All discussions related to games of fantasy battles such as AoS, T9A, KoW, MESBG, WAP, Warmaster, etc go here, including army construction, comp creation, campaign and scenarios design, etc...
Suffice to say I am slightly dissapointed with such "light" rules. I have writen longer tournament rulespacks in the past. But I will reserve full judgement until I play a game or two. Then again I can hardly imagine a non historical game without some kind of "points" based balancing system.
While the core rules are certainly light, I think (hope anyway) the depth will come from "rules" that come from the warscrolls. That is where the game could grow and change at a relatively quick pace. If GW then takes it a step further to add cards that represent magic item and weapon upgrades, they could add even more customization to the game.
I'm very disappointed. Warhammer is essentially dead.
It's as though games workshop has finally admitted that they are incapable of writing a decent rule book so they haven't bothered. They've tried to re inject "fun" into it by making stupid rules like "if you talk to your model at the start of your turn then you may re-roll all failed rolls of 1, if your model talks back you can re-roll all fails".
Warhammer was popular precisely because it required you to out think/out manoeuvre your opponents. Now it's basically like a long version of flux and nothing like a wargame. There's a reason I choose euro games over flux and there's a reason we all liked Warhammer.
This current format is going to be what causes the collapse of games workshop
Bring me my bow of burning gold, bring me my arrows of desire, bring me my spear O' Clouds unfold, bring me my chariot of FIRE!
Yeah some of them are ok and there are some things I really like. I can't describe how much I dislike such rules as 'if you can keep a straight face for the turn you get an advantage in x or y' though...
The loss of fluff has also been monumental. Not in terms of actually story but in what the models have lost in terms of rules and flavor. The loremaster is a prime example here as having lost pretty much everything that made him cool. PG seem to be amazin again with the new version of the 4++ so getting an additional save - only models I've seen with that so far.
I tried to have balanced forces. It just ended as a big mashup in the middle where Phoenix Guard won the day for the Elves. If I would be playing again with the Dwarfs I would only take Rangers and nothing else
With the new movement rules that's what the game is now. I know people are trying really hard to like this, but if it was any company other than GW most of you wouldn't even look twice at this. They've made some great games. This isn't one of them.
With the new movement rules that's what the game is now. I know people are trying really hard to like this, but if it was any company other than GW most of you wouldn't even look twice at this. They've made some great games. This isn't one of them.
Well, I wouldn't look twice at all it if it wasn't replacing Warhammer (e.g. if this had been the rumoured side game ). As it is, right now, it's entirely possible this will push me out of the hobby as I really have not been interested in playing a skirmish game. I may feel differently in a couple of months but right now I'm just feeling completely deflated by it
It feels like I am missing things. So like for instance if I happened to dig all the Teclis models out of the trashcan after he was thrown away when the 8th edition book came out, I could just field them all?
I'm just not seeing how you make a proper army when the only important thing is model count. I like a lot of the changes, now I won't lose wizards to miscasts and loose blocks of 30+ guys to failed panic tests and all. Just seems like 5 pages of rules would have been a bit better.
So far I feel I've been one of the most optimistic voices on this forum regarding Age of Sigmar, but I'm a little concerned after seeing the Guerilla Miniature Games battle report on YouTube. It seems like there are some serious flaws in these rules, it seems several house rules, errata or comp are going to be needed to make this a game worth playing.
Ash's battle reports are usually my favourites but this was painful to watch. I'm still going to give things a go, and there are a lot of things I like, but there is also a lot that really needs to be fixed and that is disappointing tor such a critical Games Workshop release.
Ladril Caledor wrote:So far I feel I've been one of the most optimistic voices on this forum regarding Age of Sigmar, but I'm a little concerned after seeing the Guerilla Miniature Games battle report on YouTube. It seems like there are some serious flaws in these rules, it seems several house rules, errata or comp are going to be needed to make this a game worth playing.
Ash's battle reports are usually my favourites but this was painful to watch. I'm still going to give things a go, and there are a lot of things I like, but there is also a lot that really needs to be fixed and that is disappointing tor such a critical Games Workshop release.
You'll have to add more rules than GW put in place to begin with. And even then it won't be better any than scores of other games that are already out there. If this wasn't a GW product would people be trying so hard to make it work?
Almost certainly not. If this was a new company with these rules, it would never be a success. But it is GW, so people will work really hard to make this work. Hopefully it can be done.
Ladril Caledor wrote:Almost certainly not. If this was a new company with these rules, it would never be a success. But it is GW, so people will work really hard to make this work. Hopefully it can be done.
I don't understand that at all. There are so many other miniature based games out there now. Why do the work that GW should have done for them? Why would they ever put time into developing a really good game again if they know that the community will just do it, and GW will get the credit if it works?
Ladril Caledor wrote:So far I feel I've been one of the most optimistic voices on this forum regarding Age of Sigmar, but I'm a little concerned after seeing the Guerilla Miniature Games battle report on YouTube. It seems like there are some serious flaws in these rules, it seems several house rules, errata or comp are going to be needed to make this a game worth playing.
Ash's battle reports are usually my favourites but this was painful to watch. I'm still going to give things a go, and there are a lot of things I like, but there is also a lot that really needs to be fixed and that is disappointing tor such a critical Games Workshop release.
I found and watched the report, but I think they didn't complete the initial set-up correctly. The AoS set-up is 12" from "enemy territory". So the starting separation should have been no less than 24”. This should mean that only units with a base move of 12” or more could even hope to successfully charge on the first turn.
It also seemed to me that they were not taking into account the movement cost of pivoting on the spot. This would have also tended to limit how effective the pile in move was for the OK player.
Nevertheless, for tourney play various clarifications and comp limits will be required.
Morgen wrote:I'm not seeing anything on pivoting or the like in the rules, just that models can move in any direction they wish. Am I missing it?
Haven't seen anyone mixing armies yet either, though I suppose most folks only have one.
I've see this referred to a couple times. However I've now read the rules 5 times (because 4 pages), and played 2 small "games" (because lol), and I've found nothing that talks about that. All I can figure is that it's in reference to this (page 2 ):
No part of the
model may move further than the model’s
Move charracteristic.
Technically that would cover turning on the spot, and if you spin enough times you'd use your whole movement. But it's pretty safe to say that there was no intention for people to get that anal about things in this ruleset. Even if you tried to apply it, it would simply lead to argument about exactly how a model moves. Does it turn to face where it's going and then move? Or does it make the turn while moving? If people are going to go all hardcore RAW on this thing it's going to be even more unplayable than it already is.
Shannar, Sealord wrote: I've see this referred to a couple times. However I've now read the rules 5 times (because 4 pages), and played 2 small "games" (because lol), and I've found nothing that talks about that. All I can figure is that it's in reference to this (page 2 ):
No part of the
model may move further than the model’s
Move charracteristic.
Technically that would cover turning on the spot, and if you spin enough times you'd use your whole movement. But it's pretty safe to say that there was no intention for people to get that anal about things in this ruleset. Even if you tried to apply it, it would simply lead to argument about exactly how a model moves. Does it turn to face where it's going and then move? Or does it make the turn while moving? If people are going to go all hardcore RAW on this thing it's going to be even more unplayable than it already is.
I think you may have missed the point here. These rules are to be discussed and the players develop how it will be interpreted and applied. In this case if you agree that the models are not required to be faced in the direction that they are moving or even face their charge target (e.g. can side slip into combat) then the last part of the rule has no effect in your games. However, if the players decide that the model must be faced in its direction of travel and face their charge target, then the last part of the rule would have an impact.
As I think the board looks better if models are moved such that they face their direction of travel and face their charge target, the last part would matter in my games.
sure you end up turning them. But it will only make a meaningful difference with long models (for example our newer plastic dragon). In which case you'll measure from where the head is now to where you want it. Or you could measure the the arc made by turning the model, and then the distance. It would add up to a lot for something like our dragon, but only a little for something more vertical. But that's silly when everything else is so loose, just take it from where the head is to where you want it.
In the example you were speaking of you'd have to measure the turn of every individual model, which would kill any chance this has for faster play or an easier move phase than wfb. In fact measuring those arcs would take things all the way back to 4th or 5th, and even then it didn't really apply to "skirmish" formation.
Personally I would prefer returning to base-to-base measurement approach, which I think will be the most likely “tweak”.
Why I think they added this movement rule is to stop the abuses we saw under 8th Edition where players would set their models up 90 degrees to the deployment limit or better yet, how about the backwards set-up. This rule would result in models set-up in this manner having to use movement to turn as they tended to be longer than they were wide.
Grenic wrote:Personally I would prefer returning to base-to-base measurement approach, which I think will be the most likely “tweak”.
Why I think they added this movement rule is to stop the abuses we saw under 8th Edition where players would set their models up 90 degrees to the deployment limit or better yet, how about the backwards set-up. This rule would result in models set-up in this manner having to use movement to turn as they tended to be longer than they were wide.
Have you played this yet? You're taking it way more serious than actual game play supports. I understand what you are trying to say as it would have related to WFB, but this is honestly just toy time. I don't say that be be negative about the game. It just is what it is. All it has going for it is it's simplicity. I really hope people don't kill that. If you want a more complex, balanced, competitive or "fair" game, just stay with 8th edition. Leave this for silly time. You'll be happier with your serious game, and you'll enjoy this one more when you do play it.
Shannar, Sealord wrote:If you want a more complex, balanced, competitive or "fair" game, just stay with 8th edition. Leave this for silly time. You'll be happier with your serious game, and you'll enjoy this one more when you do play it.
This is why we're sticking with 7.1. 7th but with our tweaks/rules balances layered over the top.
What I'm annoyed at though is that now there will be no opportunity to buy things like movement trays/square bases etc
Bring me my bow of burning gold, bring me my arrows of desire, bring me my spear O' Clouds unfold, bring me my chariot of FIRE!
The rules are overly simplified, like made for average boardgame you throw ocassionaly after a barbecue. Sure, it is fun for first several sessions, but becomes boring after that. I don't think any kind of house rules and comping will help much. When you look up silly rules for Konrad, Settra, Helborg you get the picture where GW is going with this product. Why should I buy this when there are a handful of tactical skirmish games with good or great rules which will suit me better than this?
Yeah, the new minis look great - they surely will be used in other games, as it would be shame to leave them on shelf to collect dust.
I mean, not even a day has passed since new rules came out and veteran community is calling for FAQ and house ruling to make this mess enjoyable for them. There will be no FAQ, rest assured.
And why bother to change something that clearly is not intended for you. Move on, there are other great game systems you should invest your money and time in. This? Leave this to your kids as an introduction to tabletop wargaming and a thing that they share with their nerdy parents on weekends I believe that AoS could be perfect for that.
P.S. Giladis, you don't have to play with yourself - I actually posted on Agram forums asking for a game to give it a try.
[quote="Spider_wells"]Infantry are great, if you're an infantry player.[/quote]
[url=http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32214][b]The Order of the Mage Knights[/b][/url]
Andrew_uk wrote:What I'm annoyed at though is that now there will be no opportunity to buy things like movement trays/square bases etc
There should be suppliers local to you that will supply bases and movement trays.
White Lion * Aestyrion * Griffon Knight
Malekith stepped down from his throne and loomed over the mage. ‘You have always intended for Tyrion to draw the Widowmaker.’
Teclis nodded, defiant. 'By drawing again His sword, the curse of Khaine will be lifted from our line.'
I have played one test game of AoS. I played High Elves, my opponent played Orcs & Goblins.
My army was:
1 Prince on Dragon
1 Prince on Steed
1 Loremaster
1 Anointed
10 Sea Guard
5 Dragon Princes
5 Reavers
5 Shadow Warriors
1 Bolt Thrower
My opponent had:
1 Gorbad
1 Grimgor
1 Azhag
1 Wurrzag
1 Black Orc Big Boss
1 Savage Orc War Boss
10 Black Orcs
1 Orc Boar Chariot
3 River Trolls
3 Stone Trolls
2 Rock Lobbers
2 Doom Divers
We played on a very small map, 4 feet by 3 feet, with only minimal terrain, like three high walls and four hills. We also measure from the base to base (on square bases) as that was more convenient rather than measuring from the minis.
My first impressions are:
- Heroes on Monsters can take a beating, but will die quickly against sustained shooting and/or massed group attacks. I made a noob mistake of pushing forward my Dragon too far forward alone, and it died in turn 2 against combined might of arcane bolts, war machine fire, the two troll units, and azhag. Reinforcements arrived too late, and I could not do anything against the war machines.
- Magic is rather bland. I think I may have underestimated the potential of mystic shield, as I kept casting hand of glory, but I kept forgetting my bonus for that anyway. Arcane Bolt was my opponent's favourite. Casting and Unbinding seems too random.
-Moving large units is a hassle. Moving my 10 strong sea guard one by one was a hassle. In the future, I think I will keep them on a movement tray just for convenience, then in the combat phase, I'll just move them out of the tray as necessary to pile in.
-Shooting phase seems rather overpowered. Most of my kills came from the single bolt thrower. The rest were from my reavers and sea guard. Shadow wariors had too few shots to matter. Goblin war machines also had no apparent penalties anymore so those were what killed most of my units as well.
-Combat phase seems a bit faster now. Having alternating turns with the attacks also gives it some depth in terms of tactical decision making.
- Although the rules suggested a minimum of a 3 foot square map, a 4 x 3 map is too small. We might go back to 4 x 6, or maybe try it on a 4 x 4 map.
- I kept forgetting the little bonuses given by my heroes and units. I guess that's only something that needs getting used to. Having different mechanics for banners and musicians and shields from army to army, or even sometimes from unit to unit, makes it difficult for players who like to play with different armies.
Overall, I think the game feels like a weird mix between WHFB and Mordheim. Also, it was fun at first when my opponent had to bellow "Waaagh!" for his bonus. But after a few times, I welcomely accepted it when he simply claimed his bonus by simply declaring that he was bellowing waagh! without him actually bellowing. Too bad I didn't have three dragons with me to claim the ancient dignity thing.
I have a small question concerning the rules. In a few locations a "retreat" is mentioned. However, nowhere in the rules does it mention what exactly a "retreat" is. How do I perform it? What rules apply?
Ceridan wrote:I have a small question concerning the rules. In a few locations a "retreat" is mentioned. However, nowhere in the rules does it mention what exactly a "retreat" is. How do I perform it? What rules apply?
Retreat is just a movement option open to one of your units on your turn if it's within 3” of an enemy unit, even if the unit was in combat during the last turn.
On your turn, for any unit that is within 3” you can Retreat during the Movement Phase. The only restriction is that all of the unit’s models must be able to move so they would end up more than 3” from all enemy models. If you can’t move such that all of the unit’s models are further than 3” from all enemy units, the retreat fails. It also seems that you can choose to simply use your Move stat or use the Running rule. I would suggest that since you can’t charge or shoot on a turn that you Retreat, you might as well use the Running option.
The final question is during a retreat do you still need to retain a cohesive unit structure where you must be at least 1” from another model from the same unit.
I would like to add some generic rules:
-Heroes on foot can join units to gain a 2+ Look out Sir!
heroes on horses get a 4+ look out sir
big heroes on flying stuff is shit out of luck
-models are in combat if they're in base to base
-Shooting units must use melee weapons if within 2" of an enemy unit
-Shooting penalties for soft, hard cover. -1, -2, and shooting into combat is impossible.
[url=http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=45884][img]http://i.imgur.com/EvidzNv.jpg[/img][/url]
[i]Click the banner to see my 8th Ed. High Elves Tactica![/i]
[url=http://lkhero.blogspot.com/][size=150]HERO's Gaming Blog[/size][/url]
):
I believe that AoS could be perfect for that. 
- I actually posted on Agram forums asking for a game to give it a try.
