I think the 40k Assault weapon RAW is, runic shields has the same thing in that RAW it only works with two or more. It still isn't completely clear in the writing what effect, if any, taking a horn and/or banner have to that model and the regular weapons they carry. I know these items don't have any effect now, but as new player, it seemed off these upgrades were free with no downside, and it isn't like a standard AoS points aren't granular enough to have them cost a few point (like any given 40k wargear). Maybe if armies were built in 100 points but 2000 points seems like more than enough for this stuff to cost extra.

Speaking of points, a number of stuff is just given away for free via terrain and/or summoning. Which does put a player back if they didn't add them to their army. Sure, some summoning has to acquire points during the game, but in many cases, it is hard for an opponent to stop heaps of these points being made. Not to mention standard what is a point worth in any points based game has. Being a GW game, the points often really don't match up between units. I also suspect that realm/terrain bonuses usually add to imbalance more than level the playing field. Although, I haven't played games using the realm or terrain buff rules.

Balance seems just as all over the place like 40k. In my first game of AoS before the Battletome dropped, I received the biggest crushing defeat in any miniatures war game after playing the new hotness that is Bonereapers. It wasn't like opponent was an expert either, he had one or two games more than I did. He did position better than I did, but his units were just better than mine full stop. I don't think their would be any kind of play that I could have done that would defeat them in that game outside insane dice luck. Even in 40k, I feel I could at least offer resistance playing an out of the index army compared to that game. Even with a new Battletome, I don't see how I am going to defeat OSB. The book just narrowed the margin of luck I need after playing and positioning well.

I think people might might mistake the lack of layers upon layers of complication in Age of Sigmar. The game has a lot less rule gribblies compared to 40k. Though, things like Nurgle's Cycle, depravity/fate/plague points, and status effect bookkeeping are close. Age of Sigmar also does appear to have a little more going on for the player in meaningful player choices. Not a lot more, but enough that I noticed it. However, there are still a number of things that really do make the game, at least at a semi-casaul level, just as unbalanced as 40k from what I have seen.

Even as a AoS fanboy, this feels like a bait thread tbh. Particularly since it was posted in a 40K subforum initially.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...*shrug* That's not my place to judge. I don't find it too complicated, but if your assertion is that AOS is too complicated/too hard to play, then I can't disagree, as that's subjective. Me? I find it far easier to play than 40k.

My assertion is that AoS has chosen the wrong things to make complicated. They stripped out Strength v. Toughness, WS comparison, and ranged to-hit modifiers, but we're still rolling three dice per attack instead of doing something like LotR's armour-as-Toughness two-rolls system so it still takes about as much time to do. They cut the statline down from ten numbers to four, then expanded the weapon statline from 1-2 numbers and sometimes a textbox to five numbers and sometimes a textbox so the actual statblocks are larger. They stripped out the eight common Lores of Battle Magic and their 56 spells and 8 lore attributes, and yet there are now more spells than there ever were.

I feel like AoS has more rules and yet less interesting gameplay decision-making than WHFB ever had.

I feel like AoS has more rules and yet less interesting gameplay decision-making than WHFB ever had.

I think when you take into account the rules spread out across all of the warscrolls I agree it has more rules than WHFB.

I also firmly agree with the less interesting gameplay due to decisions being stripped out of the game and sloppy game play being promoted through the removal of precision in favor of statistics (as I see it anyway). However I see that as being intentional. Precision and layers of decisions/tactics make the game more difficult to pick up and goes in the opposite direction of GW's focus - which is a casual game focused on very casual players.

If AoS is really the superior ruleset when it comes to writing, explain either edition of Skirmish, especially when 1st Edition had a fully-published rules booklet to argue against the claims that it was a "throw away product". Right out of the gate there were obvious flaws in the mechanics of AoS and how they fit into such small-scale gaming (especially damage and Mortal Wounds), and not one of them was ever addressed even in the 2nd edition in White Dwarf as far as I know. It took Bottle to make the game playable at all with Hinterlands, with a handful of good rules additions that should have been blindingly obvious to even the newest official playtester.

Although in retrospect their lack of skill at rules writing actually LED to better rules writing, as Hinterlands being better than officially-produced rules was what pretty much got him hired at GW for Warcry.

 Stux wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
one game needs to be pretty bad for a dedicated group that did like 8th at the start (and was tired of 7th) to look for a new game

Not really, burnout is extremely common in all games after enough time. Easily happens to a gaming group when they all play the same game.

Its not burn out, its the stupid amount of rules catch up you have to do (literally 70+ pages of faqs for some armies), the 400%+ increase in shooting damage with almost nothing added in survivabilities other than "points are cheaper, bring more", and the insanely bad balance of the game. I love 40k, i'm excited to play my Quins with the new CA, but everytime i get the chance, its "why bother? Its either going to be I win by a mile, or they table me by turn 3, its always like that.

At least in AoS games are almost always very close, unless someone made a mistake, but in 40k you can make 0 mistakes and still lose by a mile.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


At least in AoS games are almost always very close, unless someone made a mistake, but in 40k you can make 0 mistakes and still lose by a mile.

Let's just say my experience with Age of Sigmar has been radically different than yours.

Why are you so passionate ? The original post was just talking about how the current rules of AoS were better written (assuming to before). And yes, that is true, the rule team is definitely refining the way they write them as more battletomes come with time. It's not talking about AoS being the best game ever.

But I do agree the title is kinda lacking in details.

About why, well the simple answer would be the experience of their writers. The game has a few years behind now and they keep collecting datas from tournaments and such. That helps.

And indeed, the size of the FAQ tend to be smaller than they used to be. Difference between AoS V1 and V2 is significant on that matter, I guess that's what the poster was talking about with objectivity.

Reading through this thread, nothing of value was learned.

Only thing I figured out is why the dakka forums have such a small AoS selection of subforums but a huge selection of 40k subforums.

There's much better places out there to talk about AoS without being hounded by a bunch of screaming squirrels about why their rabid opinions should matter.

drbored wrote:
Reading through this thread, nothing of value was learned.

Only thing I figured out is why the dakka forums have such a small AoS selection of subforums but a huge selection of 40k subforums.

There's much better places out there to talk about AoS without being hounded by a bunch of screaming squirrels about why their rabid opinions should matter.

If you are trying to criticise hyperbolic language, using it is probably not the best choice.

I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

What other places are there for AoS? The largest communities seem to be on social medias or reddit. Reddit doesn't approve a critique of the AoS or GW and social media tend to have more of a WIP blogs and occasional meltdown.

I find AoS to have a passable system that allows me to play a game with friends, however the enjoyment isn't on the level to make the game regular.

The Age of Sigmar ruleset is less prone to over-complication that 40k suffers from. AoS doesn't have gazillion stratagems or detachment rules. This means less unknown force multiplying. It doesn't necessarily mean AoS is better, but there is less FAQ-ing needed to patch loopholes.

I have to admit that I find the shield example quite weird. This isn't a Pen and Paper RP game so there is no need for the shield to be the same overall. It is better to think of units in Warhammer as abstractions of their capabilities instead of viewing them as RP Character sheets that can be used in a roleplaying campaign. If people want to roleplay in the Age of Sigmar there is an interesting roleplaying system coming out that may or may not standardize shield efficacy.

 auticus wrote:
I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

True enough - their gallery is really kicking ass with some awesome and inspiring army concepts.

 auticus wrote:
I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

You can even have a conversation there without the thread instantly devolving into the same arguments by the same 4-5 people over and over and over again....

 auticus wrote:
I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

Technically they have guidelines within the rules against excessive negative posting - basically trolling through heavy negative posting. There's certainly no rule against being critical.

Asides its mostly a rule that was a backlash against the early days of AoS when there was extreme anti-aos behaviour around the net. Granted much of it was warranted, however for those who enjoyed the game at launch and in the early days the TGA forums did aim to provide one spot where every single thread wasn't dominated by "I hate it its bad I hate it I hate GW I hate fans of it" etc...

 Overread wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

Technically they have guidelines within the rules against excessive negative posting - basically trolling through heavy negative posting. There's certainly no rule against being critical.

Asides its mostly a rule that was a backlash against the early days of AoS when there was extreme anti-aos behaviour around the net. Granted much of it was warranted, however for those who enjoyed the game at launch and in the early days the TGA forums did aim to provide one spot where every single thread wasn't dominated by "I hate it its bad I hate it I hate GW I hate fans of it" etc...

It changed, at one point it was basically "Everything is great and we love GW, don't criticize them" because the owner once sent me a message saying I was sounding "overly negative" by bringing up valid criticism and concerns with the game, the rules and its direction. Auticus was banned for the same (although I agree with him I do feel his statements sometimes can rub people the wrong way). It was lessened a short while later but make no mistake there was a small period where it was basically the unofficial GW forums where everything had to be praise (in part, I suspect, because at least one GW staff member viewed the forums). It still is the "unofficial GW forums" to an extent.

One of the things I like the most about Dakka, as compared to other forums, is it's NOT a pro-GW circlejerk or propaganda mill. You find praise when they do good and condemnation when they do bad, without the forum staff trying to push an agenda or think that if you silence criticism that means there is none or treat GW/Warhammer like the center of the universe.

Now on the topic I agree that I think a big reason why AOS "seems" better is there are more known factors. 40k has its insane detachment/allies/CP system which just blows the door open to abuse and imbalance when one faction might be fine, but as long as you can take cheap CP farms with another faction it becomes OP (Imperial Knights are a good example of this). AOS at least allies are restricted and each faction does what it does, so there is less "Ah-ha but if I take this too..." sort of things going on. Of course the factions have their own problem but IMHO AOS has better balance overall (not by a lot, and there are still major issues) by being less "kitchen sink" than 40k.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

drbored wrote:
Reading through this thread, nothing of value was learned.

Only thing I figured out is why the dakka forums have such a small AoS selection of subforums but a huge selection of 40k subforums.

There's much better places out there to talk about AoS without being hounded by a bunch of screaming squirrels about why their rabid opinions should matter.

If you are trying to criticise hyperbolic language, using it is probably not the best choice.

Not criticizing the choice of language. Criticizing the way that it is very aggressive. I realize this means my own aggressive hyperbole is hypocritical, but idgafeth, the point is made: Dakka isn't the greatest place to talk about AoS because everyone has a superiority boner for 40k that's mostly unfounded.

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

Wow, that was outright sad. Do you tell that to everyone you do not agree with?

drbored wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

drbored wrote:
Reading through this thread, nothing of value was learned.

Only thing I figured out is why the dakka forums have such a small AoS selection of subforums but a huge selection of 40k subforums.

There's much better places out there to talk about AoS without being hounded by a bunch of screaming squirrels about why their rabid opinions should matter.

If you are trying to criticise hyperbolic language, using it is probably not the best choice.

Not criticizing the choice of language. Criticizing the way that it is very aggressive. I realize this means my own aggressive hyperbole is hypocritical, but idgafeth, the point is made: Dakka isn't the greatest place to talk about AoS because everyone has a superiority boner for 40k that's mostly unfounded.

If it helps I mainly play 30k and AT lol.
I honestly do believe that AoS is the better rule set over 40k currently though.

40k to me is at the turning point that AoS reached after its first year.
It’s just about shaping up but still needs some major tweaks to get there.
The biggest of which I’d say is allies.
The loose allies matrix on 40k for me is what causes the constant issues and “broken” choices.
In AoS this is heavily limited and can cost you army wide abilities to do.
If they can restrict it in 40k a bit more I think the game will come together a lot more.

9th 40k could be a rulebook telling you to solve battles by grabbing sticks from your yard, hitting each other for the combat phase and throwing models at one another for shooting.

It would still be bought enmass and make millions.

As per the launch of AoS, GW realised brand loyalty only goes so far for products that aren't 40k. It's meant that in order to actually shift stock, they need to give at least a tiny bit more of a damn about their rules writing. This is presumably why AoS' rules writing has improved quite considerably in the past couple of years, unlike 40k which has quickly fallen down 7th's pit of bloat, sourcebooks and hilariously bad balance even by GW's standards. Of course AoS is still a joke of a ruleset compared to pretty much anything else out there on the market, but y'know.

One argument which was brought up was that 40k has more rules, but in terms of unique codexes/battletomes they are about equal, as many 40k codexes are duplicates like with loyalist/renegade knights. Also codexes and battletomes have about the same number of rules, so AoS is objectively better written as it has less errata.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also a shoutout for overread for writing an intelligent post about how shields are used.

I think it helps AoS that its rules have largely been quite similar since the start. If you compare the rules from now to the very start you can see a clear connection which you just can't comparing 40k now to how it was at the start. Or in 7th or 6th and so on.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
One argument which was brought up was that 40k has more rules, but in terms of unique codexes/battletomes they are about equal, as many 40k codexes are duplicates like with loyalist/renegade knights. Also codexes and battletomes have about the same number of rules, so AoS is objectively better written as it has less errata.

That's still subjective though, because deciding that amount of errata is a reasonable measure of how good a rule set is would be itself a subjective decision.

I dont think it is given by any means - you could easily have a terribly written game with no errata!

 Overread wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'd suggest the TGA forums. They have rules against negative posting Everything is super awesome over there.

Technically they have guidelines within the rules against excessive negative posting - basically trolling through heavy negative posting. There's certainly no rule against being critical.

Asides its mostly a rule that was a backlash against the early days of AoS when there was extreme anti-aos behaviour around the net. Granted much of it was warranted, however for those who enjoyed the game at launch and in the early days the TGA forums did aim to provide one spot where every single thread wasn't dominated by "I hate it its bad I hate it I hate GW I hate fans of it" etc...

eaither way it means the overly negitive posters who contribute nothing but hyperbolic complaints aren't there, I wish Dakkadakka was similer sometimes. it gets annoying to have every 40k post hijacked by the same 2 or 3 people making the same argument

Put them on ignore. Thats why the ignore feature is there.

 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.

Only thing worse than its rules is its fluff. It is litteraly the worst fantasy setting Ive ever seen. Whfb was one of the best.

To get to main topic- I think AoS' advantage in writing is that it had a clear goal, and that is to be as quick and easy as possible. Which it does with minimum hiccups at core rules level. Then of course GW did festoon it with piles of special rules, but that's what GW does, they think special rules equal depth.

40k meanwhile, despite claims of "clean start" with 8th, is still marooned in nostalgic layer of blubber like S/T chart and the fact that some factions "have to" have certain things, even if they don't work or otherwise are messy rulewise. I think it's why they invested so heavily into making the 8th ed a game where command abilities and stratagems and whatnots matter so much, it's a very clumsy way to circumvene the need for things to stay "familiar" to please the hardcore fans.

Then of course is the lore, which...i mean, nothing can be worse than 40k so no point in discussing it.

Cronch wrote:
they think special rules equal depth.

I'm not sure that's quite what's going on.

GW need to sell books, and new models. To do that, they need to include fresh abilities with each release.

You see this over time with most games. The big issue here specifically for GW though is that they're still clinging onto books being a big part of their business model, while other companies are increasingly moving to free or at least living rule sets, and just paying for models.

 Stux wrote:

Cronch wrote:
they think special rules equal depth.

I'm not sure that's quite what's going on.

GW need to sell books, and new models. To do that, they need to include fresh abilities with each release.

You see this over time with most games. The big issue here specifically for GW though is that they're still clinging onto books being a big part of their business model, while other companies are increasingly moving to free or at least living rule sets, and just paying for models.

I completely agree on that last point.
I do honestly feel though their overall sales would go up if books were free.
It would have everything easier to update and tweak to start with.
There is also that temptation there for players of being able to see the rules for everything, so it raises the likelihood they will branch out into other armies.