AoS complexity/rules bloat

[Mayple]

7 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Isn't there quite clear power creep when the newer books have a lot more stuff to add to your army more or less free (allegiance abilities, mount abilities, prayers, etc.) compared to to "side factions" with older books or no books at all having nothing like that?

 

It's not the end of world, but I also don't think it can be denied. Also as the original pre ghb scrolls had essentially year worth of public playtestibg behind for their points, it's clear that the newer stuff has got less testing and there seems to be few units that are way too cheap in those armies. It will balance out, but it's also very normal thing to have in this kind of game.

Some of the older armies are definitely feeling the power creep (Dark elves are in much pain ) 

 

But I also think those will all be sorted out over time, one way or another it's clear that GW intends to hit every faction eventually with their update/revision spree. 

[Veterannoob]

Yup, annual at the very least updating and addressing this is very exciting ?

[Oppenheimer]

3 hours ago, Mayple said:

Some of the older armies are definitely feeling the power creep (Dark elves are in much pain ) 

 

But I also think those will all be sorted out over time, one way or another it's clear that GW intends to hit every faction eventually with their update/revision spree. 

It's true. Scourge privateers are unplayable against the new armies.

[mmimzie]

On 4/28/2017 at 0:39 PM, Sactownbri said:

 

The written word is imprecise. That's why scientists use math. 80+% of communication is non verbal. What you really want is a pile of videos that explain each rule so that you receive the entire message the rules writter is attempting to convey.

Ugh!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm a scientist and i use a lot of written words. Sentences can be made precise but it takes a lot of effort to go over your work repeated, and show it to other people and asking them what they think you mean.  Scientist use math to generate statistics, and depending on your field can even turn words into math to generate the statistics they need.

However i do agree that all the rules should have videos. It'd be nice if the warhammer community team went over the rules and had like a 5 part episode you could refer to if you wanted. 

[Orange]

On ‎30‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 0:15 AM, Oppenheimer said:

It's true. Scourge privateers are unplayable against the new armies.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about with power creep, and it remains to be seen if older models benefit from rules updates. They may well get them (and I hope they do), but I think it's more likely they won't, especially things like Tomb Kings and Bretonnians.

I play Sylvaneth and was shocked when I played against my friends Ironjawz, and asked him what his free artefacts and what his exclusive magic spells were, and there weren't any.

Power creep is inevitable and is just part of it, they have to make the new stuff slightly better very time in order to make it sell, and the creep catches up with the older stuff.

In the meantime I just don't use the battletome, whether I'm playing pure Sylvaneth or not. I find it a lot more fun that way, and a lot easier.

[Killax]

Yeah I think it's just very important to realize that 'balancing' or in other words reducing some of the powercreep really isn't Games Workshop's prime intend. What I do think is that there will be some changes for the upcomming General's Handbook but I don't expect a ton of massive changes, at best we see some units and Battalions re-costed for Matched play.

For Open and Narrative purposes balance becomes a creative restriction, a restriction WFB suffered immensely from and the prime reason as to why Age of Sigmar came to life has a lot to do with the fact that Games Workshop wants to put FUN at the first place and competative play behind that. It's also not for nothing that roughly 90% of the books (Battletome's) don't even focus on Matched play. In essence you only have 1 page dedicated to that, for a book that contains 148 pages (for example) that should say something about GW's intend. Fun isn't really about balance, but about having a character preform as the lore/narrative tells it. This means that certain Tzeentch spellcasters can be terrifying, Khorne warriors are incredible in melee, Stormcasts are the rock of faith and Sylvaneth can apply some very tricky guerilla tactics.

Every meta has a different game-type influence, by large because certain players can really decide to step it up in competative play or not. I feel that a lot of meta's would benifit from some House-rules. Sometimes things can be as easy as thinking up an Battle Trait and some Artefacts. If it's not for Matched play it's ideal to test if those ideas are too good or simply make the game interesting.

I do agree and hope that more Battletome's will be released on a monthly to 2 monthly basis. Not so much for competative or balanced play but simply to create the same type of depth to each larger faction. This is important for all types of play, by large because we now see that some armies have 4-5 playing styles while others just have 1-2. This is the direct effect of having more Battle Traits, Command Traits, Artefacts and Battalions. 

[Trout]

On 4/27/2017 at 2:15 PM, Johann said:

Most people will use all layers of rules and it will be difficult to find players, that will play with less rules ("the rules are there, why should we not play with it?") - and the person, who wants to play with less rules has to defeat his position, not the person who wants to add rules (at least in my own experience)

so in theory it's possible to play with less rules, in reality most game will tend to be played with full rules.

This may be true of your local community. But I don't think you can honestly say it is true of "most people". Maybe most people in your area, but most people as in: "most AOS players in the world"? I think that's a stretch.

 

In my local community, you would have a harder time finding someone interested in a highly competitive format than in a loosely structured narrative battle with a limited rule set.

 

An example I've personally run into is that I really like the Aleguzzler Gargant model and think he fits in well with my Beastclaw Raider army. If I add the gargant to my army then it would become a generic Destruction army and I would no longer have a battle line according to matched play rules. The suggestion from people in my local community? "why don't you just paint him like an ice giant and consider him a Beastclaw Raider?".

 

It seems a lot of people here are generalizing based on their local experiences. Clearly the "local meta" is a real thing. There are all kinds of players with different interests and the store managers and regulars greatly influence the kinds of players local shops cultivate. The challenge is that GW has to appeal to the rulenazis that play at Johann's local store without alienating the more flexible crowd at mine.

[Johann]

56 minutes ago, Trout said:

This may be true of your local community. But I don't think you can honestly say it is true of "most people". Maybe most people in your area, but most people as in: "most AOS players in the world"? I think that's a stretch.

 

In my local community, you would have a harder time finding someone interested in a highly competitive format than in a loosely structured narrative battle with a limited rule set.

 

An example I've personally run into is that I really like the Aleguzzler Gargant model and think he fits in well with my Beastclaw Raider army. If I add the gargant to my army then it would become a generic Destruction army and I would no longer have a battle line according to matched play rules. The suggestion from people in my local community? "why don't you just paint him like an ice giant and consider him a Beastclaw Raider?".

 

It seems a lot of people here are generalizing based on their local experiences. Clearly the "local meta" is a real thing. There are all kinds of players with different interests and the store managers and regulars greatly influence the kinds of players local shops cultivate. The challenge is that GW has to appeal to the rulenazis that play at Johann's local store without alienating the more flexible crowd at mine.

Perhaps I should clarify, I have nice opponents and good games against them and we are not discussing a lot about rules... but we are playing with full rules ? 

[Trout]

11 minutes ago, Johann said:

Perhaps I should clarify, I have nice opponents and good games against them and we are not discussing a lot about rules... but we are playing with full rules ? 

Cool.

 

But my main point was that you can't really say "most people" if what you mean is "most people at my store". Unless you have data about "most people" in general.

[Johann]

2 minutes ago, Trout said:

Cool.

 

But my main point was that you can't really say "most people" if what you mean is "most people at my store". Unless you have data about "most people" in general.

Of course, I don't have statistical data, so you are right in general.

I'm just assuming that, because  people play with the GH matched play rules in my area and what I heard from others. But if there were a survey, I would guess that there will be a majority for matched play with full rules (Battleline/Artefacts/Battletomes).

[Trout]

Just now, Johann said:

Of course, I don't have statistical data, so you are right in general.

I'm just assuming that, because  people play with the GH matched play rules in my area and what I heard from others. But if there were a survey, I would guess that there will be a majority for matched play with full rules (Battleline/Artefacts/Battletomes).

Yeah, and based on my experience, I would guess that there will be a majority who don't (assuming the survey was properly conducted and not composed of a convenience sample on a forum of people already predisposed to being more serious about the game). Thus why I wouldn't say "most people" and don't think anyone else should use that language either.

[BunkhouseBuster]

1 minute ago, Trout said:

Yeah, and based on my experience, I would guess that there will be a majority who don't (assuming the survey was properly conducted and not composed of a convenience sample on a forum of people already predisposed to being more serious about the game). Thus why I wouldn't say "most people" and don't think anyone else should use that language either.

I am one of the weirdos that uses the Matched Play for Narrative and casual games

Reason being: Matched Play rules gave me just that little bit of structure to the game.  When Age of Sigmar came out, I had no interest in playing it, because I knew that the lack of points structure would let the WAAC, ultra-competitive players have constant victory being able to bring literally any and all the models they wanted (and these were the players that have the budget to keep up with the 40K competitive scene).  As soon as the General's Handbook was released, I was hooked, because I needed just that little bit of structure in my game.  Sure, you don't have to use the points, but I really like having that baseline for army construction.  Pretty much all of our local players are in the same boat, especially with many of the local players making 40K no fun to play most of the time.  We build our armies, and we try to get within 100 or 150 points of each other, and we haven't had any problems with that small a difference causing victory (usually the smaller army wins anyways!).

So for the statistics, I am a player that got into Narrative Play thanks to Matched Play

[Trout]

8 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

I am one of the weirdos that uses the Matched Play for Narrative and casual games

Reason being: Matched Play rules gave me just that little bit of structure to the game.  When Age of Sigmar came out, I had no interest in playing it, because I knew that the lack of points structure would let the WAAC, ultra-competitive players have constant victory being able to bring literally any and all the models they wanted (and these were the players that have the budget to keep up with the 40K competitive scene).  As soon as the General's Handbook was released, I was hooked, because I needed just that little bit of structure in my game.  Sure, you don't have to use the points, but I really like having that baseline for army construction.  Pretty much all of our local players are in the same boat, especially with many of the local players making 40K no fun to play most of the time.  We build our armies, and we try to get within 100 or 150 points of each other, and we haven't had any problems with that small a difference causing victory (usually the smaller army wins anyways!).

So for the statistics, I am a player that got into Narrative Play thanks to Matched Play

You would be an example of the kinds of people Johann thinks are the minority; people who mix and match rules, in your case using elements of matched play within narrative and casual games, rather than adhering strictly to the full ruleset. My guess is that this is the way the majority of players are. But I don't know that to be the case, so I avoid saying "most people".

[BunkhouseBuster]

2 minutes ago, Trout said:

You would be an example of the kinds of people Johann thinks are the minority; people who mix and match rules, in your case using elements of matched play within narrative and casual games, rather than adhering strictly to the full ruleset. My guess is that this is the way the majority of players are. But I don't know that to be the case, so I avoid saying "most people".

I usually make an effort to be unusual and in the minority anyways.  Not many country boys with a Master's degree who play Warhammer out there, is there

But I hear you.  I always try to avoid all-encompassing phrases when having discussions about groups or peoples or interests.  Unless it is an objective truth - "all humans need to breath oxygen" - I try to keep scope in mind and remind myself that others will always do things at least a little bit differently than me.  When I am being anecdotal, I try to make it clear to my audience.

The modularity of Age of Sigmar is, to me, its greatest strength.  The bottom-up design method they ended up having has worked to its strength.  By focusing on the abstracted rules and then expanding on that in layers outwards is what gives the game its many ways to play, and those ways can be easily mixed up.  There is no have to in Age of Sigmar outside of the scope of the game or event you are running.

To me, the only have to is to have fun and enjoy your games

[Johann]

24 minutes ago, Trout said:

You would be an example of the kinds of people Johann thinks are the minority; people who mix and match rules, in your case using elements of matched play within narrative and casual games, rather than adhering strictly to the full ruleset. My guess is that this is the way the majority of players are. But I don't know that to be the case, so I avoid saying "most people".

Uh, you said majority? Do you have evidence? Majority is kind of the same to most people...

Just a joke ? But stop calling my name, we both made our points and it's enough.

and in general I'm totally on your sight, It just doesn't happen so often in my area! (That was my point from the beginning).

[Popisdead]

"the game is too simple"

 

"the game is too rules bloated"

 

sounds like the general public to me.

[Killax]

Well, the thing with Age of Sigmar to me is that House-rules to me can further improve your local meta, though players have to be aware of what's going on. To me that's where forums and social media become more important.
As a recent example again SCGT House-rules allready put some serious restrictions on the game which make it very difficult to come up with total combo's that require some hours to reconsider and come up with in the first place. In other words, stopping the same named ability from stacking limits the use of powerful abilities in general. One of the few flaws SCGT House-rules currently has if you do not like Tzeentch, Orruk, Sylvaneth shooting lists is that Missle Attacks in a their restricted House-rules go completely un-restricted. Obviously the blame is not totally on them but to me it does not come as a suprise to see the top 3 have that essential Missle Attack backbone, it's what I would do aswell because as a Khorne player I can't even hope to 'cast' Blooid Boil 3 times...

@Popisdead I think the general consensus is that the basic rules are too simple and in order to improve them the rules can quickly become too bloated. Because you need those basic rules, battletome (if you have one), generals handbook, FAQ and possibly additional House-rules to enter a tournament. Requiring that many sources to play a game is quite frankly obnoxious and too much.

The same can really be said about the quantity of sub-factions we have now. I do not know who's brilliant idea it was to split them up this much but I seriously hope that the future will bring is reduced faction numbers (like Blades of Khorne). I was a little bit upset that the Duaradin Battletome did not went the same way as the Blades of Khorne Battletome because even combined the Duaradin of Age of Sigmar are not that large of a faction to cover. The biggest advantage of Keywords is that you don't even need to pre-restrict them technically for all Battalions, you could easily refer to Keywords instead.

I think Magic the Gatherings Jhonny, Timmy etc. example could very well apply to upcomming Generals Handbooks or generally House-rules. For example I do believe that even Open Play benifits from having a point cost, same applies to Narrative play and the random generation of Command Traits and Artefacts, it removes some customisation but also means every story could be a little bit different. For Matched play I think some-recosting and additional rules would get the competative player what they want. Because if I had to split it up I'd say:
- Open Play would massively benifit from having some clear restrictions, also in terms of faction quantity. These are newer players looking for fun.
- Narrative Play would massively benifit from having some set randomisation, especially ingame. These are players looking for stories.
- Matched Play would massively benifit from additional restrictive rules, especially in army building. These are players looking for competative games and balance. 

Cheers,

[Mohawk_Monkey]

Having got back into the hobby this year, the warscroll cards are an excellent way of making things go faster.

I play death and printed out my warscrolls but i shrunk them down to A5 and put them on cereal box card. During games, it has been much easier to hand an opponent a warscroll or let them flick through the warscrolls ive taken (rather than a book or 2). 

It also helps to have your battle and command traits on a separate 'scroll' too.

These are generally the things i've done to help avoid being bogged down with any rules bloat. Essentially i think it only becomes a real problem when you need to spend a considerable time sifting through rules books. Little things like this have saved a bunch of time and helped me remember rules (looking at you death banners/saves).

[Orange]

I use my tablet for the warscrolls, but Mohawk_Monkey I like that idea for battle/command traits and artefacts. Missions would be easier that way too.

[Killax]

Yeah In working out cards for Blades of Khorne and am suprised others didnt do the GH Traits and Artefacts yet.

AoS is about being creative.

[Dragonlover]

Thanks for all the replies, btw. I don't necessarily agree with all the opinions put forth, but I *can* see how they'd have been reached.

Luckily, you can kinda pick your complexity level and stick with it. AoS is definitely a much more modular game than it first seems.

And to answer a question from earlier in the thread, we used to ignore terrain effects/roll once for the whole board. Now they put the markers in the Warscroll Cards though we've started doing it properly.

Dragonlover

[Trout]

5 hours ago, Killax said:

 

@Popisdead I think the general consensus is that the basic rules are too simple and in order to improve them the rules can quickly become too bloated.

I think if there's one thing this thread has proven, it's that there isn't a consensus.

[BunkhouseBuster]

7 hours ago, Killax said:

...

I think Magic the Gatherings Jhonny, Timmy etc. example could very well apply to upcomming Generals Handbooks or generally House-rules. For example I do believe that even Open Play benifits from having a point cost, same applies to Narrative play and the random generation of Command Traits and Artefacts, it removes some customisation but also means every story could be a little bit different. For Matched play I think some-recosting and additional rules would get the competative player what they want. Because if I had to split it up I'd say:
- Open Play would massively benifit from having some clear restrictions, also in terms of faction quantity. These are newer players looking for fun.
- Narrative Play would massively benifit from having some set randomisation, especially ingame. These are players looking for stories.
- Matched Play would massively benifit from additional restrictive rules, especially in army building. These are players looking for competative games and balance.

I am reminded of the Planetstrike expansion for 40K that came out years back and was kind of re-released more recently, and it had a mix of of what we would now call Open and Narrative play.  In it, the players were given a role of attacker or defender.  Attacker gets first turn, always, and can Deep Strike nearly any of their models that could not normally before.  To balance that, the Defender gets to set up as much terrain and scenery as they wish.  I never saw it played except a few times, and I was in those games as defenders each and every time.  I think that game would have done better if those extra rules and scenery had points costs to them, then we might have seen more people playing pickup games of Planetstrike.

Having points at whatever scale gives players a frame of reference to start planning their games, and is a good way to try to have some balance on the game if so desired.

[Killax]

2 hours ago, Trout said:

I think if there's one thing this thread has proven, it's that there isn't a consensus.

There still is an outcome of results however. When we look at the factions who are the largest, ergo have the most rules, depth and fleshed out 'armies' with their own allegiances, they also happen to be more around on Tournaments, have a larger depth to Narrative and in general are rewarding to play. 

So while smaller Alliances and factions are simpler, have less depth, it's also not incorrect to say that they present less competative results and less room for narrative development. 

23 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

I am reminded of the Planetstrike expansion for 40K that came out years back and was kind of re-released more recently, and it had a mix of of what we would now call Open and Narrative play.  In it, the players were given a role of attacker or defender.  Attacker gets first turn, always, and can Deep Strike nearly any of their models that could not normally before.  To balance that, the Defender gets to set up as much terrain and scenery as they wish.  I never saw it played except a few times, and I was in those games as defenders each and every time.  I think that game would have done better if those extra rules and scenery had points costs to them, then we might have seen more people playing pickup games of Planetstrike.

Having points at whatever scale gives players a frame of reference to start planning their games, and is a good way to try to have some balance on the game if so desired.

I completely agree with you. As mentioned I like Narrative play a lot but still feel that the vast mayority of Narrative play also profits from using point costs. With perhaps only Summoning not really being a part of that but even that should have some cap somewhere.

Some players seem to dislike the largely competative chat going on on certain sub-forums and while I understand that no real game can be played completely without borders. Fun and balance most certainly arn't opposites. Competative balance is not what I'm asking for but a general approach that can be seen in multiple factions is.

The way the game expands in a really nice way is awesome for everybody. To migate too many sub-factions with each having their own book I still believe it is a very wise idea to combine into larger factions again, not unlike Warhammer Fantasy so that the rules depth is there but most importantly can be found in one book.

I really like what the Generals Handbook has provided to us, what I do think is a shame is how each Battletome doesn't come with a clear explanation of further sub-Alligances, for example, Blades of Khorne provides Khorne Battalions and the Khorne Alligance but there still are references to Khorne Daemon, Khorne Bloodbound Alligances and Khorne Bloodbound Battalions. The prime reason why this can cause confusion is because the Blades of Khorne book doesn't mention once what these actually are. 

[Sleboda]

9 hours ago, Killax said:

 I think the general consensus is that the basic rules are too simple and in order to improve them the rules can quickly become too bloated.

Lol. ☺ I'm not sure I could come up with a summary that is less in line with my own.