Librarium Online Forums banner

Age of Sigmar FAQs

21K views 30 replies 7 participants last post by  Kaleb Daark 
#1 ·
I'm not sure if this is really the best place - maybe it would be better under 'rules development' - but I thought it might be helpful to have a thread compiling questions about the AoS rules. Maybe if there are enough GW will actually release an FAQ (likely longer than the current 4 pages of rules) or simply update the rules.

I've not tried playing yet, but here are some that have occurred to me... Feel free to a) point out where I've missed rules, b) offer opinions as to how matters should be resolved, beyond 'roll a dice for it', and c) add to the list.

1) Can a single unit involve a mixture of different weapons? (I think yes.)

2) If the answer to 1 is yes, can a unit use shields to 'save' mortal wounds when only some models have shields?

3) Can units have more than one standard / horn / drum? (Seems a clear yes to me, but someone in my gaming group seemed to think this was exploiting the rules.)

4) Can a single model have both a standard AND a horn/drum?

5) Some spells / attacks require the target to be visible. Do models have a 360 degree field of vision? (Or 90? 180? etc)

6) Can models make shooting attacks while engaged in combat?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
1) Can a single unit involve a mixture of different weapons? (I think yes.)
Yes. Although this rule is not given anywhere. My reasoning is that it's a precedent from 40k. You can have a guy with a power sword, and another with a regular CC weapon.

2) If the answer to 1 is yes, can a unit use shields to 'save' mortal wounds when only some models have shields?
Again, no rules for this officially, but I would say yes if you then removed the Mortal Wounds from amongst the models with shields (just like allocating hits in combat)

3) Can units have more than one standard / horn / drum? (Seems a clear yes to me, but someone in my gaming group seemed to think this was exploiting the rules.)
Yep.
The way that I intend to play it is that if you have a Standard Bearer, he dies last. If he dies, someone else picks up the banner, just like in 8th. So if you have the option to all be Standard Bearers, then you automatically have a Standard in the unit until the unit is wiped out.
Ditto Hornblowers.

4) Can a single model have both a standard AND a horn/drum?
I would say no. But "Rules as Written" has nothing against doing this. Like I said however, it will only come into effect when there is just 1 model left if you assume that specials (Champ, Banner, Muso) die last.

5) Some spells / attacks require the target to be visible. Do models have a 360 degree field of vision? (Or 90? 180? etc)
360, as Skirmishers. Again, not sure that this is in the rules, but I'm going off precedent that it's "Line of Sight" as in any other GW game, and that there is no restriction on what that entails. Also kind of hard to establish degree markings for skirmish units on round bases...

6) Can models make shooting attacks while engaged in combat?
It seems you can. In the rules bit for 'Enemy Models' it specifically says that if you Retreat you cannot shoot in this turn. However, it never says anything to the effect that you cannot shoot while within "x inches" of the enemy, or cannot shoot while in combat, etc.
I see no reason to ever Retreat, as it basically ends your turn for that unit, and the enemy will just charge you next time. The only advantage that I see, would be to pull a unit out, and then start a fresh fight with another unit, so that when you fight combat, the Retreating unit is not forced to participate.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Yep.
The way that I intend to play it is that if you have a Standard Bearer, he dies last. If he dies, someone else picks up the banner, just like in 8th. So if you have the option to all be Standard Bearers, then you automatically have a Standard in the unit until the unit is wiped out.
Ditto Hornblowers.
This is more or less what I said on FB. Still, it does seem strange given that the controlling player allocates wounds, so you'd always be free to remove the standard last of all. Nonetheless, the warscrolls seem pretty clear in allowing multiple standards. They don't simply say 'Any model may carry a standard' (which would be kind of ambiguous) but any models and then add that a unit with any standard bearers (rather than a standard bearer) gets certain bonuses. This alone doesn't confer any bonuses, compared to one standard bearer who is always removed last, but some units then have special magic standards. It certainly is odd to have every model in the unit carry one of two magic standards, even though it seems permitted by RAW.

EDIT: One suggestion I heard on FB was that standard bearers lose their weapons and effectively can't attack. I see no indication that this happens in the rules and it's out of keeping with all prior editions of Warhammer that I'm familiar with. Nonetheless, it's not a bad idea since it does create some trade-off, rather than there being absolutely no reason not to have a banner on everyone who can take one.
 
#4 ·
Thing is, you're house ruling now. Which means that you're at the very least making an agreement with your opponent before writing lists. More likely however, you know these people - it's a gaming group of friends who've gotten together to play. In that case, you don't need the houserule. You just agree not be jerks to one another.
That's the only way that AoS is going to work. It can be a really fun game - I've gotten a match in already this evening and I had a really good time with it (don't tell the other kids that, they won't think I'm cool anymore).
BUT...
my opponent and I sat down and wrote our lists together, and it took almost as long as playing the actual game.

Best way to balance AoS is going to be by player-fiat. Basically:
Play "best of 3". The games go quickly enough. First game - use your own lists. Second game, switch lists (the scrolls are simple enough to make this easy). If you have to play a tie-breaker match, the players roll off and the winner gets to pick which list to use.
Winning the first 2 matches: Major Victory
Winning the tie with your OPPONENT'S list: Solid Victory
Winning the tie with your own list: Minor Victory

This encourages players to "field something they would play against", but not knowing what army they'd be using the in the 'tie-breaker' will keep them from "sand bagging" too hard.
 
#8 · (Edited)
Ah, that was Q.1 you see (can a unit mix weapons?). I've not read that many army warscrolls but, from what I'd gathered elsewhere, some seem to allow this (or perhaps people have misread them). Looking again at Chaos Warriors, you're right that they say 'some units...' which does indeed suggest that the whole unit should be armed the same. I think it's worded clearly enough actually.

I do dislike the options given though, because it seems that GW have written them more with the models in mind than the old army lists. In WFB 8th you could have halberds and no shields or great weapons and shields, but both these options appear to have vanished in AoS. (I also dislike that the AoS rules specify horns, drums, etc rather than simply 'musician' since older or converted models do not necessarily have what the rules specify.)

I wonder now whether there are actually any units that can mix weapons (or other equipment) or whether this was a mistake in the first place.

EDIT: Chaos Chariots seem to allow mixed weapons: "A second charioteer wields a hellforged weapon; some charioteers in the unit might carry
Chaos Greatblades, while others prefer Chaos War-flails."
 
#9 ·
When I saw question 1, I thought that you were asking if champions and such could have different weapons. I think that there are also some units that do have an option written out. For Chaos Warriors, they just say that "some units are armed with X" and then when you look at the entry, "Weapon X" just gives the stats. I think there are units out there whose weapon entries say something to the effect of,
"Any number of modes may be upgraded to carry Weapon X"
in which case, it's an upgrade, just like the banners.
Also, I think that I saw units where the Champions had different weapons than the rest of the unit. Most "legacy" Champs just get +1A or an extra shot in the shooting phase though.

In regards to the models vs. books - remember that the shields rules are very simplified. If you noticed, they've effectivey made Halberds a 1H weapon, since you can still use the shield in combat (nothing saying that you can't). The greatblade is described as being two-handed, and therefore loses the ability to take the shield. There are no rules for the shield which say, "in combat get +1 Save, out of combat, no bonus". The +1/+2 in/out of combat is there to represent the Parry save that we're losing.

In regards to the chariots, I think it's meant that one charioteer must have a Hellforged Weapon (my guess: driver) and the guy in the back can carry a more elaborate weapon. Note that on the models, the two crew are not armed equally.
 
#10 ·
In regards to the models vs. books - remember that the shields rules are very simplified. If you noticed, they've effectivey made Halberds a 1H weapon, since you can still use the shield in combat (nothing saying that you can't). The greatblade is described as being two-handed, and therefore loses the ability to take the shield. There are no rules for the shield which say, "in combat get +1 Save, out of combat, no bonus". The +1/+2 in/out of combat is there to represent the Parry save that we're losing.
I'm not bothered about the rules; it just annoys me that someone who gave their models perfectly legal equipment for 8th edition may find that they're not WYSIWYG in AoS simply because GW restricted the equipment options to fit their current models. Marauders can carry shields with their flails (the shields being a totally free upgrade) so there's no reason why Warriors couldn't also have had shields, beyond the fact that GW's great weapon upgrade kit takes both hands, leaving nowhere for the shield, while the halberd is held one handed.

In regards to the chariots, I think it's meant that one charioteer must have a Hellforged Weapon (my guess: driver) and the guy in the back can carry a more elaborate weapon. Note that on the models, the two crew are not armed equally.
I took it that the driver is the one with the whip, but my point was not about the two riders being different but rather that different chariots in the unit needn't be armed the same - some can have a flail and some a greatblade, so this is an example of a unit allowed to mix weapons.
 
#11 ·
I was curious about this as well - In the Skaven warscrolls there are several examples of verbiage that would *seem* to indicate that mixed weapon units were allowed. I suspect that the INTENT is to have weapons chosen at the unit level, but if that is the intent, it is poorly written.

Re: the shields - AH, I had not heard of the runeshields. Makes sense. I would again think (personally) that it makes more sense to determine this at the unit level, just because trying to keep track of the number of models with/without shields would be a pain, and not conducive to flowing gameplay. BUT, I'm sure there are people out there who care less about the flow of the game.
 
#12 ·
The Runeshields aren't really a problem, because - having re-read the warscroll - I'm not aware of any unit where some but not all of the models carry Runeshields.

I was curious about this as well - In the Skaven warscrolls there are several examples of verbiage that would *seem* to indicate that mixed weapon units were allowed. I suspect that the INTENT is to have weapons chosen at the unit level, but if that is the intent, it is poorly written.
I just had a quick look. The basic troops (Clanrats, etc) seem to choose weapons as a unit, but it looks as if Stormfiends and Packmasters at least can mix. I don't think there's any need to deny that this is intended - it's pretty clear in the case of Chaos Chariots and also we know that GW could have worded the text to preclude it had they intended to. I'm not so familiar with the models, but I wouldn't be surprised if they allowed mixed weapons in part because of the models - though also these smaller units should be easier to keep track of.
 
#13 ·
I've just seen the new Liberator scroll. (Ok, perhaps I'm late to the party here, because it wasn't with the other old WFB compendia.)

First, the whole unit must have the same weapons, except that one in five can upgrade to a grandblade/hammer. So, limited weapon mixing allowed - basically like the unit carrying a special weapon or two - though the majority of the unit will be identically equipped.

Second, their shields rule (re-roll saves of 1) applies "if any models from the unit are carrying Sigmarite Shields". So you could start a unit of 20, four of whom have grandblades, be down to your last five models - the four grandblades plus one with a shield - and you STILL get to use the shield ability even though only one in five has a shield.
 
#14 ·
7) A number of units, such as Zombies, can be summoned. The Zombie warscroll says that Death wizards know the 'Summon Zombies' spell. Do you need to include a unit of Zombies in your initial army to get this, or do all Death wizards know the spell even if you don't?

(I think the latter, but I've seen this one debated at some length on two other forums, so it definitely merits FAQ inclusion.)
 
#15 ·
Well, there's no official FAQ, so you could really play it either way:
1) The scroll must be present in your army, in order to bring in the special rule in question. Just like you don't get Karl Franz's command ability unless Karl Franz is present in the army, the "Summon Zombies" rule is part of the zombie war scroll, and only applies if the scroll is in play.
2) They put the rule on the Zombie War Scroll, in order to save space on the Wizards' scrolls. All affected Wizards therefore know the "Summon Zombies" spell as part of their regular rules, just like they know the basic spells and whatever extras they have on their scroll.

My group plays the 2nd method, and I think that was the rule as intended.
 
#16 ·
You're right Captain, 2nd method.

People need to remember that you can't read those rules and reference back to 8th with the basic rulebook mentality.

It's model driven (so far), so apart from the four page rules, everything else is in the model's warscroll, otherwise they'd be forever updating the wizard's scroll for example, or releasing the spell as its own scroll.

Whether it be daemons or undead all it's really saying is that if you have a Wizard with death or chaos in its title or keywords, you can summon this unit and field it. Its no different to the end times spells in that respect, but all its doing is putting the spell in the unit in question box rather than in the basic description of the character, so all death wizards know the relevant summon spells as do all chaos wizards.

I saw the debate on the other forum as well and was quite surprised that it dragged out for as long as it did.... actually I can!
 
#18 ·
Krull, the warscrolls are model driven.

remember there are no armies as such now, only factions.

The 8th ed. armybooks are essentially warscrolls for the miniatures produced for that model line, nothing more.

GW kept their pledge by producing rules which "allow you to use your existing miniatures".

New customers will just be told that they can play and field anything they like the look of, so buy what you like and bring it to the table.

Undead and daemons can be summoned by any wizard with the appropriate keywords.

Magic
Death Wizards know the following spell, in addition to any other spells they know.

Raise Zombies
Raise Zombies has a casting value of 4.
If successfully cast, you can set up a unit of up to 10 Zombies within 18" of the caster and more than 9" away from the enemy.
The unit is added to your army, but cannot move in the following movement phase. If the result of the casting roll was 8 or more, set up a unit of up to 20 Zombies instead.
So this is saying that any model with death and wizard in the keywords can cast this spell in addition to his basic spells.

AoS fundamentally forces you to think in models collected rather than army composition terms.

I cannot understand where this notion of the unit must already be in play came from, the rules on the scroll are very simple, perhaps too simple, which is where the confusion lies.

there's nothing stopping you from parking 10 death wizards on the table ans summoning your VC army in its entirety.
 
#21 ·
i can see your point to now...
but that's just... sick
:)

i went to my local gw store yesterday and they told me this was THE most balanced game they've seen so far from warhammer...
they said 8th was so unbalanced...
they must be brainwashed to say that...
8th wasn't perfect but imo it was very good!
 
#22 ·
i went to my local gw store yesterday and they told me this was THE most balanced game they've seen so far from warhammer...
they said 8th was so unbalanced...
they must be brainwashed to say that...
8th wasn't perfect but imo it was very good!
There are two ways that people are looking at the balance of this game, and there are two different arguments.
The first and most common "internet hates it" argument, is that there is no points system, and therefore you can exploit the game as much as you want. And people think that means that it's not balanced. I agree. I want a balance system of some kind. Not because I need one, but because I think that a "game" should have one. There needs to be some sense of a predetermined size. When I went to the FLGS, I usually had about 3000pts of any army with me. That was my 2500pt list, and roughly 500pts worth of "sideboard" stuff that could take the game above the "normal" size, but could also be swapped in and out if we played a smaller game (can't field enough Crushers, might as well swap them for extra Chariots, etc) or I wanted to soften/harden my list to suit an opponent. Now, I show up with 100 Wounds worth of models, because that's what I consider balanced, and some other kid shows up with a whole suitcase full of Dwarfs. Umm... sorry kid, but you have a lot of stuff that you're not going to be putting on the table because...

...the other hand of the argument is that if someone takes an exploitative bent to the game, you just don't play them. The community self-moderates in small groups. The points system wasn't perfect - no balance system in any game ever will be. You could exploit the points system, and people claimed that there was this huge problem where players were saying, "well, the rules say that our game is fair, because we both have legal 2500pt armies" and then would just steamroll a "fluffy" list with some tournament-optimized "WAAC" army.
And that's what it really boils down to: the whole argument between "Fun" gamers and "Competitive Jerkwad" gamers. The problem, is that the entire argument is based on the foul-cries of jilted "friendly" players who "don't care about winning and losing as much as having fun" deciding that they're not having fun because they're not winning.
GW targeted AoS at those "for fun" guys. According to GW, they've been targeting that group forever, so I suppose that's fair.
Among those guys, AoS is balanced. The simplified "To Hit" and "To Wound" being innate, and not modified by opposed stats, etc, means that the game is extremely easy to balance. The small range of numbers also means that all units are very close in performance. To some this is dull, but from a balance perspective, a Skeleton can and will kill Chaos Warriors now. It's funny, because they have just as hard a time with it as they did in 8th, but we're not telling anyone that, now, are we?
So if you're the type of person who sits down ahead of time and plans out a story and scenario with your friends, and writes your armies together and aims more at having a "fluffy" army and so on and so forth, then yes: the game is vastly more balanced. Because all of the armies are on a much more equal footing (no more "Tomb Kings are a suck-book, can't compete with Skaven" type comments) and because if someone shows up with a bad attitude and a really exploitative army, you can just exclude him from your game until he never comes back again.

Buuuuuuuuut....
It's not going to pan out well for GW in the long run. I don't understand why they're pandering to the "Funsies" guys. Yeah, sure, they buy the models. As collectors. They'll always buy the models. But look at the other guys who care a lot more about "fun" than being competitive. Look at the sub-groups that exist within that cadre of players that doesn't exist in the tournament/competitive guys:

"Money Hammer" Haters
You've heard it. The guy who bashes on all GW games because "the most expensive army wins". This was actually my problem with M:tG and why I switched to Fantasy, but sure - I get it. The guy is saying, "yeah, I could update my High Elf army from nothing but Cavalry and Spears, and win games, but that means I have to buy $300 worth of White Lions, and that's not fair"
These guys forget that GW is running a business. Their option as a player is to either keep getting use out of $300 worth of models that they bought 10 years ago, or go and give GW a little of their hard-earned cash and support the hobby/company/game that they've been enjoying.
These guys usually don't stop playing, they just stop buying. If they do stop playing and switch systems, it's no loss for GW - they weren't buying anything anyways.
--The "Competitive Jerkwad" flip-side
The guy who wants to run a competitive army and win all of his games, is not only more likely to buy those $300 worth of White Lions now that they've become good, but he will also be more likely to buy a completely new army if a book/update comes out which is "better" than his High Elves. And when you have a guy like that, you end up with a guy like me: I own half of the armies in the game. This, in turn, makes me even more likely to buy something new at every release, because I no longer have to start a new army - I just have to buy another $300 worth of an army that I already own.
AND GW KNOWS THIS
Why do you think Codex Creep even exists in the first place? GW knows that if a player loves High Elves, they won't buy Chaos Daemons unless there's a good reason.
Aesthetics? Probably not - nothing will look quite like High Elves
Fluff? Probably not - High Elves are High Elves because they're High Elves in the fluff
Playstyle? Probably not - nothing will ever play quite like High Elves
Does it win games? Yeah, this will sell books. The competitive gamer will buy the book to keep winning, the "friendly" gamer will buy the book because he's sick of losing.
GW can't even begin to deny that they weren't targeting or at least exploiting the competitive gamers.

OldHammer Guys
Basically, this is all of us right now, because we're not updating to AoS and are continuing to play 8th. GW acknowledged this group too, when they said that the reason they "dumped WHFB" is because updating to 9th would just splinter the community between the guys who stuck with 8th, and the guys who jumped to 9th. To GW, they see this:
Edition 1: 500 gamers
Edition 2: 250 gamers (half stick with edition 1)
Edition 3: 175 gamers (half stick with edition 2)
Edition 4: 88 gamers (half stick with edition 3)
Edition 5: 44 gamers (half stick with edition 4)
Edition 6: 22 gamers (half stick with edition 5)
Edition 7: 11 gamers (half stick with edition 6)
Edition 8: 5 gamers (half stick with edition 7)
Edition 9? 2.5 gamers (half will stick)
or
Age of Sigmar!!!!!111!!: 2.5 will switch, +500 new arrivals!
It's idiotic. Mostly because the reason that people didn't switch editions was because they believed "this edition was better". That's always going to happen, but more importantly, if you give them a solid, balance book that isn't just a nerf/buff festival filled with exploits to enlarge unit sizes and sell more models, people would be more likely to switch to it.
--The Competitive Jerkwad flipside
Even though we hate Age of Sigmar, the major tournament circuits that we all play or aspire to, have actually adopted it. Because they always adopt the newest rules. GW could always sell the tournament players new books, because our option was to either buy up, or quit. And quitting GW "cold-turkey" (to use another addict's phrasing) is a lot harder to do than just phasing back into an older edition. Every time one of my armies got a new book, I bought it. Because my friends wouldn't allow outdated material even in our "for funsies gais!" games, because you wouldn't see that army in a modern tournament anymore.

The bottom line is that GW wants to sell models. That's their first priority. If they could do this without supporting a game, they would. The game is actually just a way to sell more models (Elf Spearmen aren't as cool as Swordmasters, but you need to fill minimum Core - buy them) and to control the collections by saying "you can only use our models in our games". As a legal tool, they know that they can't copyright the mere name 'Space Marines', but they can copyright the exact fluff, all the iconography, etc. They realize that they're going to be printing and distributing this stuff anyways, so that they can reference it in court, so there's no reason not to package rules in there - rules will help sell the fluff, to make back their "insurance premiums".
GW sees companies like Chapterhouse and Scibor and wants to be like them. Just selling models. What they seem to fail to realize is that they created that industry. Literally: GW kickstarted miniatures collecting into what it is today, and games are the only reason the hobby hasn't died yet. GW doesn't want to sell to gamers - they want to sell to modellers and toy-collectors. So consider:

Toy Collectors: the closest would be the guys who collect action figures. Why do they collect action figures? Because it's pop-culture. It might be some super-rare Superman that nobody has ever heard of, but people have heard of superman. GW "fluff" is not mainstream. GW isn't filling cinemas with 'Space Marine: First Blood ptII'. The collector can't show a bunch of strangers his Space Marines and have someone go, "wow, that's a lot of SpaceMarine stuff - I can relate to that because I've seen all the movies/books/comics/fandoms, even though I'm not 'hardcore' enough to collect the figures"
So those guys are out. That leaves...

Modellers: have you seen the finescale modelling industry lately? It's like - non existent. I can't find Revel or Tamiya models anywhere anymore, without going to a dedicated model shop. And there are actually more FLGS in my area than there are dedicated stockists for Revel/Tamiya kits. I used to subscribe to finescale magazines, and they've either dried up or have switched over to bi-monthly or even quarterly publications. Because it's a boring hobby! Once you've seen a King Tiger in 1:48th scale, you've seen every King Tiger in 1:48th scale EVER. But that's also why modellers stick to real-world stuff as their basis. The only way to separate one of those King Tigers from the other, is which builder took the time to carve every individual bolt into the proper shape and screw-type used by the German wehrmacht for tanks built during the last 6 months of 1943 in the BMW factory in small town who-really-gives-a-hoots-burg. In other words: attention to real world detail.
You can't "fact check" a Space Marine for "historical accuracy".

I don't buy Dystopian Wars miniatures because I don't play Dystopian Wars. They look cool, but I would just build/paint them and then sit them on a shelf to look at. And they're a little expensive for that. And hey: GW IS EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE! If GW wants to sell modes and just sell to collectors, then they need to drop their batch sizes (nobody needs five Terminators, one is enough) and funnel all of that effort into making one really cool model, and then not charging an arm and a leg for it.
And do you know who's really good at that right now? FORGEWORLD. And do you know who GW seems to actively want to shrivel up, die, and fall off like some kind of benign tumorous growth? Forgeworld.

Seriously: f- this sh- I quit.
 
#23 ·
How to deal with Wounds in War Machines?

Hi,
Wounds in Warmachines to me are a little bit confused since I saw some BR with different interpretations.
When a Warmachine is wounded, what shoud I do? Count 1 less wound in the profile or remove 1 crew or both?
If I just count a Wound in the War Machine profile, I will never use the table that describes negative effects in war machine due to elimination of crew. If I eliminate the crew to each Wound, aparently there is no need to have the profile Wounds to War Machine (example: Duardin Cannon has 4 Wounds).
Looks like a basic question (maybe I lost some detail in the rules), however, please any help?
Thanks,
Kaznak
 
#24 ·
well the way we do it:

as in a unit, where you can choose with model takes wounds first, we do the same with warmachines
first remove wounds from the warmachine, till you have only one left
then from that point on start removing crew members...
until they are all dead
then when you remove the last wound from the warmachine.

seems the most logical way imo
 
#26 ·
My group runs wounds in mixed units, by who the enemy can legally strike. If you are closest to the Crew and inflict a wound, any of the 3 crew members can be removed. If you are closest to the cannon and inflict a wound, that wound MUST be placed onto the cannon.
Usually it's not a problem, as we're dealing with entire regiments made of one troop type (Chaos Warriors and their Champion) so whenever wounds are suffered you're just pulling from anywhere in that unit. But if there are mixed units, or characters present, then we go by "what could this model actually swing at" just as if it were 8th edition.
 
#27 ·
Thanks Cap !

I've tried both alternatives and my group decided to use the approach of the War Machine's player decides which model/wound is removed.
It makes more sense to the team following the "rule" of what it is not mentioned as forbidden is allowed.

Considering this, we could not agree on another topics that I again ask some support:

-May a unit in close combat fire its missile weapons in the same unit ïn contact" (we did not find any mention that is not allowed)? : majority thinks "no", becuase they are engaged in close combat with that unit.

-May a unit in close combat fire its missile weapons in another enemy unit in range, even if it is in close combat with another enemy unit (also no mention found that is prohibited) ?: majority of my group thinks "yes".

Please, let me know your oppinion.

Thanks again !!

Kaznak
 
#28 ·
It has been confirmed that you can shoot into, and out of, combat. Units who are in combat are still allowed to shoot. The only time you cannot Shoot is if you have Ran or Retreated.
It makes models armed with missile weapons very powerful. I played an Empire "gunline" against a Dark Elf "gunline", and it was effectively like playing 40k.
 
#31 ·
...Has anyone "come around" to playing Age of Sigmar yet, or are we all still just hate-mongering this game into the ground?
Interesting video in the other thread, and like you I really like the insight it brought to the game.

I think that the video basically reinforces the fact that this is purely a model driven game, and that’s what appears to be the difficulty for people when trying to compare it against whfb.

The first rule should be look at the model.

Come round... now there’s a term. I was always willing to give it a shot, but clearly it’s not Warhammer as we know it, but it’s here for the present time and you may as well just roll with it or get off and stop bleating. I could hate monger, but unless I jump ship and play KoW or similar, I don’t see the point of rage quitting only to play malifaux or warmachine etc.

“But kaleb, this is right up your street – you’re a hobbyist and fluffiest first..”
Sure I am, but I like a structure and framework to build my army to. Infuriatingly I can totally see what they tried to do, and also what the hidden jewels are, but somehow I can’t help thinking that it’s got lost in translation along the way.

The warscrolls are a great idea, and you could have army books being nothing more than fluff / formation / plot advancements, in this way the world can evolve, characters and maps can be replaced or change without the mess we’ve seen of old where this didn’t happen or that was always there because-new book. It could be so fluid and work so well.

I'm waiting to see how it shakes out, actually - for two reasons:

1) The rumors that a Heresy-era game is coming to 40k, basically "plastic 30k" but that it will have rules very similar to AoS. I think that the AoS rules would fit beautifully with 40k. It's not a bad system (once you work out some kind of balance), when looked at on it's own. Everyone's big gripe (and a valid one) is that they've destroyed everything we knew and loved about WHFB.
I do so agree with this. AoS could and should have been an amazing feeder into a more complex game, and yes, the destruction didn’t need to happen. There is nothing that I have read so far that could not have happened in the old world post end times. New map, new factions, new alliances, realmgates, different worlds the lot. It was all there for the taking, and could have been done so very elegantly. Instead in order to rid the apartment block of a mouse, we demolished the building to the ground and realised that the tenants haven’t got anywhere to live apart from the refugee centre they’ve just put up until the new block is built.

WHW’s own even just puts a comp of 100 models in its event pack – great. My wallet beats your wallet.


2) The Legacy armies are very odd. The faster they can get through the updated scrolls, the better. But I don't think they will. I think AoS has already died in the water, to be quite honest. But the problem at the moment, with the Legacy stuff, is that it's balanced around "all being there". The newer stuff, if I recall - is much better in Shooting than Melee, and vice-versa. It's not quite so bad as what happened with our gunlines. The best way to think about it, is that there are NO MORE "Core" choices in AoS. Things like Dark Elf Repeater Crossbowmen compared to DarkShard Spears are a thing of the past. Now everything is like comparing HE Sisters of Asuryan to Swordmasters - it either shoots really well, or it fights really well. There's no more "basic guy with a bow" anymore.
Correct again about the legacy armies, and in truth we were told this at the beginning. GW pledged to us that all of our miniatures can be used – nobody said anything about the armies, nor did they promise anything of the sort. And they did say that as time went on the existing “armies” would be more and more compromised.

However... I was speaking to my friend who works up at Nottingham, and there was a very interesting conversation that grew, and it was this;

Internally it’s all a bit of a mess at the moment, rules writing / mini design / painting studio / product strategy really don’t talk to each other. He also mentioned that for the foreseeable aside from reboxing and rebasing not a lot if anything will be delete.

Now looking at it from a different angle, we all know that the whfb 9th rulebook and army books have mostly been written, and lets face it, if it all tanks, then sigmar does his thing, beats back chaos, and creates a new world with all the survivors, and hey what do you know, there’s a big fat new rules set to go with it.

I think garagehammer summed it up perfectly when they said that AoS succeded in one thing above all else and it was this;
AoS has made people who were blind to anything other than GW suddenly realise or consider a big new world of alternatives out there.

I totally agree about the core choice need, short of liking warriors or having lots of them why have them over chosen?
But also it does allow us to field the army of our choice if we so wanted, but again we could have had this in the regular rules – i don’t know, perhaps saying that anything outside of its own slot outside of core (special/ rare)carries a loading of +100% to use? (you have a good sense of balance and could probably come up with a way better ‘take what you like but here’s the price’ model).

I can field the blood charge list I always wanted to field, chaos knights and juggers and horsemen – it looks awesome and the Warhammer world 100 model rule means I can show up with my collection of 16 skullcrushers, 16 bloodcrushers, 10 knights, 25 marauder horsemen, 3 gorebeast chariots and warshrine perfectly feasibly. But I know that someone will basically bring down a world of greater daemons and other hugeness. However if I had them I’d still love to take 90 bret peasant bowmen, trebuchets and a paladin!

That’s why for me I’m still struggling, I need and want the structure even at a very simple level.

It gives me some faith in AoS, actually, but like I said - I think GW has already come pretty close to pulling the plug on it. Also, the prices are ridiculous - models are hitting somewhere around the $6-12 each for units. That's kinda dumb, so much for "lower barrier of entry". But if they could get through giving us proper updates for the other factions, I think the game will actually balance itself out nicely.
I think we play the 40k line of argument on this one. They argue cost vs fantasy yet the costs are hidden, and have not got cheaper. The model count can be perceptibly less, but the cost as you say is still there. The only difference is that now like 40k a box is essentially a squad and all you need to get going.

I’m going to reserve judgment until all factions and realmgate war books are out. We won’t know what the hell the intent is until all the AoS era stuff is packaged up and on the shelves. AoS has been a vanity project in every sense of the word but cleverly it can be U turned without retcon. It’s not an un-enjoyable game, and it’s all we have if we want to keep on the ship, but it’s not Warhammer,and I suppose like many I'm still in a state of mourning for that.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top