Age of Sigmar report using Azyr Comp System (Dwarves vs Khorne warriors)

[Auticus]

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/BattleReports/DwarvesVsKhorne.pdf

[The Girl]

I'm getting reports that your link is tripping alarms on anti-virus programs.... could you copy the pdf contents into a post, please?

[Erik Setzer]

You did a few changes to the rule as well as adding a basic "comp system" that still needs work... Seems okay, but kind of shows some of the flaws of the system.

[Path Walker]

Its not a flaw, its intentional.

[Mr Mystery]

I agree with Path Walker on this one.

Warhammer started off as a set of rules so you could play battles with your collection of random models.

Ever since then, GW have always said 'hey, they're just a framework - a base line. You guy do what you want them, that's the point'.

AoS has embodied that in particular.

And seriously, we get you don't favour the new game, any why. And that's cool. Not every game will be a given person's cup of tea. But it's here now, and it's not going anywhere. So just chill and either do your best to enjoy, or take up a new game.

[Path Walker]

Proof of exactly how much its not going anywhere:

This is Warhammer World this morning:

14996

[Auticus]

I'm getting reports that your link is tripping alarms on anti-virus programs.... could you copy the pdf contents into a post, please?

That's very odd... what kind of alarms would a link to a pdf trip? I 'm curious as I am the site admin of that site and I'd like to know whats up. I can pull it down on our super locked down work servers and get not a peep so again - very curious.

Copying the pdf into a post probably won't happen because the formatting would be destroyed.

- - - Updated - - -

I have put a post out into my group to see if anyone else is getting any virus issues with any of the pdfs that are linked on the site.

[Erik Setzer]

I agree with Path Walker on this one.

Warhammer started off as a set of rules so you could play battles with your collection of random models.

Ever since then, GW have always said 'hey, they're just a framework - a base line. You guy do what you want them, that's the point'.

AoS has embodied that in particular.

And seriously, we get you don't favour the new game, any why. And that's cool. Not every game will be a given person's cup of tea. But it's here now, and it's not going anywhere. So just chill and either do your best to enjoy, or take up a new game.



Had a longer reply, but the Internet ate it. So short points:

Warhammer was never just above the equivalent of kids playing with army men. At the height of its popularity, you could do a pick-up game with agreeing to points, and that's it. AoS requires you to make up rules for army selection even.

They modified the rules of the game in the batrep, so weren't playing "pure" AoS. Did you read the batrep? No? So why are you commenting?

I am entitled to my opinion. Don't like it? Too bad. Just as you want to tell me to leave the hobby if I'm not 100% positive about your favorite company, I'll recommend you leave the Internet if you can't handle honest discussion. You're not going to leave? Okay, then,why are you telling me to bugger off if you won't?

We get it, you love everything GW does and will throw cash at them for a turd covered in Retributor Armour paint. But it's annoying when you come to a topic on a batrep where they had to make up their own rules to have a playable game that made sense to them, and then say that anyone pointing that out and how it's a problem is wrong and needs to be quiet and not speak their opinion.

[Path Walker]

Except you can't seem to grasp the entire point of the game which is why you made that idiotic comment in the first place.

In the rules, choosing armies is up to the players to decide, they did, they decided to use a comp system to help them do this. Thats fine and works according to the Age of Sigmar rules.

They decided to adapt the victory conditions rather than have a game end at an undefined point because they didn't want to play until they had no time left, again, this is fine and the game allows you to change things to enjoy it more, same as any other GW game since the earliest versions of Warhammer.

Don't like it? Fine! No problem, don't

Say it's not Age of Sigmar so proves Age of Sigmar is broken? Clearly nonsense that you should be called out on.

As long as you have some ability to empathise with another human being, you will balance AoS between you, you can do this in a pickup game (that I've personally never actually seen in the wild, you're the only person I know who seems to think it's important) or by planning ahead.

[Mr.Gold]

the only minor issue that I had was the fact that combatants do not strike simultainiously, players take it in turns to activate a unit starting with the payer who's turn it is. so if you have 2x combats (each army has 1 unt in each) player 1 can activate a unit to attack (in combat #1). then player 2 chooses a unit, in which case it is often better to choose the unit that has not been hit (e.g. in combat #2), player 1 then activates his unit in combat #2, and finally player 2 activates his unit in combat #1.

[Mr Mystery]

And there we see the tactical depth of the game.

It's a very different set of considerations. And like LotR, you can go one on one, or work in your own favoured formations.

[Auticus]

the only minor issue that I had was the fact that combatants do not strike simultainiously, players take it in turns to activate a unit starting with the payer who's turn it is. so if you have 2x combats (each army has 1 unt in each) player 1 can activate a unit to attack (in combat #1). then player 2 chooses a unit, in which case it is often better to choose the unit that has not been hit (e.g. in combat #2), player 1 then activates his unit in combat #2, and finally player 2 activates his unit in combat #1.

Good to note thanks for the clarification.

[40kGamer]

I agree with Path Walker on this one.

Warhammer started off as a set of rules so you could play battles with your collection of random models.

Ever since then, GW have always said 'hey, they're just a framework - a base line. You guy do what you want them, that's the point'.

AoS has embodied that in particular.

And seriously, we get you don't favour the new game, any why. And that's cool. Not every game will be a given person's cup of tea. But it's here now, and it's not going anywhere. So just chill and either do your best to enjoy, or take up a new game.

Have to agree and disagree to a point here. Agree that GW has always had the open rules mentality for most everything. Which is easy to use with mates as a small circle of friends can, and will, adapt any set of rules to meet their needs as a group. However GW has also had an event mindset in the past, easiest place I can think of to to see this in the big guy Jervis Johnson's designer notes in Epic Armageddon where he discusses the difference between tournament (event) play and casual (basement) play, along with the different needs of both situations. By nature, event play has to limit options, weird abilities and randomness in order to provide some semblance of equivalency that allows complete strangers to get in a game. Eliminating that setting limits a games ability to flourish outside of the basement setting. It's cool if that's the intent, but it is a deviation from GW's former stance on gaming in general.

As to the battle report. AoS is a simple enough system that it isn't going to be overly difficult for enterprising gamers to create an after market balancing system to address the needs of event play... assuming event play is ever a thing with this system.

- - - Updated - - -


the only minor issue that I had was the fact that combatants do not strike simultainiously, players take it in turns to activate a unit starting with the payer who's turn it is. so if you have 2x combats (each army has 1 unt in each) player 1 can activate a unit to attack (in combat #1). then player 2 chooses a unit, in which case it is often better to choose the unit that has not been hit (e.g. in combat #2), player 1 then activates his unit in combat #2, and finally player 2 activates his unit in combat #1.

Indeed. This creates a semblance of target priority and does force players to make decisions on what combat is most important to them at the moment. A whole new set of issues arise if you go away from the I go/you go mechanics in a game.