Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
xking

Do you think AoS rules are badly written?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, firebat said:

A lot of issues with terrain come about now because they gave in to the complaining without thinking it through and moved over to only measuring from the base. It essentially forces onto a 3D game a 2D mechanic. The AoS rules were initially written as "model rules all" where everything in the game was based on the model and it was great and fluid. Measuring only from the base however is an abstract system and it requires just more abstract rules to resolve.

Interesting perspective.  I'll need to think on that some more, but thank you for sharing that way of looking at it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 5kaven5lave said:

some of the people I play with are a bit irked that wounds can be landed because my pinkie toe can see the very tip of their wing, and I can kind of see their point tbh. 

Genuine question-

Why? 

Why would this particular rule irk them?  Just like all the other rules,  it's right there from the start.  It's not like it takes a player by surprise.  Why would this one be the exception? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they feel it’s an immersion breaker. Not gonna argue with them over such a small thing and it so rarely comes into play I don’t mind house ruling it when I play them. One of the best things about Sigmar is that you can ignore the stuff you don’t want in your game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stratigo said:

This is a strange question to ask on a forum dedicated to the aos fandom. Most people aren’t going to say “nah, it’s awful”

 

for my part, at a fundamental core level, I go, you go, is an inherently unbalanced way to play a game, and aos only exacerbates the problem with priority rolls. Your enjoyment (which is the purpose of the game) is contingent on how much you wish to curate the game verse chasing the meta. Open play is a short hand way of curating out the sometimes extremely unbalanced matched play meta. 

Priority rolls have always been the #1 reason given to me by 40k and other wargamers who don't to play AoS on why they aren't interested in it. Yet anytime people discuss it on forums or podcast they end with keeping it saying players are either tolerant or in favor of it.  Conveniently ignoring the fact players who absolutely hate it aren't participating in the conversation as priority rules have kept them from getting involved with the scene.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Genuine question-

Why? 

Why would this particular rule irk them?  Just like all the other rules,  it's right there from the start.  It's not like it takes a player by surprise.  Why would this one be the exception? 

This along with the double turn are the two main complaints people in my area don't like the game, or complain about even though they are playing the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 5kaven5lave said:

I guess they feel it’s an immersion breaker. Not gonna argue with them over such a small thing and it so rarely comes into play I don’t mind house ruling it when I play them. One of the best things about Sigmar is that you can ignore the stuff you don’t want in your game. 

Pretty much this. Even in a game about giant roving spells, an eons old lich, snakeladies and beachballs with teeth people still expect a certain level of "realism" to carry them through. It happens in 40k too where you can take wounds because someone shot you sergeant's back banner (guess it eounded his pride?) and it gives a case of the "feel bads" because players feel punished for going with modeling what looks cool. 

I feel like we need a return of 40k's 5th edition rules where weapons, wings, banners and the like don't count for LOS for either player. It won't fix the "I shot you with my little toe" stuff, but it'd at least open up cool conversions and modeling options for players who feel punished by the current rules.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Forrix said:

Priority rolls have always been the #1 reason given to me by 40k and other wargamers who don't to play AoS on why they aren't interested in it. Yet anytime people discuss it on forums or podcast they end with keeping it saying players are either tolerant or in favor of it.  Conveniently ignoring the fact players who absolutely hate it aren't participating in the conversation as priority rules have kept them from getting involved with the scene.

Obe thing worth noting is that many who have been positive about priority have been on the record about previously hating it. Honestly I prefer it since it can result in players being forced to plan more proactively instead of relying on turn order to win them games. They have to plan for a possible double turn, while also planning to accomplish something on the table. When you can't base your plan solely on the turn order you have to be more engaged in what's going on. Which is flatly better.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word thrown about other than realism is intuitive rules.  If I hide behind a tree and you try to shoot at me, then it is a little harder for you to shoot at me because I am behind a tree.  If the game lets me be shot with no penalty because part of my big toenail is visible, thats not intuitive, and rubs certain people wrong.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

The word thrown about other than realism is intuitive rules.  If I hide behind a tree and you try to shoot at me, then it is a little harder for you to shoot at me because I am behind a tree.  If the game lets me be shot with no penalty because part of my big toenail is visible, thats not intuitive, and rubs certain people wrong.

Definitely fair.  However, I hate telling people they are playing wrong, but I think people like that are playing wrong hahahahaha

The problem is that for all of the concern over a big toe or a back banner showing, nobody is concerned for a second that the models are all stationary in permanently fixed positions.

The bit of "realism" that the line of sight rules help with is to consider that the "real" model would be moving it's arms and legs, turning, ducking, looking around, and otherwise filling up its space beyond what the static model can represent.  So that spot where a big toe on the actual model is poking out from behind the tree, would be where sometimes a whole leg or torso is when the dude peeks around the tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a way to reconcile the two thoughts to be honest.  It will always be two points of view perpetually at conflict with each other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think there is a way to reconcile the two thoughts to be honest.  It will always be two points of view perpetually at conflict with each other.

I think there is: make the more complex rules matched play, let them be optional for Narrative and ignore them for Open Play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that a number of people that don't want intuitive or "realistic rules" are also big fans of matched play and will be highly opposed to having those rules a part of matched play.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fulkes said:

I think there is: make the more complex rules matched play, let them be optional for Narrative and ignore them for Open Play.

Isn’t this the wrong way round? Going by what I read, here at least, it always seems those who are all about competitive/matched play want a more streamlined game, as little terrain as possible or all pushed to the sides, no fancy realm rules, etc etc, nothing that gets in the way round of their models doing exactly what they expect them to do.

its narrative morons like me that want to flood the game with a billion odd little rules, official or even better home brewed, play on  tables covered in ruins, forests, temples and god knows what, and have pages and pages of notes on how best to represent boggy terrain or whether those trees give more cover if the game is played in summer rather than winter etc etc.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JPjr said:

Isn’t this the wrong way round? Going by what I read, here at least, it always seems those who are all about competitive/matched play want a more streamlined game, as little terrain as possible or all pushed to the sides, no fancy realm rules, etc etc, nothing that gets in the way round of their models doing exactly what they expect them to do.

its narrative morons like me that want to flood the game with a billion odd little rules, official or even better home brewed, play on  tables covered in ruins, forests, temples and god knows what, and have pages and pages of notes on how best to represent boggy terrain or whether those trees give more cover if the game is played in summer rather than winter etc etc.

Maybe it is the wrong way around, but if we let the most extreme minority of the game decide match play, then 40k would be gunline vs gunline on planet bowling ball. SOME level of nuance has to be there to force you to actually think about winning on the table and not the list building phase. Wargames by their nature should encourage the players to employ tactics on the table and nuance encourages that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose they will have to let their online polls dicate their direction.  We won't know what those polls say, but I will bet that the rules we are seeing in play today are a direct reflection of what the majority in the polls are indicating that they want.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

I suppose they will have to let their online polls dicate their direction.  We won't know what those polls say, but I will bet that the rules we are seeing in play today are a direct reflection of what the majority in the polls are indicating that they want.

Probably so. And for the most part they're going in a direction I think most of us can agree is pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me personally I don't need realism or intuitive rules to enjoy the game.  I come from a CCG background.  I play games to play games not to simulate reality.

However, for those that need those type of rules, GW has given them narrative play where they can houserule to their heart's content.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

For me personally I don't need realism or intuitive rules to enjoy the game.  I come from a CCG background.  I play games to play games not to simulate reality.

However, for those that need those type of rules, GW has given them narrative play where they can houserule to their heart's content.

You can house rule Matched Play too. You just have to expect that those house rules won't carry over to tournament play (and even then a lot of tournaments use secondary scoring systems like sportsmanship or painting which are their own house rules).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure.  I usually assume matched play is the same as tournament play but I know they technically aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like that is a pretty common mental connection a lot of people make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Genuine question-

Why? 

Why would this particular rule irk them?  Just like all the other rules,  it's right there from the start.  It's not like it takes a player by surprise.  Why would this one be the exception? 

Besides the immersion breaking and realism I would suggest a third ‘irk’ and the one that’s the one that happens to me more. 

Tense game in AoS 1. True line of sight. Big wall. He shoots me sorceress on black dragon down because it’s head peeked over. 

I originally wanted to get a Dragon Lord dragon and convert it with semi closed wings like a hawk swooping down. That model I could have hidden behind that wall. And suddenly my cool idea felt like gaming the rules. 

It limits my conversion opportunities because I don’t want to be that guy by converting. I don’t want to gain a gaming advantage with it, and it must be instantly clear what, what is. With base to base. All is fair as long as you get your base size right. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played a lot of war games.

They all have their issues.

I find AoS's rules quite nice.  The best? No.  But certainly not terrible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kramer said:

Besides the immersion breaking and realism I would suggest a third ‘irk’ and the one that’s the one that happens to me more. 

Tense game in AoS 1. True line of sight. Big wall. He shoots me sorceress on black dragon down because it’s head peeked over. 

I originally wanted to get a Dragon Lord dragon and convert it with semi closed wings like a hawk swooping down. That model I could have hidden behind that wall. And suddenly my cool idea felt like gaming the rules. 

It limits my conversion opportunities because I don’t want to be that guy by converting. I don’t want to gain a gaming advantage with it, and it must be instantly clear what, what is. With base to base. All is fair as long as you get your base size right. 

I don't really think this argument holds up because there isn't any kind of standard terrain or layout for the terrain. Sure your conversion of a dragon might fit behind that wall but also at the same time the wall could have been higher, or lower so your conversion doesn't fit at all, or something else entirely. Are we now arguing that no conversion's should be allowed? Obviously this is where the social contract comes in for you and your opponent (or an event organiser) to decide what is acceptable on the table but AoS is a game of perfect information. Your opponent can see how big that model is, can see how big the terrain is before the game starts and knows how far those models can move. If they fail to act on that information accordingly that is poor play on their side, not gaming rules that don't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, firebat said:

I don't really think this argument holds up because there isn't any kind of standard terrain or layout for the terrain. Sure your conversion of a dragon might fit behind that wall but also at the same time the wall could have been higher, or lower so your conversion doesn't fit at all, or something else entirely. Are we now arguing that no conversion's should be allowed? Obviously this is where the social contract comes in for you and your opponent (or an event organiser) to decide what is acceptable on the table but AoS is a game of perfect information. Your opponent can see how big that model is, can see how big the terrain is before the game starts and knows how far those models can move. If they fail to act on that information accordingly that is poor play on their side, not gaming rules that don't exist.

Well thanks for telling me my experience doesn't hold up. I have a couple of others you might want to double check? ;) 

But to respond to your points. 
A, not arguing no conversion's. absolutely not. Don't know how you got that from my post. If anything I'm happier with base measurements because gives a clear point from where to go nuts.
B, With true line of sight there is absolutely ways to game it with conversions. All my skeletons modeled to come out of the ground, or my gutter runners crawling on their bellies. Both narratively sound... but it does mean they now can hid behind a hip size wall which normally would give cover not be Blocking Line Of Sight. And that has nothing to do with them accordingly  acting on that info. It's on me not realising that my conversion ideas have a real gaming impact. 
C. So no it's not obviously where the social contract and TO's come in. First there is personal responsibility and if you fail there, then its social contract and TO's. 

So no I don;t think your arguments are holding up. Mostly because your basic assumption that I'm arguing something is way off. I was merely answering a genuine question about why that rule would 'irk' people. This is why it irked me. That's not a right or wrong discussion but because your assumption you're trying to make it one.

Edited by Kramer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Line of sight is one of the hardest things to sort out in a 3D wargame with dynamic models made for looks above all else. So its no surprise it still has issues. 

That said there are other oddities too such as being able to remove units from a unit even if those units are fully hidden behind a terrain feature, but one of the unit is still visible to the enemy. It devalues line of sight blocking terrain and means that ranged units can "snipe" at whole units far more effectivly because they've only got to see one to remove many; rather than seeing all. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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...