Just tested the mechanics with two models, a slaughterbrute against a verminlord corruptor. The verminlords much stronger :-).
First of all: Magic is before movement if I do it right. That changes a lot.
Full movement of the two monsters are 12 and 10.
Plus charge 2d6, that`s fast.
You chose the first attacker when its your turn.
There are some interesting tactical thoughts. For example surrounding important models with masses of troops (as I play skaven as well that came to my mind: my screaming bell in the middle of a mass of slaves).
I cant wait to see how these reported future missions and all the army balancing works. All the early rumor about unit formation, tight, loose, skirmish etc and how it effects combat, all that seemed to be lost in the 4 page rules right? Admittedly I didn’t bother reading them so forgive me if I’m wrong there.
I thought the rules were going to be something like tight formation resists charges better /gives greater battleshock resistance vs looser formations which cant be side or rear charged etc
Age of Sigmar will be the name of the first new Starter Set. The Set includes Simplyfied Fantasy Rules, based on the new Edition with Skimisher Rules. Age of Sigmar will be an easy and "cheap" introduction for new People and the first Release of the new Edition. Soon after the Set GW will release the Full Rulebook with full skimisher and standard Rules. Later in this Year, there will be a classic Starter Set like the previous with two Armies and a Full Mini-Rulebook.
Zuh-Khinie
So this was the first post that started this thread. Interesting to note the bit where it says
"Soon after the Set GW will release the Full Rulebook with full skimisher and standard Rules. Later in this Year, there will be a classic Starter Set like the previous with two Armies and a Full Mini-Rulebook."
and just now read this on faeit
http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-no-big-rulebook-build.html
The warscrolls are the heart of the game - the different rules are part of the design. For example, Bretonnian knights' shields only work when they've charged in the same turn, so you're discouraged from using them defensively or getting bogged down in unfavourable combats. There's a lot of synergy between different units in the armies. The basic framework is incredibly simple, but the (totally self-contained) warscrolls add the complexity and flavour. I think this is GW's strategy to create a game that naturally escalates - you can start with just one or two basic units and the game will be pretty straightforward, but once you have whole armies with different rules and synergies in play, the tactical depth comes out.
I really like the monsters that get weaker as they take damage, personally, and it's another example of a system that isn't even hinted at in the basic rules, but which the design of the game allows you to build in.
Thommy H
Totally agree with this assessment. Hopefully they continue on this path.
Is the book supposed to have more rules or is it all just fluff?
gIL^
Translated description.
�?oOutstanding Innovation
Warhammer: Age of Sigmar Book
Hardcover book of 264 pages in full color where we find the background of all that has happened since the events in �?oThe End Times�?� to Warhammer : Age of Sigmar, 8 new scenarios , 24 Warcrolls ( profiles of miniatures ) for the Eternals Stormcast , Khorne Bloodbound , and Sylvaneth . In Spanish , this product becomes part of module.�?�
The warscrolls are the heart of the game - the different rules are part of the design. For example, Bretonnian knights' shields only work when they've charged in the same turn, so you're discouraged from using them defensively or getting bogged down in unfavourable combats. There's a lot of synergy between different units in the armies. The basic framework is incredibly simple, but the (totally self-contained) warscrolls add the complexity and flavour. I think this is GW's strategy to create a game that naturally escalates - you can start with just one or two basic units and the game will be pretty straightforward, but once you have whole armies with different rules and synergies in play, the tactical depth comes out.
Thommy H
I'm okay with complexity and flavour, it's just the deluge of differences that make each warscroll so different from every other. I would prefer a bit more commonality that I can relate to and know instantly what it is, rather than the many variations. I guess it allows for easier updates, but now that everything is web-based free downloads it's not as big an issue as it was with the books.
Looking at the stats, it's funny how it looks simpler but really all they did was combine the weapon rules into the stats used for attacking.
M is still movement
WS is the to hit roll for each melee weapon, the to hit roll doesn't care
BS is the to hit roll for each missile weapon
S is the to wound roll for each weapon
T no longer needed since the to wound roll doesn't care
I is gone
A is the attacks for each weapon
W is still wounds
Ld is bravery
Save is a proper stat now rather than calculated from armour
The warscrolls are the heart of the game - the different rules are part of the design. For example, Bretonnian knights' shields only work when they've charged in the same turn, so you're discouraged from using them defensively or getting bogged down in unfavourable combats. There's a lot of synergy between different units in the armies. The basic framework is incredibly simple, but the (totally self-contained) warscrolls add the complexity and flavour. I think this is GW's strategy to create a game that naturally escalates - you can start with just one or two basic units and the game will be pretty straightforward, but once you have whole armies with different rules and synergies in play, the tactical depth comes out.
Thommy H
I'm okay with complexity and flavour, it's just the deluge of differences that make each warscroll so different from every other. I would prefer a bit more commonality that I can relate to and know instantly what it is, rather than the many variations. I guess it allows for easier updates, but now that everything is web-based free downloads it's not as big an issue as it was with the books.
Looking at the stats, it's funny how it looks simpler but really all they did was combine the weapon rules into the stats used for attacking.
M is still movement
WS is the to hit roll for each melee weapon, the to hit roll doesn't care
BS is the to hit roll for each missile weapon
S is the to wound roll for each weapon
T no longer needed since the to wound roll doesn't care
I is gone
A is the attacks for each weapon
W is still wounds
Ld is bravery
Save is a proper stat now rather than calculated from armour
cornixt
Lol I remember so many times telling people 4s and then 4s, 4s then 3s, 4s then 5s, 3s then 2s really it is the same as it has always been they just took out all the crap.
Its the movement tactics that have always attracted me to large strategy games the most. Out-maneuvering your opponent to win in a game between two equally balanced armies. Could both be exactly the same on each side, like chess. The skill of your movement winning the game for you, not who has the biggest hammer or rolls the most dice or has the best special rules or whatever.
Its the movement tactics that have always attracted me to large strategy games the most. Out-maneuvering your opponent to win in a game between two equally balanced armies. Could both be exactly the same on each side, like chess. The skill of your movement winning the game for you, not who has the biggest hammer or rolls the most dice or has the best special rules or whatever.
Doombeard
Age of sigmar tho has placed the balance of the game directly in the hands of the player tho. Either discuss in detail with your opponent, or bring the units you need to deal with whatever they might drop on you. I think it is a pretty neat concept.
So played a couple of games of age of sigmar, 100 wound limit 25 for heroes, and NO sudden death due to it seeming to be a kind of silly rule at first.
The thing that jumped out to me about this game is not the balance between units, it being a simplified game, or anything like that. The biggest negative is how long the game takes to play.
Sudden death is necessary just because how long it takes to chew through 80 models.
Shooting into combat is necessary because of how difficult it is to kill things.
I would be more upset at you if you dropped down 100 night goblins instead of 8 greater demons.
This is the main issue I find with the game. To have battleshock be meaningful you need to dump a lot of shooting into one unit, and or a lot of attacks. If you don’t then you are stuck in a grind. Solo monsters seem to be a total waste for how they perform in battle. Any unit that does 2 or more damage is AMAZING in close combat, but only when they are throwing out 10+ attacks a turn, and have some form of rending.
Now, if you played games of a smaller size a true skirmish sized game, then this becomes a non issue, BUT at the same time so does battleshock because by the time you test for it you will likely already be wiped out as a unit.
Moving on to heroes, taking heroes is actually kinda weird. They did not really do anything for me in combat, and the abilities they provided for my armies were also pretty meaningless. Magic plays such a small part in the game that I did not bother with casting my one spell and I was never in range to ever dispel any of my opponents spells. I can only see heroes worth it if you slap them on some sort of mounted beast where they will have enough wounds to get into combat, and do enough damage to have a meaningful impact. Moreover, having a higher wound pool on a hero protects them from being sniped by warmachines that can shoot at you without needing LOS (stonethrowers, hellcannons, etc) which on average will do 7-9 wounds per round of shooting.
Now solo monsters I am not sold on them, and they should really be delegated to just supporting other units in killing, and distracting warmachines.
Monsterous Calvary is amazing being able to move onto a flank, or rear charge, and then maximize the damage onto the unit and minimize the damage they receive. These units are game changers.
Shooting infantry, at first I thought they might be over powered with the ability to shoot into any combat, but this is balanced out by them sucking terribly in close combat. So I don’t see this as being an issue in games, same goes with warmachines, anything you can do to kill more guys to make the game go faster the better.
Now onto warmachines, an interesting issue I found is target priority. Yes I can spend turn 1 and 2 poping solo heroes or monsters, but then the enemy will have a block of infantry screaming for your lines. I found that I was dumping all my shots into enemy units to weaken them so my dwarfs could then have a better chance to kill them in close combat, and then turning and shooting my opponents characters.
Lastly, any ideal force in AOS (if you are playing with any sort of restrictions or comp) should try to have the following:
A hero on monster preferably flying, doing a lot of attacks, and having a lot of wounds
A block of infantry
A block of shooting infantry
2 Warmachines preferably the ones that only do mortal wounds and have a high ranged
Monstrous calv or beasts of some sort for flanking and delivering high damage
A Monster to support the infantry
Lastly some unit that can deep strike OR ambush seems to be an auto include if your list has it available.
Final word, the game is fun.
Lastly, the games took like 2.5 to 3 hours each and we had a firm understanding of the rules and units. Both of my games I qualified for the sudden death but tested without it.
Its the movement tactics that have always attracted me to large strategy games the most. Out-maneuvering your opponent to win in a game between two equally balanced armies. Could both be exactly the same on each side, like chess. The skill of your movement winning the game for you, not who has the biggest hammer or rolls the most dice or has the best special rules or whatever.
Not getting at you specifically, sam585, but it seems like you’ve done the same as a lot of people online who have tested out the new rules - basically not followed them. You ignored the ‘Sudden Death’ victory conditions and found the game a slog. Well, yeah, that’s probably why they exist…
I’ve seen it all over the place in the last week: Warhammer veterans giving AoS a go and casually remarking that they ignored this rule or that rule because they didn’t see the point of it and, surprise, having a sub-par experience. I mean, the basic rules are 4 pages long. It’s a very concise framework. Ignoring one little rule is the 8th Edition equivalent of ignoring an entire section. Imagine someone judging 8th by playing a battle that didn’t use the rules for break tests or magic!
Not getting at you specifically, sam585, but it seems like you've done the same as a lot of people online who have tested out the new rules - basically not followed them. You ignored the 'Sudden Death' victory conditions and found the game a slog. Well, yeah, that's probably why they exist...
I've seen it all over the place in the last week: Warhammer veterans giving AoS a go and casually remarking that they ignored this rule or that rule because they didn't see the point of it and, surprise, having a sub-par experience. I mean, the basic rules are 4 pages long. It's a very concise framework. Ignoring one little rule is the 8th Edition equivalent of ignoring an entire section. Imagine someone judging 8th by playing a battle that didn't use the rules for break tests or magic!
Thommy H
Right, please read what I wrote in explaining that sudden death is necessary, and not a silly rule. And where I go into explaining why it is necessary. The way it is put in the rules came out to me and many others as just some tacked on info, and not that substantial, unlike entire phases of the game where those were not optional. We had to play test to fully comprehend why it is necessary in practice and not in theroy.
In 8th edition people ignored those crazy trrrain rules, and rolling 2d6 to determine how much terrain. Atleast in my area and warhammer 8th still functioned fine.
Lastly, when you go not addressing you specifically and then addressing me specifically makes you come off as an ass. Like those guys who go not trying to be a dick and then say a dick thing. Don't beat around the bush when trying to make a point or bringing up an issue.