Age of Sigmar Azyr Composition Rules 1.0b

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Because I am an event organizer and I run public games and you need a balancing mechanism to pull that off without having those events crash and burn.

I'm sorry they made the game impossible to play competitively. Even with your suggestions I think it takes away from the heart of the game itself. /Shrug

[Auticus]

I'm sorry they made the game impossible to play competitively. Even with your suggestions I think it takes away from the heart of the game itself. /Shrug

I am 100% a narrative campaign player. I run narrative campaign events. This has nothing to do with playing competitively. I haven't done any tournaments since 2007.

[Lurker]

Just a couple of questions/clarifications Auticus.

This may be obvious, (but bear with me I'm a little dense at times)-

Heroes and Monstrous Heroes. If you take a Monstrous Hero (say at the skirmish level) which takes up the Monstrous slot, does that then free up the Hero slot? or does the Monstrous Hero take both slots?

Quarrellers/Crossbowmen. 1 for 10 / 3 for 20 then +1 for each additional 10 thereafter- is this in the same unit or if you took a unit of 10 at 1pt., a unit of 20 at 3pts. and then took a second unit of ten would that cost 4pts. or just 1?

all in all, very well thought out and executed so far! (and totally swiped too! )

[Andrew Thomas]

Just a couple of questions/clarifications Auticus.

This may be obvious, (but bear with me I'm a little dense at times)-

Heroes and Monstrous Heroes. If you take a Monstrous Hero (say at the skirmish level) which takes up the Monstrous slot, does that then free up the Hero slot? or does the Monstrous Hero take both slots?

I'd say both, and really, a Hero on a Monster/Monstrous Hero isn't really appropriate for a Skirmish level game, outside of a scenario.

Quarrellers/Crossbowmen. 1 for 10 / 3 for 20 then +1 for each additional 10 thereafter- is this in the same unit or if you took a unit of 10 at 1pt., a unit of 20 at 3pts. and then took a second unit of ten would that cost 4pts. or just 1?

all in all, very well thought out and executed so far! (and totally swiped too! )

I'm pretty sure that the Costs are for a contiguous unit, not for all models of a given scroll fielded, as this would create a points advantage. The price jump accounts for how much more effective they are when fielded above 10 models a Unit.

[Lurker]

I'd say both, and really, a Hero on a Monster/Monstrous Hero isn't really appropriate for a Skirmish level game, outside of a scenario.

That's what I would think as well. As to the appropriateness of a Monstrous Hero at Skirmish level- I agree there, but in a comp level game the question is bound to come up and I thought it would be better to clarify that sooner rather than later.

I'm pretty sure that the Costs are for a contiguous unit, not for all models of a given scroll fielded, as this would create a points advantage. The price jump accounts for how much more effective they are when fielded above 10 models a Unit.

also what I was thinking but wanted to be sure of it though for the same reason as above.

[Spider-pope]

I'm sorry they made the game impossible to play competitively. Even with your suggestions I think it takes away from the heart of the game itself. /Shrug

Then don't play in his events or with his rule changes. He's doing what GW have said all along: Make the game what you want it to be. Even before AoS GW had that attitude towards their rules.

[Erik Setzer]

I'm sorry they made the game impossible to play competitively. Even with your suggestions I think it takes away from the heart of the game itself. /Shrug

No, it does not. The "heart" of the game doesn't rest on just throwing whatever on the table, where you might as well toss your wallets on the table.

You might laugh and scoff, but even GW's sending out comp ideas to people. Are you going to say GW is stupid and doesn't know their own game?

People like the idea of balance because a one-sided match is no fun. You might enjoy it, but you're probably setting things up to be the one with the advantage. And especially in a game. If it's a game, it's inherently competitive. If it's not competitive, it's not a game. It's just story telling with props. And maybe you're okay with buying expensive props for story telling, but a lot of people would like an actual game, that's enjoyable for both players.

[Mr Mystery]

Then don't play in his events or with his rule changes. He's doing what GW have said all along: Make the game what you want it to be. Even before AoS GW had that attitude towards their rules.

This.

[Auticus]

Just a couple of questions/clarifications Auticus.

This may be obvious, (but bear with me I'm a little dense at times)-

Heroes and Monstrous Heroes. If you take a Monstrous Hero (say at the skirmish level) which takes up the Monstrous slot, does that then free up the Hero slot? or does the Monstrous Hero take both slots?

Quarrellers/Crossbowmen. 1 for 10 / 3 for 20 then +1 for each additional 10 thereafter- is this in the same unit or if you took a unit of 10 at 1pt., a unit of 20 at 3pts. and then took a second unit of ten would that cost 4pts. or just 1?

all in all, very well thought out and executed so far! (and totally swiped too! )

If a model is both a hero and a monster he occupies both slots and is subject to the cap limit for the size of the game.

Your second question - that is just for the unit in question. The reason it jumps from 1 to 3 is because the unit gets the ability to always fire twice at that level, and in effect doubles its attack output. My first three games saw how powerful that was so we tweaked it to bump them up once they hit that level.

I'm sure there are other units like that that we missed but will be addressed as we find them

I'd be very interested to hear any playtesting you may do if you use this with your friends. Thanks for the comments!

[Path Walker]

Games are inherently competitive? What is this nonsense. Games can be competitive but it's by no means inherent. Tons of games are cooperative experiences.

Games can't be "storytelling with props"? What about Tabletop RPGs? Cooperative Board Games? Historical Reenactment wargames?

Warhammer shouldn't be? Despite being inspired and evolved from D&D (weirdly, given that D&D evolved from a different fantasy wargame)?

Despite the entire idea from the very beginning being exactly that?

Despite every single rulebook expressing that the game is a story telling device?

Points are a balancing idea, to try and ensure that the players enjoy their game, they're by no means the best or only way of doing so. Points were getting in the way of the storytelling elements of Warhammer, so they got dropped.

You can balance the game by being a normal human being trying to enjoy a social interaction.

Just talk with the opponent and agree with them what's fair. Its really not hard, having played quite a few games of this now, its always resulted in a close and enjoyable game.

No, its not great for a competitive environment, but then, neither has any game GW have ever released, if you want totally fair and balanced, Warhammer isn't the game you're after. If you want to make a system to make it a bit easier for tournaments, good luck to you, hope you're able to work something out that you can enjoy.

The game Games Workshop wanted to make was always a "storytelling game with props". They've just doubled down on that idea now.