AoS complexity/rules bloat

[Killax]

What I see and hope see growing is that we'll eventually come up with Narrative Tournaments (which are allready happening?) and complete Matched Tournaments. In this I'd really like to see players in the Narrative Tournaments come up with their own stories but also provide players with a map they can move through, which could lead to a very interesting pairing system (pre-pairing) and at the end a 'winner' is purely based on a player rating another and rating others their armies

The coolest thing is that NEON is allready going on with that and the way SCGT House-rules seem to restrict things also seems to me that their TOs actually like the Narrative aspect more aswell (Abilities are unique).

We will see what the future brings us but what I can guarantee is that GW will not at any moment change AoS or 40K to a full competative game again. It's what killed WFB ultimately and also the reason why our Warscrolls dont come with costs (which is actually a good thing for the mayority of players).

However (which is the subject somewhat in my eyes) rulesbloat has very little to do with Narrative or Matched play. Instead with recieving information. To date I feel the Battletomes are not lacking in Narrative but are lacking in specific Keyword related guidelines. For example:

- Matched play wants 2 Battleline Units, cool, but not a single Battletome covers this
- Battalions have an Keyword interaction, cool, but a not a single Battletome covers this
- Alliances can be very specific and grand different bonusses, cool, but not a single Battletome covers the fine details into this

All these rules are top down important, they decide what your army can and cannot do. The downside I see is that is the largest reason as to why new players can still be very confused about the game. It's Core rules are simple, it's Special rules are also simple but not found in Battletomes or "Army books", while ideally it would also be in there.  
 

[BunkhouseBuster]

I keep running out of likes to give...  The posts in this thread are great and very much worth the conversation.

2 hours ago, wayniac said:

Amen to this.  It boggles my mind how many people are just not able to cope with the idea that things aren't balanced or that they aren't going to just bring the best units because they can.  And, I often see it as subtly trying to "instruct" others; for example, you bring a competitive list to a casual game night so you can "show" the casual players what a "real" list looks like.  I'm not sure why people tend to focus so much on winning and so little on playing the game, or worse equate "fun" with "I won the game" and cannot have fun unless they are trying their hardest to win by any means necessary.

It's like.. if you propose an imbalanced scenario, the first thought isn't "sounds like this will be a fun challenge" it's "But why am I at a disadvantage" from many people; they are only concerned with it "not being fair".  What is also most interesting is they only have this approach if they are the one a the disadvantage, never if they're the ones who have the advantage...

Funny enough, that is now happening to me, a 7 & 1/2 year veteran of 40K.  I played at a CASUAL tournament with several of the other local casual/narrative gamers that want to devote a day to Warhammer without being thrashed by the WAAC players.  Turns out the WAAC players showed up anyways and thoroughly trounced us, taking the "top" positions.  For crying out loud, the prizes were some old models that the organizer wanted to get rid of; the WAAC players ended up not accepting the prizes since it wasn't store credit, and one of the narrative players was nearly in tears because of his experience.  Me, I was criticized for not playing a stronger Space Marine list, that I should change Chapter Tactics (which I don't want to do), invest in two more supplements and a campaign book (which I couldn't afford at the time), and start getting coached by the WAAC players in the area (which I don't want to do).  It's to the point that I have been hearing rumors of an invitational casual 40K tournament.

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

I have a few of those same stories myself.  It takes a very strong hand to guide a narrative event to completion because the competitive players will weekly try to hijack it and turn it into another tournament.  Some don't mean to do that, but they escalate their army lists if their opponent brought a list that was on par with theirs (since they have been conditioned to build the strongest list as possible and feel at a disadvantage otherwise).  Others do it intentionally because they feel that if you aren't playing competitively that you are "playing wrong". 

...

Funny enough, this guy I mentioned is a big casual/narrative player, and absolutely detests WAAC competitive tournament play.  But his ideas of narrative are still grounded in using certain other rules that are "official" and supported, despite the fact that it was still a fan-made rule set for Kill Team that he wanted us to use.  He was clearly not happy with the system we had in place with leveling our characters and PVE style game.  If he had better hygiene, I might have considered playing with him, but my nose and allergies would hate me later.

ANYWAYS, enough of my anecdotes.  To the subject at hand:

Having spent many hours and semesters as a DM in D&D, I can tell you that it is bloated and complex, but that is because it is far less abstract of a game, with rolls being done for nearly every action your characters take.  Age of Sigmar is much simpler as a game, which allows us to add in layers on top of the core rules and Warscrolls.  To go buy the rules specifically, for D&D, you need 3 books to play: the DM guide, Player's Handbook, and Monster Manual.  All the books for AoS are optional, and add to the core of the game rather than build it up to playable.  There are supplements for both that add in additional content, and house rules are always an option for each.

Age of Sigmar's supplements (General's Handbook, Battletomes) add in new mission types, new army structure methods (Battalions and army rules), and a slew of other rules for magic, artifacts, and Allegiance abilities.  Sure, there is a lot of content, but it is broken into layers that can be had as the players wish, rather than being required to play.  All you have to have are the models, core rules, and Warscrolls, anything else is extra toppings.

Here is a metaphor:  if a wargame was an ice cream flavor, Age of Sigmar is a couple of scoops vanilla ice cream; it can be good on its own, but sometimes it needs extras, like some syrup, sprinkles, or other add ons to change up the experience (in the form of the General's Handbook, it offers you a way to have a sundae, a milkshake, or a bowl with some syrup on it).  40K 7th edition is a bowl of rocky road; lots of flavors going on at once, and you have to be careful to add too much or the flavors may clash, and you have to be careful removing ingredients for fear of losing what makes rocky road good, and it is hard to make a milkshake with it due to some of the ingredients.

When deciding what kind of a game you want to play, make sure that you tell them exactly what you want.  You don't make fun of someone for not liking ice cream, do you?  (My apologies if you have a milk allergy or aversion to dairy of any kind.)

"I would like a strawberry-chocolate shake with extra whipped cream, no cherry."

"I want a banana split with sprinkles."

"I want a big bowl of vanilla ice cream with some chocolate syrup on it."

[wayniac]

What there needs to be IMHO is just people who understand there's more to the game than matched play with the boring (IMHO) pitched battle scenarios, battleline requirements, reinforcement points, etc.  Easing up even a little for the sake of a fun game goes a long way, even if it's something as basic as your opponent being at 2040 points instead of 2000 and you not throwing a fit and demanding they drop a unit to be under.

[FRoper]

Aos is a game that is played on many levels  and you choose how many levels you want to play with Matched play having the most levels.

people do need to realise that matched play is not the only, i am currently designing a narrative campaign and we have tournements but only 1 per season as that keeps people interested but not overwealmed and also allows knew armies to come out.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, Auticus said:

They also don't like non traditional non standard scenarios, because those are not scenarios they'd face in a tournament

+1000

The "I'm preparing for my next event, so my games need to be practice for that" mindset is why I have concerns about both matched play and comp/house rules in popular events.

These things can,  and do,  impact my options, even thousands of miles away from an event I'm not attending. 

[wayniac]

10 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

+1000

The "I'm preparing for my next event, so my games need to be practice for that" mindset is why I have concerns about both matched play and comp/house rules in popular events.

These things can,  and do,  impact my options, even thousands of miles away from an event I'm not attending. 

Absolutely.  I find it even in a casual area, where it boils down to "But what if":

"I can't play Open, because what if my opponent takes 500 models to my 25 models?"

"I can't play Open, because what if my opponent spams summoning?"

This goes to Narrative Play too because people dislike thinking of a story beforehand, or picking a battleplan and coming up with a quick story.  I find a lot of people who pick an army because of its power or whatnot, or even if it's from an aesthetic reason you usually don't see people coming up with fluff for their army, why they are the army they are.  It's just a random army, usually a single list at that, while I like to theme things.  My army isn't just a random collection of Flesh-Eater Courts, it's the Kingdom of Blasted Heath, ruled by the noble and good King Shivergloom (the 4th as of this writing) and his honourable and virtuous court of knights and nobles.

[Menkeroth]

51 minutes ago, wayniac said:

This goes to Narrative Play too because people dislike thinking of a story beforehand, or picking a battleplan and coming up with a quick story.  I find a lot of people who pick an army because of its power or whatnot, or even if it's from an aesthetic reason you usually don't see people coming up with fluff for their army, why they are the army they are.  It's just a random army, usually a single list at that, while I like to theme things.  My army isn't just a random collection of Flesh-Eater Courts, it's the Kingdom of Blasted Heath, ruled by the noble and good King Shivergloom (the 4th as of this writing) and his honourable and virtuous court of knights and nobles.

 

This. People just don't like thinking while it's very hard and 99.9% can't think at all, so no wonder. Seconding you on the fluff (I write fluff for all my heroes and armies in general and name units minimum) I'd also say that GW was promoting this kind of game attitude from the start with the very first book of AoS, as it was in early days of WHFB, but people often continue to refuse and dismiss this as it's not "competitive", because for them it's not hobby - it's a game with numbers, and they will be happy just as well to play with proxies and paper instead of models. Disgusting.

[BunkhouseBuster]

38 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

This. People just don't like thinking while it's very hard and 99.9% can't think at all, so no wonder. Seconding you on the fluff (I write fluff for all my heroes and armies in general and name units minimum) I'd also say that GW was promoting this kind of game attitude from the start with the very first book of AoS, as it was in early days of WHFB, but people often continue to refuse and dismiss this as it's not "competitive", because for them it's not hobby - it's a game with numbers, and they will be happy just as well to play with proxies and paper instead of models. Disgusting.

I am firmly of the mindset that ultra-competitive players with no interest in narrative gaming should go play Warmahordes - the rules are hailed as "better and more balanced", and there is a bunch of tournament support from Privateer Press, and there is absolutely no way to personalize your army except for a paint scheme and model choices.

While I am not fond of segregating groups of peoples for any reason, there are going to be some players that won't be interested in Narrative gaming whatsoever, and some never will be interested in competitive tournament play (I'm one of those).

I mean, how many people want to intrude on a group of people playing an RPG and tell them that they are doing it wrong?  Different ideas are okay to have!  Not everyone will have fun the same way!

[Killax]

To an extend you are right. The thing for all games is, even WarmaHordes, is that you can never ignore the fun aspect. 'Balance' isn't as important for the live or succession of a game, communities however are. 
It's always really cool to point to Magic the Gathering for such matters. Obviously at this point Wizards' Team could only create ulta competative cards, ultra competative meta-decks and tribes. Though there is always a really big reason to not do so; players like fun, players who know each other really well are looking for fun and kind games.

Locally I have a small meta, I play perhaps a handful of games each month. Because of that it's important to not bring your A-game every game. The prime reason for this is because I'm the kind of guy who can spend hours reading books while I also know my local meta doesn't really go deep into the rules that way.
WarmaHordes as an example again is full of unbalance aswell. Having played both games I really can't say that at this point it's better balanced as AoS is. Despite WarmaHordes players claiming else. There are "problem units" in both systems, the issue in problem units 9/10 times comes forth out of not being capable to put a good price on maximized synergy. 
The moment you want to have synergy in your game (thus piece 1+1 other piece equal power 3) you add both competative interest, depth and the chance to wreck opponents who do not understand or see that synergy yet. For the most part playing without that synergy actually creates a cooler game as playing with it, because it makes things less of a coinflip and more of a strategy game. It's because of this that I currently believe Missle attacks as a Core rule lacks the required restrictions we see in other forms of combat (Melee, Summoning, Casting) because they ignore 'boardcontrol'.

WarmaHordes a few months ago presented the same kind of issue for one of my beloved factions (Khador), it gave the faction a piece that had boardcontrol that was not on par with it's cost. Long story short, you had a Hero that could run a multiwound low damage output model extremely well because he turned the low output into maximum output.

Age of Sigmar currently presents a similar issue, in allowing Missle attacks to always have a maximum damage output, regardless of your board position. What we see is a continious top end of tournament lists including A LOT of good Missle attacks...

---

Back to bloat again, the problem is solved the moment things that logically fit together are presented together.

So what I'd like is not to see costs everywhere but to have every forthcomming Battletome include Units that match the Look, Design and Narrative of that 'race'. Have Khorne with Khorne, Stormcast with Stormcast, Aelfs with Aelfs, Duaradin with Duaradin and suddenly you see you don't need a big part of the Generals Handbook anymore.

What helps gettig this process finished in my opinion is if Games Workshop would start putting bigger factions back together again so that a new player can be pointed to "race" then "class" so that this way they can select their "faction". Example:
- I like Daemonic Melee Warriors, splended, Daemon Khorne it is.
- I like Techno Hunter Dwarfs, splended, Kharadron Overlords it is. 
- etc.
So if someone at GW is reading this  Please! Make races be part of a larger Battletome. Let players select their armies the way they do their characters in Heroes of the Storm, League of Legends and the like. Follow up with a clear class division and I think everybody is happy. By large also because this still is also exactly how DnD does it and DnD still is the parent of Warhammer.

Cheers,

 

[Trout]

3 hours ago, Killax said:

- Matched play wants 2 Battleline Units, cool, but not a single Battletome covers this
- Battalions have an Keyword interaction, cool, but a not a single Battletome covers this
- Alliances can be very specific and grand different bonusses, cool, but not a single Battletome covers the fine details into this

It's all covered in the book that covers matched play. If you want to play Matched play, you need that book. If you don't, then you don't.

[Killax]

4 minutes ago, Trout said:

It's all covered in the book that covers matched play. If you want to play Matched play, you need that book. If you don't, then you don't.

You think Battalions and Alliances are irrelevant to Narrative play? 

Not only is your reply a very poor perception on the game, I actually doubt you play the game or care for the narrative at all...

[rokapoke]

Just now, Killax said:

You think Battalions and Alliances are irrelevant to Narrative play? 

I believe he's pointing out that they aren't necessary  for narrative or open play. 

[Killax]

Just now, rokapoke said:

I believe he's pointing out that they aren't necessary  for narrative or open play. 

Narrative play without story? That's something new?

[Trout]

Just now, Killax said:

Narrative play without story? That's something new?

Straw man

[rokapoke]

Just now, Killax said:

Narrative play without story? That's something new?

Story without GW dictating everything about it... "forge your own narrative" and all that. Basically, have fun!

[Killax]

 

Just now, Trout said:

Straw man

You just removed yourself from the discussion by promoting nonsence.

Just now, rokapoke said:

Story without GW dictating everything about it... "forge your own narrative" and all that. Basically, have fun!

So you become a suddenly matched player because you like the narrative GW has written?

There seems to be some act as if you can't have fun with Battletomes or Matched play points. Which is just completely drivel.

[Trout]

Just now, Killax said:

 

You just removed yourself from the discussion by promoting nonsence.

You consider logic nonsense?

[Killax]

Just now, Trout said:

You consider logic nonsense?

It seems very clear to me that you dont own the Generals Handbook not have given any time and thought in playing Age of Sigmar.

The suggestion that the Generals Handbook is made for Matched play alone is complete nonsence.

[rokapoke]

1 minute ago, Killax said:

So you become a suddenly matched player because you like the narrative GW has written?

There seems to be some act as if you can't have fun with Battletomes or Matched play points. Which is just completely drivel.

You seem to be stating that battletomes and other materials are required purchases. They are not. If you want Matched Play, then the General's Handbook is effectively required. Otherwise, you don't need to buy any books, since the rules and all unit warscrolls are free. That's been my message from the get-go, despite your efforts to infer all manner of things from my statements. 

[Trout]

3 minutes ago, Killax said:

It seems very clear to me that you dont own the Generals Handbook not have given any time and thought in playing Age of Sigmar.

The suggestion that the Generals Handbook is made for Matched play alone is complete nonsence.

I never made that claim. The claim I made is that if you do want to play matched then you need the general's  handbook and those who don't don't need it.

 

The same actually applies to Narrative games also, which made your response rather strange...You chose another playstyle introduced by the General's handbook as an example of why you shouldn't need the General's Handbook in order to play game types created by the General's Handbook.

 

The default way of playing is what is in the official rules and it doesn't require any of the things you noted. Those things are systems introduced by the General's Handbook for use in game modes from the Generals Handbook. Thus...surprise surprise..you need the Generals Handbook in order to use those systems.

[Killax]

Just now, rokapoke said:

You seem to be stating that battletomes and other materials are required purchases. They are not. If you want Matched Play, then the General's Handbook is effectively required. Otherwise, you don't need to buy any books, since the rules and all unit warscrolls are free. That's been my message from the get-go, despite your efforts to infer all manner of things from my statements. 

Read the previous post once again. If need be I can quote myself.

What I am stating is that Battletomes and Generals Handbook are an ideal way to learn about more of a faction, this way new players can dive into the depth they like of any particular model. They are required the moment you want to know more about the game and do not have the app.

The benifit of army books is having all rules within one place. The app does not provide any Narrative background nor does it provide the Narrative driven Battalions for free or drives the Narrative driven Alliance options. Your message is invalid the moment players want to go into Narrative play. 

[Killax]

6 minutes ago, Trout said:

I never made that claim. The claim I made is that if you do want to play matched then you need the general's  handbook and those who don't don't need it.

 

The same actually applies to Narrative games also, which made your response rather strange...You chose another playstyle introduced by the General's handbook as an example of why you shouldn't need the General's Handbook in order to play game types created by the General's Handbook.

Yes you did. You made the claim that additional explenations arn't needed for Alliances or Battalions because they are part of what you called "Matched play" with once again is 100% nonsence if you have bothered to read what a Battalion is about. As a Battalion is a force or Warband created to be in touch with the Narrative written for such a particular force.

I don't choose other playstyles, I know (because I play the game) that in order to play Narrative driven games you too will need the Generals Handbook. The Narrative made up by Games Workshop includes rules depth, if you want to play Khorgal Khul, you can, with The Goretide. 

If you don't know what Narrative play is, feel free to ask. Having acces to rules depth creates more fun if you care about GW's narrative and lore written for models.

[Trout]

2 minutes ago, Killax said:

Yes you did. You made the claim that additional explenations arn't needed for Alliances or Battalions because they are part of what you called "Matched play" with once again is 100% nonsence if you have bothered to read what a Battalion is about. As a Battalion is a force or Warband created to be in touch with the Narrative written for such a particular force.

I don't choose other playstyles, I know (because I play the game) that in order to play Narrative driven games you too will need the Generals Handbook. The Narrative made up by Games Workshop includes rules depth, if you want to play Khorgal Khul, you can, with The Goretide. 

If you don't know what Narrative play is, feel free to ask. Having acces to rules depth creates more fun if you care about GW's narrative and lore written for models.

OK.

 

I think everyone can read the posts and see what's going on. So, I'll leave it at that.

[Killax]

7 minutes ago, Trout said:

OK.

 

I think everyone can read the posts and see what's going on. So, I'll leave it at that.

What I see is that you back out because you have nothing relevant to add to the discussion. Instead you try to portay players who you do not know personally as some sort of 'Matched play player'. As someone who's played this game over 15 years I will say to you that what brought me back to Age of Sigmar is the Narrative play.

The depth added to this Narrative play comes from how Alliances work out, the way Alliances work out is not explained in-depth in any App or Battletome. Instead I can only find that information in the Generals Handbook.

Additionally the moment I want to have the final battle of Nagash and Archaon I too will need a Battletome for that. All these are amazing for Narrative play. This I can confirm because I care a lot about Narrative play.

So next time you come with the suggestion that you don't need to have the Generals Handbook unless you actually only want to play Matched games it would be a wise idea to actually be aware of what is in the Generals Handbook and as to why I promote the use of rules for Battletomes. I do this because it contains all the Narrative you need or want to know about your army.

The Age of Sigmar app covers a sliver of information, which is nice but far from sufficient for any fan of the Narrative written by Games Workshop in the last 30 years. Lore/Narrative which I truely like gained back again due to the comming of the Generals Handbook and Battletomes, not the app.

[Trout]

Just now, Killax said:

What I see is that you back out because you have nothing relevant to add to the discussion. Instead you try to portay players who you do not know personally as some sort of 'Matched play player'.

Umm...yeah..that's what they'll see.