Age of Sigmar rules review

[SpiralngCadavr]

So, my take on the newest iteration on Warhammer Fantasy (just the rules).

 

Suffice to say, I find it rather astounding how radically differently GW and Wyrd approach the basic concept of "emphasize character."

[Otylia]

Holy cow.  I played Fantasy years and years ago... and have been wondering what changes they made that have so many people up in a tizzy the past few days...

If I had found your review through a random google search I would have been positive the author was outright lying about the changes.  Either that or I would have bet money it was an april fool's joke or something.

 

I can't believe that's the approach they've taken on SO many levels.

[zFiend]

Is this whole thing some sort of a joke or what is going on? 

[daniello_s]

That's the new face of WFB Zfiend or rather an arse side of the old system I should rather say

[Bengt]

The Sudden Death thing is checked "after generals are nominated", i.e. before the battle starts. So it's not a way for a player to make a comeback, it's just the most laughable attempt at balance ever conceived.

 

On a positive note I've found relatively "pure" GW players more amiable to trying out Kings of War with their WHFB models if you lead with how bad Age of Sigmar is.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I've been doing a lot of research on this topic because I have a large Skaven army I've been slowly accumulating since 1997, and a mono-Demons Army of Nurgle I acquired in 2007/2008.

 

The fun rules get even more odd. The Skaven screaming bell has a rule where you can roll 2 dice and apply a specific result based on what you roll. The result you get if you roll 13 is that you win the game. There is a rule that says you cannot add modifiers to the roll, but there is a chaos model, a named Demon that allows you to change any die result to any result you want. There is no language to limit you to possible results, and the way it is worded does allow you to modify the screaming bell result. There was some argument about that, but a GW representative at a convention in Australia confirmed this interaction was known about and intended, because no one would use the rule because any one who used it would soon have no one to play with.

 

In fact GW's rep strongly implied that all the novelty rules would only be on the legacy armies, in a sort of nod to the old players, but also in an attempt to push people into buying the newer armies, because none of the new releases will have such non-sensical rules attached. 

 

The summoning rules also get weird because many units have a rule that let specific key word wizards summon a unit of them, but no one can agree if you actually have to include the war scroll of a particular unit in your army to get access to the summoning spell. And the summoning allows you to summon an entire unit, and keep in mind there are no unit limits. One army tactic I saw was to basically only deploy Nagash, a demigod level necromancer, and a single other necromantic wizard, then declare you were done deploying, claim the sudden death victory condition, and then using Nagash and the necromancer to basically instantly summon an old 5,000 point undead army onto the field to complete your easier to win victory condition. It really boggles the mind.

 

I see what they are trying to accomplish, in some things I think attempting something as radically different as they are could be a good thing. There are also some things in the game I LOVE and wish they had implemented sooner, like certain war machines and monsters being very hard to kill, but losing effectiveness and power as they are whittled down closer and closer to death. I But alienating a massive amount of their old customers, even if mainly attempting to attract younger customers, as well as driving off a significant portion of the player base who want a competitive game is just suicidal business practice.

 

A well balanced game never, not once, hurts a casual players enjoyment of the game because they are going to make up house rules, or just don't care how the mechanics work because their enjoyment of the game doesn't come from the rules as a general trend. A poorly balanced game is only going to appeal to a more limited subsection of the market, and the more difficult it is to balance from what is given, the less you will draw in competitive players, who are also people you want spending money on your product. As it is I'm not certain why I would ever deploy anything but hero's, monsters, and war machines of the best sort I have. My AoS army would pretty much be a a few greater demons of Nurgle, all the named Skaven characters, a screaming bell, a plague furnace, all the named Nurgle Demons, a verminlord (a Skaven greater demon) or two, and so on.

 

I'm just waiting to see how this all pans out. to a large extent I agree with you SC. 

[SpiralngCadavr]

Otylia, yeah... it does kinda' feel that way, doesn't it?

 

Bengt, thanks for the correction, I'll fix that when I get the chance.

 

Fetid, in strong agreement about competitive balance never hurting casual play, I'd have gone in to that if I didn't feel the article was already a bit too long. And yeah, the screaming bell thing is just absurd, but again too long to go in to.

 

I hadn't heard the angle about these being the "old armies"- I'd assumed it would be like 3rd edition of 40k where there were truncated army lists as a stopgap until the books got released, is what you're saying that it sounds like they'll be "Squatting" a number old factions, with said truncated rules set as their last hurrah?

 

I agree that it was ballsy and occasionally even successful to do the radical change, but that the overall form it took was... poorly executed.

[Lawgnome]

It always boggles my mind that a company (especially a company with GAMES in their corporate name) thinks that having less balance and loose rules makes a game better for casual players.

 

I'm super casual.  I actively play to have fun, and refuse to play with people that can't have a good time unless they are crushing their opponent.  I haven't played in tournaments, and I may never do so.  That said, I have never once looked at a set of loose rules and thought "oh, this looks really casual friendly".  I just say "oh, this is a really crappy game.

 

 

I think I'll stick with 8th edition WHFB (with some house rules.  Purple Sun is not good game design) and Malifaux.  Unless they release some sort of rules fix to tighten up the rules and get rid of some of the stupid stuff, I don't think I'll be playing AoS.

[Bad Jim]

It is indeed pretty shocking the contempt with which GW are treating Warhammer and its fans.

 

On the plus side, this whole mess is how I found my way to Guild Ball and then though that to Malifaux.  I'm more excited about gaming than I have been for years, and for the first time in 25 years, Games Workshop don't feature in my plans.

[joediamond]

As a former 40k and WFB player, I must say I don't miss it.  I like the universe of 40k, but dealing with GW became too frustrating.

 

Not to mention expensive.  

[edonil]

Honestly, it never came across to me that GW was arguing that their rule design was better for casual players. It always struck me as poor rule design was better for them, because it meant less money involved in developing rules which only get sold once to a potential customer, barring oddities. GW has never been afraid to let their shareholders know that their first priority (after those shareholders) is selling models. The game those models go with is a very distant tertiary priority. That may not always have been true, but it's definitely become the case. Which is why I can't stand them as a company.

[Kadeton]

Honestly, it never came across to me that GW was arguing that their rule design was better for casual players. It always struck me as poor rule design was better for them, because it meant less money involved in developing rules which only get sold once to a potential customer, barring oddities. GW has never been afraid to let their shareholders know that their first priority (after those shareholders) is selling models. The game those models go with is a very distant tertiary priority. That may not always have been true, but it's definitely become the case. Which is why I can't stand them as a company.

 

The weird thing there is that GW has been pouring love and attention on the Black Library side of things - their tie-in fiction section - which I would have thought would occupy a similar corporate space to rules, in that they're both words on paper that "only get sold once to a potential customer."

 

I'm guessing that the difference is that the books lead directly to increased model sales and greater potential to license the IP in other markets, whereas having better rules only impacts people who are already invested in the game. They're a big company that has clearly done a lot of market research, and have obviously reached the conclusion that increased rules development costs wouldn't bring commensurate increases in model sales. (Instead, they've realised that giving a model rules that put it above alternatives in power results in a sales spike.)

 

I do hope that GW changes direction at some point and makes a concerted effort to bring their games up to a playable modern standard.

 

As of AoS, it looks like a disaster to me. It will take existing players a long time to adjust to the new paradigm, and all they have to tide them over is confusing, half-baked garbage. The game doesn't have enough depth to draw new players in, especially given the high cost barrier to entry. In my opinion, they should have delayed the release until they had at least enough substance - new army lists, an army-building system beyond *shrug* "Do what you like, I guess?", a set of tournament rules, etc - to hang an actual game on.

[Justin]

I don't think it's that developing rules isn't worth the cost.

 

I think they earnestly believe this is best for the game.

 

People obviously may take issue with that, but I think they're genuine.

 

They've been saying for years that their games aren't designed for tournaments or competition and that they're a model company first. And, well, this edition practically screams that. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I pass no judgment at this time.

[edonil]

I guess I've hit the conclusion that I have because for the longest time the biggest organizer of tournaments was Games Workshop. And they were still making those claims about 40k and WHFB weren't for tournaments, even as they were running them.

 

But, fair enough. You're probably right, Justin, that the developers do think this is the best for the game. I just find it baffling.

[Tuttleboy]

I'll preface this by saying that I don't like most GW gaming stuff. At least the stuff that ain't Blood Bowl or Necromunda.

This is a brilliant move on their part. A bit of controversy and a year from now the next edition will drop. Brilliant I say.

[Kadeton]

I think they earnestly believe this is best for the game.

 

I guess I'd rather assume that people were cynical than stupid.

 

I'd be more willing to entertain the idea that the designers earnestly believed that bad rules and no community support were good for the game if I could understand how they'd reached that conclusion. The only way that I can justify bad rules is if there's a cost benefit, so that's the explanation I lean towards.

 

(Another explanation is that the designers simply don't give a toss, writing bad rules is personally easier for them, and there are no repercussions for doing so. Every game designer I've met is intensely passionate about their work - why would you take a job with low pay, long hours and many headaches unless you really cared about it? - so I doubt that's the case here.)

[CannibalBob]

Ugh...  This game has me very annoyed.  I have played GW games for a long time, although I have not touched my 40k stuff in a few years and even then I only played fairly sporadically for the last decade.  But I love my Ork models and have fond memories going back to Rogue Trader.

 

I truly loved Warhammer Fantasy despite the warts of each edition.  And I honestly think that 8th edition was the best they had made to date.  It had some very messed up parts of the rulebook, but the good rules they introduced outweighed the bad and for the most part they did a pretty good job keeping the armies all on a fairly even playing field - which I found astonishing to be frank (they have always been abysmal at balance in every game).  They could have easily tweaked the core rules to make an amazing game.  Their problem has been the fact that the game has an amazingly absurd cost to get into.  They could have addressed their stupid price issue (which they still need to do or they will continue to hemorrhage players from all their games) and then created a separate skirmish game that used the same miniatures and helped on-board players into the battle game.

 

Instead they blew the entire Warhammer world up.  It is rather mind-boggling.  This is a company that is well known for being really aggressive in defending their IP.  So their idea of defending the IP of Warhammer is to dump EVERYTHING they spent 30 years creating about the game and make up everything from scratch.  Seriously, they actually EXPLODED the world in the fluff and the new game is some strange reimagining of Norse mythology with Sigmar being the All-Father and replacing the raven motif with hammers and comets.  And the comet motif no longer makes sense.  In the original fluff the birth of Sigmar was heralded by a twin-tailed comet - which was why it was the symbol of the empire.  Now Sigmar was the only guy that survived the world exploding so I guess he likes comets?  I want to know what drugs they are spending their profits on...

 

If they did not want to keep anything about the old world other than the name of a few gods (they changed the name of every race and army) then why not just sell the IP to someone who wants it for a boat-load of cash?  It worked for George Lucas.  I am pretty sure that someone would have payed a rather princely sum to get the Warhammer IP (probably Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro).  Hell, some company could probably have raised the cash to buy the IP through kickstarter.

 

But the rules are simply terrible.  I have a massive Greenskin army.  Now if I want to play my Orc army I have to literally yell at my opponent every time I charge him.  Or I can play my goblins and give my opponent the sudden-death victory option by virtue of the troops in my army being all-round terrible and having to make up for that with increased numbers.

 

This game is simply garbage.

[CannibalBob]

I am in the same boat. The Horus Heresy novels are top notch, and the role playing games are amazing. The tabletop game makes me sad.

 

 

Sadly, the role playing games are so good because GW has no hand in making them and licenses Fantasy Flight to do it.

 

Honestly, I think Fantasy Flight has done better things with GW's IP than GW themselves have done in well over a decade.  The various board games and role playing games that Fantasy Flight makes are all pretty well done.  Blood Bowl Team Manager manages to pack the best parts of playing a Blood Bowl league into a quick card game that can be played with 6 people.

 

I think is is pretty sad when the company that brought table-top gaming to such a wide audience and drove the market for so long has lost the ability to make their games really engaging.

[Absolution Black]

I have not had chance to experience the game yet having been a wfb player for almost 30 years and going by the general consensus i probably should stay well away. But i will give everything a go at least once.

I am not a gw hater as i like a lot of their stuff but i am not a hopeless fanboy either. This decision has baffled me but until i have experienced the game itself i will reserve judgement.

For what its worth imo the best editions of wfb have been 3rd, 6th and 8th

[Absolution Black]

Just read your great review SC, and this move by GW is likely to put a stop to my fantasy purchases.  I will keep playing 8th.

[Bengt]

I think they've gone this way because 40k and WHFB were similar enough to compete with each other. They've tried various differences with other games (Epic, Necromunda, Man'o'War, etc) over the years but none have stuck around. So now they are trying a buy-lots-of-models game with quick and simple rules, something they've only had in boardgames before. The games we did on Sunday were quick, but it was hard to tell if that was really because of the system or because they all ended up very loop sided despite our best effort to fields somewhat equal forces.

[Rathnard]

As far as I can tell, almost everyone in my community are not happy with AoS.

 

The way it was explained to me by the WHFB players this week is that there were three main reasons to play Warhammer - the setting, the mass battles and the community. As of Age of Sigmar, GW's literally blown up the setting and the mass battles have been replaced with a skirmish game more akin to 40k. All that's left then, is the community of players. The thing is, the community is currently switching over to Kings of War - a more balanced, better supported game that still allows these guys to play their existing armies in actual mass battle games. 

 

In fact, the exodus to Kings of War seems to be happening much faster than I thought it would. This Tuesday I saw four die-hard WHFB players commit to Kings of War after watching/playing a game. Then when I got home that evening I got a message from another guy who coordinates WHFB gaming at another club, asking for an intro game to Kings of War this Friday.   

 

To be fair I've also heard from a few players who's interest in Warhammer has been revitalised by Age of Sigmar, so the super-casual system at least holds some appeal to a subset of gamers. But at least in my area, what was a thriving WHFB community appears to have been killed off in the space of a week. 

[Absolution Black]

I need to investigate Kings of war..

[Bengt]

Kings of War 2nd edition digital drops tomorrow... for free. They'll sell print rules in August.

[Rob Lo]

They might think it's best for 'a' game, but if 'the' game we're talking about is WHFB, it's all been a horrible mistake. AoS on it's own could have been a decent other game, hell have GW throw all their support behind it as the new game they do support, instead of WHFB, and just say that WHFB is retiring, and I think a lot of people would have been more supportive of the whole thing.

 

What happens when you show up to watch the Superbowl and there's 3 guys on each side, and the playfield is round? You rightly so say "Hey, this isn't the Superbowl". What happens when you reach for Malifaux 3rd edition with it's exciting new gaming mechanic and find out that mechanic is dice with wacky emoticon faces rather than numbers? It's like going to Blockbuster, renting Lord of the Rings, and finding Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure Part 2 in the case when you get home.

 

AoS is a different entity, and they did a poor job of delineating that for their players (probably smartly (but dishonestly) so for them, it means they held onto people that otherwise would have bailed instantly). Most people are showing up to it thinking it's WHFB:The Next Generation, and it's not, it's just AoS, which just by mere coincidence happens to use some of the same models.

 

No one signed up for Monty Python's Fantasy Battles.