The rules

[Bolt Thrower]

New AoS app to be "packed full of free rules and gaming aids". What in the world is going on? Why can't we just get the whole picture all at once?

[Grenic]

-Heroes on foot can join units to gain a 2+ Look out Sir!
heroes on horses get a 4+ look out sir
big heroes on flying stuff is shit out of luck

I think rather than revising the rules to allow mixed Warscrolls, I would suggest something like:

“Look Out Sir: Each time a single model Warscroll with the keyword “Hero”, but not “Monster”, takes a wound or mortal wound and is within [3]” of a unit composed of at least [5] models when the attack was initiated, roll a dice for each wound or mortal wound. On a roll of 4+ that wound or mortal wound is taken by the unit instead unless the unit has been eliminated by a prior Look Out Sir roll.”

I think this approach would better reflect the AoS save game mechanic.

-models are in combat if they're in base to base

Agreed. Based on the test games I have played, this approach may also help to make the game flow better.

-Shooting units must use melee weapons if within 2" of an enemy unit
-Shooting penalties for soft, hard cover. -1, -2, and shooting into combat is impossible.

With the increased movement stats and the general reduction in shooting ranges, I’m not sure if these are needed at this point. I would prefer to play several more games and see if just adding the “Look Out Sir” concept above is all that is needed.

[HERO]

/Designer cap on

The LoS model is to make sense visually as much as it is applicable ingame.

Heroes on foot mixed into a unit is more difficult to hit, thus a 2+ LoS makes more sense. Horse sized targets are easier to hit, hence the need for 4+. A dragon, well, is freaking large man.

I'm sorry to highjack this thread, but I'm going to use it as a thinkpad so you can see what's in my head right now. I'll take note of the soft/hard cover, but for now I think it makes sense if archers suffer penalties for shooting units into woods or behind a concrete wall. Using Warmachine a a guide too of course, there is definitely soft and hard cover. For now, I'll play it as such as see how it plays out. It's also more tactical and takes consideration of terrain as well, which in its current form of the game, it does not.

Also, I noticed there are 4 distinct categories for units in the game. Since there are no points in the game, I still think it COULD be possible to lightly balance the game with some very minor work. Instead of re-writing point values for every unit, we might be able to pull something off by limiting certain models based on numbers.

Just so you guys can follow me, here are 4 categories that I've noticed for units:
1w models - Most infantry, or rather, Core (or rather, what was core before) in the game
2-4w models - Some Cavalry in the game, most Ogres or Monstrous Infantry
5+w models - Most Heroes in the game, or beefy elite units that we would consider "Special/Rare" before
10w+ models - Most Monsters in the game, some other weird stuff like the Bell and what not

So instead of writing points up for these guys, I've chose to do this. For now, I'm just going to call it Core, Special, Rare and Elite for sanity sakes.

How about I limit the # of models I can take for these?
1w models = 20 models max in a unit (unless the Warscroll states you can go higher)
2-4w models = 5 models max
5+w models = 3 models max
10w+ models = 1 model max

That way, I can setup a game with a friend and go...
Hey dude, let's play a game with....
0-1 Elite, 0-1 Rare, 0-2 Special, 1-2 Core, max of 1-2 heroes. (smaller game)

But wait, there's more. What's stopping your friend that plays HE from going, sure! and then he's taking Caradryan on Frostheart (1 elite, 1 hero slot), 2 units of Dragon Princes, 20 White Lions and 20 Phoenix Guard (because the last 2 count as 1w models?).

That's when you apply the faction specific restrictions: Phoenix Guard, Sisters, White Lions are max of 10 models per unit. The rest is over and done with. With the previous rules that I suggested, sure, you can mount both of your heroes on horses and move triple the move, but if the wizard is moving in a unit of 20 archers, he'll have a 2+ LoS and around 10 more wounds. For now, I think Look Out Sirs can be done like 7th Ed. 40K, since we're moving towards Skirmish-level warfare anyway.

What do you fellas think, is this simple to understand? I think having no points CAN work, but only if there are unit restrictions. Why units and not a hardcap on army (like 50 wounds?) because units make the game and not all units are created equal. Counting wounds for an entire army is an awful way to do balance, but counting unit sizes is much smarter and more manageable.

[Prince of Spires]

Are you actually warming to the game HERO?

They look like decent suggestions to me. It would give some idea of what's going on in terms of balance without overcomplicating stuff too much.

Rod

[HERO]

Are you actually warming to the game HERO?

They look like decent suggestions to me. It would give some idea of what's going on in terms of balance without overcomplicating stuff too much.

Rod

No man, still got some really cold titties here but...

I'm trying to make fun guidelines for the LGS here and they're liking what I'm proposing so far..

So to sum up:

Ruleset #1

Generic rules:
LoS works the same as 7th Ed. 40K
Infantry-sized heroes can get LoS on 2+
Cavalry or large infantry heroes can get LoS on 4+
Soft cover is -1, Hard cover is -2 to shooting
Shooting units cannot shoot if they're in melee
All melee is base to base

Unit sizes:
1W = Max of 20 models unless stated otherwise (Core)
2-4W = Max of 5 models (Special)
5+W = Max of 3 models (Rare)
10W+ = Max of 1 model (Elite)
Heroes = Depends on game scale

Test game:
1-2 Heroes
1-3 Core
0-2 Special
0-1 Rare
0-1 Elite

Although, I think if we did individual army books, it will make for better balance overall (instead of using wounds at all).

Ruleset #2

Generic rules:
LoS works the same as 7th Ed. 40K
Infantry-sized heroes can get LoS on 2+
Cavalry or large infantry heroes can get LoS on 4+
Soft cover is -1, Hard cover is -2 to shooting
Shooting units cannot shoot if they're in melee
All melee is base to base

The categories here are: Hero, Core, Special, Rare, Elite. This is defined as:
Hero - Max of 1 model
Core - Max of 20 models if small base (unless warscroll says you can take bigger), max of 10 anything bigger
Special - Max of 10 if small base, max of 5 anything larger
Rare - Max of 5 if small base, max of 3 anything larger
Elite - Max of 1 model

When applied to High Elves, it looks something like..
Tyrion - Hero
Teclis - Hero
Eltharion on stormwing - Hero, Elite
Prince Imrik, Dragonlord - Hero, Elite
Prince Althran - Hero
High Elf Prince - Hero
High Elf Prince on Griffon - Hero, Elite
High Elf Prince on Dragon - Hero, Elite
High Elf Archmage on Dragon - Hero, Elite
High Elf Mage - Hero
Dragon Mage - Hero, Elite
High Elf Spearmen - Core
High Elf Archers - Core
Silver Helms - Core
Ellyrian Reavers - Core
Dragon Princes of Caledor - Special
Tiranoc Chariots - Special
High Elf RBT - Special
Great Eagles - Rare
Alith Anar, the Shadow King - Hero
Shadow Warriors - Special
Alarielle the Radiant - Hero
Handmaiden of the Everqueen - Hero
Sisters of Avelorn - Special
Caradryan - Hero
Anointed of Asuryan - Hero
Phoenix Guard - Special
Flamespyre Phoenix - Elite
Frostheart Phoenix - Elite
Loremaster of Hoeth - Hero
High Elf Swordmasters - Special
Korhil - Hero
White Lions of Chrace - Special
White Lion Chariots - Special
Lothern Sea Helm - Hero
Lothern Sea Helm on Skycutter - Hero, Special
Lothern Sea Guard - Core
Lothern Skycutters - Special

So using the above classification, if we're going to play a "small game", and the small game is:
1-2 Heroes
1-3 Core
0-2 Specials
0-1 Rare
0-1 Elite

Sample list:
Heroes: Archmage on Foot, Prince on Dragon
Core: 20 Archers, 20 Spearmen, 10 Silver Helms
Special: 5 Dragon Princes, 10 Phoenix Guard
Rare: 3 Eagles
Elite: (the Dragon counts)

Which ruleset do you like better? Both of which is to demonstrate how you can "balance" the game with a few simple restrictions here and there, while not adding a single point cost to the units.

[Ladril Caledor]

Hero I like that idea. It sounds like a logical 'gentlemans agreement' which would allow for some list building and balance.

I have to say I really do like most of the warscroll rules. I'm thinking of putting together some mash up rules, a mix of 8th and Age. Specifically using the turn structure, line of sight, charge at start of turn if its in your line of sight, flank and rear bonus mechanics of 8th, along with the simplified combat, shooting and magic rules in Age.

Basically what I want is to play Age of Sigmar but still have the maneuvering strategy, particularly chaffing, blocking, flanking and such like, that I always loved best about Fantasy.

I think I'd also like to use an army selection structure similar to Hero's proposals. I'll do some work and testing on these 'alternate rules' and post them when they are ready.

[Ladril Caledor]

Hero you asked which of your rule sets we prefer, but to me the two sets look like they are complimentary rather than alternatives. I like them both together.

[HERO]

Hero you asked which of your rule sets we prefer, but to me the two sets look like they are complimentary rather than alternatives. I like them both together.

In a way, yes. However, you risk running into oddities like the Tiranoc Chariot, which has 5 wounds, but is not really classified as "rare". Special will give you more flexibility in that case. The first ruleset is a generic blanket for ALL armies in the game. It's prone to error but its much less work. The second ruleset is targeted to each army that exists in warscrolls. It offers better balance, but needs more work and community feedback.

Anyways, the full rules package can be found on my blog:
http://lkhero.blogspot.com/2015/07/desi ... igmar.html

I'm going to do this for all the factions for the time being, zip that shit up and put it up as a combined doc. Then, I'm going to use my leverage on other gaming sites to get people to playtest this crap, and hopefully I can gather some high-level feedback.

[SpellArcher]

One UK TO is running 8th but writing his own rules for the Stormcast Eternals.

[HERO]

One UK TO is running 8th but writing his own rules for the Stormcast Eternals.

Interesting, but it's dangerous territory. My rules don't aim to make stuff up, or add point costs, it just works with what's there and puts a few limitations here and there. Simple, clean, to the point. Balance with a scalpel and not with a hammer.

What you bros can do though, is help me with the labels on some of these High Elf units. Do you think Teclis should be Hero and Rare? Do you think Skycutter should be Rare? Tell me.

Oh yes, 1 more rule:
-All stupid ass rules that make you cluck or do something else equally retarded resolve as if you preformed the required action

[azur]

Sounds like a good start. I would perhaps add a rule for Charges, give the charging unit a bonus, or the charged unit a disadvantage. Also a bonus for flank/rear charge, probobly to be handled in the battleschock phase!

here is also a quite interesting comp system in development phase I personally like yours better HERO!

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthrea ... omp-System

[cptcosmic]

I am sure you could calculate point values for units according to their stats with a clever algorithm, just like GW did themself before, but better.

[SpellArcher]

Interesting, but it's dangerous territory.

Because very little new stuff is here it's not adding that much to the existing mass of rules I feel. I guess the TO will take a look at Chaos Warriors and make some adjustments based on which army (presumably Empire?) the SE's can be taken by, couple of other factors maybe. If he gets it slightly off it's not a disaster.

The thing is whether other events might do this and the volume of new stuff that needs to be catered for as the releases roll out. The main objection to continuing with 8th seems to be the loss of new releases, so I can see why he's trying this.

[Althi]

I am sure you could calculate point values for units according to their stats with a clever algorithm, just like GW did themself before, but better.

That may be true, but it is much harder to to put a points value against some of the special rules. Like the Chaos Lord's "on a roll of 4+ bring whatever you want on to the table with the slave to darkness key word" - how many points is that rule worth?

[Shannar, Sealord]

Sounds like a good start. I would perhaps add a rule for Charges, give the charging unit a bonus, or the charged unit a disadvantage. Also a bonus for flank/rear charge, probobly to be handled in the battleschock phase!

here is also a quite interesting comp system in development phase I personally like yours better HERO!

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthrea ... omp-System

But there is no flank or rear, you could have every model face a different direction if you wanted to. Obviously you could rewrite the movement and facing rules. But if you add that to the other changes you should probably just start with 8th and then modify new units to fit into that.

[Grenic]

While I have only played two test games so far, I’ve found the AoS rules seem to work ok, other than a Hero on foot does seem to be to easy to drop.

I also agree that some form of game size rules are needed.

Right now, I’m still leaning toward the following for game size:

“You must deploy at least [5] Warscrolls (units) and not less than [50] models before being able to "pass". In addition you may not deploy more than [100] models or [150] wounds, whichever comes first."

The entries in square brackets can be changed to suit the size of game. This approach also does not require a “fixed” list and retains the flexible “drop” nature of the AoS rules. Obviously for tournaments, this aspect would have to be limited to some extent. To address this, TOs could just add a “Pool List” (e.g. the player must submit a list outlining what the player will have available to be placed on the board) approach that they would then approve/revirew. The Pool List would represent the Warscrolls that the player can draw from to play any game. This could be written like:

“Your Pool List must not contain more than [10] Warscrolls (units), containing more than [120] models or [180] wounds, whichever comes first."

For the Pool List minimums are not really required as this would be the same as the minimum deployment requirements above.

To address the “exposed” nature of on foot single Hero models use:

“Look Out Sir: Each time a single model Warscroll with the keyword “Hero”, but not “Monster”, takes a wound or mortal wound and is within 3” of a unit composed of at least 5 models when the attack was initiated, roll a dice for each wound or mortal wound. On a roll of 4+ that wound or mortal wound is taken by the unit instead unless the unit has been eliminated by a prior Look Out Sir roll.”

I think the above minimalist approach should be tested and then see what needs to be done from there.

[LochNESS]

I'm in the camp of it a try, the rule set is pretty sleek and fast paced. Yes, the warscrolls have some silly rules, but in general those are the exception. Besides that it appears to be a solid foundation. I consider the rules and game in its infancy, it shows promise but its not entirely there yet. All in all I'm curious what the future holds, I'd love to play some narrative building games with this system, it appears to have been tailored for that based on previews and unboxing videos.

For my five cents, check my blogpost here... I must warn you though as it is a rather long read...

[Browncastle]

Im with you grenic. I belive you have touched in on the right direction when it comes to how tournament play will be done with this system. One thing I really like with AoS is the fact you will have a flexible list so no matter wish army you will face, you will only deploy those elements that will have an impact on the the given battle. As you would In a real life battle.

[Browncastle]

Played my first AoS battle today, Highelves vs Dwarfs n Empire. We did some small adjustments, basically we agreed on how many shooty units we took, 5 hero choises each, and we tried to Keep the armies some what balanced. Btw! We also didnt use sudden death rules. And we played turns like 8th edition, we rolled for initative the first 2 turns, and the dwarf n Emp player won both rolls, but at start of the 3rd turn I was alittle ahead, and If I won the Initative, the game would be over, so we let him have his turn and continued playing like that.

We had a good game and we didnt end up with just a big pile in the middle. In the end I won big with the elves, mostly because I keept my unit in formation, so LSG and SoA got the bounses from Caradryan on FP and the Seahelm. The sisters are now crazy good, so 2 shoots each that hit on 3+ rerolling 1s if you have a handmaiden nearby. Then wounds on 3+, 2+ if you have a Seahelm close by, and then rerolling 1s if caradryan is close by.

I liked the game, although we didnt play it straight up as is.

[RE.Lee]

Yeah, the basic mechanics are ok, if a bit simple (not that 8th ed is chess or anything). The balance is the factor that makes it a non-game.

I'll repost an interview with one of the designers of Age of Sigmar - http://captiongenerator.com/48861/Age-o ... VE.twitter

[HERO]

Played my first AoS battle today, Highelves vs Dwarfs n Empire. We did some small adjustments, basically we agreed on how many shooty units we took, 5 hero choises each, and we tried to Keep the armies some what balanced. Btw! We also didnt use sudden death rules. And we played turns like 8th edition, we rolled for initative the first 2 turns, and the dwarf n Emp player won both rolls, but at start of the 3rd turn I was alittle ahead, and If I won the Initative, the game would be over, so we let him have his turn and continued playing like that.

We had a good game and we didnt end up with just a big pile in the middle. In the end I won big with the elves, mostly because I keept my unit in formation, so LSG and SoA got the bounses from Caradryan on FP and the Seahelm. The sisters are now crazy good, so 2 shoots each that hit on 3+ rerolling 1s if you have a handmaiden nearby. Then wounds on 3+, 2+ if you have a Seahelm close by, and then rerolling 1s if caradryan is close by.

I liked the game, although we didnt play it straight up as is.

Phoenix Guard, Frosthearts and Caradryan on Frosthearts are also ridiculous.

[HERO]

Yeah, the basic mechanics are ok, if a bit simple (not that 8th ed is chess or anything). The balance is the factor that makes it a non-game.

I'll repost an interview with one of the designers of Age of Sigmar - http://captiongenerator.com/48861/Age-o ... VE.twitter

Video doesn't load with me, confirm?

[John Rainbow]

Yeah, the basic mechanics are ok, if a bit simple (not that 8th ed is chess or anything). The balance is the factor that makes it a non-game.

Agreed. It needs some more advanced tactics related to various aspects and some balance. For me it is still a bit too simplistic.

[RE.Lee]

Yeah, the basic mechanics are ok, if a bit simple (not that 8th ed is chess or anything). The balance is the factor that makes it a non-game.

I'll repost an interview with one of the designers of Age of Sigmar - http://captiongenerator.com/48861/Age-o ... VE.twitter

Video doesn't load with me, confirm?

Works normally for me. Try this perhaps: http://captiongenerator.com/48861/Age-o ... -interview ?

[Grenic]

Once a unit is within 3” of an enemy unit or charges in, does the "pile in" rule allow your models “push through” the enemy unit?

The rules really only speak to having to move over or through scenery. So, I was thinking that this would be possible.

If your models can, then I would suggest that this new AoS rule set may actually make it easier to better reflect what would occur in close hand-to-hand combat as a unit charges into a target and introduces the tactic of pushing through a screen when combined with a “retreat” from combat roll.

[Grenic]

As per the AoS rules, it appears that each Attack sequence (page 4) begins a new with each unit that attacks the same target unit?

Is this how others see it?

[Bolt Thrower]

As per the AoS rules, it appears that each Attack sequence (page 4) begins a new with each unit that attacks the same target unit?

Is this how others see it?

I believe this is correct if I understand what you are asking. First, you select your unit to attack. Make all of your attacks. Then your opponent chooses a unit to attack (doesn't have to be the same combat). Then you choose to attack with another unit and it could be against the unit you attacked before.

[Grenic]

As per the AoS rules, it appears that each Attack sequence (page 4) begins a new with each unit that attacks the same target unit?

Is this how others see it?

I believe this is correct if I understand what you are asking. First, you select your unit to attack. Make all of your attacks. Then your opponent chooses a unit to attack (doesn't have to be the same combat). Then you choose to attack with another unit and it could be against the unit you attacked before.

This is how I think it works too, but then does it also mean that each time a unit of multi-wound models is attacked you can allocate the first wound scored from each separate attack against a different multi-wound model?

[Bolt Thrower]

As per the AoS rules, it appears that each Attack sequence (page 4) begins a new with each unit that attacks the same target unit?

Is this how others see it?

I believe this is correct if I understand what you are asking. First, you select your unit to attack. Make all of your attacks. Then your opponent chooses a unit to attack (doesn't have to be the same combat). Then you choose to attack with another unit and it could be against the unit you attacked before.

This is how I think it works too, but then does it also mean that each time a unit of multi-wound models is attacked you can allocate the first wound scored from each separate attack against a different multi-wound model?

In the inflicting damage section it states that once you allocate a wound to a multi-wound model, you must continue to allocate to that model until there are no more wounds to allocate or it is slain. But that only refers to the damage for a single unit's attacks. If a second unit then attacks, you can choose which model to start the allocation and it wouldn't have to be the model that has partial damage already.

[Grenic]

In the inflicting damage section it states that once you allocate a wound to a multi-wound model, you must continue to allocate to that model until there are no more wounds to allocate or it is slain. But that only refers to the damage for a single unit's attacks. If a second unit then attacks, you can choose which model to start the allocation and it wouldn't have to be the model that has partial damage already.

This is what I thought, which is an advantage for units like cavalry or even units of Great Eagles over units composed of single wound models.