Discussing the quality of rules in AoS

[Phasteon]

I just want to add the following to the discussion. 

Many tomes with those „toned down“ rules are tailored with the new edition in mind, so I think they will feel different when the edition is launched. 

2 prime examples are KO and Gravelords. 

If you look at the Arkanaut Admiral warscroll and the Wight King warscroll you will find generic CAs which looks like a bad joke now, but those CAs wont probably stick around which means that those warscrolls get better in the new edition. 

Generally speaking the game seems little less deadly than before, while elites and monsters are suddenly getting bigger offensive numbers - probably to fix the „unbeatable hordes“ problem. 

We also dont know how shooting will work next edition and if the op LRL „I kill all Heroes in one round“-shtick will still be carried over. 

 

All in all those are just some assumptions, but there is enough evidence between the lines and I think the designers know what they are doing. 

I think the Gravelords tome is exciting in its „toned down“-ness but still offers interesting, yet not gamebreaking, choices. 

 

[MitGas]

50 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

The Age of Darkness ruleset benefits from a huge amount of preparation and planning right at the beginning of the project.  Alan and the team round him, did things like working out the rules for all the primarchs at the same time to ensure there wasn't any power creep.  Having a standard marine as a "datum" has also helped because it's really easy to compare anything new to multiples of that basic unit (if that makes sense).  I think with it being more of a historical game there was a lot more conversation between the designers and the sculptors - you don't see the scenario we have in AoS where some armies don't have endless spells or scenery pieces because nobody has designed them

Yeah, it was certainly easier to make HH more balanced - but I actually believe that once AoS has "settled in its realms", things like balance will become better too. Every new rendition of the currently available battletomes we have now is in theory easier to balance (even if they get a couple of new units) than if they have to introduce something completely new. And I don't think we'll see as many new factions as we did in the past too. Keeping my fingers crossed.

Edit: Oh and thanks for sharing some more info about their process back then!

Edited May 28, 2021 by MitGas

[Noserenda]

Im not sure thats true with Age of Darkness, given the almost immediate power creep the system experienced. Well, at least im pretty certain it was ll worked out to some degree  initially but then things got tweaked or changed along the way which pretty much undid that work effectively, though having Alan as a showrunner at least had the advantage of keeping the vision largely consistent (after the book 2/3 power bump) which is usually the problem with the main GW studios, either due to feedback or staff changes.

[Televiper11]

If we want every unit to have a potential role in a list, expanding armies suddenly becomes a bad idea. Right now, Ironjawz is an army where every unit is viable for list-building, even Ironskullz Boyz. Brutes get taken less than others but still have a purpose and the most minor tweak would make them more viable. But if IJ gets a second wave, you’ll see more useless units. Look at Stormcast, a full 2/3 of that army rarely sees table. I often hear people clamoring for more units but I am semi-opposite in that, partly why I’m such a pro-soup person. Small, incremental additions rather than mass expansions serve armies better. That how you avoid this Wight King/Black Knight problem. Personally, I would’ve squatted Black Knights. Blood Knights are enough.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Televiper11

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

42 minutes ago, Televiper11 said:

If we want every unit to have a potential role in a list, expanding armies suddenly becomes a bad idea.

I think there is a definite reality to there only being so many generic roles for a given unit type to fill and the thinner you slice it the more likely you are to end up with “the gor problem” (make them cheaper and they start supplanting ungors, make them tougher and they start supplanting bestigors) or just WS that don’t work.  That said I think sub-factions are a great way to create more niches.  So, a solution to “the gor problem” in a new tome could be a gor-focused sub-faction.  The irony to me is that the best examples of this I can think of are actually from more limited model ranges.  So FEC has very few units but essentially has a unique sub faction for each of them (e.g. Blisterskin for Crypt Flayers, Gristelgore for MONSTERS, Hollowmourne for Crypt Horrors and Morgaunt for Crypt Ghouls - Fyreslayers has a sub-faction for Magmadroths in Lofnir as another example).  Battalions were another way of doing this but may not be available in 3.0…

 

[MitGas]

49 minutes ago, Televiper11 said:

If we want every unit to have a potential role in a list, expanding armies suddenly becomes a bad idea. Right now, Ironjawz is an army where every unit is viable for list-building, even Ironskullz Boyz. Brutes get taken less than others but still have a purpose and the most minor tweak would make them more viable. But if IJ gets a second wave, you’ll see more useless units. Look at Stormcast, a full 2/3 of that army rarely sees table. I often hear people clamoring for more units but I am semi-opposite in that, partly why I’m such a pro-soup person. Small, incremental additions rather than mass expansions serve armies better. That how you avoid this Wight King/Black Knight problem. Personally, I would’ve squatted Black Knights. Blood Knights are enough.

Might be a stupid question, but isn't introducing a third category for Orruk Warclans not fundamentally worse than say giving IJ and BS a couple of units with minimal overlap to exisiting ones? Like a Megaboss on Gore Grunta or a chariot, or maybe some form of war machines? The Cruel Boys will have their own battleline, fast attack , elites, etc.. We can expect to not see cross-play with Ij and BS usually which now leaves all 3 of them with a rather small number of kits and we'll never get the "complete" army feeling that O&G had with any of them. 

it's the one reason why I'm not a fan of the keywords in the game. You always get pushed in a certain direction and if you want to mix and match you're basically throwing your army's potential away. Let's see how the 3rd edition will change that but I certainly hope that this problem can be addressed in a satisfying manner.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

I generally like AoS's rules.  Speaking purely about core rules, I appreciate that AoS is a sightless needlessly complicated than 40k.  I like the far fewer Command Points as well as a whole host of fewer things to spend them on.  I hope that never changes as I feel 40k stratagems are deep into what was D&D 3rd ed's Feat system that was crazy bloated with tons of fat feats that were highly situational at best, beginner's traps at worst.  I even like the static to Hit and to Wound mechanics as I play a lot of new/take long breaks players where it can be a minute for them to tell me what the Toughness is.  With AoS, its roll the dice pool, take out dice, roll the dice pool, tell the opponent the number of wounds with ___ Rend.  Fast and easy.

I am not much of a fan of Shooting mechanics conceptionally. They feel really odd to me especially given the fantasy genre.  Maybe it is my bias from 40k, other tabletop war games and even D&D, but Shooting in close combat and sniping heroes doesn't match with my idea of a (I see many models as representing dozens if not hundreds of that unit) of a massive fantasy battle.  Which it probably totally on me.  At the same time, many of the Shooting mechanics seem out of place for a small one-for-one skirmish too.

I like the idea of the double-turn.  I certainly will admit it doesn't work as well in an IGOUGO system like AoS.  While I am pro-40k moving away from IGOUGO as I think more modern combat is more fluid, I currently want AoS to keep its turn system as I envision fantasy armies taking some time and effort to change direction once in battle.  However, at the moment there usually isn't any sort of decision point to be made concerning the double-turn.  Given that I believe a game is a series of interesting decision points, that's a shame.  So I do hope the game designers can develop something that doesn't make the double-turn and auto-take.

 

Concerning Battletomes, I am honestly surprised the AoS works as well as it does.  Most games I have seen/played feel like two people blasting energy beams at each other and if either fail to keep the force of their beam or even the angle correct instant vaporization.  Which I don't think the game gets as much credit as it does for that.  Many AoS armies wield immense power compared to many other games I have played yet games often take longer than I would expect to reach the tipping point (that point where it becomes pretty clear who is going to win).  As a more (oxymoron incoming) serious casual player I find that incredible as my gaming group tends to sit around 75% or so of highly optimized.  So even the weakest army can optimize more and still compete.  But I can see how that could be an issue in groups at above 95% optimized play.

There are certainly weaker and stronger external and internal Battletome armies.  At the same time, I have to ask how much is [s]amphibious[/s] Runic Shields worth? Amphibious being from a WWII type game I played where some vehicles could spend points for it.  Crazy good for some tables, useless most the time.  Same idea for Runic Shield's +5 save vs. Mortal Wounds when facing an army that doesn't throw many out, but great against the ones that do (particularly if you have some sort of mutant power I like do making way more than you should).

Not to say there aren't haves and haves nots.  I get rekt'ed when playing Bonereapers as more often than not they are playing the same attrition army I am but better.  I mention Runic Shields because vs. OBR (least the ones I played) it is worthless making my Chaos Warriors/Knights less efficient to their elite skeleton counterparts.  But I don't to the point there is such a difference in damage output as (at least Warriors to Mortek Guard) are quite similar.

[Televiper11]

keywords are a whole different can of words. there are so many random, pointless or redundant ones that I think the keyword system needs a complete overhaul

[yukishiro1]

It honestly feels like the biggest problem is that different books get different amounts of attention. You have high attention books like Lumineth, where the love the author had for the faction is dripping from every page, and then you have low attention books like Soulblight or Slaanesh, where it feels like the author was just checking off boxes. That may or may not be the truth, but the fact that that is the impression created is itself a problem.

AOS desperately needs a high-level quality checker who makes sure to avoid creating that sort of impression. Right now the rules that get produced seem like they are being written by a couple different people who all have very different ideas on what the game is supposed to be. 

Edited May 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[JackStreicher]

The quality is all o er the place, as it has always been since WHF.

It’s frustrating to me that whenever a new book or model is about to drop one has to fear that the warscroll(s) might be utter garbage.

Why is this the case? They have the resources, the manpower and the experience to guarantee that every Warscroll should be fine. Yet this is not the case. It‘s honestly a disgrace.

How can a Warscroll like Black Knights be made and no one realizes that it‘s rubbish until it is too late? GW‘s rule designers are no school boys writing rules for fun, they are professionals. So HOW can such nonsense as bad Warscrolls still exist!?

As a customer I expect a high quality product. This includes the design AND the content, especially since their rules are expensive and GW is one of the last companies that actually charges a premium for rules.

Edited May 28, 2021 by JackStreicher

[Feii]

1 minute ago, JackStreicher said:

The quality is all o er the place, as it has always been since WHF.

It’s frustrating to me that whenever a new book or model is about to drop one has to fear that the warscroll(s) might be utter garbage.

Why is this the case? They have the resources, the manpower and the experience to guarantee that every Warscroll should be fine. Yet this is not the case. It‘s honestly a disgrace.

How can a Warscroll like Black Knights be made and no one realizes that it‘s rubbish until it is too late? GW‘s rule designers are no school boys writing rules for fun, they are professionals. So HOW can such nonsense as bad Warscrolls still exist!?

What QA? 

[JackStreicher]

Just now, Feii said:

QA? 

QA?

[EnumaEilish]

 

5 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

QA?

Quality Assurance, i.e. editing and playtesting.

Edited May 28, 2021 by EnumaEilish

[Feii]

17 minutes ago, EnumaEilish said:

 

Quality Assurance, i.e. editing and playtesting.

It is very sweet of you but I meant to write QC but for some reason didnt. Oh well at least I can pretend it wasnt wrong 🤓

[Neverchosen]

I feel like I am about to contribute no substance to this thread, which honestly matches my M.O. for the most part. 😅

I feel like COVID has really altered my perspective and enjoyment of the game in a strangely negative way. I have not been able to play and it has lead me to look at warscrolls in a purely theoretical mode and I have become much more negatively critical in my appraisal of certain rules than if I were to see the units on the battlefield. For example I am kinda kicking around the idea of a third army for when I am done my BCR army and the possibilities feel endless and one army that peaks my interest is Lumineth. I keep thinking of the criticism the army has received and the archer and magic spam that makes them considered unpleasant to play against. But I mostly want to get some Dawn Riders, Bladelords and maybe a Moontain or a Flying Fox and I don't really plan on spamming anything. Conversely I am interested in Slaanesh as a potential expansion of my Slaves to Darkness and I would absolutely be willing to run Slaangors despite their warscroll. I think of this as a hobby first and a game second but in the recent months of not playing I have weirdly started putting more stock in the views of competitive players when in reality I will run what I like and if a rule is broken or unplayable I will discuss it with my opponent and we can find terms we agree upon. But that is why I enjoy friendly games it lets us decide on certain mechanics and methods of balancing regarding our own skills and armies. But overall I have enjoyed the game and not had the same issues discussed on much of these boards... and my army is likely the least competitive army possible. 

In summation, I have really enjoyed the game and when I am playing with friend's balance is not my biggest concern but over the past few months it is something that has become more of an issue as I think more about the game than play.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Neverchosen

[LeonBox]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

It honestly feels like the biggest problem is that different books get different amounts of attention. You have high attention books like Lumineth, where the love the author had for the faction is dripping from every page, and then you have low attention books like Soulblight or Slaanesh, where it feels like the author was just checking off boxes. That may or may not be the truth, but the fact that that is the impression created is itself a problem.

This is absolutely the case as I see it. Elves historically get all the love from GW (who can forget the Alariellestar days of WHFB High Elves) and the attention lavished upon LRL, including their byzantine ruleset and constant exceptions from established rules (auto-casting, deep-striking to 3", MWs on no-LOS shooting, double activations etc. etc.) makes it feel bad when cool-looking stuff from other factions gets very uninspired rules.

[Phasteon]

5 hours ago, LeonBox said:

This is absolutely the case as I see it. Elves historically get all the love from GW (who can forget the Alariellestar days of WHFB High Elves) and the attention lavished upon LRL, including their byzantine ruleset and constant exceptions from established rules (auto-casting, deep-striking to 3", MWs on no-LOS shooting, double activations etc. etc.) makes it feel bad when cool-looking stuff from other factions gets very uninspired rules.

Well, its hard to argue against that, as some of the LRL rules are literally gamebreaking (e.g. the pile in-restriction of the Hurakan so that they are untouchable for range 1“ melee or the LOS ignoring Mw shooting, or autocasting with such high casting values) but on the other hand I wouldnt call other armies rules „uninspired“ as I think it doesnt do the designers work justice. 

I have not read a single battletome where I thought to myself „wow thats boring“, for me every army has some unique traits and/or abilities - some just dont seem to be that impactful and I think thats something GW needs to adress. 

For example Nighthaunt. 

Their deepstrike / fight ability is potentially more gamebreaking than the LRL activate two units, but its just such a rare case. 

Make it unmodified 9+ after deepstrike and there you go. Every unit that just appeared and charged gets to fight. 

Same with the bravery. Make it stack to -3 or even -6 and/or make it so that units within certain models cant use abilities that lets them ignore battleshock (that sounds borderline broken but tbh I just want it to happen, make - bravery stacking actually scary) 

The rules are there, they are more often than not just not impactful enough whereas shooting without LOS or activating 2 units at a time will very often come to play. 

BUT then again, most of the time its units like Cathallar or Archers in shining company that are picked to fight, so you can really only capitalize on that ability on the offense where LRL struggle imo. 

So its actually a moot point. 

The Ironjawz got a somewhat similar, even stronger rule and I never perceived them being regarded as OP while also having things like D6 move after taking damage, double move for CP and things like +3 charge with 3D6 on buffed Ardboyz. 

What exactly are those armies with uninspired rules and why? 

I‘ve read Soulblight - but why are their rules regarded as unfun/ bad ? 
I think they look fun. 

I‘ve read black knights multiple times, whats wrong with them for example? 

 

I‘m really curious on this because if its an objective point people make and not just blowing steam, there are certainly points to back it up.

[zilberfrid]

I don't like the rules.

I used to say the core game is good, but wording is just too convoluted for that to hold up, and I now have some experience with other wargames.

See every term with "wound" and "damage" in it. It's an awful mess.

Drop based initiative is a bad idea.

Double turn neatly disguises bigger power discrepancues between factions, but yoo much is decided in that single roll.

Bravery is just very bad in general. Equally when suffering it, or efforts to exploit it simply vanish vs some armies (let alone Cathaller).

The core rules, however, are much better than battletomes.

Battletomes are not written to a standard internally (TE vs Phoenicium, the old Petrifex etc) or externally (Lumineth or Seraphon vs others) and can have small additions that anyone should have seen breaks (spell in a bottle).

If playtesting happens, it must be very limited, or its feedback is not processed well.

Battalions need (and luckily receive) a full rework or complete removal. Too much of a have/have not.

Warscrolls better, but not by much. Wildly inconsistent between one another.

Edited May 29, 2021 by zilberfrid

[LeonBox]

57 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Well, its hard to argue against that, as some of the LRL rules are literally gamebreaking (e.g. the pile in-restriction of the Hurakan so that they are untouchable for range 1“ melee or the LOS ignoring Mw shooting, or autocasting with such high casting values) but on the other hand I wouldnt call other armies rules „uninspired“ as I think it doesnt do the designers work justice. 

I have not read a single battletome where I thought to myself „wow thats boring“, for me every army has some unique traits and/or abilities - some just dont seem to be that impactful and I think thats something GW needs to adress. 

For example Nighthaunt. 

Their deepstrike / fight ability is potentially more gamebreaking than the LRL activate two units, but its just such a rare case. 

Make it unmodified 9+ after deepstrike and there you go. Every unit that just appeared and charged gets to fight. 

Same with the bravery. Make it stack to -3 or even -6 and/or make it so that units within certain models cant use abilities that lets them ignore battleshock (that sounds borderline broken but tbh I just want it to happen, make - bravery stacking actually scary) 

The rules are there, they are more often than not just not impactful enough whereas shooting without LOS or activating 2 units at a time will very often come to play. 

BUT then again, most of the time its units like Cathallar or Archers in shining company that are picked to fight, so you can really only capitalize on that ability on the offense where LRL struggle imo. 

So its actually a moot point. 

The Ironjawz got a somewhat similar, even stronger rule and I never perceived them being regarded as OP while also having things like D6 move after taking damage, double move for CP and things like +3 charge with 3D6 on buffed Ardboyz. 

What exactly are those armies with uninspired rules and why? 

I‘ve read Soulblight - but why are their rules regarded as unfun/ bad ? 
I think they look fun. 

I‘ve read black knights multiple times, whats wrong with them for example? 

 

I‘m really curious on this because if its an objective point people make and not just blowing steam, there are certainly points to back it up.

I can only really speak for Slaanesh but the last battletome, whilst massively improving Depravity Point generation and adding some great new units, really dropped the ball on the lore (why do Godseekers and Pretenders still exist when Slaanesh has been found?) and certain warscrolls/battalions (Shardspeakers are support wizards that need to be within striking distance, some battalions require completely anti-synergistic units, the less said about Slaangors the better). There's not too much lore to support the new mortal stuff either -- Hedonites got no novels and the lore in the battletome is in many parts a straight copy-paste from the last one.

Loath as I am to bring LRL up again but the amount of love they got mechanically (2 Battletomes, Aetherquartz special rules, double activation, powerful magic, powerful ranged, powerful melee, bucketloads of mortal wound output, autocasting, free re-roll to magic from terrain piece, free CP from terrain piece, powerful and versatile spell lores, fast units, tough units, strong units, etc. etc. etc.) as well as fluff-wise (novels, Teclis got his own BR book) makes it seem like not all factions are created equal. 

As said, I cannot speak for Soulblight but I've heard a lot of complaints that the vampire heroes are pretty boring with the same 3/3/-1/D3 attack profiles and a dearth of interesting/flavourful rules. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by LeonBox

[Mcthew]

56 minutes ago, LeonBox said:

I can only really speak for Slaanesh but the last battletome, whilst massively improving Depravity Point generation and adding some great new units, really dropped the ball on the lore (why do Godseekers and Pretenders still exist when Slaanesh has been found?) and certain warscrolls/battalions (Shardspeakers are support wizards that need to be within striking distance, some battalions require completely anti-synergistic units, the less said about Slaangors the better). There's not too much lore to support the new mortal stuff either -- Hedonites got no novels and the lore in the battletome is in many parts a straight copy-paste from the last one.

Loath as I am to bring LRL up again but the amount of love they got mechanically (2 Battletomes, Aetherquartz special rules, double activation, powerful magic, powerful ranged, powerful melee, bucketloads of mortal wound output, autocasting, free re-roll to magic from terrain piece, free CP from terrain piece, powerful and versatile spell lores, fast units, tough units, strong units, etc. etc. etc.) as well as fluff-wise (novels, Teclis got his own BR book) makes it seem like not all factions are created equal. 

As said, I cannot speak for Soulblight but I've heard a lot of complaints that the vampire heroes are pretty boring with the same 3/3/-1/D3 attack profiles and a dearth of interesting/flavourful rules. 

Also loathed to bring up LRL, but it encapsulates the problems of GWs business model which relies wholly on the loyalty/addiction towards the hobby. (Which is not pleasant really, because that leans towards exploitation).

LRL are a heavily invested new faction, great for players who like aelves/elves/cows/Monkey Magic/competitive play/overpowered factions. But for everyone else it shows what you don't have - and boy does that suck. Because you cling on to the belief that GW will show your faction some love, pray they don't nerf it because they want you to buy the new models, or they have someone who can't write interesting and playable rules, turn what you love playing into a dull mess.

But... And here's the rub... While LRL have their time in the sun (and admittedly it is blindingly bright for them at the moment) they will experience the fall probably in the next 2 years, and quite dramatically given the rules have them flying higher than most factions with models to match (aside from the cow-fu stuff that is 😆).

Honestly though, it's this, and what happened to Petrifix OBR, and everything else that GW turns their hand to at the moment that gives me pause whenever I think about buying a new faction. I don't know if it's just me but it feels like it's being sold like the addiction they know it is. And we gobble it up without a thought to investment.

Which leaves a sour taste. The more this community moves to preserving the good of AoS, ignoring the hype, the next new thing, homebrewing proper rules etc the better for the hobby, rather than for GW - who might supply the game and models... but remember, it is us, the players, that keeps the game alive.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Mcthew

[PrimeElectrid]

8 hours ago, LeonBox said:

This is absolutely the case as I see it. Elves historically get all the love from GW (who can forget the Alariellestar days of WHFB High Elves) and the attention lavished upon LRL, including their byzantine ruleset and constant exceptions from established rules (auto-casting, deep-striking to 3", MWs on no-LOS shooting, double activations etc. etc.) makes it feel bad when cool-looking stuff from other factions gets very uninspired rules.

Elves get all the love historically? 6th edition Dark Elves and 7th-8th edition Wood Elves would like a word.

High Elves on the other hand...

Edited May 29, 2021 by PrimeElectrid

[Greybeard86]

@Mcthew it is a very fine balance, for a company, between making their product known and showcasing vs manipulating people with marketing. Excitement over cool new things is very human, but exploiting it to bypass rational consumers (I.e. large piles of shame from overbuying) is poor behavior, in my opinion. 
 

This is not an exclusive problem to miniatures, we see it everywhere. GW though has even more control over it by virtue of integrating world building, production, and sales. In general, corporations have become very powerful wrt consumers and they can muster lots of resources to “fool us”. They can employ lots of people working constantly to bypass our rational judgement, to investigate our blinspots, and ultimately get us to do things we wouldn’t necessarily want to do. For example, via product placement in supermarkets. I am sure you know it can get pretty sophisticated. 
 

Yes, it does leave a bad taste when we perceive a company leaning too much on the “dark arms”. But generally speaking it is very tough for us to detect it and guard our wallets. That’s why I think that now more than ever we need to be extremely careful with purchases and set lots of rules to fight our impulses, which are so easy to manipulate. Hobby budgets, not buying more before finishing the previous, and other things like that should be an integral part of the hobby. It does suck to have to be do guarded but that’s the world we live in.

[MitGas]

15 hours ago, Televiper11 said:

keywords are a whole different can of words. there are so many random, pointless or redundant ones that I think the keyword system needs a complete overhaul

Thank you, I also think that is something they should change one day. Would make for far more varied lists.

[Greybeard86]

9 minutes ago, MitGas said:

Thank you, I also think that is something they should change one day. Would make for far more varied lists.

Yes, please. Keyword radicalization really kills some super fun varied lists. When will I be able to field my trolls and gobbos together?

[LeonBox]

1 hour ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Elves get all the love historically? 6th edition Dark Elves and 7th-8th edition Wood Elves would like a word.

High Elves on the other hand...

Alright yes, specifically High Elves. 8th edition Dark Elves were pretty mean as well though, though they were easier to counter than High Elves.