AoS complexity/rules bloat

[BunkhouseBuster]

2 hours ago, Aryann said:

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.

...

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.

Between the different Allegiance Abilities, Aritfacts, and Battalions, there are dozens of ways to play the armies.  The issues is that it only in the newer releases, since early on GW wasn't sure what direction to take Age of Sigmar.  Now they do, and the Kharadron Overlords Battletome should be an indication of what future Battletomes will look like.  Not only can they be part of a generic Order Alliance army, but they have, what is it, about 7 or 8 Sky-Port rules that they can choose to make their army work differently, and then options for custom Sky-Ports as well.

The issue is in that older armies don't have that much support, at least not yet.  To me, it makes sense that Kharadron Overlords got their own book, since they are a new, flashy army that is completely new to the setting.  To combine them into a book with Dispossessed, Fyreslayers, and Ironweld Arsenal would be, to me, a disservice to this brand new army.  Remember Stormcast Extremis?  That sub-faction got rolled into the newest Stormcast Eternals book, and Khorne Daemons and Bloodbound got lumped together, with additional rules for Slaves to Darkness and Monsters & Daemons of Chaos getting added in (Mark of Khorne pending).  My guess is that we will get compilation Battletomes every year or so after several new releases that combine together logical army choices.

How about Wanderers and Sylvaneth being combined?  Dispossessed, Fyreslayers, and Kharadron Overlords all together?  Put Brayherds and Warherds together in a single book after a new "Beastmen" release sounds like fun to me.  It is going in the opposite direction that Age of Sigmar took when it was released and split up all the Warhammer Fantasy armies, but it seems logical to have

Just now, Auticus said:

But I like battletomes...

I like having printed books to look at as well, and in my experience, the printed books make it a lot easier for new players to get into the game (especially younger players).  Having all the rules available online that can quickly updated is good to have, but I like having a hefty tome in my hand when sitting down to learn about a new army.

[KnightFire]

Just now, Auticus said:

The printed books give all kinds of stuff.  I like the stories and art and background.

Thankfully battletomes are not going away.  So maybe the times are changing, and maybe a lot of players give zero ****** about the narrative and art but I'm glad to see that GW is still catering to those of us that do.

I actually am more of a narrative player than competitive, but I don't think that battletomes is the right place for narrative. I really liked what they did with the realmgate wars series of books, which independently moved the narrative along with no need to be linked to new army releases (they could release new models as and when they were relevant to the story). I don't so much like the new battletomes having narrative in them as it means the narrative has to be linked to whatever book is coming out, and you only really see it from one side.

 

[Galas]

Yeah. Battletomes/Codex/Army books are very good from a fluff and lore standpoint not because they tell you storys, but because they are like mini-history and social books of that faction. Knowing how the different cities and factions of a race interact, the mythology that existed around the rivers of the Empire in the old world, etc... all of those things is the part of the fluff I most enjoy, because using that I can come with my own storys and inspirations.

The "fluff" that comes in the campaing books, etc... to me personally, has not the same value. They are normally just stories about a fixed set of protagonist doing things. I don't want to know how Lord Aquillor McNuggets has killed a dozens Chaos Lords! I want to know how is the social hierarchy of the Stormcast Chambers! How Gorkamorka is viewed by different Greenskins factions and what consistence of squigg poop did they prefer to build their fortress!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Galas said:

Lord Aquillor McNuggets

 

Where can I learn more about Lord Aquillor McNuggets and his mighty feats? Is there a miniature available? Does it come with dipping sauce? I must know!!

[BunkhouseBuster]

1 hour ago, Galas said:

Yeah. Battletomes/Codex/Army books are very good from a fluff and lore standpoint not because they tell you histories, but because they are like mini-history and social books of that faction. Knowing how the different cities and factions of a faction interact, the mythology that existed around the rivers of the Empire in the old world, etc... all of those things is the part of the fluff I most enjoy, because using that I can come with my own histories and inspirations.

The "fluff" that comes in the campaing books, etc... to me personally, has no value. They are normally just histories about a fixed set of protagonist doing things. I don't want to know how Lord Aquillor McNuggets has killed a dozens Chaos Lords! I want to know how is the social hierarchy of the Stormcast Chambers! How Gorkamorka is viewed by different Greenskins factions and what consistence of squigg poop did they prefer to build their fortress!

So basically the Battletomes/Codexes (Codices?)/Army books are sociological and anthropological studies, while the campaign books are the history and news of the setting?  I like it!

 

Also, I don't have enough "likes" to hand out to everyone.  These forums make my day

[FRoper]

26 minutes ago, Auticus said:

He comes with the extra crispy warscroll and his command ability gives friendly units within 8" of him the ability to dip into a random sauce you roll on at the beginning of the game.

Honey Mustard is my favorite (rolled up if you hit a 4 on a D6) - +1 to wound and -2 to rend due to the extra spice.

you forgot the Szechuan McNugget sauce.

[polarbear]

1 hour ago, Galas said:

Yeah. Battletomes/Codex/Army books are very good from a fluff and lore standpoint not because they tell you storys, but because they are like mini-history and social books of that faction. Knowing how the different cities and factions of a race interact, the mythology that existed around the rivers of the Empire in the old world, etc... all of those things is the part of the fluff I most enjoy, because using that I can come with my own storys and inspirations.

The "fluff" that comes in the campaing books, etc... to me personally, has not the same value. They are normally just stories about a fixed set of protagonist doing things. I don't want to know how Lord Aquillor McNuggets has killed a dozens Chaos Lords! I want to know how is the social hierarchy of the Stormcast Chambers! How Gorkamorka is viewed by different Greenskins factions and what consistence of squigg poop did they prefer to build their fortress!

I have a similar view of lore/fluff. The stats, special rules, model design, names of units, descriptions etc. are all the biggest part of the lore to me. Stories about singular characters or some random battle do very little for me. 

[Travis Baumann]

You guys nailed it with your interpretation of Battle Tomes vs. History books.  One of the main things that I was disappointed with in the "main" hardcover Age of Sigmar book is that it predominantly told the tale of one head Celestial leading his forces against one primary Chaos guy.  It was still cool and all and told of the first spearhead that began the age of Sigmar and the first recaptured gates but at the end of the day it felt like very little of the current universe was sketched out in any way.  We learned a little about the Sylvaneth and the Everqueen and we learned a bit about Nurgle's forces in that section but most of the rest of the Mortal Realms were just hinted at.

I liked the very short section on the founding of the cities like when the Aelves found a city that needed to be liberated and they now live there for example.  Somewhere out there, there is an Aelven enclave set up in a rescued city which is begging for more details.  The floating city under constant attack was cool too but they are basically mentions, no details and I would have loved a bit more detail/maps/explanation of some of this stuff.  They don't need to fill in all the dots as I appreciate letting my imagination run wild with it but at the moment it is really running amok!

 

[Menkeroth]

Being also that one who values open and narrative play more, I have to say that what's really disappointing is that GW is going back with all these GHB, points and big battletomes - just when they went away from that trash! Although it's really good to know all this is unnecessary, and you can have all you need just with the app and one book, for example. Modularity is strength indeed, but I wonder if it will remain in the future. For now it's good to know that you can still choose and not need really all that new fancy stuff - the game from the start is fine indeed., so no real rules bloat yet.

On 05.05.2017 at 0:54 AM, Travis Baumann said:

I liked the very short section on the founding of the cities like when the Aelves found a city that needed to be liberated and they now live there for example.  Somewhere out there, there is an Aelven enclave set up in a rescued city which is begging for more details.  The floating city under constant attack was cool too but they are basically mentions, no details and I would have loved a bit more detail/maps/explanation of some of this stuff.  They don't need to fill in all the dots as I appreciate letting my imagination run wild with it but at the moment it is really running amok!

2

They do so with the purpose - to not to repeat previous mistakes as with WHFB. And belle-lettre that often comes with battletomes cover sometimes these events like with city of Excelsior in the "City of Secrets", for example.

 

[wayniac]

24 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

Being also that one who values open and narrative play more, I have to say that what's really disappointing is that GW is going back with all these GHB, points and big battletomes - just when they went away from that trash! Although it's really good to know all this is unnecessary, and you can have all you need just with the app and one book, for example. Modularity is strength indeed, but I wonder if it will remain in the future. For now it's good to know that you can still choose and not need really all that new fancy stuff - the game from the start is fine indeed., so no real rules bloat yet.

They do so with the purpose - to not to repeat previous mistakes as with WHFB. And belle-lettre that often comes with battletomes cover sometimes these events like with city of Excelsior in the "City of Secrets", for example.

 

Yeah.. I am kinda sad that there was such vehemence from the "But where's my balance!" and "How will I know what's fair!" type of crowd that it proved to GW that they can't ever get away from giving people the illusion that something is suitable for tournaments even when they repeatedly say its not.  It was a little disheartening that we are right back to trying to play old style Warhammer in what was meant to be a new style of game.

[FRoper]

people are always angry about about balence, then take a powerful army to a tourament, the rules are fairly well balenced with a couple of problems that will probably be fixed in the future.

The only way the game is going to be balenced will be if people do not take exceedingly powerful armies, show a bit of restraint take some units that are not as not as competive.

The lore and fluff beind an army is most important, which is why i loved my chaos hoard in End times as i could take daemons and beastmen in the same army and combine for a massive 10,000pt hoard. In age of sigmar, my death is the same with it being based around Neferata and female vampires.

[Menkeroth]

57 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Yeah.. I am kinda sad that there was such vehemence from the "But where's my balance!" and "How will I know what's fair!" type of crowd that it proved to GW that they can't ever get away from giving people the illusion that something is suitable for tournaments even when they repeatedly say its not.  It was a little disheartening that we are right back to trying to play old style Warhammer in what was meant to be a new style of game.

 

Exactly. Many people still try to play as they used to despite the fact all is new and is not meant to be played as before. AoS does not fit in this, it's not completely for competitions and mass scales, everything in it screams about that! We can see how all these points don't suit the game and setting at all, just like a parachute for a bird! Like Ghyran being despoiled by Nurgle, really.

47 minutes ago, FRoper said:

The lore and fluff beind an army is most important, which is why i loved my chaos hoard in End times as i could take daemons and beastmen in the same army and combine for a massive 10,000pt hoard. In age of sigmar, my death is the same with it being based around Neferata and female vampires.

7

This. I hope we don't lose it along the way, now it seems fine and still a GW focus.

[Nin Win]

It's sort of like if you got only half the pieces in a boardgame and need to hope that your opponent has the right sort other half when they show up.  Matched play gives people the language they need to coordinate that sort of approach.

The real odd thing is that many players actually don't want the opponent to have the right sort of pieces in their half of the boardgame.  They want theirs to be better.  They want to scour the army lists to find the most power per point in the hopes that when an opponent does show up with the rest of the pieces needed to play the game, the game is as rigged as possible in their own favour.  To create a game experience they would never accept from a boardgame had it come that way.

Or they live in fear of their opponent showing up with the pieces that make it rigged against them.  To the point where every purchase needs to be made in the hope that their choice of pieces is "viable.". Worrying about whether something will "make back its points."

It basically becomes about protecting themselves from other players when they should be working together with them to craft an experience that works for both of them.

 

[wayniac]

15 hours ago, Nin Win said:

It's sort of like if you got only half the pieces in a boardgame and need to hope that your opponent has the right sort other half when they show up.  Matched play gives people the language they need to coordinate that sort of approach.

The real odd thing is that many players actually don't want the opponent to have the right sort of pieces in their half of the boardgame.  They want theirs to be better.  They want to scour the army lists to find the most power per point in the hopes that when an opponent does show up with the rest of the pieces needed to play the game, the game is as rigged as possible in their own favour.  To create a game experience they would never accept from a boardgame had it come that way.

Or they live in fear of their opponent showing up with the pieces that make it rigged against them.  To the point where every purchase needs to be made in the hope that their choice of pieces is "viable.". Worrying about whether something will "make back its points."

It basically becomes about protecting themselves from other players when they should be working together with them to craft an experience that works for both of them.

 

 This is actually very true. There are people it seems to always want to take the most powerful things to ensure that they win. Even now ever since points came out, people want to know the "best" army lists.  Very few people, it seems, actually want to play the game just to play the game. As a result you see all this whining about free points or them being able to take something that someone else can't get. Are people so worried about playing a ****** that they can't enjoy the game otherwise?

 It's like I once saw an argument on the AOS Facebook group about the chaos Lords ability to turn into a demon prince and if it cost points.  It does, but my argument was in a casual game who the hell cares if you like your opponent do it because it's rare and is extremely fluffy.   Yet there were still people screaming about balance and how it's not fair that he gets to add another model to his army for free.  It was a little ridiculous that people are too caught up in "fair" to ha e fun in a casual setting. 

[Menkeroth]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

This is actually very true. There are people it seems to always want to take the most powerful things to ensure that they win. Even now ever since points came out, people want to know the "best" army lists.  Very few people, it seems, actually want to play the game just to play the game. As a result you see all this whining about free points or them being able to take something that someone else can't get. Are people so worried about playing a ****** that they can't enjoy the game otherwise?

1

Sadly yes, as in every other competitions out there, and that saddens me the most because we are now again at the place we were away in the first place. Before the points the most people who like them were everywhere else, but when GW re-introduced them, they returned... Although AoS is not for this type of playing at all.

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

It was a little ridiculous that people are too caught up in "fair" to ha e fun in a casual setting. 

They always try, sadly, wherever they are. So mostly it's up to us to form our small circles of devoted to be free of this taint.

[wayniac]

9 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

Sadly yes, as in every other competitions out there, and that saddens me the most because we are now again at the place we were away in the first place. Before the points the most people who like them were everywhere else, but when GW re-introduced them, they returned... Although AoS is not for this type of playing at all.

They always try, sadly, wherever they are. So mostly it's up to us to form our small circles of devoted to be free of this taint.

I think "taint" is a little strong.  I don't begrudge the people who want to play competitive, I begrudge the fact that they are the first to scream about balance and "fairness" but at the same time the first to try and find all the broken combos to increase their chances of winning, and usually the first to nitpick minutiae or be arses about people wanting to relax the rules for fluff, because again "it's not fair" and "muh balance".  I find that while not all competitive gamers are like this, a lot of them just tend to ruin everything because they always want it to be 100% perfectly (or as close thereof) balanced, no imbalanced scenarios, no imbalanced deployment, just line up across from each other, each army with the same number of points and same objectives, and are often the first to find the killer combos that then infest the rest of the game.

To go with my example above, in casual games i typically see the type who screech about balance/fairness the most vehement against things like house ruling summoning to not be garbage or saying yes, technically you need points for Skarr Bloodwrath/Phoenix/Ring of Immortality/Lord turning into Daemon Prince, but what the hell it's fluffy and fun who why not do it.  Because they are so caught up in "But it's not fair that you get to bring that guy back!" that they end up not actually enjoying the game.

[Nin Win]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

Are people so worried about playing a ****** that they can't enjoy the game otherwise?

I actually think many people are.  While I would like to say "once bitten, twice shy" I don't think that most of the people concerned with playing a ****** actually have had any such experience.  It's the fear of the potential or possible bad experience that gives this mind set the most fuel.   "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." H. P. Lovecraft.

Quote

Yet there were still people screaming about balance and how it's not fair that he gets to add another model to his army for free.  It was a little ridiculous that people are too caught up in "fair" to ha e fun in a casual setting. 

People are often more concerned with theoretical possible future unfairness than actual negative experiences in a game.  To the point that they'll forego positive experiences or become the source of negative experiences themselves.  The strange thing is that they think a points system will solve the problem for them and protect them from these theoretical possible future instances of unfairness.  And then they use the points system to analyze relative strengths and weaknesses and make a list that tries to get as much power per point as possible.  Thus creating the very thing they are afraid of others doing.

Or they confuse the part that comes before the game (choosing what forces will be present) with the actual game instead of recognizing that list building is actually game design work.  And since their goal is to choose the best units, they fail at their part of game design in an upcoming game.  They end up relying on someone bringing an equally powerful army if they hope to have a non-one sided game.  Though if someone brings a non-optimized army and they wipe them out easily, they'll attribute it to skill rather than a failure in scenario design that they caused out of a desire to protect themselves from the very thing they are creating.

"The points system is there to..."

"Be a helpful guide for setting up a game we can enjoy."

"Be analyzed for the best possible options to make the strongest list possible so I go into the game at a relative advantage to a potential opponent."

"Protect me from people trying to do unfair things."

"Be part of the shared sphere of competition where the person with the most skill at army building will rightfully get the biggest advantage once the game begins."

Some of these can work well enough if the opponent shares your same goals, but as soon as you have a mismatch things break down fast. 

It's cool that the general's handbook has got a bunch of people back into the game through matched play, but I think a lot of people would be very well served by concentrating on the first two thirds of the book rather than the section in the back.  Actually taking the time to learn how to set up and enjoy a miniature wargame scenario.  Despite some very clear guidance, many people still have their eyes glaze over at the prospect of the "open" or "narrative" ways of playing.   Or get apprehensive about the bad, bad thing some theoretical stranger will do to them if they let their guard down for a second.

"Brilliant ideas are sometimes the simplest, and open play games of Warhammer Age of Sigmar epitomise this. Open play is a style of gaming that allows you to take to the battlefield with any army, made up of any Citadel Miniatures from your collection – no restrictions. It’s as straightforward and streamlined as wargaming gets, and it’s a great way to begin, as you can be sure of exciting battles from day one" -General's Handbook

And the response is a deer in headlights.  Or anger at how an imaginary opponent could theoretically summon all the daemons they own.  Or a strange idea that you are supposed to fill up the table with every model you own so the person who spent the most money on miniatures (or is fastest at painting them) will win for sure.

TLDR:  Some people will never get past the idea that a game is to be played against someone rather than with them.

[Nin Win]

5 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I think "taint" is a little strong.  I don't begrudge the people who want to play competitive, I begrudge the fact that they are the first to scream about balance and "fairness" but at the same time the first to try and find all the broken combos to increase their chances of winning, and usually the first to nitpick minutiae or be arses about people wanting to relax the rules for fluff, because again "it's not fair" and "muh balance".

They are the architects of their own misery.  And unfortunately it spills over into other people's hobby experience as well.
 

[wayniac]

I do notice a lot of the cries of "not fair" rely on hypothetical situations where people will intentionally try to break things just because they can.  Like summoning.  "But you could summon 1k extra points!" yes, and there's a way to fix that: If someone does it, end the game, tell them they are being an ******, and refuse to play them again and, if it's bad enough, tell your group/club/friends that they're an ****** so they won't be able to play games as long as they abuse the rules.  Or, i proposed an idea for restricting summoning to only being once per game, as opposed to 1/phase.  Again, the cry was "But chaos can summon from other gods!  So they can still summon an extra 1k of models".  My question is, A) Would someone actually do that, and B) if so, why?  Again, the answer to playing with arses is to not play against arses.  I think a lot of these examples are hypothetical "boogeyman" scenarios designed to demonize open play/less restrictions than anything that actually happened.

It's also fairly telling that the people who often cry the most about these hypothetical situations are the so-called "competitive" crowd, rarely if ever anyone who feels that the competitive part is superfluous.  So that tells me they are their own worst enemy.  They WANT to be able to abuse rules, but don't want their OPPONENT to be able to.  Therefore, anything which provides an opportunity for abuse is bad and must be quashed, because it could let their opponent (but not them, of course) get an unfair advantage.  It's always the competitive type of people who cry about things being abused, while everyone else is just enjoying because there's no reason to be like that and abuse the rules just because the rules let you.  It's only the competitive type who try to get away with anything allowed.

[Nin Win]

It reminded me of this old wired article about what it would be like if people approached cooking like how they do gaming:

"On page 242 it says "Add oregano to taste!" It doesn't say how much oregano, or what sort of taste! You can add as much oregano as you want! I'm going to make my friends eat infinite oregano and they'll have to do it because the recipe says so!"

https://www.wired.com/2008/06/alttext-0618/

[Menkeroth]

You are completely right, nothing to add really. Sadly it's so, and always has been. The game and setting have unlimited potential in creating interesting scenarios and such stuff, and GW started with it even in their very first book of AoS. But no, many still want their tournaments back, and no matter that GW plays regular games in their HQ with lots of scenarios and objectives. And these people really spoil then the fun of others who don't share their point of view of the game. 

[Nin Win]

25 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

You are completely right, nothing to add really. Sadly it's so, and always has been. The game and setting have unlimited potential in creating interesting scenarios and such stuff, and GW started with it even in their very first book of AoS. But no, many still want their tournaments back, and no matter that GW plays regular games in their HQ with lots of scenarios and objectives. And these people really spoil then the fun of others who don't share their point of view of the game. 

For me, it's a problem only when it's a problem.  I've seen some podcast discussions go off the rails because of too much focus on things being worth their points and no talk about whether or not the rules are interesting or fun.  And people tend to completely skip over the battle plan sections of reviews of battle tome books.  In person though, I find that a couple of questions or statements tends to make things pretty clear before there's a problem.  "I only play with fully painted miniatures and completed terrain on the table."  And "I don't really use points.  I have a scenario we could try out."

So far it's working for me in terms of finding out quickly who is like minded and who is not.

I've also noticed that even as a new player the massive amount of rules scattered across multiple warscrolls is not really an issue outside of tournament play.  I don't have to worry about how my army is going to beat a field of X and Y type armies or what I'm going to do about the rules on unit Z if a person takes multiples of them or whatever.  The only thing that matters are the rules on the warscrolls in the game I'm actually playing.  And they're right there as we play.

[Menkeroth]

Agree with you, likewise. The rich setting and great models do beg for opening our imaginations. You think your ten ironbreakers can fend off a horde of zombies? try to find out! Or you had a vision of how a black coach escorted by 10 blood knights is moving through the ruins of an ancient city beset by ghouls from all sides? Great, I'd play this! This is the spirit of the game, which we seldom encounter in other ones.

[FRoper]

 

16 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

Agree with you, likewise. The rich setting and great models do beg for opening our imaginations. You think your ten ironbreakers can fend off a horde of zombies? try to find out! Or you had a vision of how a black coach escorted by 10 blood knights is moving through the ruins of an ancient city beset by ghouls from all sides? Great, I'd play this! This is the spirit of the game, which we seldom encounter in other ones.

I mainly play those games, with a rather interesting senario.

I think my favorite would have been a meeting between commanders at a supposed secure location, but they did not know that one of their numbers was actually the changling, and the area was now being overun by daemons. made a fun game.

This is the main way to play AOS in my opinion the poits are merely a guideline of how to play and they are incourgaing creativity with the new setting.

 

[Menkeroth]

Certainly so. If in WHFB it was rather interesting to play politics and large scale invasions, here - vice verse. And your scenario looks cool! Such a plan is what the Changeling is so famous for!