AoS Age of Sigmar Rumours - Mk II. (Our new name)

I am inclined to beleive that this is the case. Guess we'll find out on Saturday.

That being said, I'm still not totally happy about it because the rules themselves are garbage. There are some things to like in there - I actually like random turn order for the element of risk it introduces (command abilities to modify/guarantee turn order will be hugely advantageous) and I think that the simplified/streamlined stat lines are pretty good too. Seems to be less room for abuse, whilst hopefully ending oddities like Saurus Warriors being genetically engineered for combat and with decades, if not centuries, of experience in war, but have worse WS than a human who picks up a sword and a shield. The key word stuff is really intriguing, and let's not forget that having free rules are beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

That being said, the ruleset itself is hopeless, even with a balancing mechanic. Someone pointed out on Warseer that you can move, shoot, charge a different target, then fight; then fight in the opponent's turn; then in your turn shoot again (at a different target, splitting your fire if you wish), then fight again. Get two turns in a row? Great news! Shoot at different things, charge and fight something else, shoot at more different things, fight something else, then fight again, then shoot more things and fight again! WTF.

Add back in charge reactions, marching, and close order (to make regiments and flanks a thing again), tighten up some of the absurdities, and it would probably be pretty good.

 

You know what, you have a deal!

GW!! I AM PUTTING MYSELF OUT THERE GW!!!!

 

What do either of you make of the terrain section? It was only about six paragraphs. Very short. Mentioned things like "Realm of Fire" but left it undefined.

There was an odd paragraph about moving over but not through terrain but never stopping in it.

Rules mention shooting but NOT how if at all terrain interacts with incoming rounds. Maybe I missed that somewhere?

Is terrain going to get Battlescape scrolls?

 

I'm starting to think they should've made the rules roughly the same size as a White Dwarf in order to clarify more information about terrain and basic mechanics.

 

It says something about "if you are in in terrain you are in cover and get +1 to your save roll"
So instead of "haha you cant see me!!" its now "oh, that tree took the blow for me."
Not sure if it relates to shooting or whatever....

But these holes could be an indicator that more rules are to come...which is good...meanwhile I am losing hope for the setting.....
The latest leaks are depressing.....Stormcast Eternals are in any way spacemarines....
They can even freaking deepstrike!!!





Find more here:
https://twitter.com/lady_atia

 

You gotta love this bit:

"Most enigmatic of all are the seraphon [lizardmen] - reptilian warriors that appear out of nowhere to join the battle against Chaos."

We Beam in from orbit. You never know when to expect The Reptilian Inquisition.

And there are only three or so questions:

Are you scaly?
Are you cold blooded?
Do you serve the Old Ones?​

 

To the people saying that 4 pages + 300 warscrolls is too simple, can I point out that chess can be explained on just 2 pages? (and that includes "warscrolls" for 6 different models!).

I'm not saying that this won't be simpler than 8th, but I am saying that well-written rules, in just 4 pages, have the possibility of lots of challenge. And while I agree that GW have not been known for their game-making prowess, I hope we can also agree that neither have they been known for actually following the market the way they seem to be right now (you can't rebuke them for copying warmachine without acknowledging that they are taking their competition more seriously). So, I would say it is possible that they are trying to prioritize differently. It's certainly a fact that they have modified their "we don't do market research"-stance - I have now twice been presented with a questionnaire when visiting their webstore.

Reference for the 2-page chess claim: http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~zirbel/chess/BasicChessRules.pdf

 

What, where did you find this?

 

It's in the stuff linked on Lady Atia's twitter feed, which has in turn been linked a few times recently in this thread.

The new fluff is... pretty wild. Lots to potentially love there. (or hate, who knows!)

 

Sorry, I'm not sure what you dare to say? That it is simpler, or too simple? The only question I put forth in the previous post was pretty rhetorical, so I'm not quite sure what question you're answering

 

I think one of the reasons why the rules can be written so short now, is because its written without all that cozy extra talk they often fill in

example:
"A character that has a magic close combat weapon cannot use any other close combat weapons (his magic weapon is his pride and joy, and he's sure as sunrise going to use it)."

there is extra talk, then there is fluffy explanations, then there is more extra talk and then there is rules with too many words.

 

Seraphon reptilian warriors that apera out of nowere to joint the battle against caos

 

The famous last words of Phatmotha-phucka. Goodbye my old friend.

Risky business trying to liken chess to AoS (or even warhammer for that fact). Chess is the most strategic board game by far, with zero element of luck (other than randomly selecting who gets to go first, which is neutralized by playing multiple games and alternating). Wargames, having to rely on dice rolls, will never be that skill-based. Chess has simple rules because it only has a "movement phase", and nothing more. No terrain, no shooting, no magic, no variation between armies, no fluff, etc. While I agree with your point that a complex set of rules are not necessarily required to create a skilled/complex game; AoS will not follow the trend set forth by chess.

In terms of complexity/skill/strategy, AoS will be closer to "Snakes and Ladders" than it will be to chess.

 

Seraph, biblical http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Seraph
Seraphin, alternate and archaic spelling of above: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seraphin
Seraphin, an ancient coin: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/seraphin (...which I bet has an angel on the obverse.)
Seraphim, biblical plural of seraph: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seraphim
Seraphon, some kinda Pokemon[!] critter[?]: https://www.google.com/search?q=seraphon+pokemon+character&tbm=isch

If The Lords of the Citadel were hunting for a word they could call their very own Seraphon is looking like a bit of a fail... ...also not terribly reptilian sounding.

Have we got the spelling correct?

We don't need no stinkin' jetpacks! We got transporters... ...our Slann Mzz'Tah'Zkatt makes it so!!