Age of Sigmar rules review

[Bengt]

Yeah... my philosophy on the matter is that you should only ever be house ruling/home brewing systems to make them more varied/fun, not to make them basically playable: if you get far enough, you could just make your own rules instead of paying someone else to half-ass theirs.

I generally agree. Though if a system has some great parts and some bad I guess one might try to fix it up some. AoS is mostly shit in my opinion, not enough to build on. And it was too long ago that I was really into any of GW's games for me to be interested from nostalgia, loyalty or continuity.

[dancater]

Excellent review.

 

I am deeply sorrowful for what GW has done to their game. If not for WFB and 40K back in the 1980's I don't see myself or the mini war gaming industry being where it is today.

 

But I guess without the Hindenburg we don't have international flight. This for me is confirmation that GW is pretty much flaming wreckage :(

[LordZombie]

I have played WFB since '96. I have 8 armies all in the 2000 minimum size range (by old 8th standards). Outside the comments the GW rep said about the old WFB players, I don't feel burned by this game at all. I have ran one demo and played one game, and both were crazy fun. I really can't understand all the hate. They boiled down a 96 some page rule book to 4 rules. Everyone is losing their minds over that, but really, what was lost? Overly complicated rules about moving a block of 50 models. A magic system that was house ruled in every tournament ever ran. A hit and wound chart that was only really needed in the most rare occasions. Troops and models totally left off list as they were no "good" in a game or too expense to buy. I can't remember ever seeing a campaign or tournament that was mot house ruled with page after page of rules to make the game balanced for all players. I mean, I know 8th was at its highest point in the gaming world before GW came in and took that all away. Really, I just can't understand the hate. For the first time in 4 years, I played a game with my fantasy models. For the first time in 4 years, I worked on some of the models. For the first time in 4 years, I have wanted to play a game of fantasy with my 1000 some models. And this is not fanboy talk, I dislike GW's greed to the highest degree.I have not gave them a penny of my money in 5 years.  I like the game, my fellow wargamers in my group like the game, many are hyped to get armies together and play something we have not played in 4 years. So the rules are only 4 pages, that does not make the game bad in any way. So you got to house rule some stuff, what edition did you not have to do that with? 

[Astrella]

The rules aren't bad because they're four pages long, they just have a lot of holes in them. And the annoying thing is this attitude that forgoing balance / point costs is going to make playing a fun game easier, while I'm pretty much of the opinion that a well balanced game makes it easier to have a fun game.

And the house rules issue is mostly because Games Workshop just aren't that good at writing rules, not because every system should have house rules. E.g. I've never felt the need to house rule stuff in Malifaux or that stuff was really egregious or needed fixing.

[SpiralngCadavr]

@LordZombie, saying one edition is bad doesn't justify another edition being ridiculous.

 

First impressions are first impressions (positive or negative). I've got no doubt GW can make an okay light-weight game. What I don't see is any sort of longevity without a little more actual balancing mechanics.

 

I just went to a con up in vancouver and was very interested in peoples' early impressions (of people who'd actually played), which mostly consisted of:

-people were playing it wrong, got to understand how it plays in the new edition and it felt better

-large unit playstyles tat were the focus of most previous edition don't work in the new system

-most games with more than a few models end in a giant melee pile in the middle

-some interesting unexpected maneuvering options/consequences

-players need to self-police: some were optimistic someone(s) will put together competition-friendly rules; some just said you'll need to go in with the same attitude or (threaten to) bail if they pull out something over the top

 

So, no first-hand exp, but leaving that there... the last one really is what bothers me. I just don't understand how that'll work in the greater community, and one way or another it's house ruling. Again, the longevity of the model has me very critical. If it works without said house-ruling, I'd be pretty impressed despite my other complaints with the system.

[Poko]

As far as I'm concerned, this thing is damage control. It's clear WFB was dying a slow and painful death, with "veterans" already having massive armies and not buying new toys, coupled with a fairly toxic and extremely WAAC community (nothing against powergaming, but when you mix a preexisting veteran base, WAAC tournament obsession and extremely high entry cost, you end up, unsuprisingly, with little in the way of new players). You can claim it's "corporates calling the shots", but if a franchise is profitable, you don't axe it. WFB has been, for all intent, axed with AoS set up as a way to retain some players and lower the entry barrier for noobs. So yeah, the WFB playerbase really has no one to blame but themselves and the only schaden I have for them comes bundled with freude.

[SpiralngCadavr]

The other half of that is GW made a game that allowed such an environment, but, yeah, that's a good point.

 

What I really don't understand is how so many players of the GW lines have so pursued those tactics: at the same tourney I was talking about, I swear something like 3/4 of the armies were some sort of abusive spam attempt.

 

I've been playing 40k as my casual game when not board gaming, and don't understand, having played more fine-tuned games, why one would play such nasty combos (or why, if GW really wanted a casual game, they'd make such combos part of the game unless it's just a matter of them not understanding their own rules, which I wouldn't put past them...).

[LordZombie]

I also look at this as the tip of a large iceberg. We got some really basic core rules, and anyone can say what they want, but they are rules. As the campaign books come out, we will see more balance. The only real problem I see with AoS, will be set list as a balancing agent. List where you have to take X hero, X number of Y troops. I can't say I am a fan of that, if that is the plan. For me, I am just to look at is at a new game that uses some old models. It is not WFB, but at least I get to use my models still. 

[Justin]

Most of the rage I am seeing is that people got their hopes up that AoS would fix issues, or be the new edition, but went in a completely different direction and resolved nothing of what the majority of players wanted. Then they just tie in the rest of the general GW complaints into things and never go into detail about things they personally disliked, just what the rest of the internet keeps raging about. 

 

That said, I have not enjoyed GW in 5 years, and stopped playing 4 years ago. Then, I sold most of what I owned to pay for Gen Con. Then 6th Edition 40k came out and I literally just gave away armies for free (and everything else I just threw out). They took my Chaos Marines and turned them into "Space Marines, except evil, sort of" - so I can relate to people who have valid complaints. 

 

All that said, I gave a friend who still has 40k armies my 3rd Edition rulebook, and I have the 3rd Edition codices in PDF. If I knew I would be getting games in regularly enough, I would probably rebuild my Iron Warriors and only play Classic Mode. Cityfight rules.

There is no reason to play the current edition if you don't want. The last game of 40k I played was 3rd edition... about 6 months ago.

[solkan]

For better or for worse, Age of Sigmar isn't the same sort of game that WHFB was.  So if a person liked WHFB:

• No more glorious, huge blocks of troops moving around the table
• No more spending hours figuring out underpriced models, or where the optimum sizes for troop blocks

But there are people who hated WHFB because:

• Those huge blocks of troops moving around the table are huge, slow, ponderous things
• Those huge blocks of troops moving around the table take forever to paint and assemble, and if they're one wound models then you're paying for intricately detailed wound counters
• "Why isn't this a 15mm/12mm/10mm game, if there are going to be 'armies' running about?"

Back in the day, hobby articles for WHFB openly discussed the creation of "unit filler" and other creative ways to add a line of troops to a block without spending an arm and a leg on more models. 

 

So, yeah, Age of Sigmar is this game set in the left overs of the WHFB setting that you can start as a small skirmish game, and work your way up to huge mobs of models beating each other up, but it's not WHFB.  And instead of chanting "The king is dead!  Long live the king!", people look around and see that they can just go live in another kingdom with a king that they like. 

 

Except you're still going to have people overcome with grief, sorrow, and anger that the old king is dead. 

 

There is no reason to play the current edition if you don't want. The last game of 40k I played was 3rd edition... about 6 months ago.

 

There's no law saying that gamers have to go around playing the most recent editions of various games, but in most cases social inertia and the like mean that the most recent edition is going to be the easiest to find the rules for, find the FAQs for, and find people who want to play a quick game.  Imagine someone goes out looking for a pickup game of Malifaux 1st edition.  What are the odds they're going to find one at the local game store, compared to finding a pickup game of M2E? 

[SpiralngCadavr]

Social inertia's a great way of putting it, and I agree that, call it a year after a game or edition stops seeing official support, it becomes exceptionally difficult to find pick up games and it takes something fans have gotten particularly attached to (Pathfinder/3.5 and Blood Bowl are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head... and both tend towards the campaign/league format so are arguably not exceptions despite the fan support) to have more than a few more years in them before they're dead outside some leagues and whatnot.

 

If you like an old edition and actually have a group that'll play it, that's great, but I've never had it sustained with a game I liked.

[Swiglitz]

From what I've seen/heard there's nothing wrong with the rules. It's a fun, knockabout beer and pretzels kinda game. Players, pile a bunch of models on the table, roll handfuls of dice generally have a bit of giggle while playing.

 

Having said that ... It is just a fun, knockabout beer and pretzels kinda game. Each game ends, more or less, in the same fashion, one or more big melees in the middle of the table. Because terrain has little or no impact, and model's actions are not restricted in any way any semblance of tactics is out the window once you're more than a couple of turns in. I think it's going to struggle to keep anyone's attention for more than a little while due to it's lack of depth, and no real learning curve or skill element. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, silly throwaway games like this can be great fun and provide a solid counter to the more sombre and competitive games out there, but it's also not something I see myself giving any real commitment too.

 

From what I understand, GW is looking to support it with regular 'mini-campaign' books similar to the Tyranid/Blood Angel books they did for 40K. Perhaps with more scenarios and objective based play it will prove to be more substantial. Right now it reminds me of Dread Fleet or that Assassin board game they did a little while ago, something to set up if half your regular opponents can't make it, or you fancy a little lighthearted distraction.

[DeleteAccount]

My problem with the whole beer and pretzel logic is that there is a huge market of awesome boardgames that allow to play more than 2 people at the same time comfortably. I just don´t see it competing in that terrain either. But I´m one of the guys that doesn´t understand who it´s marketed to.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Hmm, actually, yeah- the board game crowd does seem about the closest overlap, since competitive players don't seem to like it, WHFB players (from the informal polls I've seen around, whatever weight they have) seem to mostly not like it, and the new lack of points seems anti-pickup game, so you're talking about casual fun with people you know, AKA mostly board games... But, board games have largely seen the same shift miniatures games have in the past decade-plus where they've gone toward better balance and clearer rules even in many casual games, so AOS still doesn't really have that...

 

So, regarding (potential) target audience... anyone here on the Wyrd forums that's feeling like a convert to AoS? (I promise I won't judge!)

[Fetid Strumpet]

The additional problem I see with it is how unselective it is in what is OP. I mean according to the rules anyone who owns Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell is able to win basically automatically. The argument is that will never happen, as who would want to play that game or play again if it was done to you. And yet those individuals who say that because everything has to be negotiated to the nth degree before the game even starts that the game works and excludes WAAC players for that reason, are also the exact same people I see going "Wow I can field 40+ Sigmarines and with these two other war scrolls I can get so many pluses to my attack and dmg rolls that all my marines automatically hit and automatically wound on all their attack rolls! WAHAHAHA"

 

I mean I just don't get it. It's ok to say don't play such and such, or multiple those things, but not ok to say I don't want you to field a combination that gives automatic hits and dmg? So really the game isn't bring whatever you want, its bring everything you have and only use what your opponent says is ok? I can understand the game could be somewhat light fun, but all the negotiating, and wrangling, and agreeing you have to do in advance, which isn't even in the rules, and the payoff is a VERY expensive light game? I'm really not seeing what AoS brings to the table that's better than any other TT Wargame, or come to that many board or card games that are in the same category.

 

I really must not be their target audience because I just don't see how these rules can actually work in practice.

[solkan]

The additional problem I see with it is how unselective it is in what is OP. I mean according to the rules anyone who owns Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell is able to win basically automatically.

According to those same rules the people at the shop are going to get the branding iron out and proceed to actually brand the player a cheater. 

The sort of people who have hyperbolic rules arguments are doing so because they enjoy hyperbolic rules arguments more than playing, and doesn't really have anything to do with the game itself.

[Pierowmaniac]

Had a demo game today in my local store.

I actually thing the rules, though simple, seem to play nicely.

I'm still not sold on the aesthetics of the 'sigmarines' and have never liked the khorne stuff, so I wont be buying in. However I do like the way the story had gone and hopping future re-sculpts take a less 'high fantasy' and more 'planescape' look.

Would love to see some winged elves and bizarre dwarven machines/constructs 

[Twg]

The issue with AoS is that unless you are part of a close group of gamers this system just doesn't work. If you turn up and one player has a 100 models and the other 500 then you are left with just the idiotic sudden death rules to assist with the massive inbalance in the armies. I have seen several games played recently and the armies used were a joke. It was just a collection of anything large, powerful and deadly. There was little sign of units much bigger than 10.

I don't think GW could have carried on with WFB in its old form as it was losing money on a worrying rate (In fact the Horus Heresy off shoot via Forge World seems to be the only thing making real money), but I don't think how they have managed this is going to earn them any friends. The fact that Justin has commented on this matter, along with fellow Malifaux enthusiast, just shows how out of touch GW are with their customers. 

[Palooka]

I think the thing that a lot of people are missing is that AoS is essentially a 'living rulebook' concept. They've actually said through a couple of reps that they intend for all the rules to remain free, online, and to be constantly evolving and updating. What we're seeing is very similar to the genesis of 3rd edition 40k, where they stripped back a very very complex game and made a very streamlined game that made a lot of people mad (although I'll admit not to this level). As the years went on, they slowly dripped the complexity back into it.

I'm really glad that some people are just taking this as a starting point for something new - because that's what it is. It's a game being rebuilt from the ground up. You're entitled not to like it - but I suspect it'll be something very different in only a year or two.

 

Allan.

[Palooka]

(also I can't deny that I don't have a lot of rage simply because I'm so Malifaux obsessed at the moment that I'm not really worried about the other gaming system I love being completely re-done. )

[SpiralngCadavr]

I'm completely open to this being a starting point, but the goofy rules and lack of any balancing mechanic is still a huge barrier (well, goofy is alienating plus personal preference, so mostly looking at balance).

 

I read an interesting old article someone posted by one of the game designers, comparing minis games to RPGs as how they should primarily be interacted with (i.e. didn't like competitive even forces etc.), which I mostly agreed with... except one point. RPGs still have a basic balancing mechanic. There's still something that says "these numbers will amount to a battle PC's can roughly handle." I don't think there needs to be a precise balancing structure in a light-weight game (and frankly, despite how granular it is, 40k has a really rough points system), but a ballpark meter of power is kinda' necessary for any sort of system, even if you're happy to make it favor one side or the other.

 

 

I think that Malifaux is a very nice example of this most of the time: if I say something's worth 4, 5, or 10 points, you'll probably have a pretty good idea of what power it is, how disposable or not its role is, and, minus some outliers that fall a bit too far outside of the curve, you can assume that that point value represents a number of roughly equivalent pieces that range from combatants to generalists to specialists of about the same value that might be better in a given circumstance.

 

I don't see how GW couldn't have gone with a similar, very small-scale points structure to approximate things: little characters are worth 2 points; bad units and okay characters are worth 3 points, 6 points for heavy infantry, 10 points for big-deal named characters... or whatever... to give a very basic sense of balance/composition. Players are already using wounds and numbers of units to try to work out some sort of meter of balance, which I think GW should have expected since they gave no warning or explanation (they might have pulled it off with a month or two of lead-up...) so now they still have their hated points except no control over them.

[Furio]

I played my first game of AoS yesterday... and I was pleasently surprised. I found it a nice simple game as long as both players have agreed to play for fun, otherwise things could easily get nasty.

 

We played using the isle of blood contents (It seemed like a easy way to limit our armies) and have already agreed to play again next week using one of the many point systems that fan groups have been creating.

 

I'm also continuing to play 8th edition fantasy(I've played whfb for 18 years now!) and organise tournaments for it (on AoS release day I held a 8th edition tourny at my local club) And I think the two games are perfectly compatible (as long as some form of points system is used in AoS)

[zFiend]

I've seen way too many people who view fun as "I win all the time"

Yeah. Usually it's not fun for both players with that kind of mentality.

[Furio]

"Fun" needs to be defined before the game begins sometimes. I've seen way too many people who view fun as "I win all the time"

 

 

 

Agreed, hence why I doubt i'd play AoS against somebody that I knew had this attitude.

[Loveless]

I stopped in at the local GW store and got the sales pitch from the manager - honestly, I'm pretty impressed, despite it sounding ludicrous.  There's a lot of encouragement of "fun" in the attitude of the game - effectively, the game can stop whenever someone stops enjoying it (which, I mean, was always an option), or someone can offer to "rebalance" things at any point (an example given was a Slaughterbrute hobo-murdering a giant squad of Orcs and effectively being all alone in that portion of the table - since it was no fun for the Orc player to face the prospect of dealing with that Slaughterbrute again, the monster proceeded to "wander off" the table rather than cause more Chaos - and so fun continued on both sides).

 

It is not a competitive game.  This isn't something you use for tournaments, this isn't something you play to win.  This is something you play for cinematic value and stupid fun.  It's something that can take as little as 30 minutes, so it actually works as a decent stop-gap game if you're waiting for your board game group to show up.  It's sort of a showcase game - let's see what pretty models and fun themes we can weave together, then throw some dice around.

 

I like the concept - trying to get some of my friends to go in for a demo at the GW store.  I mean, I'm not sure I'm going to buy anything new for it (I've got enough Elves and Chaos to play), but it could be a fun distraction and a nice change from the 2-hour or more board games we've got now.