New Ways Of Playing Age Of Sigmar Coming This Summer
April 25, 2016 by brennon
Over on the Age of Sigmar Facebook Page they have announced the changes and updates that are coming to Age of Sigmar this summer. Games Workshop are focusing on there being three different ways for you to play the game...
Let's have a look at each of the options...
Open Play
This will allow you to play Age of Sigmar as you have been up until now with freedom over what units you choose, the army composition and more. They will also be introducing new rules for you to create some impressive multi-player battles too.
Narrative Play
With this mode of play you'll be recreating some of the major conflicts of Age of Sigmar or setting up campaigns of your own. Campaign systems are always a welcome addition to any game if you can get a group of people together and I could see this being a very popular option.
Tools and rules will be made available to make all of this possible.
Matched Play
This is the big one. According to the announcement Games Workshop have been working alongside some of the world's biggest tournament organisers to create a system for playing competitive games with points costs and balanced play.
I'd say this is very interesting indeed!
What do you think?
"Games Workshop have been working alongside some of the world's biggest tournament organisers to create a system for playing competitive games with points costs and balanced play..."
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Well done GW
Yes, well done to getting round to doing what should of been there from the start.
Exactly
That was a sarcastic well done from me 😉 You shouldn’t say ‘well done’ to the things that they should of been doing all along.
I was being sarcastic too 🙂 but I should’ve worded it better.
Yes but if they did it from the start then they wouldn’t have been able to charge people twice for rule books would they? This is GW after all, they do like to make sure their punters have the newest rule sets virtually every year!
The rules were a free dowload and every unit they’ve released has had free rules in White Dwarf or added online. If I grabbed a few minis for this I could be playing by tomorrow night without ever spending a cent on a book.
Yeah, GW have definitely made some goofs with the AoS roll out, but the pricing on their minimalistic rules set is spot on (ie, free).
The competitive rules might be really great- especially since it looks like it isn’t just internal playtested. Last time GW pulled in the community to write their rules, they ended up with Blood Bowl (way better balanced than any of their other games).
But, but, I thought the whole point was they said it didn’t need points and was meant to be played without points. Wasn’t that their selling point? I could go on, but hopefully you get my point 😛
I’m all for the open and narrative play. I personally don’t care about tournaments.
This should have been done last summer. It was either naive or arrogant to have launched it with only the ‘open’ system they gave it.
And I don’t mean it necessarily should have had a tournament compatible system, though to maximise its chances of success it should have, but it should have at least one of the narrative or tournament options right out of the game. If the narrative option, it should launched with a bunch of scenarios, heavily emphasised this as an aspect of the gameplay, and kept releasing more.
*right out of the gate
“it should launched with a bunch of scenarios, heavily emphasised this as an aspect of the gameplay, and kept releasing more.”
Errrr…. that’s exactly what they did. There’s several campaign books each with several scenarios in – as well as the several scenarios in the original box book.
Not out of the gate it didn’t, that came a little later. It also required the purchase of expensive books whilst the open system was placed free online, nor was it heavily emphasised and most people associated AoS’ gameplay with the open system either primarily or exclusively.
You only have to look at the FB post which spawned this news item to see how GW previously promoted AoS compared to the new ‘3 great ways to play’. It never previously promoted AoS as having ‘2 great ways to play’, and it says this of open play – “Open Play is probably the most similar to the way you play now, but there are new rules on the way to give you even more freedom, including the option for huge multi-player battles.” because open play was the default setting they promoted for the game. There’s a difference between… Read more »
“It also required the purchase of expensive books whilst the open system was placed free online, nor was it heavily emphasised and most people associated AoS’ gameplay with the open system either primarily or exclusively.”
You are now effectively requalifying your original statement. If this is what you meant then this is what you should have said in your first statement then I wouldn’t have needed to bother correcting you. As it is now, it’s your opinion, which can debated but not corrected.
I have expanded on it, but not qualified it. The game did not launch with scenarios out of the gate, and never heavily emphasised it as the way to play the game.
“The game did not launch with scenarios out of the gate,”
Yes it did. There are several scenarios in the the book that comes in the original box.
“and never heavily emphasised it as the way to play the game”
And just be clear I’m not correcting you on this because this is your opinion. My original correction is purely your point about it not including scenarios and not continuing to release them – which is entirely wrong. The nature and type of scenarios can be debated *but they are scenarios*.
In terms of the campaign books I think we’re on a different page with my use of ‘out of the gate’. I meant from that on day one of release rather than something that came later, ever a few weeks later. The book in the box on the other hand would be scenarios out of the gate, so I am happy to change my original post based on that. I played it several times on release using the open play and scenario play was discussed by staff as coming in the campaign books. There’s a long thread on the forums… Read more »
Probably true but I think there has been a drastic change in thinking between last year and the beginning of 2016.
I hold out hope for this to bring more people to Age of Sigmar.
Interestingly I was checking out some more news around this and Jervis himself seems to be involved at some level with the testing of these rules – which, is pretty good considering his pedigree.
BoW Ben
If nothing else it gives them some control of the evolving tournament system that they forced the community to take on. It’ll let them make sure that there is a coherent tournament scene rather than a fragmented one that risks fragmenting the community. I’m guessing that ‘some of the world’s biggest tournament organisers’ are the TO’s who took on the task in recent months. “Probably true but I think there has been a drastic change in thinking between last year and the beginning of 2016.” Most likely brought on by the realisation that Plan A was a bad idea after… Read more »
Maybe someone said something along these line a little while ago 😛
https://youtu.be/1BHrwihuCTY
The response to this is kind of odd, though, and hints at wider problems. Most of the positive comments I’ve been seeing amount to, “great move by GW but I still won’t play it,” whereas the people playing say, “hang on, what? We didn’t ask for this.” It might bring new people in, but I’m not sure. I won’t play it because I have fundamental problems with the rules. I just plain think GW should have spent as much care on the rules as they did on the minis. I’m put off by the descent into comp hell (everybody who… Read more »
“Probably true but I think there has been a drastic change in thinking between last year and the beginning of 2016.”
“Most likely brought on by the realisation that Plan A was a bad idea after all.”
It was a change of CEO. One who actually plays GW games. Since his arrival many things have changed.
Completely agree with you. A change at the top can make a huge difference and a lot of the signs point to that happening.
There’s been a lot of changes under the Rountree regime. I’ve listed them in a couple of other items on the site. I find it hard to believe that he was lamenting that AoS was too far gone to introduce a tournament system when he took over in January last year, though.
Difficult to say anything about it without any real knowledge of the process. One thing is for sure though if you want a “balanced” system for tournament play, it takes time. Also if I were a CEO of a large gaming concern, outsourcing the process to a large, free workforce would certainly cross my mind.
It definitely does take time, often to at least a revision of the core rules and a re-balancing of the units. Though as WFB was never especially well balanced I wouldn’t hold AoS to that standard either. There has been some very clear course changes since Rountree took over, and it may be that had he been in charge a year earlier that matched play would have been in from day one. I find that very unlikely, but much more likely that seeing the way it was playing out. he was more receptive to why AoS needed it than his… Read more »
Roundtree was probably right in saying it was to far gone when he took over. A lot of AoS would have been printed and boxed up (in January) to include a points system when it launched. While I agree that having a point system straight out of the box would have been much better I can’t help think that maybe the community has come up with a better solution than even GW would have come up with. GW would have probably gone with the standard per model point system from fantasy/40K which I don’t think would ever work with AoS.… Read more »
All true Ben. They have been working with some of the big tournament organisers in the UK and the podcast scene.
Sounds like it is going to be a ‘POOLS’ type system which is really easy and fast. What the current SCGT uses. I believe it will also be flexible and open to change should any units need to go up or down.
Won’t get me playing the game, but a positive move none the less
Therein lies the problem. A lot of people saying “yes!” to this aren’t actually going to play it.
A lot of people saying “yes” to this are just commenting on a forum. There will be vastly more people out there NOT commenting on forums or facebook. I also have found that forums do not accurately represent the wider perception of Games Workshop and that taken as a whole, the opinion generally leans towards the negative. But outside of forums like Beasts of War, Games Workshop is still massively popular. So I don’t think that a dip check of Beasts of War comments is really a good indicator of how well received the new rules will really be.
still leaves the problem with high prices keeping people away. Or maybe that’s just us old farts?
It’ll be interesting to see where matched play lands in terms of army sizes. Anyone here been playing the rules that were created by the community for tournaments? What size of army did you tend see? Were they about the same as WFB 8th ed?
AoS has a much lower entry cost than 8th ever did and while the price of brand new models is pretty steep the start collecting and Army bundles make it cheaper than ever. You can easily play a game of AoS with a ‘start collecting’ force. I don’t know if the same can be said for the 40K versions.
Model for model, Games Workshop are still comparable to other high end miniatures manufacturers and Age of Sigmar allows you to play with smaller numbers. I’m not saying GW aren’t expensive, only that they aren’t more expensive than many other companies.
At last. Let´s see whether it is worthwhile.
The question of course always was “when” and “if”.
But good to see GW honoring the gold standard of table top army buiding.
Sorry, not interested. Too little, too late.
Another small step in the right direction. Long may they continue this trend.
While this is overdue, and a lot of people above make valid points, I am actively choosing not to make a sarcastic remark, criticise GW or snipe at them on this one. Its what people want, it will be good for the game, and while overdue and the lack of it being implemented from the start is somewhat misguided to say the least, it is a positive thing. Its enough to push me over the edge and buy into the game as well as some of my friends to be honest. Win win. I left Warseer due to the negativity… Read more »
Ah Warseer, the Mos Eisley of the gaming community.
Where the users don’t like you, and we don’t like you either….
Ain’t that the truth.
Mocking Games Workshop for correcting the mistakes of their recent past is like taking the piss out of fat people in the Gym.
Mine own reaction is born from frustration rather than any attempt to mock. If this is the analogy it feels more like said person making changes to their lifestyle last summer to try and be healthier, doing a bad job of it, then having a heart attack, and then making the changes they should have made in the first place and which many people could see needed to be done at the time. It’s great that they’re doing it, but I sure wish they’d done it in the first place and not had these problems in the meantime.
I wasn’t implying you were mocking, I think it just looks that way because of how the comment has been positioned. I was actually trying to back up what @mage was saying. We know GW made some mistakes, it seems GE know they made some mistakes and they’re trying to correct them. And taking the piss out of people trying to put right things they previously did wrong is very counterproductive.
“narrative play.” There is a difference between narrative play with gaming pieces and essentially playing with plastic toys but rolling dice instead… AoS going from a lot of the scenarios I’ve seen did the latter not the former – which can be fine if you’re bringing your young family into the game. – Though the narrative play that AoS started and continued with seemed to be heavily based around getting you to buy specific combinations of models £££ … which isn’t quite the narrative play if you think aboot it – it’s quite cynical. Narrative play and a “matched play”… Read more »
I’m not sure I understand the distinction between “narrative play with gaming pieces” and “playing with plastic toys but rolling dice”. However, I think you’re implying that a game worthy of playing should be balanced and competitive and if not, then it’s only fit for children. I’m reading between the lines here because you mention bringing “your young family into the game”. I think it’s just that, up to now, AoS has only catered yo a style of game that doesn’t appeal to you @poosh . My game of choice is Inquisitor played at 28mm scale. There are no points… Read more »
As I see it, “narrative play” can mean scenarios that are intentionally asymmetrical and unbalanced, and a method of creating a linked series of campaigns with win/loss consequences.
I honestly don’t see the fascination everyone has with needing a points system to play games. I’ve had many awesome games of AoS up until now, which I see as dissapearing now that this “points system” has arrived. Rather than just grabbing some models together and having a fun game and seeing what happens, I’ll be thrown back into having to write army lists to specific points values and power gamers.
Thanks to all the whining about needing “points systems” and “balanced games” a perfectly good gaming system has been smothered in it’s infancy.
Because it’s a game. Not puppet theater. If someone wins they want to know they won because they were a badass, or skillful – not because one of their units was super powerful and their opponent never stood a chance from turn 1. Anyone can decide to just drop models on the field and play. People did that with Warhammer Fantasy. People made their own insane scenarios. People do that with 40K. People do that with every game ever. Invalid argument 1: “I just won’t play with people who have over-powered armies….” how did you work out they were overpowered?… Read more »
*masquerading.. gawd
Seems you’ve been blitzed by the usual suspects @poosh . You’re right, and don’t deserve the minus minions’ wrath. Have a +1 from me 🙂
A shame. I’ve been in a few real life battles that were unfair… but I’m still here 🙂
Have an anti minus minion from me 🙂
I get minused for countering a minus. Whoo Whoo!
I can see why he attracts down votes. Phrasing like “because it’s a game. Not puppet theatre” is unlikely to win you friends. It not so much what is said it’s how it’s said. Even if you strip away all of @poosh ‘s negativity towards Age of Sigmar (which can be irritating in and of itself) his phrasing is abrasive and often quite caustic towards people who disagree with him. I think that is why @poosh attracts a lot of downvotes on Age of Sigmar threads.
Someone will have to launch a kickstarter to get Poosh some more +1’s! 😛
lol yep fanboyz on target :p
I’ve had downvotes for criticising GW, for agreeing with them, and for expressing no strong opinion about them, sometimes in the same news item! It’s an occupational hazard of joining in the discussion of a GW news item. It’s also not a big deal.
I think this is generally great news. I hope that the new ‘competitive’ system doesn’t become the standard way to play in clubs and stores etc. I’ve become pleasantly used to just turning up with whatever models catch my imagination and just plying a game or two.
That’s exactly my point!
@wesadie1969 That genuinely made me smile and laugh. Nicely done.
@lorddraconiroth Its a staple and majority of the industry with players, simple as. Its what people want. Some people see what you describe as throwing down and fun as chaotic, pointless and meaningless, and not having a swipe at you here, but I think its majority thinking and demand with what the current gaming culture is.
Back when the X-Men movies started being made, Marvel took the decision to end 25 years of mystery over Wolverine’s real name and background because they knew if they didn’t do it, the movie studio would do it for them. A similar thing is at play here. If GW weren’t going to give a structure, then the community would do it for them, and they did. So GW could ignore a clear a demand and let others control it, or they could act on the demand and use it to try and grow the game. That’s a no brainer –… Read more »
Playing devil’s advocate, but I always had a theory that GW were always going to do a points system? They just wanted more “input” into the machine, so they knew the best way of pointing models?
Obviously unless someone who was there comes out from the bunker and tells us, we won’t ever know for sure. I don’t think the now ‘open play’ version was ever a placeholder, but rather was what GW wanted to AoS to be. A game that would allow all its consumers to engage with it and spend as much or as even much more as they wanted (but definitely not as little as they wanted). Back when it came out, Andy Chambers was of the opinion it was a game that was driven by the manufacturing side of the business rather… Read more »
That makes a log of sense 🙁
Yes, I know that. But just watch the enforced points system will become the norm and people who just want to play will be looked down on as cheaters.
I think you might be right, at least the first part. There’s a reason games thrive with structures and it’s because they facilitate gaming. If AoS has a structure that works, I think it will gradually become the norm. Pretty much the same thing happened with WFB in its early years. If you have a group of like-minded people who like the open play, then there’s no reason why that couldn’t continue, but if you don’t or if you’re new to the game you’ll probably find you wind up doing match play.
Yup. Another point is that the community is never happy with points systems anyway. Just think on how many tournaments have their own comp rules for 40k? They should have just left it and let the SCGT be the tournament system, they clearly approved of it.
The points system of 40k and AoS will be two very different systems. It looks like AoS will be the Pools system which is what SCGT uses. Makes building armies way more streamlined. I also believe it will updated when needed.
@lorddraconiroth GW are actually working with the very people that ran the SCGT and have been for months. The Facehammer, Heelanhammer and baddice podcast will be putting out a combined podcast soon to let everyone know more details.
Dan Heelan posted a pic of himself with Jervis Johnson in the GW offices working over an AoS table and this was months ago.
Points is what many people want because it’s what they’re used to. There are no points in Guild Ball. Because the players are balanced out in a way that fits the game. With some exception, perhaps. GW did not have to introduce points. There are other balancing mechanics available. They just didn’t have the rules-writing vision to come up with any/adopt any. Instead, they caved to the tried and tested approach. Maybe it will work, and I hope it does. GW remains a behemoth that gets a lot of younger people into tabletop gaming. We all benefit when GW benefits.… Read more »
They will release a nice rulebook that looks exactly like WFB 8th edition but where it said Warhammer it now reads AoS (age of making money by luring people in with over priced goods). Yes trolling, just ignore me ..thank you.
My guess is the the rules stay free to download, and the tournament rules will be free also. The only thing you’ll pay for is the narrative scenarios, and you pay for them now anyway.
I probably should say ‘matched play’ rather than tournament rules. I think all the army lists and composition rules will be free to download.
I’m assuming the tournament rules will essentially be a glorified comp pack, listing some restrictions and giving out an up to date points/pool value for the units. All with an official GW seal of approval.
The plus side to this I guess is that if you release this as a kind of living document then it can be adjusted where necessary to try and maintain balance as time goes by.
Just glad the community has been involved.
About damn time. Maybe now AoS starts to feel like proper game system.
They could always introduce some mechanics that makes it feel like a modern game system, for a change
Awesome
The people asked for the points, the people are getting points – GW really does seem to be listening to the community.The points option also seems to be only one way to play, with other approaches for people who want to focus more on narrative. Things seem to be progressing in a positive direction.
… Or maybe GW listening to the community is a sign that the Ninth Seal has broken and the Apocalypse is nigh. One or the other. 😉
I’d put money on the Apocalypse.
Quite frankly, I’m at a loss as to why people continue to invest time and hopes in this game, and the questionable (and expensive) models that accompany it.
As a subtle marketing strategy this must be paying dividends for GW. I’ve been buying up old, about-to-be-discontinued fantasy models as fast as I can, to fill out some of my armies that are largely based on GW’s style and models. That being done, it’s good to see other companies filling the holes, figuratively, in GW’s game — no need to cling desperately to the apron strings.
“Quite frankly, I’m at a loss as to why people continue to invest time and hopes in this game, and the questionable (and expensive) models that accompany it.”
Perhaps if you listened to the people who play it you could account for that loss.
I’ve never seen a game played at the store when I drop in for my ration of Agrax Earthshade, and when I’ve asked people playing 8th editon WFB, they say they’re not interested. Beyond the starter set, the walls are stocked with dusty AoS boxes. I can only base my opinion on that, and the lacklustre financial numbers associated with the system. Obviously I’ve been misled.
“and the lacklustre financial numbers associated with the system”
Oh that’s handy, have you got those numbers? I’d be interested to know myself.
I’m at a loss to explain why anyone is playing any kind of fantasy game @cpauls1 when they could be playing something sci fi 😉 However, having spoken to people who do play Age of Sigmar, they seem to be of the opinion that it’s “fun”.
Personally, I don’t understand how it can be fun when they’re no lasers in it … 😉
Sci-fi… like Infinity? 😉
I’ll stick to Inquisitor @jazzfrezi . I’ve nothing against Infinity, but it just doesn’t interest me. The combination of GW plastics, FW resins and the Imperium’s long and rich background affords me the opportunity to explore and develop my conversion skills in a way that no other setting I’ve yet encountered does.
Each to their own @cpauls1 – my brother loves rock and ice climbing, and yet I am at a loss as to why anyone would risk their lives to do that to themselves. Still, my brother is not me, and I don’t try to tell him how he should live his life and spend his free time and money. AoS will never appeal to you, and that is fair enough. If you are curious about the weird inner workings if the minds of AoS fans, however, then for someone like me who does enjoy the game, additional options are always… Read more »
Fair enough @vetruviangeek. I just feel GW is abusing their loyal base.
Maybe some of us are into that… wait, wrong conversation… 😉
It seems to be very popular in the US and Canada, if the youtube traffic is anything to go by. A lot of very vocal champions of AoS over there, and a lot of fans for their associated vids and batreps. In the UK it doesn’t seem to have caught on quite so much, though, does it? It really does irk me that they released such bizarre and lacklustre rules, though. If you’re spending £100,000s on artwork and models, why on earth would you hammer out the most rudimentary and fundamentally problematic rules ever witnessed and think that it’s all… Read more »
Because over 80% of those players are just collectors according to GW 😉
I’m slowly getting back into sci-fi, @Erastus, so I can’t say I disagree entirely with your statement 🙂 In fact, I’m working on a Valkyrie right now. There will be some pics on @unclejimmy ‘s thread on Wednesday. Just finishing up the nose art, after creating a two-axes nose mount for the laser cannon.
Going off topic for a while, but stay with me …
Valkyries are great @cpauls1 Looking forward to seeing what you do with it. However, I know it’s heresy to some, but my favourite 40k flyer is the Stormtalon. Some people hate them, think they’re really ugly and a terrible design, but I really like them. They remind me of helicopters, only without the rotors.
Yep, Stormtalons … mocked and hated by some, but loved by others, a bit like AoS minis
…. And we’re back on track 😉
I really like the Stormtalon @Erastus 🙂 Technolog, out of Russia, makes one that is similar, called a Condor (for $8.00 CAD). I buy Stormtalon and other bits to flesh it out. Contrary to popular belief, I don’t rag on good GW kits, and that one certainly qualifies as one of the better ones they have produced. 🙂 The Valkyrie gets a B+ for concept, but only a ‘C’ for execution. It’s like they let the quality control guy drink at his desk. Non-aerodynamic surfaces and ill-fitting parts transform it from a great idea to a shoddy product. Much of… Read more »
The Millenium Falcon isn’t aerodynamic and that flies in subatmospheric conditions. It’s science fantasy, you have to suspend a certain level of disbelief.
This is good. But I will also say that the rules that AoS came out with was a very bold move for a game that had its followers. It was a gamble that may have paid off, but we now know that was not the case.
I think of Henry Ford that said “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said ‘faster horses.’” when I think of AoS.
It’s so easy to criticize them for such a drastic change, yet I feel it was needed to shake things up, in the company and in the gaming community.
Difference is Mr Ford had a revolutionary invention that had possibilities no one imagined.
I agree on the bold move if I put a drunk head on. Sober head picks up with pitfalls that historically we have seen play out.
Still at least they are engaging with the community and addressing what was the vocal issue with the system. Personally aside from providing a mechanism for balance for pick up and play games this fixes none of my issues with the game.
Ford did not invent the automobile (common misconception). Ford revolutionized the manufacturing which allowed him to produce automobiles cheaper.
I live and learn, same principle though
I think this as close to GW admitting they screwed their fantasy fan base as we are going to get. No company makes major changes to a rule set just 9 months after release unless they know they screwed the pooch. They showed nothing but contempt for their clientele and the small, stable and slightly profitable WHFB community largely went elsewhere. The good thing that came out of this is that games like SAGA, KoW, Infinity and Frostgrave all blossomed as WHFB died
Infinity has been blossoming for ages and I’d wager its success is completely independent of WHFB. In fact, I’d wager the coverage Infinity has gotten over the years from BoW itself has had a greater effect on its popularity. The KoW and (maybe?) Frostgrave fortunately have systems in which they don’t seem to care what models you bring and from what companies you buy them from. I know a bunch of people (whether it was more than a vocal minority I don’t know) went off to play KoW, but they did so with GW models (I honestly can’t see why… Read more »
I wouldn’t take that wager, because I’d lose lol. I think tabletop gaming gaining traction and GW losing customers are two separate things. GW always lost customers in the past. The difference is they’re now more likely to stay in the hobby than they were in the past because there’s so many alternatives. GW existed on the churn of new customers to replace the old, and it’s the drying up of this new blood which I think is the root of the problem, more so than existing customers leaving them for other games.
I think there are some fairly specific reasons why Kings of War and Frostgrave get played so much with 3rd party miniatures, or rather why playing with 3rd party miniatures is so prominent/visible for these games. In the case of Frostgrave, the miniatures range isn’t that big, not compared to the likes of Warhammer and Kings of War and so it makes sense to let people play with whatever miniatures they have and make money off book sales. In the case of Kings of War a huge part of it is an attempt to snatch up warhammer players – in… Read more »
Frostgrave was never actually intended to have its own minis. The guy who wrote it had using his collection of Reaper minis in mind when Osprey asked him if he’d like to contribute a book the games line. It was North Star who subsequently saw some potential in the game, sculpted up some minis, and ran the Nickstarter for them. Things just took off from there.
Well that would certainly explain why Frostgrave is generally played with whatever miniatures you want