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.

Are they a natural extension of the last ed of Fantasy? do they come from Lotr? or are they an original creation?

They are nothing like Fantasy from what I read and from playing Lord of the Rings, they have nothing similar either except for rolling for initiative each turn.

It's basically a cut down version of 40K. So I guess some what original.

I'm not sure they are based on anything. From what I read, the design studio was told they needed to make sure the new rules fit on a 4-page leaflet. So the rules are a result of being commanded by the business to make the core rules 4 pages long.

Some elements carry over from Fantasy - the Hit/Wound/Save rolling scheme for instance. The magic system isn't far from 3rd-6th ed. 40K. The shift to unit cards that spell out what's applicable to each unit is drawn from Warmachine/Hordes.

Most of the rest is new or doesn't have an obvious parentage.

Davor wrote:
They are nothing like Fantasy from what I read and from playing Lord of the Rings, they have nothing similar either except for rolling for initiative each turn.

It's basically a cut down version of 40K. So I guess some what original.

That's interesting, I described playing AoS to a friend and he said they did that in LotR's to just about everything in AoS. Which he says maybe get him to play.

I suppose it's closest to 40k, which itself borrowed heavily from fantasy so I dunno.

they came from one too many pints at bugman's going late into the night.

Davor wrote:
It's basically a cut down version of 40K.

Pretty much. AoS plays pretty much exactly the same as 40k. At the time AoS was written, 40k was the overwhelming sales favorite over Fantasy, so making Fantasy into a 40k game made a lot of sense. It's too bad they didn't go one more step, to a single sheet of USRs that were shared across Battlescrolls a la KoW.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Davor wrote:
It's basically a cut down version of 40K.

Pretty much. AoS plays pretty much exactly the same as 40k. At the time AoS was written, 40k was the overwhelming sales favorite over Fantasy, so making Fantasy into a 40k game made a lot of sense. It's too bad they didn't go one more step, to a single sheet of USRs that were shared across Battlescrolls a la KoW.

I am very glad they didn't do that. The warscrolls really open up the game design whereas a series of stock USRs would be extremely limiting. I love that the core rules of AoS are so simple and then each Warscroll is a blank canvas to create and theme an unlimited variety of units.

The Warscrolls are better than before (8E), no doubt about it.

But 80-90% of each unit could have been done via reference to a single page of core USRs, and then tacking on a single bit of unique rules for each specific unit, rather than having every unit have it's own slightly different standard rules that cover essentially similar things.

Oh yes, it could have been done like that. But it wouldn't have made the rules better in my opinion. In fact the opposite. I wouldn't want to have to keep referencing the USRs page in the rules for starters, I like having it all out in front of me, and I also like that (for one example) shields do something different in different units. I see no reason why Duardin Shields would be the same as Deathrattle Crypt Shields, and like how some units are disciplined to form shield walls and others aren't etc etc

In my opinion it would be really limiting on the game to give it USRs and detriment to it. Just my 2 cents.

It would be ONE page of USRs, which is no different from having to look up each unit every time.

As for "limiting" - that's how 40k3 worked, and it's what kicked 40k into high gear. Making everything special makes nothing special, just tedious. Still, at least the resolution engine is clean.

Why bother having Universal Special Rules when you will have units that just ignore them? May as well do it as now and just have the rules on the warscroll so we know what that unit can do. I think the way it is now is so much better than having Universal Special Rules.

Just so I can see your view John, why do you think we need Universal Special Rules? How would that be better than having the actual rules on a warscroll as it is now?

It's just a difference in opinion. For me I don't see what it would serve except making the rules bland and giving you one more thing to reference during game.

What I love about AoS is how utterly unique each different unit feels to play with, even if they are just (for example) multiple types of Aelf Infantry. And for me this is afforded by the freedom the Warscrolls (and lack of USRs) offers.

GW approach AoS from the top down, meaning story comes first and rules stem from it. The Warscrolls help with this because it allows units of a similar type to play very differently. Adding USRs would only serve to restrict and limit that creative freedom in my opinion. I love that new warscrolls can contain never before seen rules, even for mundane and common items like spears or swords.

Davor wrote:
Why bother having Universal Special Rules when you will have units that just ignore them?

May as well do it as now and just have the rules on the warscroll so we know what that unit can do. I think the way it is now is so much better than having Universal Special Rules.

Just so I can see your view John, why do you think we need Universal Special Rules?

How would that be better than having the actual rules on a warscroll as it is now?

Why have rules at all, when you will have Special Rules that will ignore them?

At a very high level, there are a rather limited number of things going on, where units get bonuses / penalties / modifiers. They're largely similar, so why not make them universal to simplify things? If 90% of each unit is defined by stats and a few key Universal SRs (USRs), then I just need to memorize 4 pages of rules and 1 reference sheet and it covers pretty much everything. Only the very small amount of Unit-Specific SRs (USSRs) that stick out as exceptions, it might amount to an entire page of exceptions for an entire army. That's a much lower mental overhead compared to memorizing a different half page for each unit I play.

As for it being better, when there are a few USRs, it also allows me to validate that I, and my opponent play correctly. There is less chance for confusion, error, or cheating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:
GW approach AoS from the top down, meaning story comes first and rules stem from it.

A narrative game, a story-driven game should have the simplest rules possible, not mechanical arcana. Let the players tell the story, not the rules.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
GW approach AoS from the top down, meaning story comes first and rules stem from it.

A narrative game, a story-driven game should have the simplest rules possible, not mechanical arcana. Let the players tell the story, not the rules.

I wouldn't agree with that. There are lots of very complex narrative games that I like. For example Necromunda and by extension 2nd Edition 40k is very complex rules wise and Necromunda especially is great for creating a compelling narrative during games.

I would say that narrative games need only have rules that help create a story, and how complex or simple those are is another consideration.

What the Warscrolls allow is for the designers to think "What does this unit do in the story? What rules can we create to represent that?"

On the flip side you have games with a defined set of USRs. This is great for games designed from the bottom up where game mechanics and balance take priority because the designers can create and balance a core set of USRs against one another and know that any future units will still be limited to that scope. That's what a game like KoW does reportedly.

Question: did you even read that I had said to still have some unit-specific special rules?

Of course, I would question what the point is at all in making an extra page to reference if you still have to reference the Warscroll for the unique rules anyway.

I think it would only suck half the flavour out of each unit and not necessarily speed the game up as you have an extra reference page. I see it being a very bad move, so I am glad it's one the designers didn't choose.

Still, I can appreciate you yourself would like perhaps less rules to remember each game, or perhaps a common framework to help you understand what an enemy unit you have not faced before might be capable of at a glance (just by finding out what USRs it has). You have to understand it's just a difference in opinion between us on what the game priorities should be, no hard feelings, (you seem a little hostile).

As I said, the point is to reduce the mental workload on the player. This allows the player to concentrate on the strategy & tactics, rather than the rules & mechanics. If the unique rules are small, then each unit can be reduced to a single-sided playing card, which is a lot easier to handle on the tabletop compared to a full sheet of paper, to say nothing of a bound rulebook.

In my case, I don't play a lot of Fantasy, so I simply can't keep up with the rules bloat. While the warscrolls are a step in the right direction, I'd like to focus my limited playing time on actually playing, rather than looking anything up.

And yes, it's just a difference in opinion. I'm not sure where you're reading hostility into it. I would have liked GW to go farther on the rules & units, making the game that much more accessible to new & returning players. But that's just me. If you like more chrome, that's fine, too.

I understand your reasoning but I think it would sacrifice too much from the game for not much gain.

(PS, I thought your last post before the one above came off a little hostile because it was rather blunt and seemed to ignore my comment above it. I'm glad if that wasn't your intention.)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
As I said, the point is to reduce the mental workload on the player.

I am not saying you are wrong, just having a great fun debate. I am just giving my opinion as well so please don't take this as I am right you are wrong or vice versa. Always good to see the other side of a differing opinion. For me since I have a horrible memory I can agree with the mental workload. This is why I say warscrolls are great. Everything is in front of me what I am playing. Same goes for my opponent. There is no cheating going on since we show each others cards. There is no need to memorize anything.

Also this is GW. Look at 40K for a perfect example. It started off simple in third edition. Now in 3.5 edition Universal Special Rules keep changing, they keep getting added, not sure how many pages there are now, and often you have to look at 2 maybe 3 or more books now to see how something works now. So why start all over again for it to just become more convoluted? At least with Warscrolls everything is infront of you. No need to go to one page or anything. Mentally it's less workload and now you don't have to worry about rules you will not be using in your game.

Bottle wrote:and I also like that (for one example) shields do something different in different units. I see no reason why Duardin Shields would be the same as Deathrattle Crypt Shields

'Cos they're fershelugginer shields. You hold 'em in front of you and hope the guy aiming a swing or stab at you hits it instead. That's about the height of it. Having different units equipped with speshul magic shields like wot no-one else has got isn't characterful, it's shiny things to dazzle you and make you think this unit will be like totally kewl in the game. It's like the whole hit-wound-save mechanic - it's there to make you think it's meaningful when it's just an exercise in rolling dice. You say AoS is designed with story first, rules later, but from where I'm sitting it's the opposite: they pluck a random modifier out of the air, apply it to one unit's shields, then come up with a short paragraph of horse hockey to try and justify it.



If they can't come up with a unique unit via a unique combination of basic stats, usrs, and some ussrs if they're necessary, then they ain't doin' it right.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It would be ONE page of USRs, which is no different from having to look up each unit every time.

Making everything special makes nothing special, just tedious.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Why have rules at all, when you will have Special Rules that will ignore them?

If 90% of each unit is defined by stats and a few key Universal SRs (USRs), then I just need to memorize 4 pages of rules and 1 reference sheet and it covers pretty much everything. Only the very small amount of Unit-Specific SRs (USSRs) that stick out as exceptions, it might amount to an entire page of exceptions for an entire army. That's a much lower mental overhead compared to memorizing a different half page for each unit I play.

As for it being better, when there are a few USRs, it also allows me to validate that I, and my opponent play correctly. There is less chance for confusion, error, or cheating.

A narrative game, a story-driven game should have the simplest rules possible, not mechanical arcana. Let the players tell the story, not the rules.

This. All this. Saying that USSRs are better than USRs because of cards is missing the real point, and distracting from it. It's not about cards vs. pages, it's about bloat and balance. You could easily stick relevant USRs on the same cards, with any other info, and play even faster because everyone gets the gist a bit better. The USSR spam is WFB and 40K all over again, but with less pretence of lip-service to the core rules. It sounds like a nightmare to balance and plug loopholes, when every model's a special snowflake with it's own special exceptions; and I don't know that GW throwing a sop to player feedback is much use when the game is deliberately constructed like that, and I can flick through discussions here that are all but focussed on mathammer and which models are worth taking.

@Davor - having to pause to check every unit's Warscroll is better than hunting through 40k's Codex, Rulebook and supplements, with all of the cross-references. That's for sure. But if I could see all of the relevant reference information on one page and a handful of cards, that'd be even better.

While resetting things like 40k 3E wouldn't be permanent (but it could!), at least we'd have the benefit of de-bloating things right now.

I see where you are coming from John now I believe. Thanks for the explanation. I would agree with you, but sadly I can see GW screwing this up and it would in a few months be more than a page for quick references. I guess having no faith in GW when it comes to rules that is why I don't want GW doing USR.

If the hypothetical USRs and USSRs doubled up to 2 pages for the game plus 2 paragraphs per unit, that's still a marked improvement over what we have today. Even if it wouldn't last forever. Recall that 40k 3E lasted for quite a few years, and it was pretty darn good.

 Vermis wrote:
'Cos they're fershelugginer shields. You hold 'em in front of you and hope the guy aiming a swing or stab at you hits it instead. That's about the height of it. Having different units equipped with speshul magic shields like wot no-one else has got isn't characterful, it's shiny things to dazzle you and make you think this unit will be like totally kewl in the game. It's like the whole hit-wound-save mechanic - it's there to make you think it's meaningful when it's just an exercise in rolling dice. You say AoS is designed with story first, rules later, but from where I'm sitting it's the opposite: they pluck a random modifier out of the air, apply it to one unit's shields, then come up with a short paragraph of horse hockey to try and justify it.

If they can't come up with a unique unit via a unique combination of basic stats, usrs, and some ussrs if they're necessary, then they ain't doin' it right.

I completely disagree, and I will provide some examples of where (for instance) the variety of shields helps create an evocative scene and builds upon the narrative. I also think you are prescribing your own personal preferences to a wargame but not acknowledging that others might seek something else in a wargame. In any of my justifications as to why I like these rules in Age of Sigmar it is because I really like the style of game Age of Sigmar sets out to be, and don't enjoy the style of game you suggest it should be (one with a tight and balanced set of USRs). Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to enjoy games built from the bottom up, where rules and balance come first over everything else. Don't get me wrong, I like balance too, but not at the expense of losing the theme or narrative of the units which is exactly what I think would happen from these suggestions.

Contrasting Age of Sigmar with Kings of War is good. Both games are streamlined, but I would say they both set out to do very different things from the opposite ends of the spectrum and it's important not to evaluate Age of Sigmar against the design principles of KoW and the other way round.

As I mentioned before, AoS is designed top-down. We know this from the open day and white dwarf insights. The concept designers (Like Jes and Blanche) first draw up the concepts of new miniatures that are then turned into models and only after that are they given rules. Even more so, the balance for tournament play comes with an additional set of rules after the core rules (matched play). All the rules are designed to give the models verisimilitude and I think they do this to great effect (if you don't that's fine, but it's just a difference of subjective view points, and I'll provide some examples in a moment of why I think they do it well).

In contrast, KoW is designed from the bottom-up. They set out to create a tight set of balanced rules, and even created rules for units that did not have models. This is not to say that narrative and story isn't important to KoW, please don't misunderstand my point, it's about where the priorities lie for each game and what they set out to do (which I think is very different).

And so it seems to me that you prefer games design from the bottom-up too. Where balance and having tight rules is the highest priority even if you love narrative and theme as well. You would rather units took rules from a shared pool of rules (the USRs) and then perhaps given a little bit of unique flair from individual rules too. This is a great way to build a wargame, and it's why KoW is popular. It is not the only way to design a wargame however, and I think you are making a mistake by evaluating AoS by these principles.

I would imagine you don't have a problem with an RPG having rules for different types of shields. I think that you could also acknowledge that there are a variety of shields and ways to use them in battle (from wooden bucklers to steel tower shields and everything in between). Now in a game designed from the bottom up there is no reason to have a million different types of shields, but from a game designed from the top down having no standardised rules for shields allows the designer infinite possibility in creating unit flavour with them.

Let's compare Undead Skeleton Warriors with Duardin Fyreslayers. Skeleton Warriors would have rusted, broken, decrepit shields that might start to crumble under heavy blows. Skeleton Warriors and Grave Guard carry 'Crypt Shields'. These shields only increase the save against weapons with rend '-'. For me this immediately paints a picture of the shields breaking under heavy attacks or from powerful weapons. To me, that's cool and adds a lot of verisimilitude for the Skeleton Warriors and their shields.

In contrast the Fyreslayers have 'Bladed Slingshields'. I can see on the models they have twin blades on the rim of the shield and the models are in poses launching them into the air. In the rules they can throw the shields at the enemy when charging to deal mortal wounds. When they do so they can't use the shields to protect them, but for subsequent turns after the charge they get a +1 to their save roll. Again, to me this is cool and breathes life and flavour into the unit.

There is obviously a sliding scale here, and players will all prefer different points on that scale. I am happy that AoS is designed in a way that I enjoy wargames (I love all these individual rules), it's fine if that's not how you enjoy games, I would suggest playing something like KoW instead as it seems to line-up with your expectations better.

(Applauds)

Well said.

I'm of the same opinion. Perhaps GW could've done something different for a streamlined game mechanic but I'm very happy they decided at that stage to pour on the flavor and "bloat" when it came to making the units and their warscrolls unique.

For instance I adore how the Bretonnian warscrolls blended the virtues into the units and even how their knight shields differ from those of the Empire's knight shields by encouraging you to charge out as true Bretonnian knights.

Some of it can be considered just little stuff and maybe unnecessary but it's those things that make me see my models as more than just soldiers to be pushed around on the battlefield.

Just my two cents, of course.

Sometimes less is more. Tasking the design team with a ruleset of 4 pages proved to be a strong motivator. It partly turned out the model placement rules, and it forced the rules to be more clear than what the team is used to.

As for the warscrolls I am happy with the way they are. Gives each unit character and doesn't limit in the same way as 40k does.

Now, I'd like some of the WFB models to be more sturdy on the warscrolls, but that's a different debate.

I remember playing Skaven in 8th Ed WHFB. It's like reading the BRB, then finding out that more than half of the army are exceptions to the general rules anyway. And then about half of the armybook also needs an errata/faq update due to being from an older edition.

I like the basic rules. It's simple enough to explain to a newcomer, then just lead them read their units special abilities on their warscrolls. No need to cross reference a whole bunch of special rules.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Pretty much. AoS plays pretty much exactly the same as 40k. At the time AoS was written, 40k was the overwhelming sales favorite over Fantasy, so making Fantasy into a 40k game made a lot of sense. It's too bad they didn't go one more step, to a single sheet of USRs that were shared across Battlescrolls a la KoW.

Totally agree.

I have tried to get into AoS multiple times but having every single unit with their own version of special rules just puts me off.

Who wants to play a game of 'who can remember the most unique special rules'?

Its a barrier to new players.