Jump to content

Initial rules review on AOS.

Recommended Posts

Hey guys


Just starting the post on AOS rules reviews.


From our games this morning I have a few to start us off.


Games playing with set scrolls can still be unbalanced with wounds in units and also max unit sizes not defined.


Shooting is a bit crazy being able to shoot into combat and not really have any penalties doing so.


3" pile in can be manipulated to benefit the next additional phases (should you win the role to get first next turn)


Chaos warriors lords summoning new units on is broken big time. (Also no restrictions on multiple lords summoning multiple legions)


Charging with flying monsters needs to be defined a bit more to help us sort out who it can attack.


I'll leave fixxer to add to the points above! :)


Cheers for the games Matt!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was great fun watching these two BEHEMOTHS, Sam and Matt, go at it on the table, Chaos Vs. High Elves!


More importantly, it was great fun meeting them both for the first time. Both guys were super-friendly and very good natured about the entire exploration into AoS!


From the sidelines watching two games get played, here are things I noticed and am concerned about:



#1 and definitely #1 for me: there is zero balance in army building as it stands. I think everyone is aware of this, but it can't be stressed enough. The 'sudden death' rules are not at all adequate to address this.


And I know some folks have come up with 'methods' to try to rein that in a bit, using wounds, combining stats, etc. So far, though, I still see huge discrepancies with most of these methods. Granted, they are better than nothing. But first and foremost, a -cap- on unit size needs to be established. I don't care if GW is just trying to sell more models. Both Sam and Matt made the perfect point - you could limit your list to ONE Warscroll... but if that is 100 Chaos Warriors... game over for the other side unless they take something similar, which likely won't be possible very often.


#2 Summoning/Free models. I generally dislike this mechanic in -any- game. I don't like 'free stuff' in 40K (again, GW trying to sell models), and in this game, it's free-stuff GALORE. Could I see -some- form of skeletal/undead summoning? Perhaps. Demon summoning? To some degree. But in these games, Sam has a 'generic Chaos lord' who, EVERY TURN, has a 50% chance of bringing on 'reinforcements', a FREE UNIT of troops... and that unit can be of any size! Yay... ANOTHER 100 Chaos warriors! SAM! - go Buy some more GW boxes, quick! (Chuckles with Matt as Sam runs off to buy 5 more boxes of Chaos Wariors!)


#3 Shooting and combat - The shooting into combat thing is kinda wacky. If the goal is to speed up the pace of pulling models off the board, I suppose it's cool. But I agree with Sam, shooting into combat with zero risk to your own troops seems kinda weird.I can't WAIT for my 40 man unit of clanrats engaged with a large dwarf unit to get obliterated by 'sniper canon fire' while the dwarves I've surrounded come out unscathed. MWAHAH!


#4 Characters - Can't join units! Makes for juicy target practice! Also, I see zero rules for 'challenges'. Dunno if I will miss that or not.


#5 LOTS OF REROLLS - Maybe it was just the armies/troops that Sam and Matt chose, but both of them seemed to have multiple ways of gaining tons of re-rolls each turn. Re-roll misses to hit. Re-roll misses to wound. Re-roll 1s to hit. Re-roll saves. Etc, etc, etc. If I play this game with any sort of regularity, I will have to make myself some markers, because I am old and forgetful. :)  But even the young whippersnappers Matt and Sam forgot about their re-rolls -several- times. (a few times I thought to remind one or the other - but I didn't want to risk the ANGRY GLARE from the other! These two guys looked MEAN!).


#6 Bucket 'O Dice - So I think in the second game, Sam had... a unit of 28 Chaos Warriors? Spread them out, charge, Pile in... hey! 58 attacks! "Can I borrow some dice?" Sam asks. "Only if you roll crappy with them," Matt answers. There were more DICE rolled than there were models on the table at some points!


#7 Magic - Feels really, really, really bland now. Here's your two spells (that all mages get), and if you're lucky you might have a 'special' spell on your warscroll. No 'Perils'.


#8 Objectives - We definitely need objectives/missions/goals/etc. Otherwise we're looking at a large number of 'scrums in the middle of the board'. I know that the one booklet in the boxed-set supposedly has some scenarios, so that'd be a good start.



Things I liked:



#1 Quick pace - the game, even being Sam and Matt's first AoS games (that I am aware of) went pretty darn quick. There's definitely been some streamlining done


#2 Morale system - I like the change. The Bravery stat can be modified by certain factors in the game, but when it comes down to it, losing more men means your guys freak out and bail sooner.


#3 Streamlining - I actually like that the WS vs WS is gone, as well as the STR vs Toughness is gone. You have the stats you need on your warscroll. Roll and get going. Let the other guy know how many saves he needs to make. Boom. Next.


#4 Magic - I guess on the OTHER hand, having magic NOT 'dominate' the game is a good thing. But I still know I will miss the variety of spells that mages had access to before.


#5 Big guys can be overwhelmed and dragged down by the little guys. I like this a lot. It might be costly for that swarm of Clanrats to take down a greater demon - but it SHOULD be. The fact that they can do it is just super-cool in my book.


#6 I was super happy to read about 'Mortal Wounds'... Wounds that didn't allow saves of any kind. Cool! Buuuuuut then I was introduced to armor that CAN save against 'Mortal Wounds'... back and forth and back and forth. I can't wait to see an item that IGNORES items that allow saves against mortal wounds! LOL.I generally hate when GW makes a rule, then makes ANOTHER rule that breaks that rule. Ugh. But I -do- like the idea of mortal wounds from sources that seem logical to have them.


#7 - Lots of synergies. Lots of connections between your warscrolls. This unit can give that unit a benefit, etc. Gives reasons to have some of those types of units present in your lists. Most of them refer to a specific KEYWORD that you will find at the bottom of your warscroll, so you know who those benefits can affect. I suppose in most cases if you decide to 'bring anything', what you might have in your force might end up NOT being able to receive certain benefits.


#8 - Freedom of movement. No wheeling, changing formation, etc. Some will say this is one of the biggest losses from WHFB, and while I would agree, I also accept that this is a skirmish game, and as such, unit blocks and special movements are not necessary. I think it certainly speeds up game play.


- - - - - - -


I am in the same boat as Sam, though. I want to play/watch a good dozen games or so before I make a 'final verdict' on the game itself. Regardless, I have -zero- reason to buy the boxed-set: it has nothing in it for me or any of the forces I play, and $100+ is just too much to ask for a pair of wacky-sticks. ;)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

/Agree on all points with you guys:)


Just finished up a smallish battle with my boy and his Lizardmen,he wants more stuff to summon now!,lol.



I did run into an issue with shooting at a warmachine.Since theres different profile for the Machine and the crew I can only assume that the shooter has to target one or the other?


The shooting everything,all the time thing is pretty stupid.I think it would be reasonable to not allow shooting at units that are within 3" of a friendly unit and not allow units within 3" of an enemy to shoot at an enemy other than ones within 3".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go in expecting it to be 'close' to 8th ed... I think you'll be disappointed.


If you go in thinking, 'Hey, a new GW game, like Space Hulk or Blood Bowl!', then you might have fun. ;)


It's the destruction of expectations I think that will make most vets hate this game.


This I'm sure is totally right... expectations are usually "the killer".


However I think that the last sentence should read, "It's the destruction of WFB that will make most vets hate this game."  I love the idea of AoS as a simple game to play with smaller set of the same models.  But I hate the idea of WFB going away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing 8th edition about this...Parker and I threw down a lopsided game tonight 37 Tzeentch Daemons against 95 O&G to see how it would go.


I can see how AoS balances if you are not too far off in model count (with a mix of unit types, not lopsided MSU, FLU or all characters) but it is nearly impossible to win in overwhelming odds. I am going to suggest games that are generally kept to 2 to 1 max model count ratio for AoS to be completely fair.


Parker was a sport and enjoyed it (this is his first Warhammer experience) so I asked him the question "What do you think? Do you like it?" and then the follow up question "Would you like to buy and paint an army?"


He liked the game flow and the back and forth and the idea that it felt fast paced.  (I then pointed out our 3 turn game took two and a half hours,  we are learning so no huge surprise)


He looked at the models we had on the table and said, "I can probably get prepainted models to rep this stuff for fairly cheap but I am not sure I would do what you do for building an army."  I further clarified with him that he was talking about the 37 Tzeentch models and not the horde and he said he would never do the 95 models.  I showed him the AoS boxed set and he asked me if this was trying to be like 40k...he loves the 40k model range and he asked if 40k played like this did.


Not exactly what GW would have in mind, I wouldn't think.


My impressions.


It feels right as a game of skirmish and for the most part and in my WFB mind I can see that GW did spend a lot of time getting the balance of 1 to 1 matchups to feel at least somewhat correct from what an 8th ed person would experience.


But with that said, it is too easy to do everything, there is no working for (and no payoff) to your actions to really pull something cool off tactically.  It is a dice rolling slugfest.  Apply your attacks before the other guy can do the damage back to you.  I found the math easy to take one unit out before it became a threat to another...it was just too easy for me and without the movement restrictions, piloting a unit into position to use it correctly, it just wasn't that intriguing.


So as a quick lets play a game, this system works.  There is a cadence to the game that may appeal to some.  For army building I don't think it is good at all.


I don't really care for the embedded rules, the heavy reliance on the warscrolls.  Yeah, it will get better over time but because there was not a solid one unit at a time methodology for each phase (when you don't know the order the phase will take due to you each taking turns in combat, I was flipping through the warscrolls constantly trying to make sure I wasn't missing actions that could be taken based on the situation or the health of my unit.)


Moving hordes around is not fun...rules say 30+ goblins good with a specific rule built for units of that size...I say without movement trays for hordes f-off, no one wants to spend the entire night moving a unit or units of models that large singularly. (that was an annoying bit in playing 40k Orks as well)


Maybe if I just played Sigmar Marines I wouldn't have paint much or move many individual models.


I give it a big thumbs meh, for the moment and will continue to exercise it a bit with Parker, but I have to say when it is no longer interesting to him you know that I am lost to it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why is their game stilted? They followed the rules that Games Workshop laid out for age of sigmar. You have no right to call that game stilted.


this game is for kids not for gamers.

No, they didn't. They just laid down 97 to 37 or whatever. That's not how the deployment rules work and I saw no mention of that. He even called it a lopsided game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,as it stands now,the game is not rewarding for anyone looking for a tactical game experience.I think this is mainly due to units no longer having a facing.Perhaps if they added this in by using the unit champ/Standard bearer with an identifying line on its base,outstretched sword arm or something to indicate a definite facing,then we could use a template to determine facing and or charge arc.


With some simple modifications to these basic rules I think this game has some promise.


Im starting to really think that with GW`s statement of this ruleset being "Living",they are planning a more advanced version for the veteran crowd.This is just pretty much an Open Beta for that future ruleset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving hordes around is not fun...rules say 30+ goblins good with a specific rule built for units of that size...I say without movement trays for hordes f-off, no one wants to spend the entire night moving a unit or units of models that large singularly. (that was an annoying bit in playing 40k Orks as well)


This.  This is the main reason that, regardless of the rules, this game will not be fun at a larger scale.  Do you guys remember playing as a kid when movement trays were not commonplace?  It. Sucked.  It was like trying to paint with oil based paints that were dried up using a crusty old brush.  Or using a dining room table.  Basically all the things I look back on and laugh appreciatively at how much better WFB got over the years.  


Taking out movement trays IMO relegates this game to 40k army size or smaller, if there is more model moving than in 40k.  Unless the rules revision includes putting trays and formations back in, I don't see any way around the fact that we will need a replacement for WFB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as

Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, there may be

times when you are not sure exactly how to

resolve a situation that has come up during


Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of this? Did they not read their own 'ruleset'? I almost couldn't get thru the last few lines because of the laughter....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This.  This is the main reason that, regardless of the rules, this game will not be fun at a larger scale.  Do you guys remember playing as a kid when movement trays were not commonplace?  It. Sucked.  It was like trying to paint with oil based paints that were dried up using a crusty old brush.  Or using a dining room table.  Basically all the things I look back on and laugh appreciatively at how much better WFB got over the years.  

Taking out movement trays IMO relegates this game to 40k army size or smaller, if there is more model moving than in 40k.  Unless the rules revision includes putting trays and formations back in, I don't see any way around the fact that we will need a replacement for WFB.

Absolutely. Echoes my sentiment exactly about my first miniatures game...plus the flashback to the days before somebody told me to paint with water based paints when I was using enamel model paint....well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, listened to several reviews and the most positive ones said it was entertaining for a beer and pretzel game but that it wouldn't keep their interest long.


The Sustainable Center had a two hour long review that had about 7 players from across the country show up to discuss the game and it was not up lifting. Everyone tried to be some what positive and point out the good parts but all of them didn't seeing this last and Mr Malorian sees it as a way to transition WHFB players over to 40K. Mr M of course also wants to see the version completely fail so GW falls back to something like 8th.


The one thing that was interesting was they didn't have an issue so much with a skirmish style game but the fact that all of them felt GW totally checked out on making a complete rules set and basically said the gaming community can figure out the balance and add more interesting stuff, we're done.


A good listen and they had a very excellent discussion but the one thing they all agree is that the Game in its current form will fail. It will not keep the gamers attention for long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam and Tim, great thoughts, couldnt agree with you guys more. 


I had a great time throwing dice and testing out the new game. It is that, a new game.


There is NO WAY this is replacing WHFBs for me and I feel that is the same for most. Hopefully most wont jump ship and will realize that there is still a strong community of WHFB players that will still throw down with the old rules. I certainly will and continue to support events that want to keep WHFB alive. 8th edition has been the best edition yet and with a few tweaks, it could really be the masterpiece it was destined to be, too bad GW didnt see it that way and decided to go a different route. 


I will treat AoS and WHFB as two completely different games that use the same models, I will play both, depending on how they are supported.


In our community, I dont see AoS having any events or tournaments anytime soon though. Looking forward to the OFCC. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a stilted test game wasn't the best first game for someone. :(


Did you read my whole post?  


He liked the game a lot and we did exactly what the rules said, dump models on the table.  It was a cooperative effort of choosing what we wanted to see played, and I let him pick which army he wanted to play AFTER we had the models out.  


We even added some models in the middle of turns as it looked like the Daemons were getting slapped about.  BTW, I have no problem changing the game in the middle to increase the fun (been in this long enough I can read the winds of magic and see where a game is going and adjust appropriately).  When was the last time your opponent did that for you?


He had a blast and wants to play again.


If the game can't survive without self policing or heavy mod there is a HUGE problem.


I assume by stilted you mean having a 'large' number of models?  


This was a weeny game by my standards, I like dropping my 7k worth of painted orcs on the table...this army would have been about 1800pts...the Daemon was about 1600pts.  


AoS is a dinky game with pretty dinky scope, not meant to play in the greater than 2000 pt range very often. (back to moving mobs around. NtK, oh yes those days  :wacko: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hope is, as is many others, that this is not '9E' and is a noob hook.


I'm afraid that if this is indeed the new/next edition of WHFB then I'm out. There are too many other great games out there to be saddled with this farce.


I don't see how this works when my AoS models are meant to be on round bases...how do I then convert back to rank and file.


I beginning to think this is an experiment to see if it sticks in the short term (around a year) before calling it a one off game and going back, or continuing down this path.  


My larger concern is for those that convert to round and have to go back (thus souring their attitude) or the kids that get in and won't pursue the larger game because it is for oldsters that already have square bases.



And I have to ask pretre...how do you think this scales when you have 8 x 30+ mobs that I would have in a grand army?  And are you going to come rebase all 7k of my O&G with me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For folks who are a little worried about moving 30+ minis... remember that the unit coherency is 1" or less... but that doesn't mean you have to BE at 1".


In the games Sam and Matt played, Sam especially kept some of his guys on a movement base (like the olden days!) and then moved them off of it as he charged, or whenever needed. You -can- use movement trays to move those mobs around. You just don't have to wheel and turn and such like in previous editions. But you can certainly move big groups of guys very quickly that way.


And lots of good points here by folks for/against the rules. And I am right on board with Matt - to me, this doesn't 'replace' 8th. To GW it might, but I am not getting rid of my 8th edition stuff at all. :)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...