AoS complexity/rules bloat

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Killax said:

- Open Play would massively benifit from having some clear restrictions, also in terms of faction quantity. These are newer players looking for fun.

Open yet... restricted. What? 

 

- Narrative Play would massively benifit from having some set randomisation, especially ingame. These are players looking for stories.

This is can already be handled elegantly by having these kinds of effects written directly into narrative-focused battleplans and time of war rules. There's really no need to add more layers of rules onto Narrative Play.

 

- Matched Play would massively benifit from additional restrictive rules, especially in army building. These are players looking for competative games and balance. 

Perfect balance in a game with this scope and variety is impossible. Adding more 'restrictive' army composition rules will just end up unbalancing the game in a different direction, whilst potentially sucking the fun out of collecting and building the units you like. The only way to properly balance AoS would be to cut down the number of factions to maybe 6 or less and drastically reduce the disparity in the various unit stats and abilities - and who wants that? Fewer rules and a better streamlined framework lead to better balance. Anyone who relishes the addition of new layers of complexity in the rules whilst also bemoaning the lack of balance in the game needs to think about the relationship between those two things and decide which they value more.

Also, if you don't mind your army building options being restricted and enjoy perfect balance, might I recommend a game called 'chess'? 

[Killax]

Just now, Jamie the Jasper said:

Open yet... restricted. What? 

 

This is can already be handled elegantly by having these kinds of effects written directly into narrative-focused battleplans and time of war rules. There's really no need to add more layers of rules onto Narrative Play.

 

Perfect balance in a game with this scope and variety is impossible. Adding more 'restrictive' army composition rules will just end up unbalancing the game in a different direction, whilst potentially sucking the fun out of collecting and building the units you like. The only way to properly balance AoS would be to cut down the number of factions to maybe 6 or less and drastically reduce the disparity in the various unit stats and abilities - and who wants that? Fewer rules and a better streamlined framework lead to better balance. Anyone who relishes the addition of new layers of complexity in the rules whilst also bemoaning the lack of balance in the game needs to think about the relationship between those two things and decide which they value more.

Also, if you don't mind your army building options being restricted and enjoy perfect balance, might I recommend a game called 'chess'? 

Yes, not difficult. Do you understand how complicated Open play becomes? Everything goes is not the type of game players are used to. Open Play isn't what made Age of Sigmar as succesful as what it is. SCGT and NEON tournaments are not Open Play games  

Uh... writing narrative focused battleplans and time of war rules are adding more layers of rules onto Narrative Play...

Good balance is easily applied and we see it. Perfect balance again is not what I'm looking for at all. Adding restrictions is not unbalancing anything. Look at how well points are applied and clearly balance the game to a level where larger tournaments can run good with them. 
New players want a cut down number of factions, because if you like Dwarfs you shouldn't have to obtain 5 different books to know what Dwarfs do. Same applies to Khorne, Nurgle and Tzeentch if you want to split them up as each their own splinter factions. Nobody gains anything if we'd have Mortals of Khorne, Daemons of Khorne, Khorne Bloodbound, Pestilence Skaven, Nurgle Daemons, Nurgle Blightkings, Mortals of Nurgle, Mortals of Tzeentch, Desciples of Tzeentch and Daemons of Khorne all in their seperate battletome's. It's frankly obnoxious to do this. 

If your unable to realize how important rules and thus restrictions are to a game you clearly know very little about what draws players into a game.
It doesn't matter how casual the player is, if you make a cash game by you bring what you own vs I bring what I own the fun is quickly gone. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

2 hours ago, Killax said:

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. 

I was reading through the Blades of Khorne book, and was looking for reference where Slaves to Darkness would work in the army, and it didn't specifically state that they could.  It is just implied that any Khorne Mortal would work in certain places, which is fine, I guess.  But an example would be nice.

5 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

...

Anyone who relishes the addition of new layers of complexity in the rules whilst also bemoaning the lack of balance in the game needs to think about the relationship between those two things and decide which they value more.

Also, if you don't mind your army building options being restricted and enjoy perfect balance, might I recommend a game called 'chess'? 

Adding in different rules will change the balance, not necessarily make it closer to balanced.  Further complexity is fine in Age of Sigmar, as the base rules are so simple and abstract that further refinement doesn't change the way the game is played, but rather how strong certain units can be.  Changing points values is easy to do, as is making a simple change to a casting value for a spell.  The way the General's Handbook presented the new ways to play for Age of Sigmar is very modular, and all the versions can be used in various combinations together.  For example, an Open game where everyone brings everything, and everything wiped out can come back in - whoever killed the most points wins.  Or for my Narrative campaign I am working on, there are ways to get one-time use bonuses to army size in your games, so it is a mechanic that can be used anywhere.

The layers of complexity can make the game more or less balanced, sure.  But by having these extra modules of rules (base rules, General's Handbook, Battletomes, and house-rules) we can pick and choose whichever ones work for our games, which is the point. I for one am not worried too much about balance, but rather having fun with my opponents.  And besides, not many chess players would appreciate me yelling "Waaagh!" as I attack with my king or queen pieces

[Guest]

1 minute ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

Adding in different rules will change the balance, not necessarily make it closer to balanced.  Further complexity is fine in Age of Sigmar, as the base rules are so simple and abstract that further refinement doesn't change the way the game is played, but rather how strong certain units can be.  Changing points values is easy to do, as is making a simple change to a casting value for a spell.  The way the General's Handbook presented the new ways to play for Age of Sigmar is very modular, and all the versions can be used in various combinations together.  For example, an Open game where everyone brings everything, and everything wiped out can come back in - whoever killed the most points wins.  Or for my Narrative campaign I am working on, there are ways to get one-time use bonuses to army size in your games, so it is a mechanic that can be used anywhere.

Yep, I agree for the most part. My only reservation, which others have already touched on, is that elements that are supposedly modular or optional have a tendency to creep very quickly towards being the de facto standard. If these modular elements are truly modular and optional then rules bloat is a complete non-issue - bloat away! But if more elements keep being added and then absorbed into the generally accepted model of what a 'standard' game looks like, then that is rules bloat by definition IMO.

 

The layers of complexity can make the game more or less balanced, sure.  But by having these extra modules of rules (base rules, General's Handbook, Battletomes, and house-rules) we can pick and choose whichever ones work for our games, which is the point. I for one am not worried too much about balance, but rather having fun with my opponents. 

 

I'm not worried about balance either. I was just making a general observation that the people who crave balance are often the same people who crave greater complexity, which makes the game harder to balance. Especially if you have multiple layers of optional, modular rules - how can a unit's points value possibly take into account the advantages and abilities it may or may not gain depending on which modules are being used? It can't. The more layers of optional rules there are, the more meaningless a fixed points value becomes.

 

And besides, not many chess players would appreciate me yelling "Waaagh!" as I attack with my king or queen pieces

Well obviously. You only shout "Waaagh!" when you move the bishop.

[BunkhouseBuster]

3 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

...

I'm not worried about balance either. I was just making a general observation that the people who crave balance are often the same people who crave greater complexity, which makes the game harder to balance. Especially if you have multiple layers of optional, modular rules - how can a unit's points value possibly take into account the advantages and abilities it may or may not gain depending on which modules are being used? It can't. The more layers of optional rules there are, the more meaningless a fixed points value becomes.

I hear you, and that's where 40K fell apart in 7th edition bloat - formations upon formations that did nothing except give bonuses to units.  Sure, some of them wanted you to take weaker units, but the combos achieved with that is what killed 40K for me.

In Age of Sigmar, most Battalions cost at least some points of your army, so that is helpful right there.  It might be more effective to make it X-points per unit in the Battalion, but it's implemented better than 40K (IMHO).  Plus, the modules of rules are kinda internally balanced - if one army gets artifacts and allegiance abilities, then both do.  I do think that having the choice of artifacts and abilities may be a bit broken in some places, but having a points costs or other limit on some of them might be the fix.

3 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Well obviously. You only shout "Waaagh!" when you move the bishop.

That's what I've been doing wrong!

[Popisdead]

11 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. 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.

But that hasn't ever changed for rules bloat and it is an issue in every game I've seen (Flames of War, Warmahordes, etc).  Army books extend special rules and sometimes some real curveballs are thrown out there.  In 6th and 7th ed I constantly heard "buy every codex" which was $30 a pop for 16 armies and there was 40k.  That person who wants to do that can.  The person who wants to enjoy playing their army and just asks what they need to know before and in the first few turns of a game can also get by.

In AoS those are now all encapsulated (apart from some special rules, artifacts, etc) in one app freely available to all.  

House rules are also the fault of the tournament.  We have some house-rules but it doesn't effect the game in too drastic of a situation if forgotten in pick up games.

I fully disagree with "obnoxious and too much".  To me that seems too over-the-top a statement.  Maybe the tournament gamers see it differently than I do but I have about a dozen opponents and they aren't buying a new army a month.  All of us in fact are still using our armies from previous editions with only a few new purchases at best.  After a few games, like in any game system you pick these up and maybe learn a new thing once a week/month/game but I don't see this as too much or obnoxious.

[Trout]

2 hours ago, Killax said:

Yes, not difficult. Do you understand how complicated Open play becomes? Everything goes is not the type of game players are used to. Open Play isn't what made Age of Sigmar as succesful as what it is. SCGT and NEON tournaments are not Open Play games  

Uh... writing narrative focused battleplans and time of war rules are adding more layers of rules onto Narrative Play...

Good balance is easily applied and we see it. Perfect balance again is not what I'm looking for at all. Adding restrictions is not unbalancing anything. Look at how well points are applied and clearly balance the game to a level where larger tournaments can run good with them. 
New players want a cut down number of factions, because if you like Dwarfs you shouldn't have to obtain 5 different books to know what Dwarfs do. Same applies to Khorne, Nurgle and Tzeentch if you want to split them up as each their own splinter factions. Nobody gains anything if we'd have Mortals of Khorne, Daemons of Khorne, Khorne Bloodbound, Pestilence Skaven, Nurgle Daemons, Nurgle Blightkings, Mortals of Nurgle, Mortals of Tzeentch, Desciples of Tzeentch and Daemons of Khorne all in their seperate battletome's. It's frankly obnoxious to do this. 

If your unable to realize how important rules and thus restrictions are to a game you clearly know very little about what draws players into a game.
It doesn't matter how casual the player is, if you make a cash game by you bring what you own vs I bring what I own the fun is quickly gone. 

Your opinions are valid and worth considering. However, they are your opinions. You keep claiming to speak for what is "consensus" or what "players want" despite the fact that others have stepped in to disagree with you in every instance.

 

I believe your views reflect the views of other like-minded people and that such people are a valuable subset of the AOS population whose opinions should be taken seriously. But you don't speak for any sort of consensus and are not channeling what "players want" or what "draws people into a game". You are merely sharing your own personal opinions.

 

Some of us are drawn to the game based on the aesthetics of the models. Others are drawn to the game based on the camaraderie of the community. Others are drawn to the game based on a love of high fantasy. Others are drawn to the game due to the painting and collecting aspect of army building. Others are drawn to the game because they fell in love with the lore first. There are countless reasons people play and many different types of players. You don't speak for everyone, there is no consensus, and you don't have some kind of inside track on  "what players want". You just have your own opinions. They are valid and valuable and deserve to be considered, but they are your opinions.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Trout said:

Some of us are drawn to the game based on the aesthetics of the models. Others are drawn to the game based on the camaraderie of the community. Others are drawn to the game based on a love of high fantasy. Others are drawn to the game due to the painting and collecting aspect of army building. Others are drawn to the game because they fell in love with the lore first. There are countless reasons people play and many different types of players. You don't speak for everyone, there is no consensus, and you don't have some kind of inside track on  "what players want". You just have your own opinions. They are valid and valuable and deserve to be considered, but they are your opinions.

Everybody playing Age of Sigmar is drawn to the aesthetics of the models, meta (camaraderie), high fantasy, painting and game. I'm not suggesting else.
What players want is to have is more depth, available to all, have a good look at the sub-forums if you don't believe that. The first step of this was how the General's Handbook drastically improved interest in Age of Sigmar, the second step of this is how newer Battletome's cover bonusses for specialisation.

The suggestion that some this wouldn't apply to any fan of Age of Sigmar is just false. Not only do people want more, they also are very clearly stating as such on several social media. The repeated downside of this is that this adds depth that AoS initial Rules wern't designed for. Hence the FAQs being larger as the actual Rulesset. 

So in order to reduce the option of 100 Battletome's I am 100% certain multiple sub-factions blending would be the healthiest development for the game. As a result I hope that the upcomming editions will do so (again). 

[rokapoke]

28 minutes ago, Killax said:

Everybody playing Age of Sigmar is drawn to the aesthetics of the models, meta (camaraderie), high fantasy, painting and game. I'm not suggesting else.
What players want is to have is more depth, available to all, have a good look at the sub-forums if you don't believe that. The first step of this was how the General's Handbook drastically improved interest in Age of Sigmar, the second step of this is how newer Battletome's cover bonusses for specialisation.

I was drawn to Age of Sigmar for the game and the fantasy setting (not the lore, but the fact that there's elves and demons and whatnot). Not painting. Not the models (though I certainly appreciate that more now). As has been said by others, saying "everybody this" or "everybody that" is clearly going to be inaccurate, so please do not generalize on my behalf.

From my perspective, the bonuses for specialization that are now included in all Battletomes are (effectively) required not necessarily due to player demand, but because a precedent was set in the first General's Handbook that special abilities can be used. Some were clearly better than others (apparently Battle Brew is a shining example of this) or that certain things are useless for some armies (e.g., the battleshock test shenanigans for Order with a Lord-Celestant on Dracoth general), but regardless, the Sylvaneth book came out at nearly the same time -- specialization bonuses have become the norm whether or not the player base as a whole (and it doesn't matter if it was "everybody", a majority, or a minority, because it happened) clamored for it.

[wayniac]

4 hours ago, Auticus said:

I know a few people that enjoy open play.  Their mindset is not competitive though.  A competitive player will never understand why someone would enjoy open games.  Even if they are just a little competitive.  Open play is the opposite of competitive.

This is mainly because, I notice the competitive players are the first to cry "But it's not faaaaaaaaaair!" if someone gets something they don't, and then grumble about how it's not "balanced" (meaning parity) in everything from army points, to army restrictions, to scenario.  I'm surprised they don't try to enforce one particular type of dice to ensure it's "fair".

[Trout]

14 hours ago, Killax said:

Everybody playing Age of Sigmar is drawn to the aesthetics of the models, meta (camaraderie), high fantasy, painting and game. I'm not suggesting else.
What players want is to have is more depth, available to all, have a good look at the sub-forums if you don't believe that. The first step of this was how the General's Handbook drastically improved interest in Age of Sigmar, the second step of this is how newer Battletome's cover bonusses for specialisation.

The suggestion that some this wouldn't apply to any fan of Age of Sigmar is just false. Not only do people want more, they also are very clearly stating as such on several social media. The repeated downside of this is that this adds depth that AoS initial Rules wern't designed for. Hence the FAQs being larger as the actual Rulesset. 

So in order to reduce the option of 100 Battletome's I am 100% certain multiple sub-factions blending would be the healthiest development for the game. As a result I hope that the upcomming editions will do so (again). 

Wow...your response is to double down on the idea that you have the authority to speak for everyone and can tell us all what we want even though people repeatedly disagree with you.

 

I give up...

[Killax]

11 minutes ago, Trout said:

Wow...your response is to double down on the idea that you have the authority to speak for everyone and can tell us all what we want even though people repeatedly disagree with you.

 

I give up...

You gave up a while ago in my eyes. This topic isn't about us agreeing, it's about rules bloat. Unfortunatly not a single post of you in this topic actually goes into how to reduce it or how it can become an issue in the future if it allready isn't an issue to begin with.

If you want to go on and on about off-topic chats, feel free to PM.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Killax said:

What players want is to have is more depth, available to all, have a good look at the sub-forums if you don't believe that.

You say depth, I say complexity. I know plenty of people, myself included, that feel the game had sufficient depth at launch due to the wide variety of special abilities already present on each unit's warscroll, along with battalions, time of war rules and highly varied battleplans. Allegiance abilities, artifacts, prayers and all the rest of it add flavour and I can understand why GW perhaps felt pressured to add them, but they're certainly not something that everyone was clamouring for. Everyone in your bubble maybe, but not in mine.

 

The first step of this was how the General's Handbook drastically improved interest in Age of Sigmar, the second step of this is how newer Battletome's cover bonusses for specialisation.

Regardless of how many people jumped on board with the General's Handbook, the very existence of an enthusiastic and steadily growing community in the year prior to its release fundamentally undercuts your unsupported assertion that everyone craves more 'depth'. It shows that at least some people were satisfied with the level of complexity present in the base game. What proportion of the current community this mindset represents is irrelevant, because even if it's 1% it proves that your claim that 100% of players crave additional rules is bogus, and you really need to stop stating it as fact.

 

The suggestion that some this wouldn't apply to any fan of Age of Sigmar is just false. Not only do people want more, they also are very clearly stating as such on several social media.

How many people play AoS? A few hundred-thousand maybe? Tens of thousands? Tell you what, show me just 1000 clear examples of active AoS players stating that they want more rules added to the game, and I'll accept everything that you say. Until then I don't see why anyone should just take your word for it, with respect.

 

1 hour ago, Killax said:

You gave up a while ago in my eyes. This topic isn't about us agreeing, it's about rules bloat. 

So people don't have to agree with you, but you do reserve the right to be irritable, defensive and keep repeating the same unsupported claim over and over when they don't blindly accept everything you say as fact? I think you may be contradicting yourself there matey.

[Killax]

55 minutes ago, Auticus said:

This conversation is turning into a warseer poo flinging thread.  Can we get back on topic and just agree to disagree and keep things chill?

Certainly. As above, the topic isn't about agreeing or dissagreeing.
What is important to keep in mind is how development of Age of Sigmar is the only logical consequence you have if you present a new game, like Games Workshop did with Age of Sigmar. As above it isn't a discussion about if this is good or bad.

Once the rules bloat would stop, you'd see that a game is finished. As simple as that. As we see several other boardgames who are finished. One of the prime reasons we can say that this is not the approach Games Workshop is going for with Age of Sigmar can be seen in the products they sell. We allready do not have acces to Tomb Kings or Brettionia through GW's stores or website. We do see a lot of models who are intended and designed for Age of Sigmar alone and these logically will need to recieve new rules.

The easiest way to still keep rulesbloat in check thus is by combining several sub-factions that logically can be one larger faction also. In no way am I upset that Kharadon Overlords does not include other Duaradin but it would be very helpful for newer players if Games Workshop would have included them into a larger Duaradin book. There are currently three examples who are developed this way and despite them having a lot of rules, they are still contained in one booklet, so looking for them does not become an issue. This issue, 'open information' becomes appareant if you do require your own Battletome/Warscrolls, the Generals Handbook, FAQ on AoS, FAQ on Generals Handbook and FAQ on your specific Alliance. We see this being a common trend for Death and Destruction now. For lack of better terms, not having this information into one place simply leads to confusion. 

Wether or not you like new rules is irrelevant to Games Workshop. What is relevant is to continue interest in Age of Sigmar, which they are doing by presenting new content. This new content will continue, thus so will the rulesbloat. My vote as a result remains to have less sub-factions and more logically combine some.
- Even the sub/specialist Allegiance rules become confusing the way they are presented now. Because a simple Khorne army can have the Chaos Allegiance, Khorne Allegiance, Khorne Daemon Allegiance, Khorne Bloodbound Allegiance or Khorne Mortal Allegiance. 
Such bloat could easily be reduced by simply adding a note to Skullmaster to have X Bloodcrushers be Battleline in the same army, Lord of Khorne on jugger to have X Skullcrushers be Battleline etc.

All in all I do not feel Battleline adds too much to the game anymore if GW wants to promote that every Unit is a cool unit to thake. They are very succesful in doing this by creating solid rules for the mayority of units.

Cheers,

[KnightFire]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

The easiest way to still keep rulesbloat in check thus is by combining several sub-factions that logically can be one larger faction also. In no way am I upset that Kharadon Overlords does not include other Duaradin but it would be very helpful for newer players if Games Workshop would have included them into a larger Duaradin book. There are currently three examples who are developed this way and despite them having a lot of rules, they are still contained in one booklet, so looking for them does not become an issue. This issue, 'open information' becomes appareant if you do require your own Battletome/Warscrolls, the Generals Handbook, FAQ on AoS, FAQ on Generals Handbook and FAQ on your specific Alliance. We see this being a common trend for Death and Destruction now. For lack of better terms, not having this information into one place simply leads to confusion. 
 

I don't see how combining factions together reduces rules bloat? If sub-faction A has 11 warscrolls and B has 18, if you publish them together or separately that is still 29 warscrolls. 

I don't see war scrolls as "rules" as such, in the same way that MTG cards aren't each a rule. The warscrolls have some rules on them, but you only need to know for any particular game, the main rules, any house rules in play (such as the matched play rules, time of war etc), the rules from the warscrolls and the scenario. It takes a few minutes to think about each game, but if you ask any decent player then they will tell you that is what they do (and why they play practice games of new scenarios). 

I would also argue that all the information is in one place - it is all in the age of sigmar app, and nothing stops you combining it into refernce sheets (as I do). For each of my armies I produce a two sided A4 side of paper which has every rule and stat that I need to know for that army, split down by the phase that I have to remember about it in. It works really well while your getting used to the army, and then continues to be a good reference going forward.

 

edit: a couple of people have asked about the reference sheets - here is an example

[Travis Baumann]

That is a cool reference sheet but that only covers 4 heroes and no units... and whether you want to call them "abilities" or "rules" or just adjustment to rules or exceptions to rules.. whatever.. it is a lot of information that will be compounded by any special abilities or other items that come with the units themselves.

This is further compounded by Battle Traits, Command Traits, Artefacts, etc. so you could end up with quite a few sheets of paper to have to glance through during a game.  Yes, much better than flipping through books or swiping through pages on a tablet/phone but still a lot of stuff.

I have only recently gotten into AoS and from a new-comer to the game but not the hobby, I am absolutely in for complexity, depth, abilities, magic items, and all of that good stuff.  My biggest complaint is that it was not easy to find half of the information on any given army and even though I sort of got it, I always feel I am missing something.

I started with the hardcover Age of Sigmar - Never Ending battles book.  Cool stories, basic rules, lots of battle plans, and an intro to war scrolls. 

I then got the starter box.  Different book but mostly the same stuff covered.  

I got on these sites, Scroll builder, eventually the App and I could not figure out where all of the points, artefacts, traits, or battalion info was - this is in No Way explained via the APP or any of the above books.

I bought the Grand Alliance: Chaos book.  None of the things I was looking for are in there!  It has a few pages of fluff (which I love by the way, that is not a criticism, in fact would like more) and lots and lots of war scrolls.

I bought the General's Handbook - Finally!  I found the pages on artefacts, traits, and points!  I kept wondering though, does  that make the info in the above books obsolete?  Are all of the traits and abilities accounted for in the points?  I still don't fully understand summoning it seems.  Battalions are confusing as I see them in the App but they are all locked, even the ones for books I have bought. 

That was a lot of books to buy and go through before I found how to make a freaking army!  How about make it easy for someone new to get into the hobby?  Sure, sure, all you need is the four page rules and some models.  That did not feel like a game of Warhammer to me at all.  I used to play WHFB and 40K since the late '80's and understood how to build armies and I just couldn't "play with whatever".  I needed more structure.  The General's Handbook fixed all that in a way, but a weird Band-Aid sort of way that I didn't even realize I needed to buy and no one at the shops directed me that way, they just let me buy all of these other books.  I think GW would do themselves a favor if they made a comprehensive list of "getting started" and broke down for the new player or whatever the different stages/modules that you need to know.

In terms of moving forward, my biggest fear is that with each new Battle Tome they will constantly try to come up with new cool things to do with the brand new figures.. case in point the Overlords... now we have a super shooty flying army.   How that actually works with other armies remains to be seen but it felt a bit like a different game for a moment when I was reading through the White Dwarf they are on the cover of.  They look pretty damn cool but in all honesty, tons of shooting and bombs and aerial stuff is not exactly what I was hoping for in AoS.

Codex Power Creep is tough to deal with for any army that either has a really old codex/battle tome let alone armies that do not have one at all.  Having a "living rule set" or whatever is a great idea but with added factions and what not, each "recollecting of points and FAQ's" will take that much longer and may not even be fixable by points adjustments.  Saying that and still having massive amounts of Battle Tomes arriving that may or may not have rules adjustments after the fact is still an issue.

If they actually had all of the rules in one place (I am including abilities, traits, artefacts, etc as rules in this context) then it would not be as big of a deal as anyone new, or even long time players interested in what is new, could easily access them and understand how to make good army building decisions for not only a faction they have already invested heavily in, but one they may be interested in getting into (and that doesn't even get in to the competitive player that wants to investigate how opponents forces work).

 

 

 

[KnightFire]

That is a cool reference sheet but that only covers 4 heroes and no units... and whether you want to call them "abilities" or "rules" or just adjustment to rules or exceptions to rules.. whatever.. it is a lot of information that will be compounded by any special abilities or other items that come with the units themselves.
This is further compounded by Battle Traits, Command Traits, Artefacts, etc. so you could end up with quite a few sheets of paper to have to glance through during a game
 
 
 

That is only one side. The units are on the other side, and if you look closely you will see that all the unit abilities, battle traits, artefacts and command traits are included. Everything fits on two sides of a4.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[rokapoke]

26 minutes ago, Travis Baumann said:

I think GW would do themselves a favor if they made a comprehensive list of "getting started" and broke down for the new player or whatever the different stages/modules that you need to know.

Try this out: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/getting-started-with-age-of-sigmar-ENG

I'm not sure to what extent it refers to the General's Handbook (I think they came out almost at the same time), but it's a good introduction into what goes into building an army and the different aspects of The Hobby^TM. It's possible that making something like this an annual release would be worthwhile, but I think (as you say) a comprehensive list -- maybe a "pinned" post on the Warhammer Community website -- would be a great tool for beginners.

That said, I picked up AoS with zero tabletop gaming experience and I picked up on the various "necessities" -- but it basically boils down to buying the General's Handbook; everything else is less critical when it comes to army-building guidelines. Yes, the battletome for your chosen faction is worthwhile to have for fluff and/or battalions, but otherwise you don't need to buy anything but models.

[Killax]

20 hours ago, KnightFire said:

I don't see how combining factions together reduces rules bloat? If sub-faction A has 11 warscrolls and B has 18, if you publish them together or separately that is still 29 warscrolls. 

I don't see war scrolls as "rules" as such, in the same way that MTG cards aren't each a rule. The warscrolls have some rules on them, but you only need to know for any particular game, the main rules, any house rules in play (such as the matched play rules, time of war etc), the rules from the warscrolls and the scenario. It takes a few minutes to think about each game, but if you ask any decent player then they will tell you that is what they do (and why they play practice games of new scenarios). 

I would also argue that all the information is in one place - it is all in the age of sigmar app, and nothing stops you combining it into refernce sheets (as I do). For each of my armies I produce a two sided A4 side of paper which has every rule and stat that I need to know for that army, split down by the phase that I have to remember about it in. It works really well while your getting used to the army, and then continues to be a good reference going forward.

As I see rules putting massive importance on the use of Keywords and most Keywords as a result are becomming abilities and Abilities themself are all worded and differently ruled I see a Warscroll as a collection of several rules, so you might ask yourself, what is the gain in combining them?
The awnser to that is very simple, you combine Warscrolls with Keywords that are relevant for a certain army (synergy) this is found in adding Battle Trait for specific armies, Artefacts for specific Heroes with specific Keywords and spells for Heroes with specific Keywords. Meaning you present the combination options into one booklet.
The advantage of this is that players are drawn to certain types of models anyway and Games Workshop is doing a really good job in creating them as such that they really fit one another well visually.
So what you do is simply have a newer player make aware of how many models like it there are available and how many other models they might like to include aswell. Desciples of Tzeentch and Blades of Khorne are perfect examples of this. The fact that Kharadron Overlords skipped out on Fyreslayers leaves the suggestion that all Duaradin are ranged and vechicle focused, while they most certainly are not. So it would have been the perfect option to include Fyreslayers into that aswell and have a big book of models to choose from as opposed to splinter factions.

So no, Warscrolls arn't rules, Keywords, Abilities, Attack and Character profiles are, on top of all the Core rules/Open play, rules provided for Narrative and Matched play. For certain types of play more rules are added in several ways. 
Again the fact that you have to obtain a Battletome for some factions and still have to acquire a General's Handbook, FAQ, other Battletomes and older Warscrolls is just not easy to process. The more booklets you stack, the more the question should become, why arn't we logically combining this? 

The app is great but if GW wanted to only focus on that they would stop producing actual books and warscroll packages. The app provides little to nothing for Narrative play and this is exactly where Age of Sigmar revolves around (without Narrative, no logical Battalions or Artefacts or general army composition).  Lastly your sheet looks fine, though the exclusion of Keywords also makes it a trimmed version of the actual rules. A non-functional trimmed version. 

[KnightFire]

8 minutes ago, Killax said:

So no, Warscrolls arn't rules, Keywords, Abilities, Attack and Character profiles are, on top of all the Core rules/Open play, rules provided for Narrative and Matched play. For certain types of play more rules are added in several ways. 
Again the fact that you have to obtain a Battletome for some factions and still have to acquire a General's Handbook, FAQ, other Battletomes and older Warscrolls is just not easy to process. The more booklets you stack, the more the question should become, why arn't we logically combining this? 

 

I think the answer to "why aren't we logically combining this" is that AoS is not a game system based on a collection of books that once released are static (like previous editions were). It is a evolving system, where GW can (and do) go back and add new splash releases to races that are already out, or make changes (or even issue completely new books that supercede old ones) to existing factions or rules. They do this because it makes good commercial sense, when they design a model that they think people will want to buy, they want to be able to get it to market immediately, not leave it on a shelf for two years because it will have to wait for the next Tzeentch book...

GW don't want to have a "set in stone" (or even paper) set of rules for anything that they can't easily go back and change, the app/the rules on the GW site are the "source of truth" and can be updated at any time. I think a lot of people are still to adjust to this mind-set, that we aren't going to see a steady march of army books (one for each faction, or at least most factions) followed by a new edition of AoS, and then the cycle begins again. At some point GW may (for example with the GHB 2.0) rewrite the core rules and GHB rules to make some of the FAQs irrelevant, and issue some warscrolls (to also include better wording based on FAQs), but it is much more of an itterative process, and that doesn't lend itself well to trying to produce big bang releases that combine everything (but are made obsolete 3 weeks later).

[Killax]

@KnightFire So far there is very little actually changed in between. If the sole page of AoS books that is changing is the single Matched play page in the end of the book, I'd be totally fine with that. One of the prime reasons as to why no costs are printed on the Warscrolls is to allow them to change that aswell. More importantly, the most important tules; Keywords remained largely unchanged. 
The biggest changes I've seen in Blades of Khorne for example where made to allow for better Blood Tithe synergy, though the essence of the Ability is completely unchanged for many if not all Units. The biggest exception is how Murderous Charge now has an additional effect as opposed to different effect.

Rotating or making larger collections of rules also have nothing to do with 'setting things in stone' again all it does is inform a possible new player with all the Warscrolls they have available for their specific race/sub-allegiance/faction. Simple and deep in Narrative. 
Because we arn't going to see a steady march of army books it's all the more important to incorporate as much into them as that would make logicially (from a Narrative perspective) make sence. 

 

[Aeryenn]

I will copy my post from another thread as it fits perfectly this one as well.

In my opinion each and every unit should have at least two skills/special rules, with heroes having 3-5, and special rules for faction. That makes them more easily adapt to current situation and opponent. There is this video game - Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War 2. Every unit had some skill or/and upgrades. I remember that basic Guardian squad from Eldar race could play various roles on the battlefield thanks to its skills: using fleet on foot it was perfect as an early game scout unit. Placing shields made them hold ground and defend important places. Granades where perfect for destroying tougher enemies as well as bringing panic to enemy lines. There was also the fourth skill that increased their survavility. And that's just one unit from one faction. Each and every hero had like 8-10 upgrades that gave him new skills, weapons or armor making him play different roles.

Keeping in mind that a miniature game is not so easily variable (we need to buy new minis and paint them) it should pay much attention to make each unit viable, able to react to different threats. Who would like to play a match up you know right from the beggining you are not able to win, because you have no resposne to unit X that your opponent has? Those special rules/skills/upgrades/artifacts can be of a great help to make each unit playable.

I really enjoy FFG's Living Card Games that expand your playing possibilities with every new pack of cards. In Conquest I can play Chaos either as a self-sacrificial deck where you spend your units to bring stronger ones to the table (demons), or you could create a high demaging deck but with the risk to harm your own units, or create a deck focused on Brutal keyword which makes your unit attack harder for each damage token on them, etc. etc.

Possibilities for the win. Games with units like "it has 2 atk and 3hp and that's it, fighting against units with 3 atk and 2 hp and no skill" are boring.

AoS should search for its golden mean. I don't think that coming back to pre-ghb era is a good idea. What it needs is a way to make things clear and easy to remember. Some kind of cards for both players that remind you of your special rules and your opponent without the need to memorize everything. And without the need to look into the battletome all the time. Special counters that can be placed on board. That sort of things. Not making everything "you roll dice, i roll, repeat till everyone is dead". I rose from card games where you have hundreds of possibilietes and special rules. I don't say it's perfect but yeah, it's flexible and interesting for many many plays.

[Lavy]

I strongly believe that GW just needs to bite the bullet and use cards for everything in combination with yearly GHB updates and FaQ's. I would love to see unit and hero specific cards packaged with the models. If they went down that route it might drum up some business if they threw in card rarities with boxed sets/clampacks for collectors. Im just recycling ideas ive seen from companies like privateer press and Wizards of the Coast, but i feel like using cards is much easier than using a battle tome, especially for beginners that might have already dabbled in card games. 

[KnightFire]

Just now, Lavy said:

I strongly believe that GW just needs to bite the bullet and use cards for everything in combination with yearly GHB updates and FaQ's. I would love to see unit and hero specific cards packaged with the models. If they went down that route it might drum up some business if they threw in card rarities with boxed sets/clampacks for collectors. Im just recycling ideas ive seen from companies like privateer press and Wizards of the Coast, but i feel like using cards is much easier than using a battle tome, especially for beginners that might have already dabbled in card games. 

But physical cards are so old school! We have an App!!!!!!!

Also - you can print warscrolls onto A5 cards very nicely, I do it (print double sided, two pages per sheet, then laminate and cut in half).

 

I agree about getting rid of battletomes, but I think the app is the right place for things to go.

[KnightFire]

Just now, Auticus said:

But I like battletomes...

I liked shell suits, but times change.