• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more here.

AoS experience

Eyeless

Wight King
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
443
#1
Ok just played my first AoS game.

Was really looking forward to try it this morning so was very exited about the game.

What I Liked:
-Warcsrolls & Warcsroll Formation. Very much needed. Best thing ever.
-The weapons damage mechanic. A weapon dealing more wounds is nice.
-The units getting weaker by wound count. Excellent mechanic.
-Weapons range in combat. Wasn't really good or bad just something different and thought it was fun.

What I Hated: Everything else.
-0 customization on lords.
-No fun in army building.
-Magic phase was kinda shit and boring.
-No balance. 15 ghouls + vampire lord wiped a unit of 20 longbeards. Thane alone kills all the ghouls and vampire on the next 2 combats.
-Movement Phase. No Comment. We only had a unit of 20 and a hero each. Can't imagine a game equivalent to 1500pts, let alone larger scale game I was aiming for (3k +).
-Troll Rules. Really Konrad whispered you back? Awesome man. Seriously...
-Ambiguous Rules. Can a model shoot if in combat? Can a model shoot at a unit in combat? Do you deal damage to a model? If models in a unit die and you don't have range to the next model will damaged get transferred? Being behind a fence and behind a tower both grant the same Cover? And much more...
-Flat To Hit & To Wound. This is the worse thing ever. Because you know hitting a goblin and hitting a Dragon is just the same :)
-Undead summoning mechanics and Spells. The Great Necromancer doesn't know 1 summoning spell unless that unit is fielded. Totally Right aye?

I think there might be more but those are the main issues. Have I got this wrong or what? Finding it hard to like thins game. Probably sticking to 8th or 8.5 Whatever :/
 

Demian

Vampire Count
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,248
#2
- Shoot while in combat? Yes, I believe you can! RAW, although they'll only shoot at dudes right in front of them, since visibility is an issue there.

- Movement: You can Move and Charge, that much is clear. You can't Run and Charge/Shoot, although some units (like Skeleton Archers) may, if they have a Musician! It is very easy to get into combat now, I guess.

- Summoning: for the wording of it, I wouldnt know if Death Wizards know all their summoning spells for default, or they gain said rule when fielding a Unit of that warscroll, but I'd be inclined to think as you do. That would represent your army "composition" I guess.

- Dealing damage: I think damage is transfered since you pick a unit (pile it in) and select targets for all your models who can attack. Doesn't matter that the first 2 dudes killed their only 2 dudes they were in contact with, your remaining "x" models will get to strike, adding up the wounds total to a Unit. Models are removed later, when unsaved wounds are counted, and your opponent may choose to distribute them as he wills, provided whole models are slain before damaging the next ones.

- Flat to Hit and to Wound: I was iffy of this too. I've come to see that durability depends solely on saves and special rules now, since the most basic band of warriors can kill even the mightiest of foes. Unit placement and formation is crucial here! Now, sending your Hero alone against a horde of enemies will result in him getting squatted, very different from the "Unkillable Chaos Lord" that we saw in 8th. I find that kinda refreshing tbh.

Will work on strategies to post in this forum, later on :D!
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
293
#3
Death wizards can summon all undead units by default, the spell for summoning that unit is in that unit's warscroll. You don't need to field them to summon them.
 

Eyeless

Wight King
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
443
#4
Thanks for the reply =] @Demian All valid points what you mentioned there and thx for clarification. As for the Movement Phase i was referring to the fact that each model is now loose from it's unit in a skirmish format so to say and it's hell to move them around.

As for the Flat to hit and to wound: Our game lasted 4 turns, Got 15 ghouls and vamp into combat vs 20 longbeards.
Combat 1: 2 ghouls dead vs 18 dwarfs dead.
Combat 2: longbeards got wiped and vamp charged his lord 1v1 my lord got rekt dealing only 1 wound.
Combat 3: 12 remaining ghouls charged his lord dealing 0 wounds and going down to 6 ghouls.
Combat 4: 6 ghouls vs dwarf lord. inflicted 2 wounds and he wiped my last 6 ghouls.

^ doesn't seem that balanced to me.

@Undying Scourge You can interpret it that way however i got the impression that you need to field a scroll to get it's effect? Since the magic is listed on the unit scroll.
 

Demian

Vampire Count
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,248
#5
Hmmm yes, the free formation will prove difficult to handle when you're dealing with 60+ models on the table. Hopefully, that will not be a hindrance once combat starts. Even then, I think I'll rank up my formations to maximize attacks anyways, holding my skeletons close so more models can strike.

That Dwarf thane is tough as nails! next time, don't be a hero and send in the ghouls as well =P haha

Also, battleshock affects us the same as any other... so, consider using the Inspiring presence default ability when needed.

Yep, the magic being listed on the scroll could mean only when using said scroll you are allowed to summon stuff. Could be wrong.
 

najo

Mortarch of the Dark Soul
True Blood
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
2,047
#6
I played it too. Was really impressed with the tactics in it. The game is strong. I've got a ton to add to this but I don't have time right now. Pay attention to the 3" control zone, the combat back and forth, initiative being rolled and how you use pile in and movement. There is a ton of tactical play in the game. A ton. The game's movement is more complex than fantasy battle. Seriously.
 

Quinten

Grave Guard
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
269
#7
May you please share your insights into the tactical play in this game? I played a game and everything just got into some big blobs and we threw some dice some things died and tactics seemed to be a foreign concept. I hope I don't sound cruel I'm not trying to be I just don't get where your getting the complexity in this game from.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
34
#8
Movement shenanigans - I charged my blood knights in to my friends ushabti took out most of them and laughed at how the rest would be squished the following turn. Over to u I said thinking the 1 usabti left was the only unit in combat. He measured from Nagash's staff to one my knights spears. Just under 3 inches. Nagash piles in 3 inches putting him in range for all his cc attacks. Good bye blood knights!
 

Eyeless

Wight King
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
443
#9
@Quinten just what you said. we got units in combat and just rolled some dice to decide who wins. @najo I don't want to sound disrespectful or anything but could it be that since you have been playing Oldhammer for a long time you are just happy with the change? I myself have just built my 2k army and friends are still at 1k point, and i must say out 8th games with 1k or 500-750 pts were much more fun than this. We were disappointed with our game so much that it almost felt as wasting time :c Although i agree that it's nice as an introductory game for new players to get in the hobby.
 

GDD

Grave Guard
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
200
#10
Quinten and Eyeless sort of confirm my fears :S It seems like a lot of our units have very different roles, and ways to use them, but all in all it seems like there is less of a difference between stuff. I hate that they did away with WS, S & T..

I hope more people come and share their experiences.
 

Eyeless

Wight King
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
443
#11
@GDD don't get me wrong, i'm not 100% against AoS, the warscrolls are awesome, well most of them, even the formations sound cool, but the basic rules of the game and how the turn flows is lacking, very lacking, if they give more depth to the basic Rules and some more balancing it could turn out quite interesting. however as it is, i find it boring and somewhat unbalanced :/
 

Tawg

Vampire Count
True Blood
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
1,132
#12
Yep, the magic being listed on the scroll could mean only when using said scroll you are allowed to summon stuff. Could be wrong.
From what I understand you can choose to include WarScrolls or not. I played it as though you needed to field the unit to get the Summon Spell my first game, but I could see reasonably just saying that you are going to include the WarScroll as part of the army with no models on the board. If you play a game where WarScrolls are limited (By player agreement or otherwise) then this would make a lot of sense, since it's like putting units in reserves almost.

May you please share your insights into the tactical play in this game? I played a game and everything just got into some big blobs and we threw some dice some things died and tactics seemed to be a foreign concept. I hope I don't sound cruel I'm not trying to be I just don't get where your getting the complexity in this game from.
While I'm not as overly exuberant as Najo about how thrillingly great the new system is, I am also not in the same camp as you.

I believe that much of people's experiences with this new version of the game are going to be heavily tinted by their initial knee-jerk reactions, and people (On either side) are not really thinking too hard about it.

I played a few games yesterday, although I probably won't get anymore in for a while (Maybe one of these weekdays I'll try again, but certainly not today). But from what I played, the whole game is grossly simplified. I played the game as written with no restriction on shooting into/out of combat, and that changes the valuation of some units a bit, as their ranged attacks essentially become additional hits, but only on their turn. It doesn't seem to be too big of a boon, but I haven't played against a variety of forces yet to see a ranged unit that is too strong with this interpretation of the rules. But you can easily just agree not to with friends, but I guess strangers may be a bit different depending on their disposition and desires.

As for movement specifically? It's not that bad. Movement ranges vary by units, with the "mounted" ones moving a fairly uniform 10" or so, most humans at 5" and "Slow" being 4" and "Fast" being 6". Pretty standard stuff, and at this point I feel I could guess the speed of any model I already own on that basic knowledge, which is cool.

With the movement though there are some rules intricacies I can see coming from this. For starters running. Either you choose to get the +d6" movement (Larger bonus for some armies, depending on speed) and you forgo Shooting/Charging, or you take your normal movement and accept it there. Personally I have been allowing people to move, take measurements and then decide if they want to run following. It's a hold over from 40k running being in the shooting phase, so I'm just use to it being a different interaction. But it allows people to see if their guns are in range/if they want to run or how far from a charge they are beforehand.

So running is kind of cool, it's a bit of a risk-reward thing, just far simpler and fairly easy to control. The biggest "tactical" choice with running I've come into is that, if you are on the "bottom" of the turn, right before Initiative, rolling for that run can put you right where you need to to really get a good turn off if you take the initiative. But on the other hand you may be setting yourself up to be charged by our opponent. It's a little dicey (No pun), and FAR more random of an interaction that in previous editions where the game was much more about planning and executing a sound strategy, but it does offer the chance for risk-reward play, and a bit of "Ohhhhh GOT YOU!" type moments.

The 3" charge range also means that charges of snake-eyes always fail, something I did not consider before it happened to me. That in itself is interesting, because without explicitly having to state that 2" always fails, they worked it into the rules, which is.. almost clever. Almost. Some units Special rules for charging will also come out as we move forwards, and things like Skeleton's WarScroll which grant a minimum charge of 6" is pretty great, giving you full control over knowing if you'll be in at a certain range. There are also units with bonuses (I haven't looked at Brits, but I'm sure they still get charge bonuses of some sort).

Along with this, the " 3" buffer " around units now does provide some things. I don't know big of a deal it was to Najo's games (Apparently fairly great, since he likes to mention it), but I can see that enabling you to "Force" opponents around units or creating road blocks in tight areas of the board such that you can control the flow of battle.

The 1/2" charge range also means that once units are into each other for combat and "Spread out" by their pile-in moves, that you won't really be able to charge in second units unless you have moved around or there is open space on the frontage of the unit. Not exactly what I'd call depth, but an interesting point to consider as armies "Smash together into blobs."

It's not exactly what I'd call depth, but it has a lot more going for it than you might be looking for. Especially if you're already trying to take out the trash, and you are glazing over everything with a disdainful attitude before you start. Not that I'm saying you are for sure doing so, but I feel that many players may do well to take at least one introspective look at the whole deal.

For me personally? I agree with a lot of what Eyeless stated as pros/cons. Except that I don't think summoning is restricted the way he said, and the magic phase is a little lack-luster with almost no models, but I could see it getting interesting with larger forces.

The biggest thing they have robbed me of is customization/list building. The level of detail/choices I had previous was much greater, and it was one of the biggest things in the game for me. Building list was important, it was what was fun for me. Although there are a few rules tweaks for what would have been different gear options previously, so there is still a bit of customization reflected by the rules, but damn do I miss my blood-lines.

However, considering the different effects of items or units, even before these rules, I was working on modeling units that had nothing to do with what GW said for me to play with. For instance I was working on a "Coiling Death Wurm" that was burrowing/breaking ground over the course of 6x40mm bases, that I planned to use as Crypt Horrors. I just thought it was cool (And had terrorgheist parts left over that inspired me). There is nothing stopping me from doing so now as well. I also had a multitude of vampires with "Various" interpretations of rules reflected in their modeling, like a Female Vampire born into the air in a swarm of crows that I was going to simply count as a Nightmare in game, despite it's obvious lack of being an actual Nightmare.

I mean, even before AoS I was using my imagination in the game, flavoring things how I liked, playing the way I wanted.

And if you think about it, do I really have to be missing them entirely? I mean I very well could come up with formations/ideas to reflect the effects I loved in game, with opponents permission, and heaven forbid, GW might do the same with forthcoming expansions/rules sets.

That is one of the biggest things I am grasping at for this game. If GW comes out with permissions sets for scenarios that give objective play like in 40k currently (I don't know if you're familiar, but it's random VPs based on objectives generated in game), I would honestly throw all doubts away and jump whole-heartedly into AoS. And that's for the permission of objectives. I don't even need them to tell me I can for me to do it, and I'm sure soon enough I'll be coming up with a mock-deck of objectives just like from 40k, because I think it'll be fun. And if GW comes out with campaign books, detailing "Epic historic fights" and "Worlds conqoured" and all the special rules you can shake a stick at to go with them (New terrain rules, mission rules, maybe even rules for extended multi-mission play), then this game will be rolling, in my opinion.

And I feel like most people are really not looking at what they are being given, they are only looking at what was taken away.

Sure I feel robbed on a few aspects of the game, but in the end, they don't define my enjoyment - of the hobby or the game that is played with my models.

But if you played for the game, then I can't help you. I am a hobbyist, and I play a game with the works of my hobby. I never picked up Warhammer because it was the greatest game to play, I picked it up because the models and story were great, it inspired stories for me, and my friends and I can sit back and have something to burn time on together. And if those things are destroyed for you than I am sorry, but this is not the end of the world.

Not the real world anyways - in game, the world is pretty much shot.
 

LordTobiothan

Crypt Horror
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
583
#13
I never got the whole having fun through basic novelty thing. I can make random bullshit rules in 10 min and get a friend to play it with me, i dont need gws 10 min of random bsing to do that.

And novelty only lasts for the first or second time your "funny" unbalanced rules come into effect, after that its hard to laugh at the same joke the tenth time and the unbalance of it starts to shine through.

Fluffy rules are fun and great, but their idea lasts much longer when done within the mechanics of the game, and not completely their own thing.
 

Banat

Varghulf
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
791
#15
I'm with Undying Scourge on the summoning issue. It says ALL death wizards know this spell in addition to any other spells they know. Effectively our death wizards have loremaster undead summoning.

As for stepping up the rules, the current ruleset has been referred to as "living rules". I.e. the rules are online and can be updated at any point. So it's entirely possible in the next two or three weeks we'll start seeing clarified rules. The shooting is a bit silly I must admit.

There's a rule with the sisters of avelorn called "to the last..." or something which means they can fire a charging unit if they're within 1/2"... I dunno that just suggests to me that models can't shoot when in combat.

Again maybe this is a "common sense" thing that they haven't specified because it seems obvious that a bowman couldn't prepare, aim, and fire his arrow in the midst of a combat maul.
 

Eyeless

Wight King
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
443
#16
yea but the need to be updated regularly not once every 6 months or so :tongue: also on summoning i saw other posts on other forums which were saying the same thing as you so i might have interpreted it wrongly :)
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,134
#17
To be honest, it feels to me like the pre-alpha version of a game I might greatly enjoy when finished. Like, if they had included a note on the rules saying "we are currently developing the exciting new rules for warhammer, and would like input from the hobby community to make them the best they can be, here's the initial rules to test out and they will evolve going forward based in part on your feedback", maybe even throw an official feedback form into the age of sigmar starter box, then I'd be pretty stoked.

As an ostensibly finished product... it just feels half baked. Missing essential systems and features (army composition), and needing considerably more time getting worked over by QA. Had I bought it on steam, I'd be getting a refund. As free rules?

I guess I'll try to play it sometimes, but while the local scene isn't super tournament oriented, they are more competitive than the game supports in its current state, so I fear I won't be able to find opponents who even want to give it a try.
 

LordTobiothan

Crypt Horror
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
583
#18
To be honest, it feels to me like the pre-alpha version of a game I might greatly enjoy when finished. Like, if they had included a note on the rules saying "we are currently developing the exciting new rules for warhammer, and would like input from the hobby community to make them the best they can be, here's the initial rules to test out and they will evolve going forward based in part on your feedback", maybe even throw an official feedback form into the age of sigmar starter box, then I'd be pretty stoked.
You literally just described how kings of war did it, you want the community driven end result of this type of ruleset? read up on that game if you haven't, which im almost sure you have, but it bares saying. You want from GW a system that already exists.
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,134
#19
That's how Wizards handled D&D 5th edition, too. Saying 'go play KoW' to that is like saying 'go play D&D'. They're both very different games from what AoS is and from what it might have been if it had been handled in this way.

I'm interested in seeing the 2nd edition KoW rules, but while I appreciate the effort those folks put into designin a smooth battle game, I'm still not convinced that they've actually made the game any less bland than the first edition yet. But yes, I am watching with interest.

Even if I love KoW 2.0, that doesn't mean I wouldn't also have loved a more fully baked AoS. They're too different games at two different scales. It would have been nice to have both options to choose from - one for skirmish games and one for battle games with the same army.
 

LordTobiothan

Crypt Horror
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
583
#20
Except age of sigmar is basically what kow was, the only things age of sigmar is doing differently is removing the need for ranked blocks and adding whatever over the top rule sounds the coolest (whether or not the rule actually is at all interesting).

So using the same base you want community input to help drive it into a more balanced playable state, which is what kow did to get to kow 2.

Knowing GW the result would be drastically different and community suggestions would likely be ignored or exist in name only, but i assumed your fantasized outcome ends up more like kow2 did, where input is meaningfully considered, under that assumption age of sigmar would in theory be barely different.

Aos uses the basic skeleton rules of kow anyway.
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,134
#21
not... really? KoW's entire ruleset is aimed at battle scale games. It's streamined to play large games quickly, while AoS is aimed at smaller skirmish scale, and really bogs down very quickly at higher points if reports are to be believed. They're no more 'the same thing' than malifeaux and war machine, or dreadball and x-wing. They're both minis games, but very different in style. I would like both to be good and interesting. I remain skeptical of AoS achieving the former, and find KoS's chances of hitting the latter still somewhat dubious.
 
Last edited:

LordTobiothan

Crypt Horror
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
583
#22
I think you mean smaller model count, since aos has no points values. Although with how easy it is to turn 10 models into 70 with summoning the game may not be made to scale, but your forced to play big or lose a lot very quickly.

Or balance the game yourself to fix those issues, but whats the benefit of supporting any of the systems if your just writing the rules yourself anyway? At that point we've stopped talking about the game and moved to the modeling section.

Besides, the rules in KoW support battle scale games but function nearly identically at any point value equal to the higher of the two armies cheapest unit (although that few models isnt fun under any system). So yes it was made for battle scale, but its core ruleset is easy to apply to a skirmsh game just by deforming the "unit is one entity" structure.

That's all aos did really, that and add random, untested, might be fun for the novelty once or twice, unit rules.
 

Tawg

Vampire Count
True Blood
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
1,132
#23
Well, saying that it gets bogged down in the sense that that is a purely bad thing isn't entirely true. Playing a game of Apox. in 40k is still an appealing idea to many players, and sure it takes stupid longer than normal games, but they are interested in just that. All the same, playing larger scale AoS will more than likely result in similar situations, where the game is grossly longer, but if you're looking to see who wins between all of your models and all of your friends, well then it's probably a situation you're prepared for.

And also, I'd like to clear one thing up, I'm not sure GW has every tested their rules. So saying AoS has "untested maybe fun" rules is silly, because throughout the editions there have been terrible crimes against units via poor rules and idiotic points cost.

Also it seems silly for you to denounce AoS on the basis of how pointless it is to play a game you have to adapt to the situation you want to work (Home brewing rules, or the likes), when you then make a suggestion on how to alter KoW to fit an idea that may need slight player-made rules to be what someone is asking of it.

I don't think AoS is Warhammer, it's a bit like the transition from Diablo II to Diablo III. People felt really cheated with how the game played, and like it was overly simplified and not what they wanted. Sure it's different, and sure people will be disappointed or leave the game, but it happened.

Honestly, if I was that interested in 8th edition, and the style of epic fantasy battles, I would just create a new rule-set that was the choice rules I thought needed to be included to make a good game. Kind of like what a few of the forum members have been discussing in a different thread, about bashing rules form various editions for a version of the game they appreciate.

As for KoW, I have honestly never looked at it, but granted that it's free, maybe sometime I'll take a look. But looking into a game to drag my gaming group into isn't really something I'm terribly interested in, and before now I have heard almost no talk about KoW as a game, so it seems to be little contention to the other major players for game time, like Warmahordes, Malafaux or even Bolt Action, all of which I have seen played by large groups of players in my FLGS at certain points. But maybe it's a decent game. I'm just not rushing to replace 8th edition, because I was never that enamored with it in the first place.
 

LordTobiothan

Crypt Horror
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
583
#24
Kings of war is a young game, so its following isn't great and the first edition was widely believed to be an ultimately unfinished product. The second edition is coming out in less then a week though and they've fleshed out everything from what I've read of their beta releases.

And I never suggested altering KoW to fit a playstyle, I said that is all GW did to turn it into AoS as a skirmish game. If you want a skirmish game I absolutely do not recommend KoW, I wouldn't recommend AoS either though, as neither have the rules for it.
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,134
#25
Well, I've had my first Age of Sigmar experience, Vamp Counts vs. Dark elves. We decided to ballpark the lists based on 60ish wounds. I kind of wanted to start with something smaller, but the dark elf player wanted to run their formation, so... eh. Lists eded up being:

Dark Elf side - witch elf formation
- Hellebron
- Sorceress
- 25 executioners
- 25 witch elves, divided roughly evenly into 3 units (7, 7, 11, iirc)

Vamp Count side - no formations
- Arkhan
- Necromancer
- 2 x 1 archai
- 25 zombies
- 1 x 2 spirit hosts

I could have thrown an extra zombie, but... *shrug*

As I was sufficiently outnumbered, I got the sudden death bonus. I picked assassinate, and the opponent considered nominating the sorceress, but noting my fliers decided for hellebron instead. This was mostly just to try the rule out yet, I would not have insisted on it normally, since I felt that, if anything, I had the advantage here, what with my big flying monster general and his ability to summon more guys, and the opponent not having any shooting at all

The table had a variety of terrain. Since we had enough new stuff to remember already, we decided to treat it as just impassable and not look up or roll additional rules.

I won the first turn roll, and deployed arkhan, the necro, and both morghasts behind a skullvane manse, with was flanked by the zombies and the ghosts. Opponent deployed roughly opposite.

For the purpose of this game, we allowed summoning of units not already on the table, basing that decision on my recollection that some official GW game or report had described a lizard unit not already on the table being summoned.

First turn, The dark elf sorceress was out of range to dispel. Arkhan with his +3 (his own bonus, plus the morghasts) summoned 20 zombies. The necro with his +1 (just the ghasts) only managed 10, which all formed up with the zombies already on the table to bump tehm up to 55. Arkhan also summoned a unit of Black Knights in front of the ghosts.

In the movement phase, I moved everything forward, keeping the ghasts and casters behind my other units, and I'm suddenly realizing that I wasn't supposed to do that, because the summoned zombies and knight weren't supposed to move that turn! Oh, well. Holding back would only have kept the dark elves out of combat for another round and potentially let me summon even more stuff, so it's not like that mistake helped me.

With no shooting or assault to speak of, the opponent moved forward, failed to cast the armor spell, and successfully charged the executioners into the zombies and the unit of 11 witch elves, which hellebron had buffed to fight twice, into the knights. Going back and forth on combat was interesting, and honestly I think the whole game would be much improved by more back and forth - like, one player moves, then the other; one payer shoots then the other; etc. My opponent rolled as poorly as I rolled well, though, and after bravery tests 5 witch elves were left in that unit, 7 knightswere left, 12 executioners were left, and 23 zombies were left.

opponent won initiative, and going twice in a row is a huge deal. That said, summoning 30 infantry and 10 cavalry on my first turn had put him way behind, and even two turns in a row wasn't enough to catch up. hellebron joined the fight against the knights, and one of the spare witch elf units charged one of my morghasts. The executioners got to fight twice and wiped out my zombies. The morghast killed half the witch elves even with only a single hit, taking only one wound in return (that 5+ save against mortal wounds was very helpful). my knights wiped out the remains of the 11 man witch elf unit, leaving the opponent with a very exposed helebron, one sorceress, a dozen executioners, some witches engaged with a morghast, and some other witches sitting in the open which had failed a long charge to try and join hellebron against the knights.

On my side, I still had both casters, both morghasts, the ghosts, and the summoned knight, to which I proceeded to add a terrorgheist. I also cast curse of years on the executioners - since I had been rolling so well, I hoped to get down to the instant unit death result (you roll 10d6, every six is a mortal wound and roll again needing 5s to mortal wound and roll again needing 4s and so on with no minimum, so if you get to twos and then roll any wounds at all you hit infinite mortal wounds and remove the rest of the unit), I then failed to cast the +1 armor spell on arkhan, before flying him over the executioners to threaten hellebron. The gheist wiped out half the executioners, which were finished off by the second morghast archii and the spirit hosts. The first archaii finished off its unit of witches. And, before any of that even happened, Arkhan killed hellebron (well, more precisely, his monstrous steed with its rending and double damage killed hellebron), winning me the game. With only a single unit of 7 witch elves and a sorceress left on the board, staring down what I already had before even considering further summoning, he would have been wiped out had we played the rest of the game.


So... what did I think? Well, summoning is as broken as they say, and this without the corpse cart or mortis engine. Counting wounds to balance is no good - especially when summoning quickly renders that count moot. big fast flying monsters are pretty crazy good if there's no shooting on the table.

I had fun, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a game I would continue to enjoy if I played it regularly. I found it much slower than a game with the same number of models from 8e, but that might be inexperience talking. There's a host of house rules I would recommend -

bases DO count as part of the model. movement and fighting is just super awkward otherwise.

set aside a distinct pile of any models or units you might summon during the game, and count those models towards your army size for sudden death considerations at least. Maybe keep track of who summoned what units, and if the summoner dies remove those units as well?

unbinding spells has unlimited range (perhaps limiting bonuses to unbinding rolls to a particular range?), I don't know, but unopposed summoning on the first turn of the game is just a bit much. Other limits on summoning may render this unnecessary.

Interleave turns. Roll for init, then the player with init does their command phase and the other player does theirs after. The player with init moves their units, and the other player moves theirs. The player with init shoots, then the other player. etc. Possibly even go unit by unit, but that might get awkward and cause issues for games played between players with very different unit counts.


All that and more, but it gets to the point that I'm suggesting almost an entirely new system, which isn't really an endorsement of the system as it stands.
 
Top