Can AoS work with modifications?

[harveydent]

I had high hopes for the AoS release.

After reading the rules PDF a few days ago, I thought that if they created some artificial limitations to army sizes (some level of resource scarcity), then there would be hope... as long as the warscrolls were something close to what 8th Edition's armybooks looked like. What I ended up finding out was that the revamped warscroll armybooks are very poorly done. They deviate almost completely from 8th Edition's armybook format. Instead of creating order within an otherwise free-form system, they create an environment that emphasizes disorder and extreme exploitation. I would venture to say that AoS isn't really a game any longer.

I remember a similar feeling when GW released 40k Apocalypse back in '07 (IIRC?). They could've created a nifty, streamlined system for using tons of models. Instead they just said "Use everything you have, and take a week to play your 50,000 point game." GW could've created a streamlined version of 8th that removes barriers to entry (cheaper models, streamlined rules, quicker setup time), but instead they shook up the rules like an Etch-a-Sketch, increased setup time, and did nothing to decrease prices.

So, given that we need a more streamlined game that doesn't keep people from playing, is there a way to use AoS's simpler rules?

1) There needs to be some form of resource scarcity. Players must make army building choices on some level other than asking the magic 8 ball.

2) There needs to be a more well defined set of victory conditions. Perhaps the existing AoS victory conditions would work (if slightly modified) if there were a system of scarcity (see #1).

3) Warscroll 'armybooks' need to be re-evaluated. Simply giving each unit a set of unloaded keywords like Aelf, Wanderer, Hero, and Totem so that they can be accessed by other random units that say "For each Totem you have, do X" is overly complex for a system that has no scarcity.

So can we just use the AoS PDF with the existing set of 8th Edition armybooks with points costs? Obviously there would be some pitfalls to this, but at least it's a starting point that addresses the poorly designed warscrolls and issues of scarcity, and subsequently the oddly defined victory conditions.

[40kGamer]

I feel your pain, but at the moment I wouldn't even know where to start. In theory the old PVs were tied to stat lines that no longer exist.

[HsojVvad]

1) There needs to be some form of resource scarcity. Players must make army building choices on some level other than asking the magic 8 ball.

The resource scarcity I see is the person with the most money wins. Maybe GW is treating this like an actual Sports team, where the team owner with the most money can buy the best people. Does this make for fun? No, at least not for me.

I agree with what you say. Thing is if you want to start with Age of Sigmar, people need to look at it the way it is, not the old ways. Just like how people tried to play 6th edition and edition of 40K as 5th edition, it just doesn't work.

So we have 3 choices. Try play the old ways and get upset. Try and play the new way and see how it plays out. We quit or don't start. Well there is two more possibilities as well, but that will need to play with like minded people. Play AoS with "house rules" or play older editions of Warhammer.

So we either adapt or don't.

[harveydent]

BoLS already ran an article talking about the rules issues existing with the four page PDF. I'm not surprised to see that their over-simplified rules are full of problems.... it's GW after all. And I am usually the guy that says "Play with the rules as-is," but this time I am not sure it's worth continuing.

[ElectricPaladin]

At the moment, I think that most of AoS can stand as it is, and it's actually pretty good, unless you were really fond of the old, highly gearheaded system. It's straightforward, simple, and pretty intuitive. That said, there are three pretty huge problems:

1) No system of army composition. Nothing stops me from bringing nothing but my badass cavalry and a ton of Lords and Heroes. We need to figure something out. It could be as simple as "for a game of size X bring Y Heroes, Z units of this type, W units of this type, and so on, or as complex as figuring out some formula for pricing models on our own. Both of those seem achievable.

2) Some of the armies (not all) include some rather silly rules. We'll need to scrap those and rewrite them so they are balanced and not stupid.

3) I'm not sure if the summonable armies (Lizardmen, Vampires, Tomb Kings, Daemons) are balanced or not. On the one hand, you're using up a valuable spell, on the other hand, we've all seen how nasty that can be in 40k... though at least here you can't summon a unit that can summon a unit...

I think it will be possible for communities - perhaps even, thanks to the Internet, the community at large - to create standards of play that allow us to enjoy the benefits of AoS in a context that makes sense.

It also wouldn't surprise me to see some sort of "advanced rules" coming down the pipe that tell us how to create armies.

[Reldane]

To be honest it isn't even so much the nothing stops player 1 from taking x y and z, for me the lack of comparison says take a guess at how many of y matches so many of b. I will be giving it a go tomorrow, and we'll see how it plays but I honestly have no idea how many Brettonian knights I should take and what ratio they need to be in with regards to warriors of chaos to give a good game.

[Ravingbantha]

After reading the rules the game has a very half*** feel to it. Like the idea of a rule set was completley overlooked until a few days before release. No point value means there is no way to even attempt to balance a game. Measuring from mini instead of base is going to create all sorts of munskin players arguing over the nose and milimeters. Models will be piled on models, and the board will end up terribly confusing. The current armybooks are not even organized in the same way they are on the GW site, much less how the fluff has them.

My only hope is in the next week or two, we will see the armybooks for Chaos, Death, Destruction, and Order released with actual point values. This release has the rushed feeling of 3rd edition 40k, when the rulebook had a barebones codex of each army in it. Clearly none of the existing army books are in any way compatable with AoS.

[vonDietdrich]

To balance AoS, someone would have to come up with a formula for how points costs are calculated for a basic statline and then go in and manually value each of the special abilities/synergies in the extra rules, WYSIWYG upgrades, etc. And it would all have to be ppm.

So something like..

Saves:
6+ - 1 point
5+ - 2 points
4+ - 4 points
3+ - 6 points

An ability that allows rerolls of 1s for saves is an extra 3 points, or 1 point if it only applies during a single phase (for example, shooting).

Wounds are 3 points apiece.

Weapons get tricky, but..
To Hit/To Wound (each one is a separate points amount)
6+ - 0
5+ - 1
4+ - 2
3+ - 3

If damage is 2 or d3, add 2 points (rationale being that d3 can sometimes roll 1, while 2 is a guaranteed higher value). If Rending 1, add 1 point. If Rending 2, add 3 points.

Each attack after the first is 3 points per model.

Bravery is as follows:

4 is the base value at no additional points. Each point of Bravery above 4 is 1 point per model.

Upgraded unit sergeants are 3 extra points (to represent the extra attack).

Situational special rules are 1 point per model, general rules are 2 points per model. ('When fighting x models' vs 'all to-hit rolls made by this model') Stronger rules for characters or heroes may need to be more expensive.

Cavalry and Flight add 5 points for the extra movement and then also pay for any extra attacks (if the attack numbers are weaker than their 'main' weapon profile (the one with the highest attacks), they only pay for the number of extra attacks, not the to-hit and to-wound statistics. If they're stronger, they only pay the difference, not a whole second set of point costs.)

So, Liberators under this general pricing system clock in at 18 ppm, with the sergeant being 21 (so a squad of 5 is 93 points). That seems about right, if we're trying to keep points 'generally consistent' with WFB 8th point values.

Obviously this isn't even close to exhaustive, but it's the sort of 'math formula' that would be necessary to even begin to consider a game like this.

And it's the main reason I'm not picking up AoS, because GW should be paying professional designers to do this, not hoping their players do it for free.

[Vangrail]

Me and my gaming group is going to try playing by two ways.
1. Games are x many warscrolls.
2. I prefer games are x many wounds on the board. Example 40 wound games could be 40 clan rats or 10 minotaurs. Or a combination of units.

Also staying withing your faction. So order, chaos, destruction, and death

[ElectricPaladin]

Me and my gaming group is going to try playing by two ways.
1. Games are x many warscrolls.
2. I prefer games are x many wounds on the board. Example 40 wound games could be 40 clan rats or 10 minotaurs. Or a combination of units.

Also staying withing your faction. So order, chaos, destruction, and death

Hm... I kind of like the "wounds on the board" system. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any units that are too terribly elite while also being low wounds - though, remember that I've only read the Lizardmen scroll in any detail, and even that not really a full deep read. You still probably want to limit the number of heroes, though.

Also, what would you do with Lord Kroak (he has no wounds, uses a unique system to determine if a hit "kills" him)?