Age of Sigmar Azyr Composition Rules 1.0b

[Auticus]

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

DESIGN NOTES
During the design process of this system, I initially started out trying to write a mathematical formula that would allow us to point the models exactly as we have been doing for the pasty twenty plus years. I started noticing that this was the general direction that everyone was taking, and that each formula being put out online was very similar to each other, though had minor differences.

I then decided to move from the 1000 based precision system that I have pretty much used exclusively, and take a note from games like Warmachine or SAGA and go simpler.

The system contained in these pages is one that I wish to use for narrative campaigns as opposed to tournaments. I do believe that these would work fine for tournaments as well, but a general system is about being able to loosely gauge an overall force and determine that they are in the same ballpark as each other, whereas a precision-based system is going to attempt to point cost each model as finely as it can.

The problem I have with a precision system is that there is more to the model than its statline, and while formulas work great for statlines, once you throw in situational modifiers from scenarios or abilities the math gets thrown out. Sometimes it just happens to work, but if you’ve played any point-based system for any length of time you will find that some models work above what they are pointed at in certain situations, and may be totally bad in others (and this is where arguments over scenarios come in, where people want a universal set of scenarios that don’t highlight the good or bad parts that the math misses, which in my opinion can lead to gross stagnation)

While looking at this system, be aware that it is designed to give you a loose feeling of two forces being relatively balanced between one another overall.

The rules modifications were put in to clean up the rules and to work with the comp. Summoning I felt needed serious restrictions because you are in essence generating free points. Shooting into combat was the other because if a missile armed model can both shoot into combat and fight in melee, it becomes worth more than a melee-only model.

Any playtesting findings that you may have, feel free to contact me and we will discuss. Its been fun creating and I look forward to the campaigns that will stem from this packet.

[The Dinosaur]

not bad

[Andrew Thomas]

IDK, this kind of limits Battalion play.

[Auticus]

Its a starting framework to be expanded on. Right now it gives us a point of reference for events other than people showing up and dropping down 5 nagashes and going "lololololol" while they raise up 3 armies.

[Reldane]

best that I have seen, although there are a few units costs seem a little wrong, and Ogres can literally not play skirmish (not a huge difference from older versions of the warhammer to be fair)

[Path Walker]

The games I've played, roughly similar model count, similar number of Heroes, monsters and warmachines have all resulted in very close interesting games.

An Ogre has two wounds but they're much easier to strip off now than before.

A lot of people seem to be trying to make a comp system without playing the game, which is a shame.

[Mr Mystery]

Ogres have 4 wounds dude. They do however deal 2 damage to the enemy unit with every solid clubbing.

3, if you're an Irongut.

And looking once more at the Ogre Warscrolls....I think I may have to dig out my Gnoblars (oooer missus)

[Auticus]

The games I've played, roughly similar model count, similar number of Heroes, monsters and warmachines have all resulted in very close interesting games.

An Ogre has two wounds but they're much easier to strip off now than before.

A lot of people seem to be trying to make a comp system without playing the game, which is a shame.

I've had 14 games now since last saturday, six RAW and eight with this system :) Out of the box this is not playable. Out of the box if your opponent isn't regulating himself, then there is no game to be had and thats not a problem for buddies or close groups but if you want to do public events then AoS simply cannot work.

We had games with five blood thirsters rolling around and then summoning where a guy literally dropped his entire demon army collection (about 4000 pts of the old game) onto the table through summoning. And then there's nagash...

We tried wound count as seems to be GWs method of comp, but wound count did not work because some models with the same wounds as others are simply vastly superior.

Then there's some rules-holes, like shooting into combat, shooting out of combat, etc. Missile troops are worth double because they get to fight in hand to hand AND shoot. Why would you ever want to take melee-only troops and not take missile troops? They pump out more attack dice in each turn, their dice for shooting AND in combat if they are in combat, where melee-only units can just attack in melee that turn.

Leaders leading from the rear is another feature of the game now because heroes cannot join units and can be targeted like any other unit. While thats fine for things like Nagash or dragon riding elf lords, a dude on foot in the middle of a hoard getting his face shot off by an entire missile unit seems a bit off and is starting to lead to a lot of games where people are keeping their generals in the back and out of sight. That seems very anti-hero.


best that I have seen, although there are a few units costs seem a little wrong, and Ogres can literally not play skirmish (not a huge difference from older versions of the warhammer to be fair)

Thanks - i'm sure there are a few unit costs that need tweaked thats why the doc is in 1.0b. Spider riders, for example are coming down to 1 for 5 instead of 2 for 5.

[Spider-pope]

We had games with five blood thirsters rolling around and then summoning where a guy literally dropped his entire demon army collection (about 4000 pts of the old game) onto the table through summoning. And then there's nagash...

Can you clarify this? Did he have a wizard on the table too, or was he summoning via the Bloodthirsters? Because if it was the latter, he was cheating.

[Auticus]

He showed up with 5 in his box and dropped them on the table to begin the game. Along with Nagash. He had some demon casters as well which began summoning units, which in turn began summoning units (where applicable).

By the top of turn 3 he had about 4000 pts (old scale) on the table. He did this to explicitly show how broken the game was and acknowledged in a normal friendly game he'd never do this, but in an open public game like a tournament he'd have no problem doing this.

He was actually outnumbered by a third in the beginning so could have also chosen sudden death rules if he wanted to (and then in a couple of turns he outnumbered his opponent about 5:1)

Now I note that chaos and death are two factions so that's easy enough to say you have to stick with your own faction and nagash cannot be joined with demons, but again out of the box nothing stops that from happening.

[Erik Setzer]

Ogres have 4 wounds dude. They do however deal 2 damage to the enemy unit with every solid clubbing.

3, if you're an Irongut.

And looking once more at the Ogre Warscrolls....I think I may have to dig out my Gnoblars (oooer missus)

Ogres also have multiple attacks.

One of the things that came up with the local GW club trying to make a "comp system" was discussion of model limit vs. wound limit. The initial suggestion was a cap of 40. I suggested wounds, the counter was that Ogres couldn't get more than 10 in a unit at that point and won't have a battleshock bonus. But Ogres can do 6-9 wounds *each* (obviously, not going to happen, dice being what they are, but still can expect 2-3), meaning each one is capable of absorbing and dishing out punishment, and battleshock isn't as likely to come into effect considering it's modified by number of models removed, not wounds done. Add in the standard Ogre banner (even my skull banners will count as this one) that lets you reroll a 6 on battleshock tests, and it's unlikely Ogres will lose anyone to battleshock, unless you got seriously mauled by shooting or combat.

Other multi-wound units tend to have similar capability to dish out damage, and Knights and Chaos Warriors tend to have solid Bravery values.

[Auticus]

We have another playtest game tonight. 10 points dwarfs vs chaos on a 4x4 table.

[acrimonger]

...in a normal friendly game he'd never do this, but in an open public game like a tournament he'd have no problem doing this.


Its a modular system NOT intended for competition. Its amazing that people keep going on about this.

Everything else I think is reasonable and must be answered.


Well see what GW does with their app and the competitive stuff they said is coming.

I read somewhere the app will have a subscription fee..... THAT is when the **** really hits the fan.

[40kGamer]

Did you happen across this? They are taking the (Wounds + Total Attacks) x Bravery = Points per model. Can likely be refined but it's a starting point and addresses issues of 1 Wound models being dramatically different in their abilities.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYG-APGLIXs

[Auticus]

Did you happen across this? They are taking the (Wounds + Total Attacks) x Bravery = Points per model. Can likely be refined but it's a starting point and addresses issues of 1 Wound models being dramatically different in their abilities.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYG-APGLIXs

I've seen variations of that yeah. Its another valid way of trying to tackle it. I prefer the system I made because the 2000 point system is honestly a chore. I like the saga point system and thats what my system reflects.

[Andrew Thomas]

He showed up with 5 in his box and dropped them on the table to begin the game. Along with Nagash. He had some demon casters as well which began summoning units, which in turn began summoning units (where applicable).

By the top of turn 3 he had about 4000 pts (old scale) on the table. He did this to explicitly show how broken the game was and acknowledged in a normal friendly game he'd never do this, but in an open public game like a tournament he'd have no problem doing this.

He was actually outnumbered by a third in the beginning so could have also chosen sudden death rules if he wanted to (and then in a couple of turns he outnumbered his opponent about 5:1)

Now I note that chaos and death are two factions so that's easy enough to say you have to stick with your own faction and nagash cannot be joined with demons, but again out of the box nothing stops that from happening.

Did he field any other Undead units?

I think it should be understood that you need to start with what you can summon on the table, or, at the very least, that summoning spells count against your army point total as if you fielded each unit you intended to summon. It should also be understood that Nagash is a Cheese character suited only for large games, and shouldn't be allowed to be fielded with allies or other spellcasters.

[Auticus]

Yes he had the undead that he summoned on the table.

[Andrew Thomas]

Yes he had the undead that he summoned on the table.

Just reread your event rules and clarifications, and I like what I see.

[Auticus]

Thank you sir.

So tonight we had another batch of playtesting. I took my khorne force. 1 chaos lord (1 pt), 1 unit of 20 marauders (2 pts), 1 unit of 20 warriors of khorne with halberds (4 pts), 1 unit of 5 knights of khorne (3 pts) for a total of 10 pts.

My opponent brought a dwarf lord (1 pt), army standard (1 pt), unit of 20 quarelers (3 pts), unit of 10 hammerers (2 pts), a gyrobomber (1 pt), and a unit of 20 dwarf warriors (2 pts) for a total of 10 pts.

The scenario was a very basic kill scenario, with +1 pt to killing the general.

The dwarves soundly trashed me 7-0. It wasn't due to unbalanced forces, rather the dwarves excel at taking it on the chin and coming back with a one-two uppercut combo that knocks you to the ground.

The people saying that the game is nothing but moving forward and going pew pew are wrong I think. I am starting to see the underlying layers of complexity that can arise. I was able to summon up a unit of warriors behind his turtle formation, and they hit his bomber, but were unable to kill it (bad dice). That fed him 2 points. I charged his warriors with my marauders early in the game to tie his front line up but the dwarf shield wall giving re-rollable saves plus the dwarf army standard making his warriors immune to battle shock was HUGE.

That fed him 2 more points. He got his last three points after I managed to summon up five more knights behind him to charge his quarelers and again bad dice saw me only kill a single one before his hammerers and quarrelers and dwarf lord and army standard wrecked them.

In the end, with dwarves need a character assassin to drop those bonuses. The lord and army standard bearer are potent. I will try to bring my own next time and I am considering a monster.

10 points is roughly a patrol mission (a step up from skirmish). We both had around 50 models on the table.

Looking forward to some scenario based games where objectives exist. As it is though dwarfs are a tough nut to crack, as I would expect them to be when they are allowed to be as defensive as they want.

Rules change ups from tonight: when a hero model joins a unit, in combat you activate either the hero OR the unit when activating a unit, not both. We were doing it simple and saying the hero and unit both activate and thats a little too powerful.

The hero being with the unit made it so that our lords weren't in the back hiding. By the rules as written, a chaos lord could be in the middle of a big unit of whatever and still be targeted out pretty easily by missile troops, so we were seeing our characters always hiding in the back which seemed very unheroic.

[Andrew Thomas]

Thank you sir.

So tonight we had another batch of playtesting. I took my khorne force. 1 chaos lord (1 pt), 1 unit of 20 marauders (2 pts), 1 unit of 20 warriors of khorne with halberds (4 pts), 1 unit of 5 knights of khorne (3 pts) for a total of 10 pts.

My opponent brought a dwarf lord (1 pt), army standard (1 pt), unit of 20 quarelers (3 pts), unit of 10 hammerers (2 pts), a gyrobomber (1 pt), and a unit of 20 dwarf warriors (2 pts) for a total of 10 pts.

The scenario was a very basic kill scenario, with +1 pt to killing the general.

The dwarves soundly trashed me 7-0. It wasn't due to unbalanced forces, rather the dwarves excel at taking it on the chin and coming back with a one-two uppercut combo that knocks you to the ground.

The people saying that the game is nothing but moving forward and going pew pew are wrong I think. I am starting to see the underlying layers of complexity that can arise. I was able to summon up a unit of warriors behind his turtle formation, and they hit his bomber, but were unable to kill it (bad dice). That fed him 2 points. I charged his warriors with my marauders early in the game to tie his front line up but the dwarf shield wall giving re-rollable saves plus the dwarf army standard making his warriors immune to battle shock was HUGE.

That fed him 2 more points. He got his last three points after I managed to summon up five more knights behind him to charge his quarelers and again bad dice saw me only kill a single one before his hammerers and quarrelers and dwarf lord and army standard wrecked them.

In the end, with dwarves need a character assassin to drop those bonuses. The lord and army standard bearer are potent. I will try to bring my own next time and I am considering a monster.

10 points is roughly a patrol mission (a step up from skirmish). We both had around 50 models on the table.

Looking forward to some scenario based games where objectives exist. As it is though dwarfs are a tough nut to crack, as I would expect them to be when they are allowed to be as defensive as they want.

Rules change ups from tonight: when a hero model joins a unit, in combat you activate either the hero OR the unit when activating a unit, not both. We were doing it simple and saying the hero and unit both activate and thats a little too powerful.

The hero being with the unit made it so that our lords weren't in the back hiding. By the rules as written, a chaos lord could be in the middle of a big unit of whatever and still be targeted out pretty easily by missile troops, so we were seeing our characters always hiding in the back which seemed very unheroic.

Wonder how the Skryre list I'm cooking up will fair against those lists? Loads of shooting and Mortal Wound generation and nice, tanky infantry. Hopefully, low model count won't be my downfall.

[Auticus]

I think the dwarves big weakness will be vs shooty type armies, if they are in a melee configuration anyway. They are slow and they seem to benefit from getting stuck in and enduring. IF you are on the outside of their lines shooting that will force them to move.

[Erik Setzer]

Missile units and especially war machines are good at killing characters. Characters are extra killing in combat, but typically can't do much to hurt you at range, and those extra wounds will just fall so easily to thinks like cannons.

[Auticus]

Yeah. Rules as written we were seeing no one put heroes out front they were all cowering in the back because you could put your chaos lord in a unit of 20 marauders and then next turn 20 crossbow guys could just all aim at him and wipe him off the table.

That seemed kind of lame so we added a house rule to let you join heroes to units of like size (infantry to infantry cav to cav etc) to protect from that. Battles where the heroes are hiding in the back seemed wrong.

[Erik Setzer]

If heroes get within 32" of a dwarf cannon, doesn't matter where they are, they're likely getting hammered with up to 2D6 wounds. It's hard to make your heroes effective while still hiding them.

[MatthewP]

Yea, the hero thing kinda killed AoG for us. We pretty much decided to drop the game for our league unless the narrative campaign comes out is really good. We tried a couple of house rules "codex" but soon realized that we were playing more like game developers and not really enjoying the game. It's one thing that players patch a few things here and their for our liking. It's another having to write several pages of rules. :(

[Auticus]

If heroes get within 32" of a dwarf cannon, doesn't matter where they are, they're likely getting hammered with up to 2D6 wounds. It's hard to make your heroes effective while still hiding them.

That is very true!

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Why are people trying to make a game not in any way meant to be competitive, to be competitive?

[Spider-pope]

Why are people trying to make a game not in any way meant to be competitive, to be competitive?

There are a few reasons. Some because they liked the previous version of the rules, and so want to recapture that feeling in AoS. Others just haven't adapted to the paradigm shift yet.

Auticus would fall into the first category, taking the rules and adding additional structure to them until they are more to his liking.
The second category would be those who are taking five Bloodthirsters.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Yawn.

I'm sorry I can't take any game seriously enough that allows you to look in the mirror for model do to narcisism...Secondly that is a load of bs. People should be able to be on the same battlefield simply by adding and subtracting units. 5 blood thirsters 10 dragons etc, ad nausea are just being TGFs. I'm sorry the game is not meant to be played by power gaming standards. If they want to play that, go play 40k, kill the caster, or setting better suited for that.

Let's be real, if you meet some rando-mouth breather that drops 5 blood thirsters in a friendly, or for that matter in a game then just just laugh and them and call them out and say no. In a tourney-Esque type setting you would already have counters to it and it shouldn't matter anyways.

Edit: I've played a handful of games and have had more fun than I ever did trying to play with the old editions. This has brought me back into fantasy, which was super hard to get into in the first place. Also, this is a give and take style game much more than before. And the people who aren't having fun are just grumpy pants. Lol.

[Auticus]

Because I am an event organizer and I run public games and you need a balancing mechanism to pull that off without having those events crash and burn.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Because I am an event organizer and I run public games and you need a balancing mechanism to pull that off without having those events crash and burn.

I'm sorry they made the game impossible to play competitively. Even with your suggestions I think it takes away from the heart of the game itself. /Shrug

[Auticus]

I'm sorry they made the game impossible to play competitively. Even with your suggestions I think it takes away from the heart of the game itself. /Shrug

I am 100% a narrative campaign player. I run narrative campaign events. This has nothing to do with playing competitively. I haven't done any tournaments since 2007.

[Lurker]

Just a couple of questions/clarifications Auticus.

This may be obvious, (but bear with me I'm a little dense at times)-

Heroes and Monstrous Heroes. If you take a Monstrous Hero (say at the skirmish level) which takes up the Monstrous slot, does that then free up the Hero slot? or does the Monstrous Hero take both slots?

Quarrellers/Crossbowmen. 1 for 10 / 3 for 20 then +1 for each additional 10 thereafter- is this in the same unit or if you took a unit of 10 at 1pt., a unit of 20 at 3pts. and then took a second unit of ten would that cost 4pts. or just 1?

all in all, very well thought out and executed so far! (and totally swiped too! :D)

[Andrew Thomas]

Just a couple of questions/clarifications Auticus.

This may be obvious, (but bear with me I'm a little dense at times)-

Heroes and Monstrous Heroes. If you take a Monstrous Hero (say at the skirmish level) which takes up the Monstrous slot, does that then free up the Hero slot? or does the Monstrous Hero take both slots?

I'd say both, and really, a Hero on a Monster/Monstrous Hero isn't really appropriate for a Skirmish level game, outside of a scenario.


Quarrellers/Crossbowmen. 1 for 10 / 3 for 20 then +1 for each additional 10 thereafter- is this in the same unit or if you took a unit of 10 at 1pt., a unit of 20 at 3pts. and then took a second unit of ten would that cost 4pts. or just 1?

all in all, very well thought out and executed so far! (and totally swiped too! :D)

I'm pretty sure that the Costs are for a contiguous unit, not for all models of a given scroll fielded, as this would create a points advantage. The price jump accounts for how much more effective they are when fielded above 10 models a Unit.

[Lurker]

I'd say both, and really, a Hero on a Monster/Monstrous Hero isn't really appropriate for a Skirmish level game, outside of a scenario.

That's what I would think as well. As to the appropriateness of a Monstrous Hero at Skirmish level- I agree there, but in a comp level game the question is bound to come up and I thought it would be better to clarify that sooner rather than later.



I'm pretty sure that the Costs are for a contiguous unit, not for all models of a given scroll fielded, as this would create a points advantage. The price jump accounts for how much more effective they are when fielded above 10 models a Unit.

also what I was thinking but wanted to be sure of it though for the same reason as above.

[Spider-pope]

I'm sorry they made the game impossible to play competitively. Even with your suggestions I think it takes away from the heart of the game itself. /Shrug

Then don't play in his events or with his rule changes. He's doing what GW have said all along: Make the game what you want it to be. Even before AoS GW had that attitude towards their rules.

[Erik Setzer]

I'm sorry they made the game impossible to play competitively. Even with your suggestions I think it takes away from the heart of the game itself. /Shrug

No, it does not. The "heart" of the game doesn't rest on just throwing whatever on the table, where you might as well toss your wallets on the table.

You might laugh and scoff, but even GW's sending out comp ideas to people. Are you going to say GW is stupid and doesn't know their own game?

People like the idea of balance because a one-sided match is no fun. You might enjoy it, but you're probably setting things up to be the one with the advantage. And especially in a game. If it's a game, it's inherently competitive. If it's not competitive, it's not a game. It's just story telling with props. And maybe you're okay with buying expensive props for story telling, but a lot of people would like an actual game, that's enjoyable for both players.

[Mr Mystery]

Then don't play in his events or with his rule changes. He's doing what GW have said all along: Make the game what you want it to be. Even before AoS GW had that attitude towards their rules.

This.

[Auticus]

Just a couple of questions/clarifications Auticus.

This may be obvious, (but bear with me I'm a little dense at times)-

Heroes and Monstrous Heroes. If you take a Monstrous Hero (say at the skirmish level) which takes up the Monstrous slot, does that then free up the Hero slot? or does the Monstrous Hero take both slots?

Quarrellers/Crossbowmen. 1 for 10 / 3 for 20 then +1 for each additional 10 thereafter- is this in the same unit or if you took a unit of 10 at 1pt., a unit of 20 at 3pts. and then took a second unit of ten would that cost 4pts. or just 1?

all in all, very well thought out and executed so far! (and totally swiped too! :D)

If a model is both a hero and a monster he occupies both slots and is subject to the cap limit for the size of the game.

Your second question - that is just for the unit in question. The reason it jumps from 1 to 3 is because the unit gets the ability to always fire twice at that level, and in effect doubles its attack output. My first three games saw how powerful that was so we tweaked it to bump them up once they hit that level.

I'm sure there are other units like that that we missed but will be addressed as we find them :)

I'd be very interested to hear any playtesting you may do if you use this with your friends. Thanks for the comments!

[Path Walker]

Games are inherently competitive? What is this nonsense. Games can be competitive but it's by no means inherent. Tons of games are cooperative experiences.

Games can't be "storytelling with props"? What about Tabletop RPGs? Cooperative Board Games? Historical Reenactment wargames?

Warhammer shouldn't be? Despite being inspired and evolved from D&D (weirdly, given that D&D evolved from a different fantasy wargame)?

Despite the entire idea from the very beginning being exactly that?

Despite every single rulebook expressing that the game is a story telling device?

Points are a balancing idea, to try and ensure that the players enjoy their game, they're by no means the best or only way of doing so. Points were getting in the way of the storytelling elements of Warhammer, so they got dropped.

You can balance the game by being a normal human being trying to enjoy a social interaction.

Just talk with the opponent and agree with them what's fair. Its really not hard, having played quite a few games of this now, its always resulted in a close and enjoyable game.

No, its not great for a competitive environment, but then, neither has any game GW have ever released, if you want totally fair and balanced, Warhammer isn't the game you're after. If you want to make a system to make it a bit easier for tournaments, good luck to you, hope you're able to work something out that you can enjoy.

The game Games Workshop wanted to make was always a "storytelling game with props". They've just doubled down on that idea now.

[Auticus]

More playtesting this weekend. Looking forward to it.

[LardTroll]

nice work chap

i will be using them when we give aos a spin

[Auticus]

nice work chap

i will be using them when we give aos a spin

Thank you sir let me know how it goes.

We are adjusting chaos knights from 3 for 5 to 2 for 5. THey are on par with chaos warriors. 3 for 5 is a bit too much and has some bias from the last edition on that value. I will also be reviewing other normal cav (not monster cav) that is priced at 3 for 5 to see if it can come down to tier 2 instead of 3.

[Andrew Thomas]

Games are inherently competitive? What is this nonsense. Games can be competitive but it's by no means inherent. Tons of games are cooperative experiences.

Games can't be "storytelling with props"? What about Tabletop RPGs? Cooperative Board Games? Historical Reenactment wargames?

Warhammer shouldn't be? Despite being inspired and evolved from D&D (weirdly, given that D&D evolved from a different fantasy wargame)?

Despite the entire idea from the very beginning being exactly that?

Despite every single rulebook expressing that the game is a story telling device?

Points are a balancing idea, to try and ensure that the players enjoy their game, they're by no means the best or only way of doing so. Points were getting in the way of the storytelling elements of Warhammer, so they got dropped.

You can balance the game by being a normal human being trying to enjoy a social interaction.

Just talk with the opponent and agree with them what's fair. Its really not hard, having played quite a few games of this now, its always resulted in a close and enjoyable game.

No, its not great for a competitive environment, but then, neither has any game GW have ever released, if you want totally fair and balanced, Warhammer isn't the game you're after. If you want to make a system to make it a bit easier for tournaments, good luck to you, hope you're able to work something out that you can enjoy.

The game Games Workshop wanted to make was always a "storytelling game with props". They've just doubled down on that idea now.

I agree with most of what you're saying, with the caveats that, particularly in organized, semi-professional venues, even cooperative games can be competitive, case in point: Vampire: the Masquerade/Requiem LARP; nearly everyone there power-games and politicks to some degree, so the game has a tendency to devolve into "Who's Prince this Month?" Also, I personally feel that balance, or the perception of balance, is more contingent on who's playing and who's hosting the event than on anything written in the rulebook. In your typical kitchen table match, balance is more apparent because you aren't focused on some goal outside of the game, vis-a-vis winning or placing in a tournament, but on having fun, which, as you are only constrained by your investment in the game, means that you will optimize for any perceived imbalance by either toning down your list or adding challenges to the battlefield, be they special objectives, terrain, or other story elements, like wandering monsters, etc. This is harder to do at Tournaments, as most TOs don't have the fungible resources —namely time and money— to tailor each engagement exactly to the forces being deployed.

[Auticus]

Document updated to include dragon princes also 2 for 5 and gyrocopter is now 1 pt after 9 playtest games this weekend

[Erik Setzer]

Well, since the troll Path Walker is on my Ignore list, I missed his post, but thanks for quoting it. I'll correct him on his comments.

Cooperative, eh? You're competing against the "NPCs."

RPG? Same thing. You're trying to level your character, get better, earn more loot and/or power. You are competing.

Warhammer evolved over the years, as did 40K. Both started as the sort-of-RPG route, but then quickly became games with points values and an attempt at balance. That's what grew them and, in turn, Games Workshop. How many successful games are there that just say "Take what you want"? Go ahead, name as many as you can. You can even use Google! The games changed because people didn't want or need rules telling them how to move around toy soldiers and pretend someone is a winner. And if you don't have balance, then Timmy with his 250 guys can claim he "won" against Billy's 42 guys, but that's just balderdash. We move on from that the moment we stop playing with GI Joe's and plastic army men. You can relive that experience without paying $10 a model for basic infantry and $33 for a character on foot.

[Andrew Thomas]

Just had my first AOS game. Skryre vs. Nurgle Daemons. Those buggers are tough. The only things of his that died were a Beast, a Drone, and a Herald.

Bottom line: the Retreat move is your friend. As are extra saves.

[Auticus]

Havent seen retreat used yet. Extra saves are huge yes.

Tweaking cover saves. Adding if model is partially blocked by another model or terrain piece that it gains cover as well.

[Auticus]

Document changes uploaded to server.

[Bold or Stupid]

Had a glance over and I like the looks of the points system, I would suggest doubling all points costs as this make the 1 for 10 units not give fractions if you take 15 of them.

[Auticus]

Had a glance over and I like the looks of the points system, I would suggest doubling all points costs as this make the 1 for 10 units not give fractions if you take 15 of them.

Thank you. That is something I am considering for the future. Right now its just a general system for letting me run public campaigns and get a general feel for balance instead of a precision system, but its not out of the question.

[LardTroll]

hi had our first game tonight lizzies v dwarf (patrols) went ace i lost due to bad decision making not who took what, the armies felt balanced

thanks again for writing this

i have not played war-hammer properly since 3rd (tried 6th hated it) AoS is definitely more in the spirit of those older rulebooks

[eppelwhat]

Awesome! Can we get an update with Sigmarines and Khornish Gameskulls?

[Vangrail]

I love the point system it is solid. I did notice lack of sigmarites and bloodband warriors from the starter.any word on adding them to this?

Also 4 point heroes are rough i wanna use my carnasaur more but with this system i have to play large games. Id say 3 points isnt bad but keep krotgar at 4. Archaon is 3 points and that man is a monster.

with age of sigmar are people against allies? Like order fights with order, chaos and chaos. Allies that make sense and not just there to break the game.

[darnelius]

hi there, really like these rules. Have been using the old army books points as a guideline to make equalish armies.

I'd suggest versioning your doc - I'd like to keep up date with latest points. Also, Razordons dont get free skinks like salamanders does? Any reason? Or oversight?

I'd agree with doubling the points - then you can prolly leave the witch elves at 5 min

Kroak, Nagash, Glottkin and Karl - agree with 5 points for them - I immediately looked at how much you costed Kroak. He is uber! :)

thanks for sharing

[Erik Setzer]

with age of sigmar are people against allies? Like order fights with order, chaos and chaos. Allies that make sense and not just there to break the game.

I don't see why there'd be a problem with that. Technically you could mix Order and Chaos... though I would not recommend it. But mixing units within Order, Chaos, Destruction, and Death looks like something you're expected to do. Heck, with all of them except Order, they were all pretty much mixed together anyway by the end of ET. A fluffy Destruction army would have Orcs *and* Ogres. A fluffy Chaos army could have Warriors, Beastmen, and Daemons all together. Similarly, a fluffy Death army would mix all Undead. Order just gets a bit odd because it's two human kingdoms, Dwarfs, three types of Elfs, Lizardmen... They'll pretty much be melted down to just a few base armies eventually. Don't think of them as being separate nations and all, because that world's long gone.

[Mr Mystery]

About the only one I'd draw a line at is Chaos and Order allies.

But that's just personal prejudice toward fluffy stuff :)

[Auticus]

I will have the new units probably next week, I am waiting on the new book to come so I can see all of the scrolls not just the starter box.

4 point heroes are limited to 20 point games (which is where I saw standard games sitting) though nothing stops you from you and your opponent saying "go for it".

Archaon is a monster, on par with a great unclean one (also 3 points). The 4 point guys have a little more utility and also do things like either have a lot more wounds or fly or pump out more attacks (or a combination of those)

I am pondering a way to let larger pointed heroes into smaller games but there needs to be some kind of recompense for that, such as losing additional hero scrolls or something (making them count for double the hero scrolls).

Any ideas are welcome and thank you.

[Jonathan Yeo]

So far this looks very intriguing and will be testing this out. Something that struck me as odd is why the black coach is under the heroes section. Other units in other factions like there necrosphinx of doom wheel fall under warmachine or monster. That choice seems to limit vampire counts if it is taken in a game.

[Mr Mystery]

If I'm honest, I've not read through the entire thing yet, but one point of consideration....

Adding a 'force multiplier' cost for larger units...please be very, very careful with this. Different units get different bonsues for increased numbers, and certain units get bonuses when targeting larger units for some righteous smiting.

Not to mention, some units are absolutely rockhard without being in big numbers, and indeed need big numbers to take them down.

I know I keep using it, but they are dead 'ard...Ironguts. If I wade 10 Ironguts into say, 30 Empire Halberdiers, my opponent has a cost increase for the larger unit. Yet I can go through like a dose of senocot through your Nan just the same - that Damage 3 is punishing. The Halberdiers, in order to put up a decent fight, need their increased numbers bonus, and that's assuming they get a chance to strike me before I start buttering the battlefield with their squidgy remains. 30 I can handle really easily - 40 and it's starting to get dicey :)

10? I poop 10 Halberdiers for Breakfast!

[Jonathan Yeo]

The rules look pretty good and I am eager to try them out. Just a quick question, curious why the black coach for vampire counts is under heroes as say compared to the necrosphinx of engine of the gods which are under warmachine/ monsters in the other lists. Having a black coach as a hero seems to limit the vampire counts in terms of hero choices.

[Auticus]

The force multiplier I'm being very careful of.

The problem came to light when quarellers were being used. 1 for 10 is right but 2 for 20 is not since they were firing 40 shots at that point.

to your example, 30 halberdiers cost 3 points in this system (1 pt for 10). 10 iron guts can't exist, they are 1 point for 3 so 9 are 3 points. I'd say 30 halberdiers and 9 iron guts costing the same are in the ballpark in terms of their cost.

[Shogunate]

Ogres have 4 wounds dude. They do however deal 2 damage to the enemy unit with every solid clubbing.

3, if you're an Irongut.

And looking once more at the Ogre Warscrolls....I think I may have to dig out my Gnoblars (oooer missus)

Ogres, and monstrous infantry in general, need a point increase under this proposed system.

It's frustrating. The new system in which monsters lose attacks as they take wounds really should have been applied to monstrous infantry.

OP, I like a lot of what you've done, but the simplistic route isn't viable. A algebraic points system needs to be worked out from the ground up, and then through playtesting and community feedback we can tweak these to allow for some semblance of balance.

[paramitas]

Hi there, thanks so much for Azyr Comp. It's the best that I've seen so far. I hope it continues to evolve.

Looking forward to the new units' comp next week. In the interim, would love your preliminary views on whether any of the following need modification:

Lord-Celestant on Dracoth - 3
Lord-Relictor - 1
Liberators - 1 for 5
Prosecutors - 1 for 3
Retributors - 1 for 3
Mighty Lord of Khorne - 2
Bloodsecrator - 1
Bloodstoker - 1
Blood Warriors - 1 for 5
Bloodreavers - 1 for 10
Khorgoraths - 2

[kaintxu]

Hi Auticus,

First of all I want to thank you for developing this, and would love to offer any help in future developments to make this improve.

I had a long post ready which didn´t go through last night because my internet decided to crash, so Im going to resume a bit.

The main point is that maybe the point scale should be base into something a bit bigger though not huge, something like a 1, 2, 3 base per 10 models for infantry, instead of the current one which is more like 1 per 10 o 1 per 5.

Im gonna give a clear example of how it does not work.

Saurus warriors, Templeguard, Chose.

It is clear that temple guard can not be the same cost as saurus warriors because they save better and hit harder and the extra rules but...

Temple guard and chose can not be the same 1 for 5 cost for the next reason.

1) Both have 3 attack, but the third attack is better on chose.
2) Both have similar quality rules for the unit, either buffing them or buffing units around.

BUT

3) while the shield on the temple guard helps, the chosen have 2 wounds each, so for 1 pooint for 5 models the chose get 10 wounds while the temple guard get 5 wounds. After doing the math yesterday, 5 temple guard attacking 5 chose will kill 1 chose and leave 1 wounded. 5 chose attacking the temple guard will kill 4 guys. So while the damage output is similar 3,5 wounds done by the temple guard to 4 by the chose, Losing 4 models instead of only 2 is a huge difference. On bigger units, lets say 20 man units, the difference becomes even larger. 20 temple guard will cause 14 wounds, killing 7 chosen and leaving 13 alive with 26 wounds to go, while 20 chose will cause 16 wounds leaving only 4 alive.

So as you can see, the difference is very huge.

A more similar value could be for Saurus, 1 point every 10, for temple guard 2 every 10, and for chose 3 every 10. That is still not balanced (2 wounds goes a long way) but at leave for every 20 chosen you could get 30 temple guard, which is still less wounds, but would compensate thanks to damage output.

I would love to work with you on this, so send me a pm if you would like collaboration.

That is only a small example, but could be work on.

Again, thanks

[Auticus]

Weekend playtest results modifications
Shooting into combat - default rule allows for it now but half attacks hit your own side.
Optional Shooting into combat +1 missile units and warmachine points but keep the rules as written.
Cleaned up beastmen monsters
Skull Cannon dropped to 1 point
Heinrich Kemmler raised to 2 points
Iron guts raised to 2 points for 3
Blight kings/skullreapers/wrathmongers - changed to 1 point for 3 from 1 point for 5 (modified min size from their scroll)

[Auticus]

Changed hero composition to just cap heroes out at a total value. Allows 4 point heroes in 15 point games.
Khazrak One Eye - 2 pts
Malagor the Dark Omen - 2 pts
Morghur Master of SKull - 2 pts
Karanak - 2 pts
Blue Scribes - 2
Hellebron - 2
Belegar Ironhammer - 2
Balthasar Gelt - 2
Valten - 2
Ludwig Schwarzhelm - 2
Teclis - 2 and a maybe 3
Wurrzag da great green prophet - 2
Queek 2
warlord spinetail 2
Ikit Claw - 2
Throt the Unclean - 2
Lord Skrolk - 2
Deathmaster Snikch - 2
Prince Apophas - 2
Vlad VonCarstein - 2
Count Mannfred - 2
Konrad Von Carstein - 2
Isabella Von Carstein - 2
Krell - 2
Bel'akor - 3
Valkia - 2
Skarr Bloodwrath - 2
Sigvald - 2
Vilitch the Curseling - 2

[Laurens]

Auticus, I registered just to write about your composition rules. IMHO they are the best available on the internet, fantastic work sir.
I am WE player and I am playtesting the rules.

I played last game WE against WoC, WE had 2 units of 15 waywatchers (6 points for both), Glade Lord (1 point) and a unit of 15 dryads (3 points).
Chaos player had a Chaos Lord (1 pt) in a unit of 10 chosen (4 points) , 10 chaos warriors (2pt), 2 units of 10 marauders (2 pts for both), a unit of 5 chaos knights (2 pts), a 5 unit of warhounds (1 pt).

So it was 10 points of wood elves against 12 points of chaos warriors. We decided to make a chaos player a bit OP and see what will happen.
At the end only 6 chaos warriors remained on the field (worth approximately 1 point).

WE player turtled behind a defence screen of 15 dryads and waited. We didn't allow shooting if unit was engaged in combat.
Chaos Lord managed to summon a unit of 10 chaos marauders twice before he was slain. Both units tried to flank the waywatchers, both summoned units were cut down with arrows before they managed to charge. A unit of 5 chaos knights, a unit of marauders and a unit of warhounds were cut before contact too. He charged with a unit of marauders, chosen and chaos warriors in my screen of dryads who were butchered.

Overall, it was a fantastic game. If WE player was allowed to shoot while in melee , the game would have ended in total chaos defeat so I think that it is good that isn't allowed. At the end it was minor victory for chaos.

I will let you know when I playtest more games.

[Brother Glacius]

Please take a hard look at all multi-wound units. MW units in this game have a huge advantage over others. They are not as affected by battleshock to the degree like single wound units. Also, you might look into putting in size caps for units. That could be used as a balancing factor as well. Large units of MW models are ace in this game.

Also, how are you playing summoning? In our club we have a debate currently as to what you can summon and what you can't. Some of us believe that you can't summon a unit unless its warscroll is already in play, ie, the unit is on the field. Others think that wizards have all of the summoning spells from a faction, regardless if the unit is present or not.

I believe that if a warscroll is not in play (ie the unit is not on the table), then its summoning spell is not granted to the wizards. The logic behind it is this:
A wizard warscroll states which spells it has. A unit's warscroll that can be summoned grants the spell to the wizards. Therefore, if that unit is not in play, then you don't have that warscroll, and thus you don't have it granting the spell.

This is just my interpretation, but it seems logical and also limits summoning. Coupled with the fact that each wizard can only attempt a spell once keeps models like Nagash from going crazy.

Nice job on trying to wrangle this thing. Don't get discouraged. :)

[Auticus]

Please take a hard look at all multi-wound units. MW units in this game have a huge advantage over others. They are not as affected by battleshock to the degree like single wound units. Also, you might look into putting in size caps for units. That could be used as a balancing factor as well. Large units of MW models are ace in this game.

Also, how are you playing summoning? In our club we have a debate currently as to what you can summon and what you can't. Some of us believe that you can't summon a unit unless its warscroll is already in play, ie, the unit is on the field. Others think that wizards have all of the summoning spells from a faction, regardless if the unit is present or not.

I believe that if a warscroll is not in play (ie the unit is not on the table), then its summoning spell is not granted to the wizards. The logic behind it is this:
A wizard warscroll states which spells it has. A unit's warscroll that can be summoned grants the spell to the wizards. Therefore, if that unit is not in play, then you don't have that warscroll, and thus you don't have it granting the spell.

This is just my interpretation, but it seems logical and also limits summoning. Coupled with the fact that each wizard can only attempt a spell once keeps models like Nagash from going crazy.

Nice job on trying to wrangle this thing. Don't get discouraged. :)

Oh not discouraged at all. My end goal isn't a comp packet that the entire community embraces, I think that's pretty much impossible. Its to give our local campaigns a structure.

All of those items you discussed are part of the initial formula on pointing things. The design notes on the first page explain the direction and goal.

Also our comp includes cap on summoning.

* summoned units come in at their min size
* summoned units give up their points values if killed
* summoners can summon at a max one unit per their point cost (and our system has a sliding scale of 1-5)

As summoned units give up points, and we have point based scenarios we are using, there is a downside to summoning, and the summoning doesn't get too out of control with the caps.

[Brother Glacius]

Don't most summoning spells have specific numbers? I know the undead do. I know the Chaos Lord's reinforcement ability has no limit, and that isn't summoning. That needs rules.

[Auticus]

Don't most summoning spells have specific numbers? I know the undead do. I know the Chaos Lord's reinforcement ability has no limit, and that isn't summoning. That needs rules.

If there are specific numbers those override the basic rules but the basic summoning rules cover things like chaos lords by imposing the limit. In our system, a chaos lord is 1 point so can summon 1 active unit at a time. It counts as summoning even though its called "reinforcements".

Anything that adds units to the table is a form of summoning.

[Auticus]

Added version 1.11b to the site which added version information to file and a date published as well as a twitter address to follow to know when changes happen (@Auticus) and an email to send feedback to.

[eppelwhat]

After reviewing the stats available from the App, I think it may be a 4 for the Celestant on Dracoth. Probably a 3 on foot? I agree with the rest, though!


Hi there, thanks so much for Azyr Comp. It's the best that I've seen so far. I hope it continues to evolve.

Looking forward to the new units' comp next week. In the interim, would love your preliminary views on whether any of the following need modification:

Lord-Celestant on Dracoth - 3
Lord-Relictor - 1
Liberators - 1 for 5
Prosecutors - 1 for 3
Retributors - 1 for 3
Mighty Lord of Khorne - 2
Bloodsecrator - 1
Bloodstoker - 1
Blood Warriors - 1 for 5
Bloodreavers - 1 for 10
Khorgoraths - 2

[Auticus]

Greetings!

We have uploaded our update this morning. It tweaks a few things (abomination 4 points, tomb kings sphix 4 points, cleaned up rules on scoring and cover, added sigmarites and the new khorne models)

The next update won't be for a bit and will be adding "half points" to further balance down the units.

Thanks for your feedback! We are also at work on a fall campaign set on the Burning Peninsula using this comp system and when that is complete it will also be made public.

Feedback should go to [email protected]

Thanks!

[eppelwhat]

Slann?

[Jared Swenson]

Hey Auticus, great job on this. This composition is the standard for playing AoS at our LGS.

A couple things I should mention for suggestions: the Dwarf Engineer needs to be cheaper than Grimm Burloksson. At this point there is no reason to not take Grimm as he does everything the Engineer does, but better. I think keep Grimm at 2 points, and make the Engineer 1 point?

The name for the Stormcast Eternals page bugs me. They are not called 'Sigmarites'. Sigmarite is the name of the metal their weapons and armour is made of. They are the Stormcast Eternals.

Other than that great stuff. I check this thread regularly for updates. :)

[Auticus]

Slaan priest is there, its listed as 3 points.

The dwarf debate went on for a while. It was 1 point. Then raised up because of its ability to heal. Its more like 1.5 points with the playtesters torn back and forth on its value in the current system.

We are working on a half point system now. This involves applying our initial math formula to everything and then trying to point out abilities. This will give us an idea on where the models sit in tiers.

To give an example... a hero that scores between 1 and 100 was Tier 1, 101 and 200 was Tier 2...etc. We're going to add a middle point in there so that 1 and 50 is one, 51 and 100 is 1.5 etc.

The formula is long and based on calculating the worth of all the hard math and then adding in the abstract factor for things like summoning, how many spells you can cast, and other misc abilities. Once that is complete I think that the system will be very close and I plan on also releasing the Asqyth Comp system...which is basically those raw point values so that you can make precision lists if you so desire as opposed to general lists from Azyr.

There is a new campaign pack being penned now that uses this system and I will also have that posted when complete, though that will be a bit.

Thank you for the feedback I appreciate it.

[eppelwhat]

Slaan priest is there, its listed as 3 points.


It seems very well thought out and is a wonderful system. Thanks a ton for doing it.

Is there a rationale behind not considering the Lizardman Priests as Heros?

[Auticus]

They are heroes. I think the formatting for lizardmen got screwed when it went to pdf. I'll look at it

Thank you for the feedback!

[Auticus]

Work continues on the half point system, which has been voted on to receive a full doubling so the scale moves to 1-10. Warriors of Chaos are complete, the others are moving along slowly (it involves plugging in a fairly complex formula to each attack option to get their exact cost and then placing that cost in its appropriate tier)

[Vangrail]

Gonna be honest this is great so far man thank you. Ive introduced this system to my local game store and now everyone uses it. Hell ive seen really big games played lol. I personally play lizardmen and beastmen and building an army is great simple and no one complains around me anymore!!!

[Mark II]

Hy

I Think the Points for Bloodsecrator should be 1, if you compare it with other one Point or two Point Models.

Gretings

[Auticus]

Greetings!

Version 1.3b of Azyr has been uploaded. Scale is now 1-10, retweaked points with an application that crunched numbers for us, and added formations.

Cheers!

[eppelwhat]

Greetings!

Version 1.3b of Azyr has been uploaded. Scale is now 1-10, retweaked points with an application that crunched numbers for us, and added formations.

Cheers!

Auticus:

I appreciate your desire for precision, but I was really a fan of the simplicity inherent in the previous version. This version changes units fairly drastically, and makes army building as complicated as if there were precision points.

Will you be continuing to make the old 1-5 version available? I liked the Tiers represented, even though some units were clearly stronger than others.

If you won't make it publicly available, can I request you email me the most recent version prior to this one? I replaced the PDF automatically, and can't restore it. Thanks!

[Auticus]

I will see if I can dig an older version out of our facebook later this evening for you and email it to you. Send me your email address please.

I need to update our website and add a resource tab and put both versions out there. I was fond of the older way as well, but got out voted in terms of making it more precise (because as you saw it made it a bit more complicated too)

[Auticus]

Quick update 1.32 - clarified max units = max scrolls. Unit count bumped up. Storm fiends incorrect at 1 for 1 - they should be 2 for 1.

[Metzombie]

Hi, two things I noticed reading your point cost.
1. The Warhounds of Chaos have diffrent pointcost for Beastmen and Warriors. Which are correct?
2. The Fleshhounds are listed for 1 point per hound. That seems a bit high.

[Auticus]

The warhounds is a typo that got missed in the move from 1-10 scale. They are being corrected now. They should both be 1 for 5.

The flesh hounds weighed in on the formula in the same tier as the other models that were 1 for 1 (they went from 2 points to 2.5 points from the old system ... a half point upgrade, which doubled put them at 5 for 5 for the new system which is 1 for 1)

[Auticus]

1528815289

Online PC version almost up

[LardTroll]

nice work yet again looking forward to this :D

[Auticus]

Coding is done! Just have the data entry stuff now.

[Cutter]

Coding is done! Just have the data entry stuff now.

This seems like screaming ab-dab madness but as long as you're having fun, go for it!

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Dunno about madness, Azyr Comp's the best go at putting a points cost to Age of Sigmar I've seen so far!

[Cutter]

Oh don't get me wrong, I applaud anyone's efforts to salvage what they feel they can from ZPG, me and mine have simply avoided the issue by not engaging with it. I don't like the Sigmarite background or aesthetic, I can't even convince myself to use them as Bangle Sanguinary Terminators, cos really, I just don't need that (m)any more.

[LardTroll]

i am with you cutter on setting we are using old minis in the "old world" & its good fun

[SerialMoM]

I joined this Forum to tahnk you efforts to make out of AoS a playbale and scaleable game.

I made only one test game yet, but I am wondering why the Hammerers for the Dwarves are so expensive with 4 for 5?

As expensive as Chaos knights who can do everything better with three Hp per? This I do not understand, but maybe you might explain this?

[SerialMoM]

Coding is done! Just have the data entry stuff now.

Hmm I answeed already in this thread but it did not work somehow.

Ok again, thank you Auticus for your fine work.

I have a question though, why are Dwarf Hammerers rated like Chaos Knight while having only 1 wound not 3 having much less movement, only two instead of three attacks?

Thanks for explaining this.

[Auticus]

I joined this Forum to tahnk you efforts to make out of AoS a playbale and scaleable game.

I made only one test game yet, but I am wondering why the Hammerers for the Dwarves are so expensive with 4 for 5?

As expensive as Chaos knights who can do everything better with three Hp per? This I do not understand, but maybe you might explain this?

Everything in the game went through a math formula that spit out their effective score. This involved calculating score based on average bravery, armor save, movement values, wounds, and then how much average damage a model could do to a 4+ save model with all of its attacks. On top of that added points for flying, wizard spells cast per turn, if a model that was not a wizard could summon, if it was immune to battleshock, etc. This returned a score which was applied universally to all models. The scores were then put into a tier which is a range of scores, which is where the points come from. Example: tier 1 unit is 1 for 10. tier 1 hero is 1 point.

Chaos knights don't do everything better than hammerers. Hammerers do more average damage than a chaos knight does. A chaos knight gets more attacks but the hammerers hit better, wound better, and have rending. Hammerers are also essentially immune to battleshock while near a hero, which is a huge thing in this game, whereas chaos knights can lose models to battle shock.

Then there is the concept of tiers. People are used to precision points, which this system is not trying to represent at all.

A tier encompasses a range of scores. That means for example models that score 1-10 may be tier 1, 11-20 tier 2, 21-30 tier 3, etc.

A chaos knight sitting at 18 points would be tier 2, and a hammerer at 21 points would be tier 3, even though they are only 3 points seperated. But you have to draw the line somewhere.

I've had many many games vs dwarves now with my chaos army and I will say my chaos knights have been shattered by hammerers nearly every time.

[SerialMoM]

Thank you for your reply.

Still by just comparing the damage the 5 chaos knights would do to the 5 Hammerers which cost exactly the same . 1.5 wound per knight (5 attacks) means after saves nearly 4 dead Hammerers. One Hammerer would roughly do 8/9 wound of which 1/3 is saved by armour, so around 0.6 wound for the knights. If we suggest that the 5 Hammerers would charge they would maybe kill one knight by doing nearly 3 damage, 4 knights still would kill 3 Hammerers back, next turn the Hammerers are gone.

Yes the army does exist only of these troops but to equal a 1 wound 2 attack mini with a three wound five attack mini is for me still wrong. I play Chaos and Dwarves so I am just took an example where I am familiar with the units and really do not understand the results of your formula. Maybe the influence of having multiple wounds is undervalued by your formulas?

Ok enough from me, your system is still the best I know so far, and if you can improve it I am happy, if not my Hammerers will not see a lot of battles And
i still will be happy.

[darnelius]

Hi there Auticus,

Loving the points system and all your efforts.

The Daemon prince for Warriors & Daemons of Chaos have different points costs but they're exactly the same warscrolls. Could you perhaps standardize?

Our group arent using the special rules from your comp, instead only having a short list of changes, but the points are definitely being used.

We're very much looking forward to the Army Builder software. Will the optional +1 pt for shooting units be integrated as an option into this?

[Auticus]

We had an update yesterday actually that brought hammerers down to 3 for 5.

[SerialMoM]

We had an update yesterday actually that brought hammerers down to 3 for 5.

Ahh yes thanks, 3 for 5 fits better for them.

[nsc]

Why are blood warriors so expensive? They don't have any rend, their attacks aren't very strong, they're not efficient for their wound count either.

[Auticus]

Why are blood warriors so expensive? They don't have any rend, their attacks aren't very strong, they're not efficient for their wound count either.

Because the formula put them with a similar score as other elite infantry so they are cost like that if they landed in that tier (which contains a range of scores).

Ironically enough someone wrote last week that they were too cheap for what they do. Such is trying to write a point system ;)

[nsc]

Alright well, I know that I played a game, not using your point system we just matched wounds, and it ended up coming down to just three wounds left on the table, it was very close.

When I calculated the armies in azyr comp it came out that the losing side had 10 more points than the winning side, had the winning side spent those ten points it would have been a crushing, one sided, blood bath, tabling.


Also currently, blood warriors aren't really elite infantry.

They have one attack per wound 3/4/-

Which puts them almost on par with basic fodder, the +1 to hit and +1 amour don't really work out to pay for the point difference, their special rules also are very minimal in their impact and everyone in my area feels that the blood warriors are very poor choices as far as WAAC optimization goes.

Ultimately it seems to me that Azyr comp doesn't have the granularity to encompass and pay for these small differences, while I don't want to go back to a GW style where this model is 17 points and this model is 18, it's very easy to see that the low impact, low integer azyr comp struggles with these small differences.

[Auticus]

Alright well, I know that I played a game, not using your point system we just matched wounds, and it ended up coming down to just three wounds left on the table, it was very close.

When I calculated the armies in azyr comp it came out that the losing side had 10 more points than the winning side, had the winning side spent those ten points it would have been a crushing, one sided, blood bath, tabling.


Also currently, blood warriors aren't really elite infantry.

They have one attack per wound 3/4/-

Which puts them almost on par with basic fodder, the +1 to hit and +1 amour don't really work out to pay for the point difference, their special rules also are very minimal in their impact and everyone in my area feels that the blood warriors are very poor choices as far as WAAC optimization goes.

Ultimately it seems to me that Azyr comp doesn't have the granularity to encompass and pay for these small differences, while I don't want to go back to a GW style where this model is 17 points and this model is 18, it's very easy to see that the low impact, low integer azyr comp struggles with these small differences.

Its not for everyone. Right now we have about an 85% positive rate in how it handles balance based off of the game play feedback that I and others on the team have received, so I'm happy with it. For someone that wants more granular points, Azyr really wouldn't appeal to them.

Most of the negative feedback we receive is usually along the lines that its not granular or precise enough. I'd say about 95% of the negative commentary I receive is usually tied to that actually.

Typically when looking at negative feedback I ask for a detailed battle report to show mathematically how the comp failed and when supplied and valid we tweak the points as needed. This has to show what the player did with his units since a great many battles I have personally watched where one person says that the comp failed is that they just played poorly, or had no answer in their list for something the other player had. Detailed battle reports are definitely key.

An example: one of our guys said the comp failed because his sigmarites got tabled by a high elf player. However in having the battle reported to me, the high elf player had a lot of ranged attacks that the other guy couldn't answer, and he let the warmachines and archers just do whatever they wanted. He also failed to mention that an important battle between the sigmarite commander and the sea helm character could have gone either way and had he won that battle he likely would have won the game, but instead fell on how it was the comp that caused him to lose.

A lot of negative commentary has also come from people that never actually used it, but are just eyeballing it and dismissing it which I cannot use for validity checking. I have seen a lot of games that are balanced based solely on wounds, and some come out close, and a large number are usually totally one-sided (which has caused a lot in my community to rage-quit and go on to Infinity or other games in the past couple weeks)

I know that out of 200+ games now playtested with this system, very few result in tabling barring some bad play or super bad luck on one players part. We have 18 tournaments that have reported to us using this comp, and all 18 reported positive feedback overall as well which is encouraging. If we had a lot of negative feedback, we would have scrapped the project as a waste of time.

As far as blood warriors being too high in points in our system, that may be. Thats what playtesting is for. Every model has had the same formula applied to it which gave it a score. Some of those scores have since been adjusted based on playtest results if enough solid evidence to back that change was presented and verified (we have since this project started had 37 adjustments based off of playtest feedback)

I haven't seen an infallible perfect system come yet, nor will I ever claim that this system is infallible and perfect.

[nsc]

Its not for everyone. Right now we have about an 85% positive rate in how it handles balance based off of the game play feedback that I and others on the team have received, so I'm happy with it. For someone that wants more granular points, Azyr really wouldn't appeal to them.

Most of the negative feedback we receive is usually along the lines that its not granular or precise enough. I'd say about 95% of the negative commentary I receive is usually tied to that actually.

Typically when looking at negative feedback I ask for a detailed battle report to show mathematically how the comp failed and when supplied and valid we tweak the points as needed. This has to show what the player did with his units since a great many battles I have personally watched where one person says that the comp failed is that they just played poorly, or had no answer in their list for something the other player had. Detailed battle reports are definitely key.

An example: one of our guys said the comp failed because his sigmarites got tabled by a high elf player. However in having the battle reported to me, the high elf player had a lot of ranged attacks that the other guy couldn't answer, and he let the warmachines and archers just do whatever they wanted. He also failed to mention that an important battle between the sigmarite commander and the sea helm character could have gone either way and had he won that battle he likely would have won the game, but instead fell on how it was the comp that caused him to lose.

A lot of negative commentary has also come from people that never actually used it, but are just eyeballing it and dismissing it which I cannot use for validity checking. I have seen a lot of games that are balanced based solely on wounds, and some come out close, and a large number are usually totally one-sided (which has caused a lot in my community to rage-quit and go on to Infinity or other games in the past couple weeks)

I know that out of 200+ games now playtested with this system, very few result in tabling barring some bad play or super bad luck on one players part. We have 18 tournaments that have reported to us using this comp, and all 18 reported positive feedback overall as well which is encouraging. If we had a lot of negative feedback, we would have scrapped the project as a waste of time.

As far as blood warriors being too high in points in our system, that may be. Thats what playtesting is for. Every model has had the same formula applied to it which gave it a score. Some of those scores have since been adjusted based on playtest results if enough solid evidence to back that change was presented and verified (we have since this project started had 37 adjustments based off of playtest feedback)

I haven't seen an infallible perfect system come yet, nor will I ever claim that this system is infallible and perfect.

Yeah I can provide a fairly accurate battle report, I don't have all the die rolls but I know that I was rolling extremely poorly, and still managed to win. As far as tactical decisions there weren't many admittedly, the beastmen mobbed up and rushed forward haha.

I'll pm you the details later

[Auticus]

Appreciate the feedback.

[Auticus]

Software data entry is done. They are working on an import feature now so you can just download new units and scroll images as needed.

Few pdf changes as well.

Temple guard down a point.
Knights and Reiksguard knights match up better
Blood Warriors down a point

Added
Decimators (2 for 3/(1))
Protectors (2 for 3/(1))

[Auticus]

The PC Builder for Azyr is up as well as a new Resources tab (refer to image) which will contain all of the comp packs and campaign packs without having to remember the link.

If you are interested in the PC Builder, save the zip file to your drive and extract the two setup files. From there run Setup.exe.

It is advised that you set the installation settings for ALL users and that you NOT set the install directory to your Program Files directory, because windows likes to lock down that directory and prevents my updater from running... meaning as units and scrolls get added you will need to manually add the files to your install as opposed to letting my updater do it for you.

Any issues let me know.

Web URL is www.louisvillewargaming.com

Tab to find these files is called "Resources" which is new and has been added.

[Joseph Nabil Borawski]

Good morning Auticus,

Regarding costs for VC Skeleton Warriors in the PC Comp / Comp...

Skeleton Warriors are 3/10. If you add a heal banner you add 1 point.

If I had a Skeleton Warriors unit of 30, with only 1 banner...

*Should* the cost be 10 or 12?

Thanks

-Joe

[Auticus]

Good morning Joe

The answer is that they should be 12. Its +1 point for each selection if the banner is present.

[Joseph Nabil Borawski]

Okay cool, Thank you Sir :)

[Auticus]

Anytime!

[Auticus]

Version 1.4 has been uploaded. New tamurkhan and chaos dwarf scrolls.
Event clarifications added to what is summoning as well as randomize missile attacks vs warmachines.
www.louisvillewargaming.com under the resources tab

PC App files updated hopefully this weekend.

[Auticus]

Fixed error where stormcast eternals were not costed right due to the switch to the 10 point system from the 5. Retributors, Decimators, and Protectors now all cost 4 for 3 instead of some costing 2 for 3.


so is it the same cost for both?
It is the same yes, the addition of the steed does not do enough to push him to the next tier.

[Dknight]

Hello Auticus

Sorry if my english isn't quite good but i'm not native. before anything, thank you for this point system as it has allowed us to start playing AoS without the problems we were having.

Yesterday, we play tested the ruleset with three games at 20 points.

* Caos vs Dark elves (Witch Elves) (Chaos victory)
* Chaos vs Skaven (Clan Skyre) (Chaos victory for just one point)
* Chaos vs Dark Elves (DE victory)

Chaos Knights were quite decisive in the first game as they managed to crush the witch elves and the Cauldron, and Chaos Charriots did quite good in the second one. I liked how Cold Ones worked and the tactical advantage of sorcerers.

Few things I wanted to comment you:
* Aren't the Dark Riders a bit expensive? I have to say they are pretty cool, but 5 points for 5 sounds a bit pricey
* The harpies weren't really great, but is hard to lower their cost as they seem more useful than chaos hounds

I'll keep you posted on new games, as we'll soon test Orcs and Goblins and undead

[Auticus]

Dark Riders have 6 attacks per model. There aren't many units in the game barring monsters or heroes that have that many attacks. The damage output that they can push is pretty gross. With being able to fire into combat a thing (3 of the 6 attacks are ranged), they are indeed worth a point a piece. A unit of 5 of them roll 30 dice on their turn for attacking.

I think with dark riders a lot of people are still hung up on their 8th edition version as fast cavalry ... they still can operate as fast cavalry but now they can also pump out a lot of attack dice (more than almost any other unit in the game)

[Dknight]

I'll have to test them further to give you a more valid oppinion, but they'll being more costly than 10 cold ones was something my mind had problems to process :D

Again, i want to give you thanks for have done this. I'll try to tell you my impressions on orcs and goblins soon.

[Fryderyk Zoll]

Hello!
First, I want to thank you Auticus for this great comp! I do however have a question. Some units have the option to add some models to it for one point, but, concerning the models without this option, is it possible to take a unit of eg. 4 leadbelchers (counting the one addtional as 2 points) or does your system only allow to make units consisting of, in this case 3, 6, 9 Leadbelchers/Ironguts? Could you clarify this for me?

Edit #1 Oh and I have just encountered an update problem, that the files Decimators.jpg can not be found while updating, could you help me on this?

[Auticus]

I'll have to test them further to give you a more valid oppinion, but they'll being more costly than 10 cold ones was something my mind had problems to process :D

Again, i want to give you thanks for have done this. I'll try to tell you my impressions on orcs and goblins soon.

Yeah when creating the points that was the first thing a few people honed in on, that there is no way dark riders should cost more than cold one knights - until you factor in that cold one knights have no ranged attacks and 3 less attacks overall ;)


Hello!
First, I want to thank you Auticus for this great comp! I do however have a question. Some units have the option to add some models to it for one point, but, concerning the models without this option, is it possible to take a unit of eg. 4 leadbelchers (counting the one addtional as 2 points) or does your system only allow to make units consisting of, in this case 3, 6, 9 Leadbelchers/Ironguts? Could you clarify this for me?

Edit #1 Oh and I have just encountered an update problem, that the files Decimators.jpg can not be found while updating, could you help me on this?


Right now there is only the ability to add models by 1 pt if the unit overall costs less than 1 pt for 1 model. If you and your opponent agree, I would say there is no problem with finding a way to make 2 pts = 1 model for those models that cost more than 1 pt per model (listed as 4 pts for 3 models for example)

As to your technical issue there was a bug with the updater that I had hoped was fixed. If you download the latest version of the software you should be ok when you run the updater (it wasn't always downloading the images for whatever reason). The latest version is 1.0.1 which if you click on your Help and then About item will show you what version of the software you are running.

If that does not work let me know. I have been 100% sucessful in updating all of my test machines with the latest images using the updater.

To manually fix it you can go to: http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/AzyrComp/Decimators.jpg and download that jpg file and place it in your:

%install directory/Auticus Studios/Azyr/Warscroll Images directory. Any of the images that came after the initial build are in that folder and can be copied down.

[Auticus]

Barring anything major this will be the last update until after the Brimstone Peninsula escalation campaign.

Adjusted tier for a handful of units that were priced too high (4 for 3) and dropped them to 3 for 3, or 1pt for 1 model:

Decimators
Protectors
Retributors
Demigryph Knights
Stalkers (Tomb Kings)
Treekin
Ripperdactyls
Pox Riders
Lead Belchers
Bloodcrushers

Hellpit Abomination drops from 9 pts to 8 pts

Fixed formatting issue with Warriors of Chaos being on same page as VC.

PC update to come.

[Auticus]

Those aren't currently in the document. Maybe next update. The chaos familiars will likely not be included simply because they don't do anything to warrant bumping a sorcerer up a point and they don't do enough to warrant being a point on their own.

[Auticus]

Updated file and PC builder to add Blood Warriors with 2 axe option (3 for 5 pts)

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

The chaos familiars will likely not be included simply because they don't do anything to warrant bumping a sorcerer up a point and they don't do enough to warrant being a point on their own.Hm, interesting problem. This might fall outside the scope of your project, but perhaps Familiars could be added through having them occupy one of the Sorcerer's "Summoning Points"? Quite tangible drawback, but still leaves room for their use.

[Auticus]

Thats a pretty cool idea :) That may make its way in!

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Thanks! Although after stewing on it for a bit, maybe adding a summoning spell along the lines of: "CHAOS WIZARDS know the Summon Chaos Familiars spell, in addition to any others they know." etc, with a quite low casting value. Essentially making them a "summon-only" unit. Similar concept to the above, but would require fewer special rules/parameters, since Summoning Spells are already "detached" from Wizards in Age of Sigmar.

Still, a decent chunk of writing either way for a fairly forgettable unit entry.

[Auticus]

Yep that's the problem with them and why they are currently not in the pack... I just didn't see them making that much of an impact to require one.

[Auticus]

Liberators fixed to 2 for 5 instead of 4 for 5 (doubling mistake that should have never been)

[Dknight]

Hello Auticus.

I'm not sure on why the goblin warboss costs 1 and the night goblin warboss costs 3. Can you check it, please? :)

Thanks in advance

[Ray Rivers]

So based on your calculations, the AoS Starter Box set includes:

* Stormcast Eternals:

- Lord Celestant on Dracoth - 5
- Lord Relictor - 3
- Three Retributors - 3
- Two units of five Liberators - 4
- Three Prosecutors - 2

Total of 17 points

* Khorne Bloodbound:

- One Lord of Khorne - 4
- One Bloodsecrator - 3
- One Bloodstoker - 1
- One Khorgorath - 3
- Five Blood Warriors - 2
- Two units of ten Bloodreavers - 4

Total of 17 points

Is that correct?

[Auticus]

Hello Auticus.

I'm not sure on why the goblin warboss costs 1 and the night goblin warboss costs 3. Can you check it, please? :)

Thanks in advance

Goblin bosses were on the upper end of Tier 1 (1 pt). Night Goblin bosses were in tier 2 (2 pts) and then through playtesting their command ability gave them a boost which was enough to push them to the lower part of tier 3 (3 pts). When Azyr was just the 1-5 version , they were both 1 pt a piece.

- - - Updated - - -


So based on your calculations, the AoS Starter Box set includes:

* Stormcast Eternals:

- Lord Celestant on Dracoth - 5
- Lord Relictor - 3
- Three Retributors - 3
- Two units of five Liberators - 4
- Three Prosecutors - 2

Total of 17 points

* Khorne Bloodbound:

- One Lord of Khorne - 4
- One Bloodsecrator - 3
- One Bloodstoker - 1
- One Khorgorath - 3
- Five Blood Warriors - 2
- Two units of ten Bloodreavers - 4

Total of 17 points

Is that correct?

IF thats what the points come out to be then yes thats correct.

[Ray Rivers]

IF thats what the points come out to be then yes thats correct.

My only real uncertainty were the Bloodreavers which were set at 1 for 5.

I interpreted that as one unit of 5 is 1 point. One unit of 10 is 2 points. And one unit of 20 is 4 points.

Sorry, I'm new to this fantasy universe... :)

[Mr Mystery]

Hey dude.

I've not read through the whole thing, but I've got a question about how you factor in Battleshock when applying 'points multipliers' to those units that get benefits for large units (for instance, Empire State Troops, who get rock hard at 40 strong).

I was thinking about this, and realised that large units in themselves can be a bit of a liability when it comes to Battleshock.

Consider two units of twenty State Troops. After a solid kicking, the most I can get shot of with a single unit is 20, provided of course I'm tackling them one at a time, and my opponent has kindly chosen not to bundle me.

But, a unit of 40? Well they are absolutely a serious threat. 2+ to hit and 2+ to wound hurts, no matter who you are. But, something akin to Ironguts, Ogres or any unit which does multiple wounds can do solid damage to them - more than enough for a proper 'brown trousers' Battleshock test. If I'm able to wangle striking the first round of attacks, it's not unlikely I'll soon be eating into his numbers and his perks. Then, at the end of the combat round (and whether or not my unit is still on the board), Battleshock can see even more head for the hills.

So how do you factor that sort of thing in?

[Auticus]

Hey dude.

I've not read through the whole thing, but I've got a question about how you factor in Battleshock when applying 'points multipliers' to those units that get benefits for large units (for instance, Empire State Troops, who get rock hard at 40 strong).

I was thinking about this, and realised that large units in themselves can be a bit of a liability when it comes to Battleshock.

Consider two units of twenty State Troops. After a solid kicking, the most I can get shot of with a single unit is 20, provided of course I'm tackling them one at a time, and my opponent has kindly chosen not to bundle me.

But, a unit of 40? Well they are absolutely a serious threat. 2+ to hit and 2+ to wound hurts, no matter who you are. But, something akin to Ironguts, Ogres or any unit which does multiple wounds can do solid damage to them - more than enough for a proper 'brown trousers' Battleshock test. If I'm able to wangle striking the first round of attacks, it's not unlikely I'll soon be eating into his numbers and his perks. Then, at the end of the combat round (and whether or not my unit is still on the board), Battleshock can see even more head for the hills.

So how do you factor that sort of thing in?

Its not really. The points come off of the statline and how much average damage the model will do against a 4+ save model with extra modifiers such as if it flies, if it is a wizard, how many spells it can cast, and any other misc modifiers that really make a large impact such as an ability that gives a universal 4++ save or something to units for example)

Units that get bonuses the bigger they are tend to have their points buffed up a little bit, and then playtesting is taken into play.

There are so many modifiers and ancillary scenarios that coming up with everything is basically impossible.

That doesn't mean the system is perfect, because its not, but in general it has given some pretty good results for campaign play - which was its intention. Any obvious flaws or holes I fix immediately.

- - - Updated - - -


My only real uncertainty were the Bloodreavers which were set at 1 for 5.

I interpreted that as one unit of 5 is 1 point. One unit of 10 is 2 points. And one unit of 20 is 4 points.

Sorry, I'm new to this fantasy universe... :)

You are correct in how you are using the formula :)

[Dknight]

Hello

We have tested the game throughly today. We have played 4 games:
* Orcs vs Chaos (Nurgle) Orc victory
* Night Goblins vs Chaos (Tzeentch Barbarians) Night Goblin Victory
* High elves vs Demons (Nurgle) Demon Victory
* High elves vs Chaos (Tzeentch) High Elf victory

The games have been quite fine and fun, but here are few things we found odd:
* Cave Squigs were extremely effective on both games with greenskins. Even when they have such a low bravery and the random move, they seem quite a blast for 1 point
* The night goblin warboss was a bit pricey as i expected, compared with the common goblin warboss, the warboss on squig or Skarnik. Even when his command skill is quite good, 3 points seems a bit too much (oevr the orc warboss, for example)
* I seriously loved the spider raiders. The managed to stop the chaos knights to do anything for the whole game
* The Doom Diver was a bit disappointing as it's capacity to cause damage isn't really big
* Fanatics are a bit crazy in the new system but they are quite useful when you understand how to use them
* I imagine that mounted characters don't justify an extra point, but i would like something like that, to appear. I want to field unmounted and mounted chars and pay the same sounds a bit weird
* What do you think about adding a limitation to night goblin netters? (1 per every 5, for example). They appeared to be quite good

That's all for today! Thank you for everything!

[Auticus]

Mounted characters often do not warrant a price increase unless the mount is like a monster or something. The extra couple attacks never really push them into the next tier.

I will add the night goblin warboss to the list of things to look at. I have looked at it and the score was correct to price it, so it will need more testing. Point changes are not supposed to happen again until after our campaign near November to keep the document stable and allow playtesting to use the same standard.

I will also add cave squigs to look at.

The suggestion for netters is also already being considered, it is on our list :)

[Auticus]

Mournfang cavalry were bugged. Should be 2 pts for 1 model not 1 pt for 1 model.

[Auticus]

Updated with new celestials tonight. State troops fixed to be 1 pt for 5 as they have same ability as zombies do. WLC upped to 3 pts. Follow @Auticus on twitter for updates.

[tanithfirst]

hello!I've tried your Azyr(with orks,bretonnia and chaos warriors) and I liked it very much!so,first of all,thank you for your work!:D

I've also a High elves army based on Chrace and Caledor...trying to make a list I'have seen some balancig problem:
HIgh Elves dragon princes are a hard hitting heavy cavalry like many others in game:but why 1 point each one as blood knights or demigriph knights?they(dragon princes) are not so strong I think :confused:.....even grail knigths , chaos knights and necropolis knights are cheaper than dragon princes knigths...so 6 dragon princes as 3 stormfiends or 3 mournfang cavalry??
I think that they should be reduced in price...don't you agree? ;)

[Auticus]

Because of the tier they fall in. A tier is a range of scores. That means in any given tier you will have a range of scores, but overall they fit into a tier.

Tier 1 may be a score of 1 - 10 for ex and Tier 2 may be a score of 11-20.
I may have a unit of swordsmen worth 5 points so tier 1, dragon princes 12 points so tier 2 and blood knights 17 points so tier 2.

Bumping Dragon Princes down a tier means that the items in that lower tier are now outclassed by the dragon princes, which means they n eed bumped down. Which means the items that sit below those new items need bumped down (etc).

Azyr is not a precision system and was never meant to be its meant to get a general feel of balance as opposed to trying to do a precise feel of precision.

[tanithfirst]

Because of the tier they fall in. A tier is a range of scores. That means in any given tier you will have a range of scores, but overall they fit into a tier.

Tier 1 may be a score of 1 - 10 for ex and Tier 2 may be a score of 11-20.
I may have a unit of swordsmen worth 5 points so tier 1, dragon princes 12 points so tier 2 and blood knights 17 points so tier 2.


uhm so maybe the problem is the tier used because they are clearly weaker than the other units that I mentioned ...
so can I suggest 4 points for 5(1) ? like grail knights and chaos knights?
these are similar units with similar role and impact...Ihmo this shoud be their tier and "category/group"... I don't feel my grail knights or chaos knigths humiliated by my dragon princes knigths if compared...:D

thank you for the quick answer and explanation!

[Auticus]

So far the experiences I have had with dragon princes were that they were definitely worth the 1 for 1 price tag. They were pretty nasty. They are not as strong as blood knights no but overall they were pretty powerful and overall the armies as a whole felt fairly balanced.

I can look at their scores and do a comparison and add it to the list of items we are evaluating for november's update (we are running through a campaign right now so unless the unit is just obviously broken we are not tweaking points until then). i'll add it to the list of things to look at.

[SaphyronCQ]

Hi! I've got a question about your Azyr Army Builder. First of all, you do an amazing job and I can't wait to try your system!
In the Army Builder, Treeman and Treeman Ancient are listet as "Heroes" but they aren't heroes on their warscroll. Is this intended or just a mistake? If it is intendend, what is your reason for that?

[Auticus]

Could be a mistake, I'll look tonight when I have some time. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Auticus]

File updated tonight with new stormcast heroes and formations. Fixed error with the treemen.

[AoS Noob]

wow! looks like you really took your time with this! I might as well try it out seeing as though you went through all the trouble.

My starter set is still on the way and I'm hopeful that the scenarios provided in the books allow for enough creative gameplay. From what I read a scenario can be played by any one of any race, so that's nice. I am a bit interested in being able to develop my own scenarios if I get bored of the ones provided though, so what you provided as a base is nice.

I didn't play the old versions much. I only played with some friends with very limited real models and simulated the bulk with cheap bases and a sticky note. Needless to say I simply don't have enough money to be buying a giant army or anything. One of my fears is that the scenarios are just sort of designed to keep you buying more units. I get that the starter pack won't be enough forever, but I'd like to keep building my army the way I want, not a way to just fit a scenario. That was one of the problems with the old game, but with a different face: you couldn't build the army you wanted cause some units/characters just plain sucked in the actual gameplay.

I notice you changed a lot of rules back to more reflect that old gameplay style. I won't be trying any of those and prefer to keep the rules simple and unaltered unless GW decides to amend something. But again thanks for providing a base for building new scenarios. There are eventually suppose to hundreds of scenarios but I don't wanna sit around forever waiting for them, and seems like they will be hand selected within $75 books... again I don't have much money to be spending on this so maybe I'll get a few but far from all of the official books.

anyway, thanks for your post.

[Auticus]

The rules changes weren't there to go back to old game play. They were put in place because they are either the most rage inducing rules ever created and would cause our events to fold due to lack of players (summoning), or made armies play totally the opposite of how you would read fantasy literature to have heroes fight (heroes hiding in the back of the army so the opposing army cannot snipe them with all of their missile weapons).

Things like being locked into combat, but being able to shoot your missile weapons outside of your combat at a target 100 yards away is also quite literally the most immersion-breaking rule I have ever encountered in 30+ years of wargaming.

[AoS Noob]

oh well it just feels like most of the rule changes sort of mimic the old books, sorry that people get enraged about rules. I didn't play fantasy all that much and have a vague memory of it over 10 years ago... anyway when you watch lord of the rings type movies and stuff, or read epic novels, those characters are always shooting out of their immediate combat to hit other people... or into another combat to save someone... doesn't seem like an unrealistic rule in an unrealistic (fantasy) environment, and I quite enjoy the freedom to shoot as I please at what I please.

The old rules were too strict and I always felt handcuffed by rules while playing the game instead enjoying the fantasy immersion. Heroes often do stand in the back and bless the crowds with auras, then commit at opportune moments, so that is pretty realistic in an unrealistic (and realistic) scenario. Kiting your range and power is one of the most prevalent tactics in most RTS games, so why is it so wacky in a turn based system to linger in the back? Idk much about summoning and don't plan on playing with any outdated models/units so it probably won't be an issue when they release the new Death faction, but time will tell...

[Auticus]

so why is it so wacky in a turn based system to linger in the back?

Because it is probably the definition of being UNHEROIC to hide in the back, as well as incredibly unrealistic and immersion breaking for an entire army to be able to target that one guy in the middle of a pack of warriors.

A chaos lord that has to hide the entire game because the enemy army can just choose to target him no matter where he is is in IMO a horrible game mechanic.

Kiting and doing gamey things in RTS games is not the same as playing narrative table top scenarios that are either recreating historical scenarios, recreating narrative scenarios, or creating new narrative scenarios. They are gamey things done to win games, which to me are two totally separate and different things. I wrote this system to play narrative battles to emulate stories I read about, not to recreate my world of warcraft experience which is the farthest thing from resembling a fantasy battle that I can think of.

I don't know of any movies or fantasy novels where a unit of archers was engaged in a combat and suddenly started shooting bows outside of their combat into a unit of enemy they were not engaged with. If you could point me in the direction of such a scene I would be interested in pursuing that. That too is immersion breaking and unrealistic.

If you don't like the rules thats fair enough. There is no ruleset in existence that will garner 100% acceptability. I wrote it for the campaigns that I run and shared it with the community and its sole purpose is 100% to allow narrative campaigns to work. It has garnered a very high percentage of positive feedback so I'll take that as encouraging.

[AoS Noob]

yeah to each, their own! It's pretty cool that you took the time to build rules so more people can enjoy it. I just prefer to keep with the official version is all... albeit I am, of course, a big fan of house rules! Which is a bit of an ambiguity I suppose, as your rules are technically elaborate house rules and therefore still in line with the actual official rules, because the last, most important rule, is that you and yours play by rules of combined agreement! HA so you technically are playing by official rules still :P

I guess the main difference is you're thinking in blocks of 100 archers and I'm thinking in terms of 2-3 Prosecuters or a single hero. One immediate reference to shooting and moving whilst in combat is when that elf dude from lord of the rings movie, or was it hobbit?, is chasing the dwarves floating away from the castle in the barrels in the river and all the orcs are coming...

And if doing gamey things with your hero isn't your cup of tea in this game, then hats off to you. Kiting with a well ranged powerful hero can be especially annoying and make the game no fun sometimes, so I see your point there :P

[Auticus]

I'm also thinking in terms of units of archers and not a single archer hero. A unit of archers fighting an enemy suddenly stopping to turn and fire on some other unit seems very strange to me.

[AoS Noob]

Hey, how long you think until the updates from the Chaos Battletome make it into your Azyr comp? Also, Can I suggest making the Hero points for the skirmish 3? I can't use any of my dudes from my starter pack in there cause they all are 3 or more. Kinda makes it no fun not having a hero in the mix, but I guess the idea is a Hero prob wouldn't be participating in such a small scale battle. But hey! MAYBE! like in the scenarios in the starter pack book, the armies usually still get to have a hero.

Maybe we could add one more smaller match up, call it "Convoy" or "Detachment" or "Scouts"? That way we can say in a scenario, a detachment is trying to move precious cargo in a small convoy to try and not to be detected, but are spotted by enemy scouts. Not wanting to risk losing out on the precious cargo waiting for reinforcements, the scout force charges in! Or whatever....

Suggested Change:
Battle type "Skirmish" changed to Max Hero Points: 3

Suggested addition:
Battle Type
Convoy

Warscrolls
3

Warmachines/Monsters
0

Max Hero
2

Max Points
5


If you don't like it i'll just pencil it over your current guide for my use, but I think it really would help people using this guide and starting from scratch like me! Thanks for giving it a thought!

[Auticus]

It depends on how much time I have available this weekend. This saturday we have a big campaign day so I won't even be home most of that day so it will have to come in Sunday. I get the updates in as fast as I can.

If you wish to ignore the hero allocations of course you are free to do so. For me personally a skirmish battle can easily be dominated by a couple of heroes and that is something I really want to avoid being standard in the campaign games that I GM. In a skirmish battle with only 10 points, 3 point heroes can really be nasty. Especially 3 point heroes that can summon, who could then hold 2 units on the table (and turn a 10 point skirmish into a 15-20 point force vs a 10 point opponent)

[Auticus]

https://youtu.be/taYwujapuXU

Brimstone Campaign Scenario 1 battle report - Dwarfs vs Khorne 10 pt skirmish

[Auticus]

Azyr Comp update to 1.5, get latest PDF and update your PC app

Saurus Cav 4 for 5
Dark Riders 4 for 5
Reavers 4 for 5
Dragon Princes 4 for 5
Sisters of the Thorn 4 for 5
Flesh Hounds 4 for 5
Hellstriders of Slaanesh 4 for 5
Seekers of Slaanesh 4 for 5
Seeker chariot 2 pts

Dark Elf Sorceress 2
Night Goblin Boss 2

Spell effects do not stack, so no more dumping shield on a unit to get a 1+ save and then abilities to re-roll 1s.

Next up will be how to deal with undead, one of our hottest topics. We have either to pay the +1 point for the banner PER unit addition OR an across the board point upgrade to compensate for their summoning, healing abilities. Your feedback is welcome!

[AoS Noob]

Oh sweet. Yeah I figured since there are so many other dudes out there it probably wouldn't be fair in the bigger picture. Thanks anyway!

[AoS Noob]

Hey, cool bat-rep! I saw what you meant about summoning! That's kinda crazy you can just bring in extra dudes! I had a question about why your blood rushers charged the thane on the last turn though, they looked within 3", wouldn't they have just piled in even though they weren't really in combat with him directly previously? Thanks for the clarification!

[Auticus]

Probably piled in yes. We get a few things wrong every game.

[Auticus]

Someone pointed out our Judicators were wrong. They come in a box of 5 not 3... they were changed for 2 for 3 to 4 for 5.

[AoS Noob]

Awesome! I was just checking... There is so much going on every turn its kind of expected to do a bunch things wrong haha I just thought that was a big one cause the mortal wounds thane suffered from it. Thane might have had a fighting chance to win that game last man standing BSB and all. Could have been an epic story for your scenario. But Duardin won by points anyway, so it's a moot point.

[Auticus]

Very true very true it would have been cooler if he had survived to tell the tale. Good to remember for next time :)

[Auticus]

We had our 550th playtest game submitted so I thought I'd show the overall win percentages of each force so far.

Vampire Counts: 62.35%
Stormcast: 61.48%
Ogres: 58.63%
Tomb Kings: 56.99%
Skaven: 55.53%
High Elves: 54.14%
Empire: 53.90%
Dark Elves: 52.16%
Lizardmen: 50.42%
Daemons: 50.37%
Warriors of Chaos: 48.01%
Dwarves: 47.69%
Orcs and Goblins: 47.15%
Wood Elves: 45.82%
Beastmen: 45.65%
Bloodbound: 43.02%
Bretonnia: 39.49%

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Nice. That suggests a decent level of balance.

I'm curious - do you have data on the number of games played by different armies/how many armies in testing? (i.e. there are three testers that play Bretonnians, ten who play Empire.)

[Auticus]

I do not have that raw data no, I've been mainly keeping track of wins overall as well as dumping complaints into a column to see where patterns match to prioritize unit examination. There are indeed less players in some armies than others so its not a perfect set of even data, but thats because I don't have a perfect set of playtesters in regards to numbers all being the same. I also lack the ability to watch most of their games to see what's going on in the losses.

Large change.

Added: Skarbrand, Skullgrinder, Slaughterpriest

Chaos Lord - +1 point due to summoning (now 3)
Undead banners - now officially +1 point per banner per unit selection. Ex: chariots are 2 pts for 3. Taking 1 choice is 3 pts for 3. Taking 2 pts would be 6 pts for 6 etc
The following items have been lowered from 3 points for 5 to 2 points for 5 (tier cleanup)
Executioners, Silver Helms, Wolf riders, spider riders, Tomb Guard, Shades, Gutter Runners, Marauder Horse, Jezzails, Mounted Yeoman, Knights Errant, Stormvermin, Chameleon Skinks

Dragon Princes - from 1 for 1 to 4 for 5

Hex Wraiths from 3 for 5 to 4 for 5
Bloodwrack Medusae - from 1 pt to 2 pts
Beasts of Nurgle - from 1 pt to 2 pts
Necrotect - from 1 pt to 2 pts

www.louisvillewargaming.com - Resources tab

[nsc]

If someone is fielding units from multiple factions do you record a win to each of the factions, or just the one with the most points in the list?

[Auticus]

They typically post the primary army is X. We don't have many of those though, the vast majority have been pure armies. I do play my games primarily bloodbound with a demon unit or two but mark the wins as bloodbound.

[Auticus]

Azyr Comp updated to 1.5.5. Added cockatrice, taurus, bloodbound Aspiring Death Dealer, Bloodbound Formations. Fixed PC version of Scyla which had him as a hero and not a monster.

Added clarification for formations that break comp guidelines (such as the mostly hero formation)

Chaos lords 3 pts instead of 2 due to summoning.

Zombies go to units of 10 due to the undead banners so that the cost of zombies wouldn't be so high for hordes.

www.louisvillewargaming.com Resources tab

[Auticus]

https://youtu.be/l9UTCYbgXsc

Battle Report #2 - Brimstone Campaign 10 pts Lizardmen vs Khorne

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

I do not have that raw data no, I've been mainly keeping track of wins overall as well as dumping complaints into a column to see where patterns match to prioritize unit examination.Darn, would've been neat to see. Still, you're already going way above and beyond the call of duty, considering this is purely a labour of love.

Also out of curiosity - the Chaos Lord getting pumped to 3 pts due to summoning. Was that intended to strengthen or weaken him? Linking a model's "summoning cap" to its points value is an intriguing decision, since raising a summoning unit's points value is no longer a purely negative change. I like that - mechanically simple, but still gives the player something to chew on when considering it.

[Auticus]

Well pumping him to 3 pts was meant to weaken him overall. Lot of complaints that at 2 pts he was basically the same physically as a dwarf lord but the dwarf lord was 3 pts and the chaos lord could summon to boot, so raised him to 3 to exclude him from skirmish level games.

The downside was indeed he can now summon two units instead of one but takes up one more point on your hero allowance.

[Bigbossogryn]

Auticus: thank you very much for this labour of love that you have created. My local gaming group are currently in the midst of Tale of 6 Gamers for 40K but we are looking at doing one for AoS next and this will be the template we use for the month by month army building.

It's nice to see someone else giving AoS the chance to be great. Thank you again and keep up the good work.

[Auticus]

Cool let me know how it goes!

[FAZIK]

In a recent game I've encountered Cave Squigs. Those things are insane for their points (1 for 10). In a mere skirmish (10 points) You can field 100 of them with 20 (free!) herders (2 per each 10 Squigs). Making a total of 200 wounds hitting from 2 rows on 5+/4+ (+1 because of herders), wounding on 3+ with D3 wounds each. Rend on top of it. PLUS when they escape thanks to their low bravery they also do a mortal wound on a 4+ for each. Herders attacks from behind are the icing on this cake :P. Sick.
Good thing My friend didn't go overboard and fielded only 20 of them. 2 points that went through my whole army ... With a little help from Skarsnik, who let them attack twice every turn.

2 questions/requests:
Could You take a look at their cost/value ratio?
Are the free herders 2 for each 10 Squigs You field or 2 for each individual unit? So if someone fields one unit of 100 He gets 20 free handlers or 2?


Keep up the good work, trying to balance this abomination of a game GW served us.

[Auticus]

Thanks for the feedback. I will look at the squigs when I get a chance.

[Auticus]

Added official format to ignore slot restrictions if you want to just use as many heroes as you want etc

Clarified models NOT within 3" of an enemy may fire at whatever they want thats valid instead of if they are in a unit engaged in combat due to some gamey situations where 5 small models were able to block an entire unit of 40 models from shooting out of combat.

Cave Squigs up a point
Ogres up a point
Chaos ogres up a point
Chaos Plague Ogres up a point
Shamans up a point (NG and regular)

Currently at 589 playtested games. Looking to report the 600th win/loss percentage soon.

www.louisvillewargaming.com -> resources tab

[Torio1861]

Hello Auticus! I would like to thank you and your team for the incredible job with AoS. In my local store in Italy we all use the Azyr comp, and with all the constant updates and errata you have created a very balance and fun system...and the rules for the summoning (one of the most debated argument) are also viable in all of the different game.

I have just a thing that i wont to ask you... since I play a wood elves army (from the 5th edition :S) and i test it in several AoS game (from 10 pt to 30 pt) i found the Wilde Riders a little overprice (4 for 5) for they actual use in the game. Is true that they are (in theory) the WE elite cavalry, but the fact that do not have rend or damage bonus (not even in the charge and not even near Orion), in the current meta they can do less then a standard unit of Knight of the realm (3 for 5) or Errant (2 for 5) or the Silver Helms (2 for 5). One valuable way to use them is in combo with Orion (because the do not test bravery) or with the lord on stag (the are really fast) but they still are not really a treat, 5+ save no rend and 1 dmg is very little for an elite cav. What do you think?

Thanks again for all your job with Azyr!! Best from Italy

[Auticus]

Every model goes through a formula which takes into account saves, movement, wounds, bravery, and how much damage on average they do to a 4+ save model.

The wild rider's score came out to fit into the 4 pts for 5 model tier because of the combination of the above and their average damage output. (for example wild riders can run AND charge (this is not in thei rpoints cost) and have 2 attacks hit 3 wound 4 and 2 attacks hit 4 wound 4 vs a silver helm which has 1 attack hit 4 wound 4 and 2 attacks hit 4 wound 5 - the wild rider simply does more damage just off of that alone on average plus has greater reach due to move and charge). This greater damage gives them a higher score, which put them into the tier that they are in.

I don't see things in terms of elite or not elite and do not point cost things based on elite or not elite, I see them in terms of their math and what their scores come out to be and then fitting those scores into their proper tier. Wild riders are at the bottom of the 4 for 5 tier, which means that their score was just a little too high to be 3 for 5 and moving tiers around to accommodate one unit means messing up all of the other units that come out similar.

[FAZIK]

Are the free herders 2 for each 10 Squigs You field or 2 for each individual unit? So if someone fields one unit of 100 He gets 20 free handlers or 2?

So how is it? Since they are still great value for points :).

[Auticus]

It was still for each selection.

[Path Walker]

What about things that might not be powerful stat wise but offer buffs to other units? That's a big part of Age of Sigmar.

There are reasons point costs aren't simple arithmetic expressions.

[Auticus]

What about things that might not be powerful stat wise but offer buffs to other units? That's a big part of Age of Sigmar.

There are reasons point costs aren't simple arithmetic expressions.

Never said they were simple arithmetic expressions. As a matter of fact I've commented publicly several places that one of the challenges of coming up with points was the abstract buffs. Since every faction has them I never put them in the formula, and just point balanced the things that could have math applied (stat lines, flying, summoning, spell casting, etc) and let the rest come out in the wash.

We're on close to 600 playtested games now with the system with a fairly tight win/loss ratio, and a lot less face-rollings than by playing RAW. Things that are too cheap beacuse of abstract buffs that weren't accounted for get pushed up. We've had 45 revisions or so now to the original document.

[Path Walker]

Why is that approach superior to just getting on with playing a game of Age of Sigmar as its intended? If, as you say, you can't actually realistically achieve what you say you are setting out to do (and you can't because you need to balance out the idea that units buff and get buffed and without either one their individual values are thus effected) then, well, why bother? Do you take battleplans and warscroll formations into account? These will effect the value too.

Please also feel free to provide evidence of this 600 game play test and how that data (over, what, 10 compendiums of warscrolls? So an average of 60 games per force? That's not many with so many variables in the game) is statistically relevant.

Honestly it seems like you're trying to speak as an authority but you don't actually seem to know that much about what you're trying to achieve other than you've heard somewhere that "balance" is important.

[Auticus]

Why is that approach superior to just getting on with playing a game of Age of Sigmar as its intended? If, as you say, you can't actually realistically achieve what you say you are setting out to do (and you can't because you need to balance out the idea that units buff and get buffed and without either one their individual values are thus effected) then, well, why bother? Do you take battleplans and warscroll formations into account? These will effect the value too.

Please also feel free to provide evidence of this 600 game play test and how that data (over, what, 10 compendiums of warscrolls? So an average of 60 games per force? That's not many with so many variables in the game) is statistically relevant.

Honestly it seems like you're trying to speak as an authority but you don't actually seem to know that much about what you're trying to achieve other than you've heard somewhere that "balance" is important.

Sorry I've had this discussion about 20 times, I'm not getting into it again. I have zero interest in trying to convince you because you are already convinced comp is a failure and I don't really care one way or the other how other people enjoy their time so if its not for you cool - its not for you.

Its working very well for the people using it. And when we find issues, we correct them. Thats all I really need to say about it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that you should do what I do, I'm just sharing what I created with like minded people who want to give it a try. If they continue to use it - great. If not - great. If you don't like the idea of comp at all - great.

If i was forced to play in an area where i had to play AoS without points "as intended", I would not be playing AoS at all, I would move on to something else. Every single game of AoS I've seen played by just plopping down whatever model you want since July has ended in a very one sided face rolling. I'm not interested in any activity that is that one sided. Thats boring to me. I would rather play warmachine than uncomped AoS and I hate warmachine.

The difference being I don't hop into other peoples' threads that are discussing playing without points and telling them that I thnk what they are doing is wrong.

And I am playing "as intended" because as described at Gen Con, the game is a loose framework for players to make whatever they want out of it. Thats what was "intended".

Also your last condescending bit is unwarranted, divisive, and inflammatory.

[Path Walker]

Sorry I've had this discussion about 20 times, I'm not getting into it again. Its working very well for the people using it. And when we find issues, we correct them. Thats all I really need to say about it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that you should do what I do, I'm just sharing what I created with like minded people who want to give it a try. If they continue to use it - great. If not - great. If you don't like the idea of comp at all - great.

If i was forced to play in an area where i had to play AoS without points "as intended", I would not be playing AoS at all, I would move on to something else. Every single game of AoS I've seen played by just plopping down whatever model you want since July has ended in a very one sided face rolling. I'm not interested in any activity that is that one sided. Thats boring to me.

The difference being I don't hop into other peoples' threads that are discussing playing without points and telling them that I thnk what they are doing is wrong.

And I am playing "as intended" because as described at Gen Con, the game is a loose framework for players to make whatever they want out of it. Thats what was "intended".

So, you have no data to share? No insight in to how you're "balancing" the issues mention? You think people should just trust your methods based on the promise that you have a lot of data you're basing the decisions on?

So, in essence, you're guessing what points things are worth? You've chosen far too small a points range which is leading to all sorts of issues because I assume, you've tried to copy what you've seen in Warmachine. You've assigning tiers of things being cause you've ran out of points to differentiate, stated that things that can cause massive imbalances don't need points. Your whole idea is a massive mess.

And on to the game as it is, I can only imagine that you must play in a ****ty areas with awful people if that's what you've seen. If you can't trust your opponents not to be dicks, then I can see why you'd want some sort of rules in place but then, I do trust my opponents.

Maybe you can't imagine why someone wouldn't want to stomp on their opponent if they had the chance?

That discussion at GenCon you've referred to, was from a member of GW shop staff in the US thrown in at the last minute, not the designers of the game.

If you need to tweak rules to make the game more fun that's one thing, but trying to push a set of rules that make the game a tedious exercise in list making, that doesn't even work for the purpose you had in mind, that's not the intention for AoS, which is a narrative wargame designed to play out scenarios. Which is why GW have banned stores from even discussing comp systems for AoS games there, they have stated to staff that they don't want that to become what AoS is about.

Your entire idea is condescending, your idea that two people can't balance a game between themselves without you throwing numbers at stuff to see what sticks like some sort of hero.

How many games of Age of Sigmar had you played before you decided you needed a comp system? Seeing as this thread was started on the 7th of July, you must have started working on the document on the day the rules came out on the 4th.

[Auticus]

I have reported this thread to the moderators now.


Which is why GW have banned stores from even discussing comp systems for AoS games there, they have stated to staff that they don't want that to become what AoS is about.

We play using this comp at our local GW store, the manager himself uses the comp. Every GW store in every state that borders mine is using comp. I don't know where this legend about GW is banning comp from stores comes from.

[The Girl]

I recommend you use the ignore feature :)

To add a user to your ignore list, go to your User Settings and in the left nav panel under My Account, select [Edit Ignore List], type the username you wish to ignore in the Ignore List field and click [Okay].

[Auticus]

Much appreciated!

[Path Walker]

I have reported this thread to the moderators now.



We play using this comp at our local GW store, the manager himself uses the comp. Every GW store in every state that borders mine is using comp. I don't know where this legend about GW is banning comp from stores comes from.

It comes from GW Head Office and Regional Area Managers. So, either you're telling fibs or your local GW will be in trouble at some point for encouraging it.

[Auticus]

cool story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taYwujapuXU

There's video proof for you. That's our gw store. The gw manager is standing next to me in the store while we discuss the campaign. Which openly discusses comp.

When asked directly 10 minutes ago as I went there on lunch, the manager said he has never been given any such directive.

We have three more videos coming out. The last will be at the GW store in a watchtower scenario. Using the comp. With the manager.

All five cities near us that have GW stores also have groups, and those groups use a form of comp written by the people that frequent those stores. With those managers. Who also have not been given your fictional directive #66. Unless they are all just lying, or you have some form of proof that shows this legendary directive given forth by GW HQ to all of its stores, which really still holds no relevance to using comp anyway since people play games pretty much everywhere - so even IF Gw really did outlaw comp in their stores... which at least in the eastern US that is fiction, that has no bearing on people writing comp packs, which at last count there were about 12 popular ones floating around and being used at a host of events.

So again - cool story.

[Path Walker]

As I said, I would guess he'll be told to stop at some point soon then.

[Auticus]

Sure. We'll still be rolling with it next fall too so be sure to watch for our videos. I think GW would be pretty stupid to think it can enforce such nonsense as to who is using comp in the store or not. Considering he and other managers have no idea of this directive, I'm not really worried about such a directive being pushed.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Well, that was certainly a few pages of... something.

Liked the video you linked to, though - pretty cool that your comp's well established at a GW store.

[Alaric]

cool story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taYwujapuXU

There's video proof for you. That's our gw store. The gw manager is standing next to me in the store while we discuss the campaign. Which openly discusses comp.

When asked directly 10 minutes ago as I went there on lunch, the manager said he has never been given any such directive.

We have three more videos coming out. The last will be at the GW store in a watchtower scenario. Using the comp. With the manager.

All five cities near us that have GW stores also have groups, and those groups use a form of comp written by the people that frequent those stores. With those managers. Who also have not been given your fictional directive #66. Unless they are all just lying, or you have some form of proof that shows this legendary directive given forth by GW HQ to all of its stores, which really still holds no relevance to using comp anyway since people play games pretty much everywhere - so even IF Gw really did outlaw comp in their stores... which at least in the eastern US that is fiction, that has no bearing on people writing comp packs, which at last count there were about 12 popular ones floating around and being used at a host of events.

So again - cool story.

They faked the moon landing so you coulda faked this :P LOL

Looks like a lot of fun. Love it when real people prove the interwebz wrong.

Just ignore him. Lookit me Im a moderator too!

[Auticus]

Thanks lol

Here is the second battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9UTCYbgXsc
Third battle being filmed this weekend, Im pretty excited.

I'm pretty sure he's the same individual that was ranting on one of the AoS facebook groups about my comp as he was using the same words and phrases. Fortunately, I can block him on FB and he won't see my posts so I don't have to worry about my threads being hijacked there, but on here can't do that so... it is what it is.

People get mad when others are playing a game in a way that they do not like and have to let you know how bad you really are when you do it. Thats the hallmark of intrawebz game forums.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Hey Auticus.
First off, kudos for all the effort. It is genuinely commendable that you've tried so hard to make the game your own.
TBH at my local store we've come up with an infinitely simpler balancing system that has led to ZERO incidents of system abuse.
1: No duplicate named characters unless they're in the substitution list.
So no double nagash etc.
2: Set a time/turn limit.
So those rules about percentage model loss actually work. We found 8 turns was the sweet spot for us.
3: If you want to summon it you must have 1 minimum sized unit in reserve.
So a summoning army must either debate choices vs numbers like everyone else.
So far we've enjoyed using these three simple rules to have great games.
Thoughts?

[Auticus]

Hey Auticus.
First off, kudos for all the effort. It is genuinely commendable that you've tried so hard to make the game your own.
TBH at my local store we've come up with an infinitely simpler balancing system that has led to ZERO incidents of system abuse.
1: No duplicate named characters unless they're in the substitution list.
So no double nagash etc.
2: Set a time/turn limit.
So those rules about percentage model loss actually work. We found 8 turns was the sweet spot for us.
3: If you want to summon it you must have 1 minimum sized unit in reserve.
So a summoning army must either debate choices vs numbers like everyone else.
So far we've enjoyed using these three simple rules to have great games.
Thoughts?

I think with the right group those are fine, though they leave balance out of the equation. For example, I've watched people put together forces on the table that they felt were balanced and then play the game, and most of the games ended up as very one-sided, so then after the game we plugged them into various comps and noticed that universally they were always pretty significantly out of balance if they were going by points.

Stormcast were particularly the issue. With comp they may have 20 models vs 40 models or so so they feel they are outgunned. The games are always close but the players often felt they were outgunned because they were down in models. When left to their own devices they would compensate by having 35 or 40 stormcast models trying to base it off wounds, but by the point systems that turned into largely 50 pts vs 35 pts or so and the final outcome usually reflected that.

We do 6 turn limits typically but yes a turn limit is definitely key as are scenarios that are things other than "kill everything". In fact, "kill everything" may not even win you the game if you ignored the scenario rules and that has made a big difference.

Your summoning is interesting and workable but does not deal with the guys we have here that own 3 or 4 greater demons, who would just summon and then chain summon since they already had that in reserve. (unless I'm not understanding fully)

It also does not solve the problem with heroes hiding in the back because they can just be targeted by the entire enemy army and killed in one turn.

Those are my own nitpicks that make AoS out of the box not very fun for me, so I understand YMMV.

[Caitsidhe]

I think it is somewhat telling that the ONLY truly active thread about AOS here is the one where dedicated hobbyists work hard to try and make up alternate rules or composition to make the thing remotely playable.

P.S. *We found the changes Auticus made functional, and we keep up with them. They make the game at least playable. That is a far cry, however, from making AOS fun. These days, when we break out the AOS, we use what he has posted. Beyond that, the models have just been absorbed into other projects and used for other games. There is this episode of Futurama where they discover the truth about SLURM cola:

Slurm Queen: "You'll be submerged in Royal Slurm, which in a matter of minutes will transform you into a Slurm Queen like myself!"
Glurmo Half: "But your Highness, she's a commoner. Her Slurm will taste foul."
Slurm Queen: "Yes. Which is why we'll market it as New Slurm. Then, when everyone hates it, we'll bring back Slurm Classic and make billions!"

We can only hope that GW actually has a plan like this, but in reality we all know that they think AOS is great and this is truly the best the can do.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Caitsidhe
To each their own I guess. We've found it very enjoyable, and laden with tactical depths.
Once you know where to look. In fact the only complaint I have, which i've recently mentioned in another thread on here, has been that without army lists i find pre-planning my purchases harder than before!

Auticus
I think the fundemental difference here is that we've abandoned "balanced" and embraced the idea the unbalanced games can be awesome.
Also this isn't a specific gaming group, this is pick-up games at my GW local store. They're the manager's rules for keeping the tables turning over, plus his enterpretation of the warscrolls/rules.
Sudden death is the key factor, as it immediately provides an underdog with a clear target, thus keeping the game good and tense. In fact we've found that the harder we tried to make the games seem "fair" before we started the less enjoyable they became.
By far the greatest game we've had so far was dwarves vs undead.
Dwarf player put out 40 or so models, undead guy had nagash and a buttload of models in reserve to facilitate summoning.
Dwarf player, hugely outnumbered, chose to Endure.
By turn 6 the entire store was gathered around the table cheering (for or against) as, outnumbered 4 to one by this point, the last Ironbreakers held the line for the win!
The game was dynamic, exciting, and hugely fun. And sudden death turned an unbalanced slug-fest into an exciting scenario.
I clearly suck at stormcast, the common consensus is that they're a powerhouse and i've yet to win once with them. And I routinely run multiple large units with supporting warrior priests and celestial wizrds. My skaven on the otherhand reign undefeated, ah stormvermin.
Yeah, heroes, that took some getting used to.
Then we realised that we were using them wrong;
Age of Sigmar Heroes aren't Wfb heroes, for a start you need a whole lot more of them!
The Bloodbound army I'm currently working on has 16 lesser heroes, valkia, and archaeon.
Not to mention 4 warshrines!
Heroes are cheap force multipliers, and with a few notable exceptions, should NOT be the linchpin of an army.
And using TRUE LOS and sufficient terrain they,re easy enough to shield from th brunt of shooting.
WeVe likewise found that missile units having had their ranges severely cut helps balance things some.
The summoning thing, as an interpretation of the written rules, clears it up nicely.
Yes, someone with 4 bloodthirsters CAN summon all 4, but having to have at least 1 in reserve, plus 10 letters, a herald, and a minimum sized unit of anything else s/he may wanna summon at some point in reserve really helps balancing for sudden death.
I'd caution against the 6 turn limit, as it immediately invalidates 1/4 of the games best balancing elements too.
Apologies for typos, new tablet.

[Auticus]

I'm not really arguing your point because if you like it the way you describe I am all for you having fun in whatever way you see fit.

I have no desire to do things that way. None of that is fun to me. If I lived in an area where that was my only way to play AoS, I'd abandon it and find something else.

Sudden Death is to me one of the worst things I have ever encountered in terms of how they've done it. The idea is ok, but how it is executed is very poor. Especially coupled with summoning. The only other mechanic that is worse in my opinion is the way summoning works. Summoning out of the box lets people bring 2-3 models, hide them , claim sudden death, then summon an entire army that outnumbers their opponent. I've watched that game about a dozen times down at the store, it is not something I want to participate in.

Games that go beyond 6 turns don't interest me because I don't have all day to dedicate to a game. Thats the point of why I use turn limits. Fighting to the death every game is not a game I enjoy or want to participate in.

So while I respect the way you enjoy the game, and you'll never see me haunt other threads telling people otherwise, the way you play is a giant turn off to how I want to play and if I had to play that way I would not be playing any longer. I am playing the way I want to play, and sharing it with others who may be interested. If not interested, thats fine with me, I'm not trying to tell the world how to play, just give it an alternate idea for those interested. No one is going to convince me otherwise in how I have fun and don't have fun though. Age of Sigmar out of the box is one of the most not-fun games I have ever encountered for the reasons I have outlined before several times so I made it fun for me.

If we want a thread discussing the merits and disadvantages of comp, lets create one of those and keep this thread, which I use to update people on changes, free of that discussion please.

[Mr Mystery]

It's almost as if they're doing summoning wrong :p

No, not prising that box of frogs open again. As you correctly said, to each their own.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

That, dear chap, sounds eminently fair.
And I'm 100% with you on one point, to the death without turn limits is indeed dull.

[Auticus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51cgo22zhRw

Battle #3 20 pts aelves, 20 pts khorne vs 40 pts of seraphon in a tactical objective match

[Ray Rivers]

I think the fundemental difference here is that we've abandoned "balanced" and embraced the idea the unbalanced games can be awesome.


When we look back in history... how many great battles were really balanced?

- Napoleon's greatest victory was Austerlitz where he was outnumbered 73,000 to 85,000 men.
- Hannibal's greatest victory was Cannae where he was outnumbered 50,000 to 80,000.
- Robert E. Lee's greatest defensive victory was Chancellorsville where he was outnumbered 61,000 to 133,000.
- The Defense of Rorke's Drift - 150 British vs 3-4000 Zulu warriors.

From the Battle of Plataea to Operation Iraqi Freedom, you just don't find the term "balanced" as a descriptor. In fact, war and battles are unbalanced affairs where numbers alone do not determine the outcome.

Yet so many folks insist on "balance" on the table top... so strange.

[Mr Mystery]

Some people just prefer it, which is entirely fair enough. It makes organising games a bit more straight forward, as you just agree a points limit.

However, some seem to use it as an excuse for when they lose a game.

Unbalanced scenarios can be a hoot - as long as both players are aware that one of them has their work cut out.

[Auticus]

Guys can we please take the comp / balance debate to its own thread?

[Torio1861]

Hi Auticus! Thanks in delay for your answer. I see your point and think that the comp is globally a winning system... and more test and game we play more it will be better and balanced. He bring back the fun of the army composition of the old WHF but without all the limitations. Hope to see new reports and news soon. Thanks for your work. Best

[Auticus]

Thanks - things have calmed down a bit. There is a minor tweak to executioners coming and other then that GW is now moving units around so people are asking to reorg the file so that the khorne units are removed from the warriors of chaos etc.

[Shipmonkey]

Any reason there is no points cost for Nurgle's Deluge?

[Auticus]

I'm not sure. What's Nurgle's Deluge and where is it? If something doesn't exist its largely because I don't know it exists or GW snuck it in and I was not made aware of its presence.

[Auticus]

Version 1.7 of azyr comp. New seraphon units and formations. Moved khorne units to the khorne category. Executioners 3 for 5. See the new release notes at bottom of doc for more details.

www.louisvillewargaming.com -> resources tab

[Torio1861]

Thanks for keeping updating the composition!! :)

[Auticus]

No problem the updates will continue :)

[Auticus]

So in looking how undead banners are being costed, there is a lot of heart burn over the units being too expensive. (+1 pt per selection. If you take 30 skeletons which are 3 for 10, you are going to pay 9 pts for 30 plus 3 pts for the banner = 12 pts)

I agree this seems a bit too much to me.

So here is the proposal to take it back a notch. I want to take it back to how it was - where it's just a flat +1 for the unit if you take the banner (I still think that a banner that lets you essentially add more models to the unit over time is definitely worth an extra point).

However - player will keep track of how many skeletons he kills in that unit and will still score points as normal.

Example: unit of 30 skeletons with banner.
Over hte course of the game the banner goes off and raises 12 skeletons to that unit, giving that unit a total of 42 skeletons.
Player kills 31 skeletons during the course of the game but cannot kill it.

As with summoning, he should still score 9 points (3 for 10, he killed 31, thats 3 full selections he killed)

This would at least give players points instead of the skeletons being raised back up negating kills (this is the biggest gripe people have with the undead that I get emails about)


SECOND RULES APPENDUM
Implement a sliding point cost for units that get bonuses for size.

Ex: skeletons get +1A at 20 models and +2A at 30 models. 10 skeletons get nothing.

10 skeletons would cost what 10 normal skeletons would cost.
20 skeletons would cost what they cost +1 pt for the +1 A.
30 skeletons would cost what they cost +2 pts for the +2A.

This would be annotated with a symbol next to the units point cost in the document and explained in the top of the ruleset. This would also apply for things like dwarf rangers and empire state troops.

This would make things more "precise" instead of taking the average and then 10 skeletons pay a tax for something they'll never get.

That does leave zombies which can form new units and that can be gamed (so I can buy a bunch of cheap 10 zombie units and then just form them on turn 1 into a mega blob and go lolololololol). May leave zombies how they are due to that.

Thoughts are welcome.

[Auticus]

Version 1.8 released this evening. Review release notes at end of doc.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

For the skeletons, the conventional answer would be that the increased strength of a 30-strong unit is offset by the decreased flexibility compared to three 10-strong units, so to simply price them against their weakest profile. Not sure how well that convention would hold up in this situation, though.

[Torio1861]

Version 1.8 released this evening. Review release notes at end of doc.

Thanks for the new release!
Just a question ... why did you remove the limitation on the evocations (only the units deployed on the ground can be summoned)?
Did you see that this limitation did not produce real benefits or is something to be more faithful to the original rules?
Do you not fear an evocations spam?
Thanks!

[Auticus]

Thanks for the new release!
Just a question ... why did you remove the limitation on the evocations (only the units deployed on the ground can be summoned)?
Did you see that this limitation did not produce real benefits or is something to be more faithful to the original rules?
Do you not fear an evocations spam?
Thanks!

The only change was that you don't need the unit on the table to summon it. If I show up and want to summon zombies I shouldn't need to have a unit of zombies already on the table.

This has been a wildly fire inducing conversation on several threads in several areas and the arguments for not needing the unit on the table out weighed the need for the unit to already be on the table.

There shouldn't be any more or less spam than before. It just seemed odd that a scenario involving just Nagash would mean he couldn't summon any undead. Also I believe the GW events have been doing the same thing so its more "official".


For the skeletons, the conventional answer would be that the increased strength of a 30-strong unit is offset by the decreased flexibility compared to three 10-strong units, so to simply price them against their weakest profile. Not sure how well that convention would hold up in this situation, though.

90 attacks vs 30 attacks is the difference between 30 skeletons and 10. There's not enough flexibility in the world to make me never go with 30 or more skeletons if I'm paying for them like they were 1 attack models. A large mob of skeletons is a blunt force sledgehammer, especially coupled with boosts to hit that they get near heroes and other hero buffs that are on the hero profile.

I've watched a unit of 40 skeletons buffed by hero abilities and being near the hero totally destroy everything it touched, to the tune of one of the opponents ragequit AoS over it. They have to pay for their ability in someway or else there really is no point in having points in the first place IMO.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Huh. I'd assumed the limitation on the amount of models one can get within 1-2" of a small enemy unit would be a heavier limitation on a 40+ unit of skellies than it is in practice. Having different costs for different unit sizes sounds reasonable.

[Auticus]

I don't think you can really try to point cost a unit by saying if its bigger it cant get as many attacks on a smaller unit so should be cheaper. Because thats only valid against a smaller unit. Against a not-small unit, they'd be getting all of their attacks.

Also with something like say skeleton spears which have a 2" reach I can get 25 of them to attack against 10 models and depending on setup even more.

EDIT: also even if a small unit of 10 models keyholes its way in so only 10 skeletons can attack, those 10 skeletons would still have 3 attacks a piece if hte unit was 30 or more, so they are getting 30 attacks to the unit they are fightings base attack value (whatever that is).

[FAZIK]

Clarification: Any ability that a model has to bring forth models that a player does not have to buy on their initial roster counts as summoning; its not limited to just summoning spells.

If any abilities that brings forth new units counts as summoning, how does it work with a 1 thrown for the battleshock test with Daemons units? How many can the ability bring?

Example
Plague Drones 5 for 3
As a 5 point caster they can get 3 "Units".
1)Does "Units" correspond to "Models" in this example ie can they "summon" 3 units of 1D3 size to their unit via 1's on the battleshock or can they summon up to 3 models?

Plus another can of worms happened with this clarification and the optional rules.

Summoned units may not themselves summon
2) So what happens when I get a 1 on the battleshock test with a Daemon unit that consists only of "summoned" (both by magic and by 1's on battleshock) units?

Thanks for the clarifications :).

[Auticus]

5 for 3 is 3 models.

Battleshock and demons does not count as summoning. Its more in line with healing banners that the undead get. Summoning is when one model uses an ability like a spell or power to bring in whole new units.

[FAZIK]

Thank You for the clarification :D.

Two more things:

1) When the summoning caster dies, do the summoned units stay on the battlefield or disappear with the caster who is sustaining them?
2) Is there a possibility to get a printable version of the rules (without the background)? The blue background really hurts the ink supplies and makes it much harder to read on a B&W Kindle.

[Auticus]

The core rules don't really say what happens to the summoned units. I think it would be cool if the summoned units would disappear with the caster but I suspect if a poll were taken amongst those that still play A.O.S that that question would generate a lot of ....er... "discussion"... :)

there is a reformat coming soon. I am pushing out Azyr Empires which is a campaign system that uses Azyr comp and I am tablifying a lot of the data and having to add a few extra columns (core units, level of the heroes etc) to go with what the new campaign system needs.

[Mr Mystery]

There's no suggestion in the rules that summoned units require the caster to remain on the table.

However, in a way linked to that, the forthcoming Gaunt Summoner seems to have cleared up who has summoning spells and when.

He has a special rule that as long as he is within X" of a Realmgate he can summon any Chaos Daemon unit.

Now, if you follow the 'all spells, all the time' line of thinking, then that special rule in itself because utterly superfluous.

http://cdn.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/wd98-03.jpg

Note that the rule does not specify 'can only summon units if within 9" of a Realmgate'. If it did, this would suggest an additional mechanism to allow this specific model to summon.

I checked the general Daemon Warscrolls earlier, and in order to be able to summon, you need only be a Chaos, Wizard. No God-Specific alignment required, again dealing with a possible counter that this rule removes a requirement from the casting spell.

Therefore, I can only conclude 'all spells all the time' is incorrect, and until a unit is on the board, it is not part of your army, whether or not you have the models and Warscrolls stashed away. If you haven't deployed say, Bloodletters, you can't summon Bloodletters, unless your model is a Gaunt Summoner within 9" of a Realmgate

Apologies in advance if this hijacks the thread - if it does, I'll start a new thread entirely and alter this post.

[SaphyronCQ]

Hey it seems there is something wrong with the seraphon.. I can't select "Seraphon" in the Army selection. Also, the Lizardman selection is empty..

[Auticus]

If you are referring to the app, that is probably going to go away. I developed that before I knew GW was going to have their own and with them renaming everything, that requires me to go in and change code / xml files every change. I renamed the lizardmen to seraphon but the code for the app is looking for "lizardmen" which is why its behaving how it is. Apologies.

Mr. Mystery - definitely a good post. That was originally how Azyr worked as well (you had to have the unit in your list) but as you know from the facebook discussions (you are in the same groups as I am) there are good posts on both sides. The thing that caused me to change my thinking on this was that the GW events have worked that way as well (you can summon whatever).

Honestly it can go either way, I just want a standard in the games that I play without having to have the discussion every game :) GW doesn't do FAQs so... thats probably how it will remain.

[Torio1861]

Hello Auticus! In a recent turnament (20 point azyr) we face a Nurgle army that use the Blighted Warband formation... the army was very solid even on normal condition and the special rules from the formation (-1 to hit for ALL the units) make them really scary.
The formation is only 1 pt in Azyr ... and seem to us a little low for the bonus you get. What do you think?
As always, thanks for your work in the comp!!
Best
T

[Auticus]

Formations definitely need a lot of playtesting. They are very difficult to point correctly.

[FAZIK]

Can the TETTO’EKO's ability Cosmic Herald (below) ability be used to re-roll Your enemies dice?

In your hero phase, Tetto’eko can attempt to scry the future. Both you and your opponent secretly place a dice to show any number, then reveal them. You gain as many insights as the number on your dice – however, if your opponent’s dice shows the same number, Tetto’eko misreads the portents that are revealed and your opponent gains the insights instead! Each insight can be used to re-roll any single dice before your next hero*phase.

[Auticus]

I'd say yes based on that wording. It doesn't specify which dice so - any dice it is.

[FAZIK]

We played this way too :D.
But that ability is soooo good. You can be sure that You win Your turns (You can re-roll Your low die, and Your enemy must re-roll His high one), failed charges everywhere. Well Lizards need every bit of help They can get anyway ;).

[Auticus]

16692166931669416695

Azyr Empires! Hopefully coming by end of year. Campaign system in the Age of Sigmar using Azyr Comp.

[Auticus]

Version 1.9 - archaon book.

Max Points for 50 pt games increased to 20 to account for the new Archaon

Beastman Shaman – increased from 1 to 2 Mortar – increased from 1 to 2

Archaon the Everchosen – 20 pts Varanguard – 3 pts for 1 model Gaunt

Summoner of Tzeentch – 3 pts

Archaon’s Grand Host, Overlords of Chaos, Bloodmarked Warband, Plaguetouched Warband, Fatesworn Warband, and Pleasurebound Warband formations

For some undead units, the cost of the healing banners was a little unfair. Example: Grave Guard paying 1 pt for 5 models is a bit steep. Made it so infantry pay 1 pt for 10 models, cavalry 1 pt for 5 models, and all others like chariots 1 pt for 3 models in the unit.

Upcoming 2.0 change will be soon to account for the new Azyr Empires campaign format.

www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

[Auticus]

A specific reason? no... GW removing units and assimilating them into other units means that I'm probably going to miss some things.

[Auticus]

Azyr Comp v 1.10 is live.

Added Summoning Points to event rules change

Ripperdactyls mistakenly listed as 1 for 1, should be 4 for 3.
Knight Vexillor for Stormcast Eternals raised from 2 pts to 3 pts to account for his teleporting
Skaven Plague Catapult bumped from 2 points to 3 to account for the extra D6 damage it does to larger formations
Fyreslayers added to the comp
New format for upcoming Azyr Empires used for Fyreslayer layout (core is used to denote core units for Azyr Empires, Stars the level requirements)

www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

Thank you everyone that has contributed with playtest data.

[Broxus]

Azyr Comp v 1.10 is live.

Added Summoning Points to event rules change

Ripperdactyls mistakenly listed as 1 for 1, should be 4 for 3.
Knight Vexillor for Stormcast Eternals raised from 2 pts to 3 pts to account for his teleporting
Skaven Plague Catapult bumped from 2 points to 3 to account for the extra D6 damage it does to larger formations
Fyreslayers added to the comp
New format for upcoming Azyr Empires used for Fyreslayer layout (core is used to denote core units for Azyr Empires, Stars the level requirements)

www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

Thank you everyone that has contributed with playtest data.

I really like many ideas in this comp and things about it. It has some interesting things that really seem to make sense. However, the reason me and others I play with still don't use this comp is because of the shooting restrictions. With the silly short ranges in this game you would think they would be aiming at their targets in melee not blindly shoot arrows. Some units have ranges of 6-12" which with this camp makes them completely useless.

To compound this is the -1 bravery penalty you now have to track the entire game and I am not sure if it cumulative. I think if you moved these shooting rules to the optional rules section far more people would use this comp. Most of the comps rules all seem useful to balancing games. It's just the shooting rules that are adding rules for no particular reason other than preference and should thus be placed in the optional rules section.

[Auticus]

While I'm not too worried about the -1 Bravery part (losing it), I cannot ever play a game where I can lob an explosive shell into a mob of warriors fighting in melee and magically only hurt my opponent's guys.

That is probably the most immersion breaking part of the game RAW that I just can't live with.

Same with the silly shooting out of combat. If I have a unit engaged in melee, it is not going to stop fighting that unit to draw its missile weapons and shoot at another unit 15" away from it. That is absurd to me.

The only thing keeping me interested is being able to play against people that don't do this. Otherwise, I'd be sitting on my thumbs waiting for another fantasy ruleset to roll around. I have one of my own I wrote but without it being from an official company, I'm playing with myself.

Off topic I am developing that ruleset as a PC game... so I have an AI to play against ;)

[Broxus]

While I'm not too worried about the -1 Bravery part (losing it), I cannot ever play a game where I can lob an explosive shell into a mob of warriors fighting in melee and magically only hurt my opponent's guys.

That is probably the most immersion breaking part of the game RAW that I just can't live with.

Same with the silly shooting out of combat. If I have a unit engaged in melee, it is not going to stop fighting that unit to draw its missile weapons and shoot at another unit 15" away from it. That is absurd to me.

The only thing keeping me interested is being able to play against people that don't do this. Otherwise, I'd be sitting on my thumbs waiting for another fantasy ruleset to roll around. I have one of my own I wrote but without it being from an official company, I'm playing with myself.

Off topic I am developing that ruleset as a PC game... so I have an AI to play against ;)

I can understand your concerns on long range missiles 13"+. However, short ranged stuff such as a crossbow is similar to a gun and aimed at an individual not at a blob. No one at that range is blindly firing into their own troops. Maybe, the rule should only apply for weapons with a range over 13"+

I agree with not being able to shoot at unit across the board if you are in melee with a unit. You should only be allowed to shoot at the unit within 3". However, are you required to split wounds when you do this?

[Auticus]

Missile troops that shoot into a combat that they themselves are NOT a part of split fire.

Missile troops that shoot into a combat that they are a part of do not split fire.

Basically if a unit is sitting back 12" and watching a melee and they open fire into it, they can hit their buddies. If a unit of riflemen are involved in a melee, as much as I hate this, they can shoot into their own combat in their shooting phase and it only hits the enemy (as they are up close and personal, I can live with it)

The part I hate, but can live with, is the concept that the riflemen are fighting in melee, stop and reload their weaponry, and then open fire. Then go back to the melee. It seems a bit odd... well a lot odd... but its something I can at least kind of picture as opposed to the units or warmachines on a hill nearby shooting cannons into the melee combat and only hitting the enemy.

[FAZIK]

Regarding the new D6 before the game summoning.

This breaks the game. Some factions (Lizardmen) are absolutely depended on summoning. This kills them at the beginning.

It could be D6 for every unit that can summon (so multiple heroes can summon D6 each). If You want it random.
or
Why not use the same point system as in the rules above? No randomness and cut to the same extend.
HERO points 1-2 = 1 unit, 3-4 = 2 units, 5-6= 3 units, 7-8 = 4 units, 9-10 = 5 units


Skaven Point issues:
Jezzails 4 points/5. Yes a very good unit, but dies to Bravery and warmachines (limited range) like flies. Should be 3 points/5.
Plagueclaw Catapult 3 points. 1 attack. When it misses/does not wound it does nothing. Against units <10 it's mediocre at most.

Yet better units like Dwarf Cannons (2)/Grudgethrowers (2) with an Engineer(2) or The dreaded Hellcannon 5 (should be 10 points at least) are untouched. Why? I played against those, and I know that those are far superior, yet cheaper.

[Auticus]

I disagree that factions are dependent on summoning.

If I have 20 points and you have 20 points, then that should be equal. Summoning is a bonus on top.

Lizardmen are not pointed more expensive artificially because they can summon. 20 points of lizardmen = 20 points of anything else. Lizardmen getting to summon is just 20 + x points of lizardmen vs 20 points of something else.

A lizardmen army not summoning is not at a disadvantage of any kind, other than people like summoning and want to do as much summoning as possible - which isn't truly a disadvantage its just that they are restricted from bringing more points to the table.

The same is said about undead - that they are dependent on summoning. They are not. 20 points of undead = 20 points of lizardmen = 20 points of anything else. Summoning adds points on top of it.

The Jezzails were raised to 4 pts for 5 long ago after a very lengthy debate. This goes back to any change you can think of, some pepole will be for it, others strongly against it.

Same with the catapult. The catapult was raised in points because of what it could do. We are pointing things for what they can do. Also catapults don't need line of sight and can shoot at units it cannot see, which is the main reason it got pushed to +1 point (2 points is average for warmachines).

A super strong elite unit could also do nothing during a game and not be worth their points during a game as well. And then the next game it could score 3x its worth. You have to point things for the unit's potential, not point it because one game it may do nothing so it should be cheaper because it may do nothing when it can potentially do a lot more.

Every thing that has changed in the packet has been because it was proposed, the requestor demonstrated with math why it should be so, and then it was discussed for a bit before any decisions were made.

If claims are made for an item that is superior yet cheaper it needs demonstrated in the math.

Last - The system is designed for rough, not precise, balance.

[Thostos]

I'm hoping to get my group on board with Azyr comp very soon,starting to play games with my son using it and really like it so far:)

We did have one question in the wording a summoning rule though.

The sentence is this one ---"Summoning – units summoned may not charge on the turn that they were summoned onto the table. They may move, run, and shoot as normal."

Are you allowing freshly summoned units to move on the turn they are summoned?..overriding what most of the warscrolls state?.

I'm not implying I think its a bad rule or anything,,actually its rather interesting taking away charging but allowing a bit more mobility and all. Just wondering:)

[Auticus]

That's a good catch. They should not be overriding anything no. That was put in for things like summoning that were not spells, such as the chaos lord's old ability to summon reinforcements from the table edge on a 4+.

THe next version is coming out soon with the Azyr Empires format and I will clean that up. Thank you for pointing it out.

[Auticus]

Version 1.12 Removed the -1 Bravery for units shot at in combat by friendly units as it was excessive book keeping.

Expanded on miscasts by noting summoning spells that are miscast generate hostile models.

Version 2.0 New layout New Azyr Empires data
Summoned units cannot move or do anything, the part on summoning made it seem like they could, but that was for summoned units that were summoned OUTSIDE of the spell (ala the old chaos lord summoning command ability)

Warmachine crew and machine no longer randomized – the controlling player allocates wounds as they want.

Death Grand Alliance – obsoleting removed units, adding new formation

[Thostos]

Got a couple more questions for ya:)

For cover saves,,the wording is a bit confusing in that are you changing the RAW to mean that cover is on a model by model basis? and no longer does that entire unit need to be on the cover providing terrain piece?

And for splitting the hits when shooting into combats...what if it only one hit?...randomize or ?

[Auticus]

Yes thats what it changes.

It seems incredibly ridiculous that a 30 model unit gains cover because one of its models is in cover and the other 29 are not.

You split the damage. If only one point of damage comes in then randomizing seems perfectly fine yes.

[Thostos]

Yes thats what it changes.

It seems incredibly ridiculous that a 30 model unit gains cover because one of its models is in cover and the other 29 are not.

You split the damage. If only one point of damage comes in then randomizing seems perfectly fine yes.


Interesting,Ive been playing that the entire units models need to be wholly or partially on the terrain piece to get the cover save.Anyhow,if its model to model now then how do we deal with differing unit save values when the targets controller can allocate damage and all that?

Thnx for the clarification on the shooting into combat thing,,somehow I had it in my head that it was hits,heh.

[Auticus]

Thats a good question and I suppose should be put in clarification.

If a unit is partially in cover then the attacker draws line of sight to the unit. If it can target models out of cover then those are the models that start taking wounds first. If it can only draw line of sight to models in cover, then the unit would get the cover bonus.

This would prevent something like a warrior standing behind a tree granting his other 29 buddies standing out in the open the same cover save. That seems highly gamey to me, but thats just my opinion.