"Age of Signar: Thoughts as rules?" Topic

First, I am not interested in hearing from those of you who left GW in 1996, or who just want to promote Impetus, etc. We get it, you hate anything GW, but I am not interested in your opinion at this time.

The question is what do you think of the Age of Sigmar rules as a system for large fantasy skirmish gaming, compared to the typical competitors like SBoH, or Battlesystem, LOTR SBG, Dragon Rampant, etc.? Put aside fluff issues, but what do you think about the underlying mechanics?

Ok, I have a typo in title. I cannot edit that.

I don't hate GW now! I just love GW in 1996! I find all the contemporary GW hatred bizarre… but why assume everyone hates GW if they happen to prefer older games??

I've never played AOS, but the mechanics seem fine, if a bit simple. There is the classic layering of d6 rolls to create "other than 1 in 6" probabilities, which is fine. I think you'd at least have to tack on a more robust morale system to compete with the other games you've listed, though… if you were using it for something that didn't necessarily require morale, however, it might work brilliantly, particularly for convention games (after all, you can teach it in five minutes flat). It is all about what you intend to use it for! Rules systems are tools that produce specific results, results which may or may not capture the genre you are trying to emulate.

I think it's a rather enjoyable ruleset. If you are interested in it I recommend you get the Generals Handbook which adds some new rules and scenarios. I found those additions add a lot to the game.

Compared with other large skirmish games I think it's viable alternative. I prefer it to the ones with roll to activate mechanics.

When AoS dropped, I was willing to give it a chance (stupid party-game gimmick special rules aside), if only to use "Old World" Warhammer miniatures with.

But it seems rushed and over-simplistic. I find it hard to believe, with so many popular skirmish rules out there, they couldn't use them as inspiration to come up with something better.

I played one game, seemed decent enough. Nothing radical. I'd have to play it more to get a better appreciation of its qualities. My gaming buddy plays it quite a bit and loves it.

I think the rules are good. The core rules are simple (not simplistic) and complication is added by the unit warscrolls.

There are tactics you need to use as far as positioning, which make it a little more involved than you will notice when trying it the first time or two. The possibility of a player getting two turns in a row is something you have to plan for, and it reminds me of DBA and Piquet. It means the number crunchers will not be able to plan exactly what will happen several turns in a row.

As with all wargames, play a scenario, don't just fight in the middle of the board.

Since the rules and warscrolls are free for downloading, just download them and try for yourself.

Didnt play it,but dont hate GW either. In fact my latest passion has become OldHammer with 3rd ed.

I think they are great. As others have said they are simple but they are deceptively so. The basic rules don't have a lot to them but complexity is added, as Centurio Prime said, with Warscrolls, battalion formations, scenario special rules and terrain special rules.

What I think is best about it is the varying complexity. You can make things as complicated as you want.

For example, if you want a big simple game you can pick out a scenario, use something like 4-6 Warscrolls a side and the basic rules and you will have a fun game with very little to remember.

If you want something more complex you can choose some battalions that have their own special rules, use the warscrolls to go along with them, pick a scenario with some special rules in it set in an area from one of the campaign books that has special rules for the land it is set in.

I have the General's Handbook but don't find it very useful, I find the campaign books far more useful and think they are key to AoS. The scenarios in there are great, at least the vast majority of them are. I usually make up my own scenarios but since those came out I've been mostly using them for AoS and 30K.

I like AoS, but I do prefer LOTR. There are good things about AoS though. I like how the special rules in the war scrolls/battalions add flavor to the units. But I prefer the heroic feel LOTR has with its Might, Will, and Fate points.

Played a couple of games, and I will play more in the future. They are simple, but fun. As others above have said, complexity and flavor come from the unit special rules on the warscrolls – that is also where you see unit synergies. Having the warscrolls for free is nice, it lets you research units amd army lists with no money down. Scenarios are key to more in depth games and strategies. I think any game which just has a "kill everyone objective" is going to gravitate towards a huge scrum in the middle of the table.

I like the simple core rules; it makes it easier to pickup the game after a hiatus, easy to teach, and even easy to mod.

I gave the basic rules (4 pages) a reading a couple of times when they came out, and was rather unimpressed. And I found them rather uninspiring.

Considering that they had an opportunity to start from a clean slate, there are some design elements that seem to have been carried over from older games out of habit, such as using D6 as the dice of choice (thus limiting the possible stat range) and sticking with the old hit/wound/save mechanism.

Turn structure is also the traditional way where one player moves all his units, and then the other one. I do sort of like that for a mass battle game, where you want to move units in concert to protect their flanks, but for skirmish gaming some sort of alternating activation mechanic would make for a more dynamic play.

The movement rules seemed to be lacking in elegance, at least when it came to charges. As I understood the rules, the charging unit might end up moving first in the movement phase, then again in charge phase, and then there was an additional shuffling of the charging models into the final contact.

Anyway, once the units have made into contact with the enemy, the close combat is not handled simultaneously, but instead there is an alternating striking order (players selecting units in turn to attack) that feels to me very gamey, and does not scale nicely (eg. it is better to attack an enemy with one big unit than two smaller ones, and if you are having the initiative then it is preferable to have only one melee going on to maximise striking first). This did not really have the feeling of a big chaotic melee where combatants would be continuously trading blows.

That said, once the combat is resolved, at least the morale rules at least are pretty elegant.

Speaking of close combat, being in melee apparently did not affect shooting units too badly, since as far as I understood they could keep on firing normally even while engaged in combat. And presumably they might not even be forced to aim their shooting at the unit they were engaged with. So having your shooters charged and engaged was apparently not tactically as bad as one could fear.

There may have been a few other oddities in the rules that made me scratch my head – but my overall opinion is that the rules could have been much better while still fitting to the original four page limitation.

It΄s a great game, simple to play, with different tricks and tactics per faction, and fun.

You need the Generals Handbook i order to really enjoy the game (but maybe better wait to the 2 edition of the book, already spoiled via GW). and the FAQs.

Try it. Probably the worst of the pack is the 4 pages of rules, very poorly writen. It΄s like if we are already playing the alpha version of the game, and that΄s for me part of the fun, seeing it evolve into a better game,step by step, and as much i learn about it, most i enjoy it.

We played it for a few months when it first came out then gave up. There were some elegant features to it, since you could just carry your units on your phone.

Lack of a point system was a big issue. They promised to handle this lack in later scenario or book releases but we got disgusted and weren't willing to buy any of them.

Disposing of movement trays was a big issue to me, it seemed as if maneuver was not considered by the designers and exacerbated the problem of not scaling bigger at all well, even more so than Warhammer Fantasy which was already limited that way.

But I think the biggest issue was GW's changing all of their intellectual property and starting new miniatures lines that weren't real inspiring and were expensive. It just seemed like a good time to make a clean break with all the frustrations of dealing with how that company's business model gets in the way of the fun of playing miniatures games.

The local game store had some people try Kings of War then most have switched to Ninth Age, or stopped playing fantasy altogether. Of the scattered friends I was playing with … some of us tried Kings of War for a while then lost momentum as players dropped out one by one. At this point, effectively we have put away our fantasy armies and switched our time to other game genres.

Haha, I love how a post asking to compare AoS to other rulesets – and please don't bitch about AoS – just turns into general bitching about AoS.

OP, I have played the majority of the systems in your post and I will attempt to compare and contrast them.

"The question is what do you think of the Age of Sigmar rules as a system for large fantasy skirmish gaming, compared to the typical competitors like SBoH, or Battlesystem, LOTR SBG, Dragon Rampant, etc.? Put aside fluff issues, but what do you think about the underlying mechanics?"

Dragon Rampant is overly simplistic, but this can be a benefit, as out of all the rulesets mentioned, it allows for much larger games – model count wise – in a short period of time. However, there is almost no granularity. Works well for 100 figures per side.

Advanced A Song of Blades and Heroes (I have only played Advanced, with reactions) – more granular than Dragon Rampant, but only a little – and fairly elegant. I have enjoyed the few games I've played of it, and seems to be suited for about 20-30 figures max per side.

SBG (LOTR/Hobbit) – my favorite out of all mentioned. SBG is all about area control and tactical movement. The most granular and tactically rewarding game listed. Works great for up to 40-50 models per side.

Age of Sigmar is quite different than all three I've just listed. The rules and mechanics are quite, quite simple – the simplest rules out of all listed here. It is each unit that adds their own rules – so you can add as much complexity to the game as you like, based on what units are brought. My favorite games of Age of Sigmar are using the Path to Glory chaos campaign, with about 6 to 8 units per side. It is a unique infusion where a player must be prepared for the possibility of their opponent – or themselves – going twice in a row – but even then, the alternating combat phase means that you often have to bluff or sacrifice models and units to get the outcome you desire. I have never not had fun playing AoS, even when I've lost.

If I were to rank all four, it would be on this scale:

SBG > AoS > Adv.ASoBaH > Dragon Rampant

We played battletech for years with no points, I understand points are a useful (and now ubiquitous) tool, but I don't think they are necessary to have a fun game. That said, I do prefer a game to have a point system available for pick up games.

Also, you can still use movement trays, they are useful up until the turn you charge in. If you are using melee weapons with some range, such as spears, you can mostly stay in formation on the movement tray during combat since it is an advantage to have your front lines tight.

The rules are free. So you get what you pay for, I guess, if they are as bad as some say. If not, hey, they are free! (I assume they still are). Too bad you have to buy the terrain to get the rules for it, if that is still the case. It was good of GW, in one way, to scrap fantasy battles altogether, better than slowly changing it in an attempt to turn it into aos. It gave many of us a clean break, which was, in GWs own way, kind.

I wander when another edition will appear and what may change. That may be interesting to see.

I love how a post asking to compare AoS to other rulesets – and please don't bitch about AoS – just turns into general bitching about AoS.

Not from me, at least not in this thread.

You ask for an opinion on a game, but only allow positive feedback? (Clearly you should be consuming some of the food you find in those pic-a-nic baskets and not just the drink)

Aos had free rules, thus even those who don't buy GW stuff could have played it and have an opinion of it. Thats the trap with free rules, anyone can try them, not just your customers.

Terrain rules are included in the rules as well as for free on the GW web site. (as are the rules for all the other models)

The mechanics are very simple.
I think you should take a look at dragon rampant if ypu'really only considering that list.

Large skirmish is small battle and the free impetus lite conversion offers a more sophisticated set of mechanics for free.
I don'the really follow why the list is limited to "common competitors".
Why pick now though? Rules are cheap compared to miniatures.
If you base individually then you can use your figures for single miniature or element style games.

I prefer a more sophisticated turn sequence.
Each to one's own though.

Fwiw I have a huge collection of Gw miniatures and no strong feelings either way about the company. I don't think they ever produced a fantasy system which was better than OK. Wotr has a decent core system. Problems in lists and heroic abilities mean I wouldn't recommend it straight out the book. I come from a generation where it's usual to tinker with any rules though.

Of the OP's list I would recommend both Age Of Sigmar and Dragon Rampant equally. I had only a couple of games with the Lord Of The Rings rules, at a convention no less, and didn't really enjoy the game it could just be that the GM was not able to really jet us go to town with the rules, though. Not always easy to run a game with six or more new players….

Fat finger syndrome strikes again, apologies for the typos and missing punctuation above.