Impressions after 1st game of AoS

[ClassicFlava]

If i have models left on the table i am not destroyed

[Romes]

I'm totally lost on how you could interpret "destroy it's foe" as kill the number of models that they started with. That language isn't actually in that paragraph anywhere. And the language about models counting as killed for summoning is under the section about determining the minor victory.

[pretre]

If i have models left on the table i am not destroyed

If you suffered 100% casualties, you are.

[Romes]

The rules are a 4 page pamphlet, there are balancing mechanisms missing, I understand people want to figure out ways that the game will work, but we can't just write in ones that aren't there.

[pretre]

I'm totally lost on how you could interpret "destroy it's foe" as kill the number of models that they started with. That language isn't actually in that paragraph anywhere. And the language about models counting as killed for summoning is under the section about determining the minor victory.

Even if you assume comparing models is only part of minor victory, than it is almost impossible to win with summoning unless you table your opponent.

 

Your denominator is just going to be too low. Each casualty you take counts for that much more when computing minor victory.

[pretre]

The rules are a 4 page pamphlet, there are balancing mechanisms missing, I understand people want to figure out ways that the game will work, but we can't just write in ones that aren't there.

I will accept no major victory, since I think 'destroyed' is unclear. Improbable for Nagash to get a minor victory? That is pretty true though.

[Romes]

What do you mean even if you assume? The language is pretty straightforward. 

 

And since there is no turn limit beside when you decide to stop, all games will be a major victory unless stopped prematurely. Then you get into situations where, if the multiplier you're talking about matters, if we stop while I still have a model left I win, if we keep playing I lose.

 

Guess it's time to head out, gg, I win.

[Romes]

Like, thee are ways reasonable people can get around those issues, and for a casual game it's not a big deal, but we can't just write in clarity and balance where it isn't.

[pretre]

And since there is no turn limit beside when you decide to stop, all games will be a major victory unless stopped prematurely. Then you get into situations where, if the multiplier you're talking about matters, if we stop while I still have a model left I win, if we keep playing I lose.

 

 

I assume most folks will have a time limit on their games. 

[Brother Glacius]

The summon thing is a bit up in the air. The warscrolls say that all Death Wizards know all the summon spells. It doesn't say the need to be on the table.

 

Actually, there are two major victory conditions:

 

In the Mortal Realms battles are brutal and uncompromising – they are fought to the bitter end, with one side able to claim victory because it has destroyed its foe or there are no enemy models le on the eld of battle. e victor can immediately claim a major victory and the honours and triumphs that are due to them, while the defeated must repair to their lair to lick their wounds and bear the shame of failure

 

If the first one wasn't there, you would be right. The first one is there to help with the summoned models thing of having more models than you started with. Once you have destroyed 100% of your opponents force by model, you win. Alternatively, if there are no models on the table, you win.

I'll admit that the summoning thing is up in the air. I can see how you could read that, but then why don't the war scrolls for the casters simply say "and all of the summoning spells"? It seems like you would need the war scroll in play that has the spell in order for it to be known. IMHO.

 

As to the victory conditions, you failed to note that there are no rules to define "destroying your foe" nor are there even rules to tell you when the game is over. Since those are missing, it seems the only thing we do know, is that if you wipe out your opponent, you get a major victory.

[pretre]

I'll admit that the summoning thing is up in the air. I can see how you could read that, but then why don't the war scrolls for the casters simply say "and all of the summoning spells"? It seems like you would need the war scroll in play that has the spell in order for it to be known. IMHO.

 

As to the victory conditions, you failed to note that there are no rules to define "destroying your foe" nor are there even rules to tell you when the game is over. Since those are missing, it seems the only thing we do know, is that if you wipe out your opponent, you get a major victory.

I disagree with the first part, but oh well. We'd have to dice off if we played.

 

I think that destroying your foe is implied (hence the reason for two victory clauses for major victory) but again, I don't think it is clear so I would let it go. 

[ClassicFlava]

the % of models killed only comes into play for the minor victory.  I am guessing most people will set a 6 turn game limit.  All i am saying is summoning lets you claim sudden death over your opponent when your army is going to end up the same size if not larger

[ClassicFlava]

Jim:  The movement has more depth to it than i thought.  Not as much in the movement but in the charge phase.  Because you have to complete all of your charges before any blows are struck.  I also see objectives working really in AoS which will make the regular movement phase have some chops to it.  All that said without a balance system it doesnt matter.  The best suggestion i have heard so far is to just use 8th edition points as a baseline for a new system (ala swedish comp)

[Hobbitron]

The warscrolls say that all Death Wizards know all the summon spells.

 

Where is this?

 

Curious where it's coming from.

 

Though, I'll also point out that nothing says they have to be FRIENDLY Death wizards.

[Romes]

I assume most folks will have a time limit on their games. 

I think in practice you're right. My objections on this, (and summoning) is to what the rules say and allow rather than to how the average casual gamer will use them. And I'm objecting because you're statement last page seemed to suggest you thought the summoning rules were not inherently problematic. They very much are from a game balance perspective, though two players can (and most will) certainly choose not to abuse them.

 

Game time for minor victories is not actually written to assume a defined timeline. It's written as "If it has not been possible to fight a battle to its conclusion or the outcome is not obvious, then a result of sorts can be calculated by comparing the number of models removed from play with the number of models originally set up for the battle for each army."

 

"of sorts"

 

Ryan, why end after 6 turns?

 

People are applying reasonable rules and guidelines from the 8th ed book onto AoS, but they're not actually in AoS. This is not surprising, it's hard to fit everything into 4 pages.

[pretre]

Where is this?

 

Curious where it's coming from.

 

Though, I'll also point out that nothing says they have to be FRIENDLY Death wizards.

Death Wizards know the Summon Harbingers spell, in addition to any other spells they know.

 

Etc, so on for each Summon spell. Anyone with the Death Wizard keyword knows all the Summon spells that say that. I think there are some in the VC and TK lists.

[Romes]

I guess what I'm saying is that I want to give this game a try, give it a shot, and maybe be forced to houserule some stuff, assuming someone comes up with a way to build armies.

 

But as far as a complete, balanced rule-set is concerned, please don't tell me my water is wine.

[Romes]

Death Wizards know the Summon Harbingers spell, in addition to any other spells they know.

 

Etc, so on for each Summon spell. Anyone with the Death Wizard keyword knows all the Summon spells that say that. I think there are some in the VC and TK lists.

Yeah,

 

All the daemon cards have the same for chaos wizards.

[pretre]

I guess what I'm saying is that I want to give this game a try, give it a shot, and maybe be forced to houserule some stuff, assuming someone comes up with a way to build armies.

 

But as far as a complete, balanced rule-set is concerned, please don't tell me my water is wine.

I don't think anyone said it was a balanced ruleset.

[Hobbitron]

Death Wizards know the Summon Harbingers spell, in addition to any other spells they know.

 

Etc, so on for each Summon spell. Anyone with the Death Wizard keyword knows all the Summon spells that say that. I think there are some in the VC and TK lists.

 

But it's listed in a Unit's Warscroll. It sounds like it's the presence of that warscroll that grants the ability to the Wizard.

 

You know the three base spells as a liche priest. You purchase a Tomb Guard warscroll. One of the abilities on the Warscroll is that now all Death Wizards (friend and foe mind you!) know the Summon Tomb Guard spell.

 

The verbage in the spells that the wizard has available:

 

 

Magic A Liche Priest is a wizard. He can attempt to cast one spell in each of your hero phases, and attempt to unbind one spell in each enemy hero phase. He knows the Arcane Bolt, Mystic Shield and Righteous Smiting spells.

 

Uses the same verbage. He knew three spells, he now knows three spells and Summon Tomb Guard.

 

I mean... if I could use text from any Warscroll I want without purchasing the Warscroll... that just seems a bit odd.

 

So the original point of bringing Nagash and only Nagash and not being able to summon still seems valid.

[pretre]

I think it is ill-defined and I can see it both ways.

[orkdork]

Nail hit on head :)

 

@Jim maneuvering is sadly drab. Objectives are a must, because most armies have no incentive not to clump up. Even then, two units in the same area are best off clumped.

 

Combat is really the best part.

[orkdork]

@hobbit

 

Very good point! I hadn't even thought about that, but of course you can't use rules off a warscroll not in play!

[Romes]

Funny scenario:

 

My army: Nagash

Your army: Anything.

 

I deploy Nagash. You deploy your stuff.

First turn: I summon a bunch of units cause Nagash is awesome. You kill one of my summoned models. 

 

I just lost the game since summoned units don't count towards model count but do count to casualties. I just suffered 100% casualties as soon as you killed one model.

 

 

I don't think anyone said it was a balanced ruleset.

No, but I think you were inadvertently reading a balancing mechanism into the game that doesn't exist. And the implied tone of the first quoted post is that summoning is not a big deal/problem because of example X.

 

Maybe I read the post wrong? that's certainly possible, tone is hard online.

 

There's a lot of frustration around this game. I end up in discussion both with people who tend to give it the benefit of the doubt (here), and people who have already written it off (wargamers). I think it's important for the community to take the time to accurately evaluate it for what it is while trying to decide what to do moving forward.

[pretre]

No, but I think you were inadvertently reading a balancing mechanism into the game that doesn't exist. And the implied tone of the first quoted post is that summoning is not a big deal/problem because of example X.

 

Maybe I read the post wrong? that's certainly possible, tone is hard online.

 

Nah, I wasn't implying a balancing mechanism as much as citing a funny circumstance that I saw on another forum.