Calling all AoS skirmish lovers - AoS28: Warband skirmish rules (beta)

[GuitaRasmus]

Update:

Hi guys! I've gotten a bit further on the rules, and I really could use your feedback and any comments, critique or ideas you might have. Also, very exciting - I've been talking to Bruticus/Jake of Ex Profundis (the home of AoS28) fame, and we've gone into a bit of collaboration - more on that later. Cool stuff is happening on the AoS28 front. On the same note, the name has been changed to "AoS28: Warband" or simply put "Warband". So has the adress, which can now be found at http://aos28warband.blogspot.com

Disclaimers;

• It obviously needs to be proofread - english is my second language, so there's that. 
• It's missing the campaign parts - we're working on that. 
• The parts in cyan are rules we might cut out of the final version - we need to test them some more. 

I'm really hoping to get some feedback.  

**************************************

Hi guys. The past few years has seen me more and more rarely playing big games, and more and more enjoying skirmish. I've ran a couple of 40k Kill Team campaigns (using the Heralds of Ruin fanmade rules), and I really enjoyed it. I've also played quite a bit of AoS, but I'd really love to do some more Skirmish in the AoS setting. I've bought the official Skirmish rules, but I find them a bit twodimensional. I've also found Hinterlands and AoS28, but Hinterlands is pretty much retired and AoS28 is more of a roleplaying/storytelling system, as far as I can see. 

Anyway, a buddy and I are gearing up to making our own fanmade AoS skirmish system, using the best of Skirmish, Hinterlands and AoS28 - (I've gotten Bottles blessing to use many of the awesome ideas for Hinterlands), and we're going to make it publicly available of course. 

The working title is Age of Skirmish (my buddy think its way too corny, though  ), and we'll have a website up as soon as we have the first draft: https://ageofskirmish.blogspot.com See above. 

Anyway - I want to ask all of you guys who have tried any kind of AoS skirmish - what do you particularly like or dislike? Is there anything you'd love to keep or change? Any input is much appreciated; we have a good deal of experience between us, but more input is always valuable. 

 

[Thundercake]

I only played a couple of games but for me, I enjoyed the progression aspects that were represented in Hinterlands and and felt like warband creation and choosing models was pretty well balanced. I though Skirmish was just rushed out to compete with Hinterlands honestly and didn't do a very good job of balancing anything.

[Greasygeek]

Hey champ

As you know we have played a lot of Skirmish using the official rules and then we spiced up our games with our custom add on named Blood & Legends. To my experience Skirmish is the perfect gateway drug to AOS but calls for a very narrative or friendly game. The main battleplans are easily manipulated if you go into Skirmish to competitiveminded. 

What we missed from Skirmish:

- More models to pick from. The official Skirmish rules included way too few models. Though I am aware that unofficial points for most AOS models were released quick after.

- An underdog system. Extra rerolls gained for underdogs left much to be desired.

- A point system that allows a greater variety for starter warbands. 

- Death needs a hand.  Being stripped of all abilities to return slain models left Death warbands (except for Nighthaunts) rather crippled and most boring. Ghouls, zombies, skelletons and any unit for death that relied upon bringing back slain models and strenght in numbers got left behind when the Skirmish rules was released.

- Alliance abilities: Since GHB17 was released evryone has alliance abilities so it would be super cool if they could be used by your warband. This I know for a fact is very hard to implement but one can always hope right?!

- Rules for multiplayer battles and multiplayer campaigns. We had a few MP games and they were great fun.

-More Skirmish game feeling: in AOS skirmish you are litterally just playing a tiny game of AOS. Where is all the terrain rules? the duck and cover? hidding and getting wounded? suffering from friendly fire or bad weather effects. The mortal realms are booming with ideas that would fit perfect into any AOS skirmish game. 

- Advancements and injury system. Skirmish games like, Mordheim, Necromunda, Blood Bowl and the likes tend to write their own history as heroes are created through  battles untill they suddenly die in an epic fight or just due to a stupid fall off a building. Every time you risk your hardbuild warrior it sends shivers down your spine to see that failed armour save, well knowing that this legend might be one bad roll away from an early retirement.

- To our experience Skirmish games are the most fun when played at a small table crammed with terrain. That has always been the best of our battles, when snipers are lurking in the tower ruins, and assassins behind every corner. The rules should somehow encourage this.

 

Ok so a few thoughts and ideas quickly became a wishing list for santa way longer than intended. However I just wanna say that the release for AOS Skirmish was a great idea and a fine way for GW to approve of the work that Bottle and the community has done. We still enjoy Skirmish but more like a game we play when we are in a hurry or as an AOS introduction and not to get the skirmish game gritty experience that would fit so perfectly into the mortal realms.

[someone2040]

This has inspired me to make a Blogpost about skirmish actually.

But overall, if you're trying to make extra Skirmish style rules, I think the best place to start is with the post-game. That means experience and death and upgrades. IMO that's the biggest thing missing from Skirmish, and a great place to start.

Other things are like mentioned above, clarity/balance around particular banners and abilities.

Overall though, you'll never end up with something balanced in Skirmish. It's using rules for models that are intended for a far larger game. IMO for a 'proper' Skirmish system within the Age of Sigmar setting would have to start anew from the ground up. Specifically crafted rules for units, much more detailed rules for playing the game and levelling up, etc.

[WarbossKurgan]

AoS28 is an attitude to approach making models for Age of Sigmar that is story & background led, along the same lines as Inq28 (which is much more than just playing Inquisitor with 28mm models). Playing games with the models is (almost) secondary and the variation of Hinterlands that is often used for AoS28 games is not the only one.

Jake explains the thinking behind AoS28 really well here:

http://www.exprofundis.com/introducing-aos28-inq28-meets-age-sigmar/

+++

Me and a couple of friends recently played an AoS Skirmish campaign: The Harrowmark Run.

We used the community Renown list (incidentally,  the AoS Facebook page has confirmed this is the "official" way Renown was calculated) and changed all Renown earned after each game to half the amount in the Skirmish book (as we found that high Renown games took too long to play in our lunch breaks, when the campaign took place!).

We used the campaign in the book as a "model" and selected a sequence of four Battleplans from the General's Handbook Triumph & Treachery section as the "A-pot" of the campaign. Every time all 3 of us could make it we  played the next on the list.  This meant the main story of the campaign was roughly scripted, so all of us could write our individual warbands' story within this framework.

And we also chose a selection of other Battleplans from across all the available Age of Sigmar books as  "B-plots". Whenever only 2 of us could make it we chose a B-plot that matched the story line or warbands had created so far. This  fleshed-out what our warbands were doing the rest of the time and built up a lot of character and story.

We will be using this format again for our next campaigns!

 

[GuitaRasmus]

Thanks a lot guys - really useful inputs here.

@Greasygeek: Took me a minute or two to find out it was you, Allan!  A lot of cool stuff there - I'll pass it on to my buddy, so we can start brainstorming. We've already covered some of the points - for ex. terrain and cover, and the part about Death needing some help. 

@someone2040: Definitely, yes, the postgame. Myself, I am not to hung up about campaigns, as I just like playing smaller stand-alone games as well, but there will definitely be a system for experience, upgrades, etc. 

@WarbossKurgan: I know about AoS28, having played quite a bit of Inq28, and while it is very cool, it is very model/story driven; I'm very much into that, but it is a bit niche - not all people are up for playing so narratively and maybe even tossing points out the window. What I want is a skirmish system that is elegant enough to be picked up almost as quick as AoS, but still have enough depth for the narrative or experienced gamers to have fun with it, and not just be a gateway game. 

 

I am aware that it'll probably never be balanced - AoS isn't and this won't be either. That's ok. While I recognise that there is a tournament scene for AoS, I've never seen it as a competitive game - to me, the entire appeal of it is the thrilling feeling of being a kid, throwing some cool models on a table, and telling a great story. After being fed up with years of silliness in 40k with allies, detachments, etc, AoS was such a breath of fresh air. That feel, is something I want to keep most of all. My objective with this is in no way to make a supremely balanced game - I want people to have as much freedom as possible with building their warbands, and just have fun with it. Also, it's a great way to scratch that "shiny new toys" itch we all get sometimes, without having to build an entire army. I've liked the Kharadron Overlords from first sight, but couldn't see myself building an entire army - 8-12 models however, that I can do, and get it out of my system.

 

[mumperpa]

The biggest problem I've found is building a starter warband at 25 renown. So many leaders are 24 renown.  Also, low points models are underwhelming. I played a game with 7 liberators and a lord-celestant vs nurgle with 4 blightkings and a lord of plagues. I got tabled, and all the liberators did maybe 3 damage combined. Also, shooting is super powerful, so bewarned. Same with mortal wounds. It's super fun though. 

[GuitaRasmus]

I think we will go for points, instead of renown - more granular, and I have a hard time finding a reason to use a "points/5" instead of just using points. Also, heros will be half cost/half wounds like in Hinterlands, and I think it'll start off with 200 pts- ish, and have a much slower development pointswise. I like having the characters develop, getting extra skills, better wargear, etc more than just having more miniatures (though I can see why GW thinks otherwise. )

We're working on some nerfs for shooting, without completely destroying it. Also, we will use a max of 3 mortal wounds pr. turn, so SE mortal wound spam for example will be capped. 

[mumperpa]

 I'll be interested to see how it goes. I'm a fan of narrative play, and skirmish did seem a little shallow. The modifications should make it a lot better. 

[Peanutallergies]

I've yet to play Skirmish (or AoS for that matter) but me and some friends are planning on starting a narrative campaign using Skirmish in January.

The main issue I've noticed so far is the limits on warband choice, not just the range of units available but the types of heroes. Part of it seems to be that most heroes in AoS are pretty powerful so their renown cost is a big chunk of your warband. Some lower level champion types (renown cost of 10-15) to lead early on would be good, though I guess it might be a lot of work to create them for every band that needs them.

[GuitaRasmus]

Okay... *Deep breath* ... Here goes... 

These have not been playtested at all - they are just something I've come up with, to start off with, but I'd still like to show you what I'm working on, to give you an idea of the direction I'm headed in. I've tried to put a cap on shooting and mortal wounds, while halving the costs and wounds of Heroes give you a much larger base to choose from (and making the less SUPERheroish), as well as adding a (to me) fair Bravery Test mechanic, and adding some options (parry and throwing) in melee. 

Let me hear what you think - any and ALL comments are appreciated.  Please excuse the wording in some cases - english is my second language and they will be more clearly worded once we end up with a more finished draft (and after a good deal of playtesting) 

Building a warband:
 
The standard warband size is 250 pts, and a warband must contain 1 leader and a min. of 3 models and a maximum of 20 models.

A warband can contain any models, as long as they are from the same Grand Alliance - for example, an Order warband may contain Stormcast Eternals, Kharadron Overlords and Seraphon. 

The leader must have the “Hero” keyword, and is half the points of the Generals Handbook cost and has half its wounds (rounded up).

Each Warscrolls models can be bought individually for the price of the Warscroll points value (GH17), divided by the minimum number of models, rounded up. There is no minimum unit size and all models count as individual units. 

All models that have a base size of 40 mm or higher, has 4 or more wounds and is not <Cavalry> or <Hero> are considered having the keyword <Monster>

Unit upgrades: (champion, standard, special weapons, etc): 
You can choose one of these upgrades for every 3 models in the unit (note that the unit’s models still counts as individual units for all other purposes than building a warband).
 
Example: A skeleton unit of 5 must choose between a champion, a musician, a standard bearer, etc – if it has 6 models it can choose two options.

Behemoth/Artillery: Warscrolls with the “Behemoth” keyword are not used. War Machines can be used, as long as it isn't artillery - Eg: Organ Guns, Cannons, etc. 

Command abilities: 
A leaders standard Command Abilities are not used - instead they must choose one from the following lists:

*Alliance spefic Command Abilities will be filled in here* 

Combat: 
 
Distributing attacks:
No matter how many attacks a model has, missile or melee, they can only be distributed between a maximum of 3 models.  

Mortal wounds cap:
Any player can only deal a maximum of 3 mortal wounds in a single turn, no matter how they are generated (magic, shooting, close combat, abilities, etc) If more mortal wounds are generated, they count as having a rend of ”-” and a damage of 1.

Shooting amendments:
 A model can only shoot at the nearest enemy model, unless another enemy model in range has a bigger base than the closest model (for this purpose 25 mm and 32 mm counts as the same) This is to prevent shooting from having to much power, and to represent the models always going for the nearest threat, unless there’s bigger and more threatening things further away. In the case of multiple shooting attacks, the shooter can distribute them between the 3 nearest models. 
 
Example: A Free Peoples Hand Gunner wants to shoot at the Weirdnob Shaman, standing 3” further away from the Hand Gunner than 2 Orruk Brutes. The Hand Gunner can’t do this, since the shaman and the brutes have the same 40 mm base size. However, the Hand Gunner CAN shoot at the River Troll standing 5” further away from the brutes, since it has a 50 mm base.
 
In case of oval bases, the longest dimension counts.
 
A model cannot shoot out of close combat. It can, however, shoot into a close combat it is engaged in itself. It can also shoot into a close combat, but the hits are randomly applied to the combatants, friend or foe. 

Crippled models Eg: “I can still bite off your kneecaps!”
When a model is reduced to 0 wounds by a shooting attack, roll a dice. On a roll of 1, 2 or 3 it is Out of Action. On 4+, it is considered crippled - it’s movement is halved (rounding down) and has -2 to it’s to hit and to wound stats - note that this may render the model unable to hit or wound. A crippled model always strikes last in close combat, but can still run and charge at half range (rounded down), use magic, shooting attacks and command abilities as normal.  
Once a crippled model suffers another wound, it is Out of Action. 

If the models is reduced to 0 wounds in close combat, it is Out of Action automatically, as the attacker curb stomps the model.
 
Close Combat amendments:
Parry:
A model can choose to forfeit any of its attacks with any of its weapons, to use it to parry an opponents attack. To parry,  once an opponent has rolled to hit against the model, the defending model rolls to hit with his own melee weapons at -1 to hit, and if successful, that attack is parried and the attack sequence for that attack ends there. Note: The decision to parry must be made as soon as the attacker rolls hit to hit dice, before any to wound or save rolls are made. A parry can only parry a single attack. If the defender has already used his attacks this turn, he cannot parry. It is possible to save one or more attacks for parrying purposes. 

Throw attacks (<Monsters> only):
A Monster can attempt to throw a model with a smaller base, instead of all of it’s normal attacks. (Eg; a Rat Ogre must forfeit all 4 attacks with claws, blades and fangs to throw a model)
To throw a model, a single to hit roll is made, using the best available To Hit stat of the throwing model, and if it misses, nothing happens. If succesfull, the smaller model is thrown 2d6” in the direction of the throwing models choosing. When the thrown model lands, it suffers D6 hits, with 4+ to wound, -1 rend, and Damage ‘1’. If another model is in the path of the thrown model, the thrown model comes to a halt there, and suffers the previously described landing damage, and the model in its path suffers D6 hits, 4+ To Wound, Rend -1, Damage 1 as well. 

Bravery tests
 All leaders count as having a bravery of 10 for bravery test purposes. If the leader is slain, 
the rest of the models counts as having a bravery of 8.

At the end of each players turn, the total number of his/her models slain are counted.
The player rolls a dice and adds the number of his/her models slain. If the result excedes the bravery of the group (leader or the rest of the group) the player must remove the same number of models of their own choosing, as the number exceding the bravery. 
 

Terrain/Cover rules: 

Shooting:
When a model is covered partially by cover, it is granted a +1 to it’s save roll. Use true line of sight to determine if the model is covered. 

Close Combat: 
If a models base is wholly or partially within cover (or both combatants are), it/they are granted a +1 to their save roll. 

Duck and cover:
A model covered or within terrain can choose to duck and cover - this is an action in the end of the movement phase. The model is then granted a +2 to it’s cover save, but has it’s movement halved in it’s next movement phase. This +2 save only applies to shooting attacks, not close combat. 

Charging through terrain: 
When charging through terrain, a model will always strike last, unless it has a rule that says it will always strike first. 

Combats above ground/falling:
If a model is hit by one or more shooting or close combat attacks (not necessarily wounded) and is standing 1” or less from the edge of a terrain piece and more than 2” above ground, it risks falling down. It must roll a dice; on a 1 or 2 it falls down and suffers an automatic hit with rend “-“ and the following to wound roll: 

3” fall: 5+
4” fall: 4+
5” fall: 3+ 
6” fall or more: 2+

If the model falls down, it falls down to the next terrain level, in the opposite direction of the attacker. The fall roll is only resolved after all the attackers hits are rolled for - though the defender may fall down before getting a chance to attack itself. 

Jumping down: 
A model can choose to jump down from terrain, instead of scaling it. If it does so, it must roll a dice; on 4+ it succeeds, and can carry on it's movement like normal. If it rolls 1, 2, or 3, it takes fall damage as described above. 

 
 
 
 
 

 

[mumperpa]

Love it, the throw is by far my favorite. Like the idea of a Khorgorath throwing my liberators around. I will say the war machine rule has drawbacks. It blocks models like the Gyrobomber and Gyrocoptor,, which are included in Skirmish. I get the intent, and they might no belong in a skirmish style game, but as a  proud owner of a gyrobomber,it  would be a little sad. 

[GuitaRasmus]

Ah, sorry - I made a mixup - it was meant to say: War Machines can be used, as long as it isn't artillery - Eg: Organ Guns, Cannons, etc. 

[someone2040]

On 12/9/2017 at 8:10 AM, Peanutallergies said:

I've yet to play Skirmish (or AoS for that matter) but me and some friends are planning on starting a narrative campaign using Skirmish in January.

The main issue I've noticed so far is the limits on warband choice, not just the range of units available but the types of heroes. Part of it seems to be that most heroes in AoS are pretty powerful so their renown cost is a big chunk of your warband. Some lower level champion types (renown cost of 10-15) to lead early on would be good, though I guess it might be a lot of work to create them for every band that needs them.

Pretty much this.

I've rewritten a reply in this topic multiple times, but there's basically too much of a discrepancy between the regular guys and the heroes for the most part. This means that when you first purchase your warband, so much power is front loaded into your hero, which means most likely the first few fights are whoever makes the best use out of said hero.

So the problem is that AoS just doesn't have those lower level heroes available in the game. All the heroes are either wizards, or fighters that tend to come with command abilities (Which they have to pay a premium for).

In some ways, it's even a problem in AoS. You don't see people taking 2 Freeguild Generals or Orruk Warbosses because they pay a premium for their command ability, when sometimes you just want another fighty hero in your force (Especially in this day and age of allegiance abilities and allies).

 

So yeah, something like 3-4 wound models for most races as a 'starting leader' IMO would be good. In some ways I think the best approach (and something I've considered looking into) is upgrading champion models to be 'leaders'. Something like an extra wound or two, an extra attack or to-hit or something, 1 point of bravery and you gain the HERO keyword for X points.

[Pigbones]

A lot of the added rules (throwing, falling, duck and cover, etc) are dynamic, flavorful and fun. I'm a fan of what you have at the moment, and can't wait to see where this goes.

[someone2040]

@GuitaRasmus

Here's my feedback on your rules. I've tried to be fairly unbiased (As I have my own thoughts on how to do skirmish running through my head). But overall, I think they're interesting although I'm not sure it's really a 'AoS: Skirmish' add on once you start mucking around with the warband creation.

That being said, points are simpler and the finer granularity means you can make better decisions as to when to take certain models.

On 12/9/2017 at 9:39 AM, GuitaRasmus said:

All models that have a base size of 40 mm or higher, has 4 or more wounds and is not <Cavalry> or <Hero> are considered having the keyword <Monster>

I assume that this is basically in there so that you've got more things that count as Monsters for your 'Throw' ability. The problem that can come from this, is since you 'halved' the wounds of your starting heroes, heroes that fulfil the requirements (Such as an Ogor Tyrant) cannot throw models due to being a Hero, but other Ogors can.

This is a very tough kinda thing to 'get right' because there aren't keywords for being things like <Monstrous Infantry> (or heck, the <Cavalry> keyword doesn't exist even though we all know what that means).

What you might be better off doing is instead of classifying things as Monsters, just make the rules for throwing more flexible. For example, you could rule eligibility to throw as:

This model may throw an enemy model if the enemy is on a smaller base size and the enemy model is half the size (or 3/4 depending on how large an enemy you think should be throwable) or smaller than this model.

It's not very specific, but people get the gist of what you're trying to accomplish - Bigger models can throw smaller models. Skirmish games tend to be 'loosely' defined on the rules side of things anyway, and there are gentlemens agreements all the time during game (Is my guy in cover? Can you see him? Do you reckon this guy can throw the other guy?). So I think for the more fun rules, you really need to embrace the looseness and don't necessarily need to write something super tight.

On 12/9/2017 at 9:39 AM, GuitaRasmus said:

A leaders standard Command Abilities are not used - instead they must choose one from the following lists:

Seems fairly unnecessary. If you're trying to curb balance issues (Which I think for the most part, command abilities won't break), there are many other abilities that are probably higher on the chopping block. So just feels like an extra rule that adds another layer of things to remember.

On 12/9/2017 at 9:39 AM, GuitaRasmus said:

Parry:

IMO (and perhaps this is a bit of bias creeping in), stuff like what you've got for Parry is better left to 'skill upgrades'. Personally I would make the choice to parry perhaps before the attack dice are event rolled (Why would the defender get to choose to parry after). The thing is, lets say a model has a 3+ to hit, well it's better to parry if the opponent rolls a 3 to hit rather than 5. That's just my opinion, this sounds familiar (So has probably been grabbed from Mordheim), and can't really remember how it worked there.

On 12/9/2017 at 9:39 AM, GuitaRasmus said:

Throw attacks (<Monsters> only):
To throw a model, a single to hit roll is made, using the best available To Hit stat of the throwing model, and if it misses, nothing happens. If succesfull, the smaller model is thrown 2d6” in the direction of the throwing models choosing. When the thrown model lands, it suffers D6 hits, with 4+ to wound, -1 rend, and Damage ‘1’. If another model is in the path of the thrown model, the thrown model comes to a halt there, and suffers the previously described landing damage, and the model in its path suffers D6 hits, 4+ To Wound, Rend -1, Damage 1 as well. 

IMO rather than doing D6 hits, it's more thematic to do a single bigger hit. That is a thematic difference, if you get flung into the side of a building, you don't hit the wall 'D6 times', you hit it once and it's potentially a big impact. So the damage side of the profile would actually be better with Wound 3+, Rend -1, Damage D3, perhaps increasing the damage suffered by 1 if it hits an enemy model or physical terrain.

On 12/9/2017 at 9:39 AM, GuitaRasmus said:

Bravery tests
 All leaders count as having a bravery of 10 for bravery test purposes. If the leader is slain, 
the rest of the models counts as having a bravery of 8.

At the end of each players turn, the total number of his/her models slain are counted.
The player rolls a dice and adds the number of his/her models slain. If the result excedes the bravery of the group (leader or the rest of the group) the player must remove the same number of models of their own choosing, as the number exceding the bravery. 

My personal feeling is that I don't really enjoy blanket changing bravery. Just because it means, Grots are just as brave as Stormcast or that kinda thing. It doesn't feel very thematic.

That being said, IMO all this stems from AoS battleshock system really not being suitable for Skirmish play. It relies on units 'losing models' each turn for it to be effective, and there's a huge discrepency between Grots and Undead which means it's not easy to figure out something that makes sense.

Something I've thought about is using some more similar to the Lord of the Rings system. Roll a D6 (or 2d6 if you want it to be more reliable), add it to the models bravery. If it's less than a certain number, then that model flees. May be you have penalties for how many models the warband has lost, or impose a maximum bravery if your warband leader is dead (to curb Undead/Daemons).

For example, you could say:

Rout Test: At the (start/end) of your turn, if your warband has lost more than 50% of it's models, you must make a Rout test for each model still on the battlefield. Roll 2d6 and at the models bravery  to this score. If the result of the test is 11 or less, the model has routed and is immediately removed from the battlefield as a casualty. If your Warband Leader is dead, you may only add up to 5 for the models bravery to this test unless there is a friendly HERO within 6".

This means that most models use their own bravery (You could in fact, provide an 'aura' from heroes or the warband leader to curb this a bit), which means the average human bravery of 5 will not rout (5+7 = 12). Undead and Daemons still have chances to rout, but if you take out the Warband leader (reducing the warband leadership to 5) this makes it a whole lot more likely (Which I think, is actually pretty fair and thematic).

 

That's probably the biggest feedback points I reckon. 

[GuitaRasmus]

@someone2040: First of all, thanks a lot for a very thorough round of feedback! 

1: Regarding the monster rule - I hadn't considered ogres, but are there any other factions, where this would pose an issue? I can't think of any. In that case I would think it's easier to give the Ogres special rules? 

2: I'm cool about the command abilities - It was just an idea, since there's so much variety between them, and some of them are next to useless in this setting, and others are way powerful - and this effectiveness or lack of the same rarely seems included in the points cost. But, like I said, I'm open to changes. 

3: The parry rule is a leftover from Munda (never played Mordheim, sadly), where you roll a number of attack dice, and a parry allows you to force the opponent to reroll a hit. That could perhaps also be used as a mechanic? I think it should be used after the to hit roll, an attack is a big price to pay if not. 

4: I can understand what you mean about the blanket bravery mechanic, but I think that it seems unfair that some factions heros, who have very low leadership, should suffer so much - for example, a Skaven Deathrunner and a Knight Venator have the same cost, 120 pts. The Skaven has bravery 5 and the Stormcast has bravery 9. In normal AoS it means close to nothing because a single model very rarely takes Bravery tests, but in the game it matters a lot, and I have a difficult time finding where the Deathrunner is compensated in abilities, seeing that they're the same cost. 

It's a point of opinion - I appreciate yours, and I am open to reworking the system (or losing battleshock altogether, but I don't see them using their standard bravery in this setting - it seems way off. 

 

[someone2040]

10 hours ago, GuitaRasmus said:

@someone2040: First of all, thanks a lot for a very thorough round of feedback! 

1: Regarding the monster rule - I hadn't considered ogres, but are there any other factions, where this would pose an issue? I can't think of any. In that case I would think it's easier to give the Ogres special rules? 

Hmm, Ogors are the only thing that comes to mind, as they're one of the only types of 'monstrous infantry' that actually have heroes in the game. I guess the other thinking could possibly be that if you loosen up the rules, it allows for cool things like big bulky Khorne heroes throwing around Grots or something. 

Perhaps in some ways, the latter would just be a skill (Knockback or something) which lets you knock back enemies a shorter distance as opposed to picking them up and throwing them (Which I guess is what your rule is more trying to do).

 

10 hours ago, GuitaRasmus said:

4: I can understand what you mean about the blanket bravery mechanic, but I think that it seems unfair that some factions heros, who have very low leadership, should suffer so much - for example, a Skaven Deathrunner and a Knight Venator have the same cost, 120 pts. The Skaven has bravery 5 and the Stormcast has bravery 9. In normal AoS it means close to nothing because a single model very rarely takes Bravery tests, but in the game it matters a lot, and I have a difficult time finding where the Deathrunner is compensated in abilities, seeing that they're the same cost. 

Hmm, I guess the thing is that it's thematic thing. Yes, Skaven have less leadership than a Venator, but that's because the Venator is a Stormcast while the Skaven is a Skaven, they're meant to be more cowardly and this should impact them in game to fulfil the narrative. If Liberators are fleeing as much as Skaven, then it doesn't really fit the fantasy very well.

IMO if you wanted to deal with this more elegantly, rather than giving blanket 10 bravery which doesn't feel very thematic, you could instead do something like:

When taking battleshock tests, add +1 to your Bravery for every 10 models from your warband still alive on the battlefield. This way more 'horde style' warbands bulk out their leadership due to numbers.

 

Ultimately though, these are symptoms of trying to make a game that was built and balanced at an army based level, work at a skirmish level. There's no easy answer to all the problems, and you're ultimately left with creating a bunch of bandaid fixes to shore up all the holes.

[mumperpa]

The horde idea is great. It gives a reason to bring those 1 or 2 renown warriors who aren't great otherwise.

[GuitaRasmus]

7 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Hmm, Ogors are the only thing that comes to mind, as they're one of the only types of 'monstrous infantry' that actually have heroes in the game. I guess the other thinking could possibly be that if you loosen up the rules, it allows for cool things like big bulky Khorne heroes throwing around Grots or something. 

Perhaps in some ways, the latter would just be a skill (Knockback or something) which lets you knock back enemies a shorter distance as opposed to picking them up and throwing them (Which I guess is what your rule is more trying to do).

I'm actually pretty fond of the idea of monsters throwing people around - it's obviously borrowed from Warmachine, where I think it's a super fun mechanic, as well as giving some interesting tactical options - that you can actually move some enemy models out of the way. 

7 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Hmm, I guess the thing is that it's thematic thing. Yes, Skaven have less leadership than a Venator, but that's because the Venator is a Stormcast while the Skaven is a Skaven, they're meant to be more cowardly and this should impact them in game to fulfil the narrative. If Liberators are fleeing as much as Skaven, then it doesn't really fit the fantasy very well.

IMO if you wanted to deal with this more elegantly, rather than giving blanket 10 bravery which doesn't feel very thematic, you could instead do something like:

When taking battleshock tests, add +1 to your Bravery for every 10 models from your warband still alive on the battlefield. This way more 'horde style' warbands bulk out their leadership due to numbers.

 

Ultimately though, these are symptoms of trying to make a game that was built and balanced at an army based level, work at a skirmish level. There's no easy answer to all the problems, and you're ultimately left with creating a bunch of bandaid fixes to shore up all the holes.

Yep, it's not easy - I know it's somewhat of a bandaid fix, but honestly, I think AoS works pretty well on a skirmish level as is - my "fixes" are more intended to be a flavour, than a complete write over. I guess it depends on what you expect from a game; WM/H is often lauded as a great skirmish game, and after having played it on/off for a few years, and finally having sold my Khador, I find that it is MUCH too involved and complicated - what I basically want is to PLAY (as in playing like a child) with some cool miniatures. As long as it FEELS good, I think it is good. 

[GuitaRasmus]

Hi guys - I've worked on it a bit more, incorporating some of your ideas, and here is the second draft of Age of Skirmish ruleset BETA1. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MLdUAK67V-ABk-MUTCPXADe_Ls9jxiSi/edit

I've chosen to make it as a PDF download, since it lets me control the layout of the rules much better than the forum software. If you would rather not download the file, you can see it here on the Age of Skirmish blog: 

https://ageofskirmish.blogspot.com

As usual any and all comments are appreciated.

[pseudonyme]

Next year I will try to do a quick Skirmish campaign with my wife.  I will check all those homemade rules but will try to make it with alternate activation: will try both to do it at phase level and model by model.

I might divide the total average total points of both warbands and divide it by the lowest models number to have « activation threshold » (if that makes sense in English).

[ProteanLion]

I am running a skirmish campaign out of my house starting in 1 week and have about 12 players signed up, some totally new to tabletop wargaming others veteran players. 

This was the house rules I came up with to be thematic and based on the talk on here.

Skirmish in the Bone Pile Desert

 

Objective for the campaign: Provide a fun and engaging introduction to Age of Sigmar narrative play.

 

• Warbands must be composed following the Skirmish guidelines (3 models minimum 1 must be your leader)

• Creative kitbashing is encouraged as long as models resemble what they are supposed to represent

• Warbands will start with 35 renown but will grow with each battle

• Units from the unofficial points list are permissible with prior approval

• No unique characters

• Highly encourage having fully assembled and painted models

• We will play through the 6 scenarios in the skirmish book sequentially. The final winner will be determined by the result of the 6th and final game which will be a multiplayer game.

• Encourage as much as possible to play games together during the event dates but you can play outside those dates but you must play the scenarios sequentially against an opponent who has played the same number of games.

• You cannot play the same opponent twice in a row

• If you cannot get a game in you can take a bye and collect the same renown as a draw (7). Subsequent bye you can collect for a loss (6) but in either case you do not get to roll on the rewards of battle.

• The purpose of this is a fun introduction to Age of Sigmar, be gracious and respectful to your opponents.

Special Campaign House Rules

• At the beginning of each battle roll a D3 and the desert winds blow!

  • On a 1 the winds kick up dust and visibility is reduced to 12”

  • On a 2 the winds are blowing furiously and all fliers have their movement reduced in half

  • On a 3 the winds carry the bone dust of an ancient titan who abhorred magic. Any doubles on any casting attempts result inflict a mortal wound on the caster

• If at the beginning of any battleround the players roll a tie for initiative then the winds change and roll on the above chart until a new result is rolled.

• The purpose of these rules is to make some of the more overpowered unbalanced units in skirmish a little less reliable without giving them a blanket nerf.

• All terrain will use the “walls and fences” warscroll rules and the mysterious terrain table from page 17 of the skirmish rulebook

[blueshirtman]

I wanted to start Age of Sigmar, but can't afford an army, how much does an avarge Skirmish army cost and which factions have a good balance between being cheap and powerful. It doesn't has to be some tournament winning uber army, as I expect those to cost a lot no matter what system is used, but something in the range of 100-150$ . also is the rule book obligatory, because if it is then it cuts in to the amount of money I can spend on models.

Look wise I like the overlords models the best, but I do not know if they can be played without their big ships. 

[Guest]

Skirmish is my main game at the moment, so I do have some thoughts:

Good things:

• It's simple to pick up and play, and IMO any similar system should be the same way. The great thing about Skirmish and Hinterlands is that they don't try to rewrite the AoS core rules. They do more with less.
• The games are fast paced. Anything that slows down the pace of the game should be rejected IMO.

 

Less good things (always easier to think of these!):

• There should be points for everything.
• Certain things (shooting, magic, mortal wounds) are way overpowered in Skirmish - I think Hinterlands dealt with this well but I think there's scope for other possible solutions too.
• No RPG style progression in Skirmish. Again, Hinterlands had more of this and it was a lot of fun. Personally, I'd like to see something closer to Hinterlands being the baseline for progression with 'expansion packs' that introduce even deeper RPG elements for those who want them.
• Warbands from armies that rely on summoning or replacing slain models are basically screwed in Skirmish. The Hinterlands solution was okay (and better than nothing) but I feel there must be a more elegant solution than forcing the player to include a necromancer. That just doesn't make sense for Flesh-eater Courts, for example.

 

Honestly, I have trouble identifying any ways in which Skirmish is superior to Hinterlands, aside from the fact that it's 'officially supported' and therefore easier to persuade people to play it. Just keep iterating on / adding to Hinterlands! 

 

EDIT: Also, if you haven't already done so you should take a look at The Hobbit SBG, and if you have the patience also take a look at it's earlier editions going back to The Lord of the Rings SBG which had a little more detail than it does currently - lots of great little skirmish rules in there that feel really natural and satisfying. Many people feel that it's the best rules system GW ever made.