Heelanhammer Talks Behind The Scenes On Age Of Sigmar Rules Changes
April 27, 2016 by brennon
The Heelanhammer Podcast has now released their newest episode where they talk about workings Behind The Scenes as they joined forces with Games Workshop to help with the changes coming to Age of Sigmar this summer.
They talk a little bit about the background to the decisions made to take Age of Sigmar in a new direction. You can Download The Podcast from a variety of different sources - give it a listen and let us know what you think of the news on The Generals Handbook.
The podcast is about forty five minutes long and goes into detail about how they were approached.
It's a great listen!
"...give it a listen and let us know what you think of the news on The Generals Handbook"
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Can anyone give the Cliffnotes?
Called The General’s Handbook and should contain around…
5 Campaigns, 22 Battleplans, 6 Pitched Battles, Multiplayer Teamplay & Warscroll Points
…I urge you to listen to the podcast though as it really does push forward the enthusiasm behind this project.
I’m probably not going to get to it any time soon, and it’s probably not going to be enough to get me over my dislike of the ruleset and minis to get me playing AoS. I’m mainly interested in this from an industry-watching point of view and seeing how GW and AoS evolve. Is it going to be a book you have to buy or will it, or at least the basics, be a free download?
It sounds like a book right now. There hasn’t been any news on whether or not there will a download.
Cheers 🙂
Very interesting stuff. The general’s Handbook sounds like a pretty seismic shift in AoS, and certainly seems like it will open up all kinds of new options for the game. I am left wondering if the different styles of play will survive long term though – there was a time when points were optional in Old Hammer as well, but over time the use of points came to dominate and squeeze out other types of game. I wonder if we will see that again, or if this time GW will be able to sustain rules support for multiple different types… Read more »
I think it’ll either wind up being the dominant mode of play or not take root at all. I can’t see there being much middle ground. As you say, way back in the day WFB 1st ed had what AoS is calling ‘open play’, if anything it had even less structure than AoS, but the arrival of army lists helped the game take off and become the dominant mode of play. I realise that current players of AoS might not agree, but I do hope matched play does become successful, as it’ll help AoS become a success.
There are already a number of point systems for AoS (despite the folks arguing that they aren’t needed).
I think the community will embrace point values.
Well, I just listened to it. It is great that GW asked them in to discuss the new rules, etc. From the sounds of it they were very receptive to the input and if they thought something didn’t work than GW tossed it and put in something else (specifically scenario’s). From the sounds of it if you are going to play scenario’s that they by there very nature may not be “balanced” in the way that matched play would be. I will probably never be a matched player or tournament player but I think it is good that they are… Read more »
It drives some games though it’s important not to conflate what GW are calling matched play with tournament play. The latter obviously depends upon the former, but not vice versa. The introduction of army lists didn’t help with WFB’s rapid growth because it allowed for tournaments, but because it provided a structure.
It’s just going to start the treadmill all over again. “Oh, gee. I don’t have enough points for the standard size game everyone around here plays, so I better buy some more figures.”
Indeed. Because it is physically impossible for people to talk to other people and agree on smaller battles?
Wouldn’t you have that issue no matter whether points were used or not. If everyone does open play at larger army sizes than you have, wouldn’t you be incentivised to buy more figures?
I do get that in open play there’s nothing stopping you turning up with a smaller army and claiming one of the instant win conditions*, but wouldn’t the incentive still be there to move up to the army size everyone else is playing?
*IIRC this is how the rules attempted to balance numerically smaller armies.
But right now, sans points, people go into it knowing they are going to need to be more flexible with regard to army size, it’s effectively part of the game; ‘how much of my collection am I going to use?’. With points, standard game sizes are going to develop and people will be expecting to play at those sizes, when someone comes along that doesn’t fit, to play them you are compromising your expectations/enjoyment.
Out of genuine curiousity, to the people who play AoS regularly, how do you normally go about figuring out what size of army you will use? If matched play turns into the default setting for the game, how do you think it will it impact on you?
Sure, that’s how it works now, but if they don’t want to play smaller? Having three “different ways to play” just creates more fracture points. You can agree to anything. You can play 40k without points. How often do you see that happen? With points you are going to get a “regular” size game. Sure you can play smaller, and if you have a nice tight group of players it will work out. But if you are showing up at a store to play on Sigmar Saturday, a standard is going to evolve and if some gets stuck playing you… Read more »
On that I agree wholeheartedly, though don’t necessarily see it as a bad thing for AoS, though obviously it may be for some current players. Having a standardised version of the game you can turn up to a club or store and know you’ll get a game at is good for the growth of the game IMO.
If they go with a simpler point system, like Warmachine or Malifaux, then resizing your force is fast.
I suppose we’ll see.
Sounds a bit like the General’s Compendium from days of old. I’m not entirely sure there is much difference between these “three ways of playing” to me. Open Play: (unbound) standard AoS buy everything, give us your money £££ agenda here (which was 40K’s doing, before anyone blames Age of Sigmar for it… 40K was the test pilot here). Narrative: buy a fixed army £££ and play a “narrative” campaign – I assume this is basically “Formations £££” with the “narrative” slapped on: classic misdirection … Again, blame 40K not Age of Sigmar. Getting people to buy fixed formations from… Read more »
You keep talking about misdirection like this is all some grand conspiracy @poosh, which I think on the one hand gives GW too much credit for being organized enough to conspire toward much of anything effectively, but at the same time also seems to cast GW in an unreasonably Machiavellian role – the more parsimonious explanation is that AoS is a new system and they are working through a few early kinks. Sure, it isn’t as slick and well organized as it might be (I remind you this is GW we are talking about, so that isn’t a huge surprise… Read more »
I realise you’re creating a strawman with your “Machiavellian references” but please keep in mind Games Workshop is a company that went after a single mother who was raising money for war veterans, because her weird sci-fi romance novel had “Space Marine” in the title. So yeah, You are being insufficiently cynical. A very basic PR stunt is not exactly conspiracy material is it? It’s not exactly difficult to say “let’s pick some online personality “in the community” and have them come over for a few days of play testing, so we can have some positive PR”. I’m not saying… Read more »
“Went after a single mother who was raising money for war veterans” You keep bringing this up in post after post @poosh . I’m sure you’ve even spun it as GW attempting to sue a poor single mother. There a grain of truth here, but you spin it into evil GW attacking a poor defensless woman cos they’re evil. Its bollocks. Spots the Space Marine infringed GW’s trade mark on the use of Space Marine in the titles of games and books. Whether you think it’s right that they were ever granted that trademark, and personally I don’t, the fact… Read more »
If I was GW CEO, I would have asked Amazon to take the book down. I would have done this from my volcano lair…
“the patronising way” Please don’t try playing word games @erastus – I think you know exactly that the emphasis on the single mother aspect (and the war veteran aspect) is to emphases how callous GW are. You’re no better than that other GW fan who declared I hated the mentally ill because i referred to GW’s business model as “schizophrenic”. You know exactly what you’re doing there, don’t play the fool or pretend you actually thought I was being patronising. It’s a classic debate tactic used by politicians. And the mental gymnastics you will go to defend GW are hilarious… Read more »
If I didn’t make myself clear @poosh , I’m not defending GW. I don’t think they should have ever been granted a trademark on “space marine”. I don’t think they should have defended something they have no right to own. I also blame Amazon for complying with GW’s request, no questions asked. However, I don’t believe that anything that happened constituted “going after” someone, which is actually one of the mildest and least emotive ways you’ve referred to this incident. All I’m doing is trying to make sure we don’t lose sight of the actual facts of the incident. Regarding… Read more »
@poosh nobody said you hated the mentally ill for calling GW schizophrenic, only that your choice of words was insensitive and in poor taste.
I’m expecting Games Workshop to feature in an episode of the new X Files series. The level of conspiracy going on there dwarfs Roswell and Area 51.
GW’s targeting of a single mother raising money for charity over the use of “space marine” is all over the media for all to see and the media storm that followed kinda removes the possibly that GW were not aware of what they were doing. Even Wil Wheaton got in on the act. @onlyonepinman @erastus exactly. exactly. You’re not stupid enough to be unaware that “schizophrenic” is a perfectly apt way of describing someone – or a company – that behaves in a contradictory manner, or dullard enough to actually think it’s “insensitive”. You all know exactly what you’re doing:… Read more »
“Even Wil Weaton” sorry but I actually spat out my coffee at that.
Anyway @poosh , what we have here is a difference of perspective. Let’s agree to differ. I’m not attacking you, at least that’s not my intent. I’m just vehemently disagreeing with the way in which you are choosing to present this incident and the emotive language you’re choosing to use.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone is welcome to interpret the facts of the case however they want … as long as they stick to the facts.
“Even Wil Wheaton” who seems to have some very left leaning opinions got involved. Quelle Surprise. As for your continued use of the term “schizophrenic” to describe Games Workshop, colour me stupid and a dullard. I don’t for one second think it’s an apt description of a company and the fact that you are creating an analogy between Games Workshop (who you clearly believe to be “bad”) and people suffering from Schizophrenia is insensitive. They’re also not behaving in a contradictory manner. They had a vision, they stuck to it for a while, it wasn’t working so they’re doing something… Read more »
If I ever become GW CEO, item #1 on the agenda is ‘build volcano lair’.
Everybody loves a good volcano lair @redben, especially if their last name is Blofeld… or Kirby… 😉
I’m old fashioned, I prefer a moonbase as my lair 😀
Not every super villain can afford to go off-world, you know. Damned villainous 1%, evil lair elitists… 😉
What are the chances they would scrap igougo and their tiresome turn order and actually design a NEW set of core rules? Im feeling its slim personally
Note to self:- when the new GW order seizes power, this bit of wargaming heresy (deny the clunky, outmoded glory of igougo? Treason!) might net me a position as a petty functionary if I am ruthless enough to sell Hatamoto down the river to toil ceaselessly in the subterranean hell of the GW resin mines, where brutal task masters beat the indentured workers with rule books if they fail to meet their quotas, and the poor unfortunates sleep on uneven beds of miscast Forge World minis… 🙂
haha ouch! well it was probably worth it, and i can hope im hit with the 7th edition 40k slipcase on my first day. Funny thing is, a new GW order probably would stick to the old core and just add few more layers of special rules (aka exceptions) 😛
It is the tried and tested GW way @hatamoto. With such an understanding of the overlords, maybe you will get to be one of those ruthless, rule book wielding task masters one day… 😉
I like igougo 🙁
Who doesn’t like firing 5 cannons before your opponent has even moved 😉
Your opponent.
@jazzfrezi So what you’re saying is… whoever has the first turn in igougo has an incredible and unfair advantage against their opponent and can even decide the outcome of the game, if he gets the first turn ??? !!! 😮
In some games, yes 😉
I like that @Poosh – it’s a kind of ‘Mook Chivalry’ (see the TV Tropes link at the bottom of this post for details). “We can’t move yet, they haven’t fired all their cannons. You want to take cover, Trooper Jones? What kind of coward are you!? After they have fired their cannons, any of us that survive will attack their most powerful hero one at a time. That is one at a time, so he can dispatch each of us with ease, not – I repeat; not – all at once. It’s the only honorable way to be a… Read more »
lolol not heard that one before!
I play the “open play” method and it works just fine, but then I play with like minded people. We just agree to how many warscrolls we use. Yes it is potentially open to abuse, but then I don’t play people that do that. I like a challenging fun game with cinematic moments that BOTH players enjoy. Wargaming is just playing with toy soldiers and something I’ve enjoyed doing for 40+ years. If people want points for their games that’s fine, but don’t assume everyone else does. Personally I have loved AoS as it reminded me of the first games… Read more »
I don’t there’s an assumption that everyone wants to play with points. I think this more around what impact the introduction of an army structuring system will have. There was nothing stopping people playing WFB without points, but once points-based army lists were introduced then it very rarely happened. Structures like this have the tendency to become the norm for how a game is played, and it takes on an irresistible momentum even if individuals playing the game would rather it didn’t. For some people playing AoS now there’s a fear that this will prevent them from playing the game… Read more »
That was a very interesting pod cast and it’s always great to hear people enthusing about their hobby. I find listening to other peoples’ enthusiasm infectious.
I also think that the book sounds incredibly interesting and I can’t wait to see how they are implementing army structure and points etc.
I just listened to the podcast. It is less about the generals handbook itself than their childlike enthusiasm for their trip to GW and for being involved in developing AoS.
I found it really enjoyable hearing their 100% positive vibe on AoS. Not that it doesn’t deserve a little criticism — but I don’t want to hear it all the time.
Anyway, will likely pick this book up since I’ve had fun playing a few games of AoS and am keen to see where it goes next.
Finally!