Age of Sigmar: Comp Saves the Day?!

azyr comp

Age of Sigmar is a “no-frills” ruleset – by design.  But one group of gamers have carved out a pretty sophisticated balancing system you NEED to see.

Take it away Auticus:

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.

Azyr Composition (PDF Download)

I have to say this is a much more robust ann in depth system than most of what’s out there.  Hats off to the Louisville Wargaming group for putting this together and continuing to take feedback and adjust the PDF.

Continued Conversation (BoLS Lounge)


~ So what do you think, would you play under this ruleset and do you think it can do the job?

  • Cannibalbob

    Good for them, but I will stick to the systems where the designers do the brunt of that work.

    • zeno666

      So true

    • Razer Free

      Boom boom!

  • KWCooley

    I suggest people give Kings of War a try. The new rules just came out. It’s a fantastic game. You can bring all of your Warhammer models with you. And Mantic has an ever growing line of excellent models as well.

    • i tried it. KoW is still too bland for me to get into but if others can find enjoyment in it my hats off to them!

      • Erik Setzer

        Honestly, I can’t see it being more bland than AoS. Both are pretty simple rules sets (though AoS is simpler), relying on unit special rules to add any “pizzazz.” And it’s hard to judge KoW without the full rules.

        • Beltayn

          Yeah, Allesio Salvatore’s idea of the ultimate excitement in a game engine is adding a reroll for something. The blandness in his design is overpowering.

          • Bahkara

            You lost me at “fantastic game” and then again at “excellent models”

  • Commissar Molotov

    I feel sorry for people who paid $125 for the boxed set and then had to make up their own damned rules to play it.

    • euansmith

      I guess it might work out that the scenarios give pointers on balancing forces, or else fan made products like this become a popular alternative and maybe feed in to a community spirit for the game.

      • WanderingMind

        TBH I really think that was part of the idea for releasing the game in a simple form.

        GW are just bloody terrible at communicating that with their customers. They are too used to keeping secrets and wanting to keep us hanging on their every word lol.

    • Shawn Pero

      I kind of feel bad for the people who paid $125, after knowing the rules and how it would play, then felt like they needed to make up more rules.

      • Mike Linke

        Free market, breh. SOMEONE is going to decide that it is worth their time and energy to develope comp so that they can run tournaments for money.

        I panicked at first too about the lack of points. But then I realized 40k has points, and that never made any of the games where I brought my thousand sons fair. Point systems don’t properly cost force multipliers. They have trouble accounting for mobility.

        I honestly don’t feel that any of the other games really ever had what we can all agree age of sigmar is missing.

        • Azrell

          So you think 40k would be more balanced or less without the pts values? … Points at least mean at some point someone tried to balance the game.

          • Andrew Thomas

            I reserve judgment on “no points,” but smaller points have been demonstrated as a superior method to balance for competition, case in point: WMH. What’d be better is if we didn’t need to spend hours agonizing over Wargear, especially wargear with odd point values. If 40k scaled back it’s granularity about 80%, the game would be less of a chore to prepare for. They’ve already started killing converted armies with what’s in the box is what you run wargear options, so going to a smaller point scale isn’t that big of a step.

          • Mike Linke

            I agree that no points is not an answer to army balance. Age of sigmar does not answer the question of army balance. Other systems attempt to answer it, but rarely do so effectively.

            40k might be less balanced if it didn’t have points, but it might also be more balanced if we didn’t depend quite so much on points to determine the strength of a force.

    • Vladium NZL

      $125 was only the figures with 3 scenarios. This rule set was made to be updated with ease for gw.

    • ChubToad

      It’s worse when you buy those Kickstarter miniatures games that are en vogue atm. Unexistent rules, bad models and subpar quality components. Or you can wait up until 2 years for the actual game to arrive only to find out that the company that produced it doesn’t exist anymore. But hey, GW right?

  • bobrunnicles

    I printed off several copies and my group will be giving them a try this weekend.

    • Let me know how it goes

      • bobrunnicles

        Will do – reaction so far appears to be generally positive; )

        • Good to hear!

          • Lee

            Done a couple of tests with this system but it doesn’t really favor goblin armies from the couple of games I played. Seen as night goblins realistically need to be in a hoard of 50 to be on par with most armies 20 model units.

            Can see how this system will give a decent balance with less squishy armies though

  • Aaron Ridgley

    Why does BOLS keep trying to push this crap? Do they get a kick back from Games Workshop. Age of Sigmar is utter crap. I shouldn’t have to come up with my own balancing mechanics the game designers are supposed to do that. Why are people wasting their time trying to polish a turd. Just flush it and move on.

    • Porky_Poster

      I think there may be a hope readers will click. And then maybe there’ll be bickering, and that might then generate more clicks.

      • euansmith

        I only come here to vehemently disagree with Porky_Poster…

        • Porky_Poster

          You’re wrong.

          • Mikael

            Ehee, in fact you are both wrong!

          • Porky_Poster

            Better than being double-plus wrong, pal!

          • euansmith

            No it isn’t!

          • Porky_Poster


          • euansmith

            RED!!!!.. no… wait… KHORNE!!!!!

          • vlad78

            I think you all three are wrong. Can someone tell me if I’m right?

          • Mikael

            Right you are not wrong…

          • Jonathan B.
    • Because i want to use my models and kow doesnt do it for me

    • CoffeeGrunt

      It may surprise you to learn that other people are different, and a lot of them have said they actually enjoy the new AoS game where they wouldn’t have enjoyed WFB.

      Obviously the ideal situation would be to have both games running, but GW seem to have cut resources to WFB due to it simply not shifting product. AoS, potentially, is the answer.

      Locally people are playing with a gentlemen’s agreement on not taking silly combos and playing it very casually, but even then games seem to be very close.

      • Aaron Ridgley

        The only people I know who “enjoy” AOS didn’t play Warhammer.

        Also requiring a gentlemens agreement before you play just shows what a crap game it is. Imagine scrabble or Clue required fifty house rules before being an enjoyable game where both players had an equal shot at winning. Everyone would be like what a crap game.

        • CoffeeGrunt

          I didn’t say house rules, did I Aaron. C’mon, don’t put words in my mouth.

          People are mature adults for the most part, and that means we’re able to roughly gauge equivalent armies and not have our pride wounded when we lose. This is the loose, “Gentlemens’ Agreement,” to which I referred.

          Additionally, I just said exactly that: most of the people enjoying it here locally didn’t like WFB anyway.

          Do brush up on your reading comprehension before replying, please. It’ll save me a lot of time spent repeating myself.

          • Hater McScroogle

            How many games does it take before you know relative strengths of all the units you and your friends own? All units have had their stats and abilities reshuffled remember.

            And when you do know the relative strengths and are able to “eyeball” it, how do you deal with new models getting picked up, creating new synergies with all your old ones?

            Creating a balanced game isn’t about getting two players to agree to play with each other, it’s about giving them both a challange. Give them a meeting of the minds, where strategy and ruthlessness reins supreme.

          • CoffeeGrunt

            “Give them a meeting of the minds, where strategy and ruthlessness reins supreme.”

            But not everyone wants that. That’s why we have a WarmaHordes scene at the store, so if people wanna beat face, well, they crack out the Legion of Everblight and try to beat face.

            Age of Sigmar is what people seem to be gunning for when they want a more casual game. It’s not really exciting me, but I enjoyed what I played of it. Quick and light, positioning is fairly important, and the choosing of which order you fight in can have some tactical depth to it, letting you choose where to win and where to lose in order to push for the greater objective.

            Perfect game? Heck no, but I’m possibly gunna get a box of Skinks and a box of Saurus Warriors, which will do me a decent-sized game for about the same cost as WarmaHordes, and probably get a Carnosaur in the future because they’re ballin’.

        • Xodis

          Actually Gentlemans agreements were always needed for board games as simple as clue, pictionary, etc… There are a lot of things not covered in rules because publishers assume people playing the game want to enjoy themselves, not take advantage of one another. Imagine if every board game you ever played the other players were thinking “How can I break this game and dominate”, rather than “I cant wait to have fun with my friends.” Sounds like a rough time, and most people dont need reins in order to control themselves. New concept for tournament players I know.

          • Firefly

            We need to bring back the guy that said,

            “Yeah well Monopoly doesn’t need house rules!”

            Hah! Man, what a laugh. I guess that I’m the only person in the world who’s played against a friend or sibling that opts to sit in jail for most of the game and wins practically every time.

          • Xodis

            lol no you are not. Didn’t the money on “free parking” also start as a house rule and didn’t make it into the rules until the first couple special editions? HAHA good times!

        • AircoolUK

          Oh yeah? Well there’s vets here from the 2nd and 3rd editions who are having a blast with AoS.

          The game isn’t for you, we get that. Now could you please close the door on your way out?

      • Spacefrisian

        I think it would have been better if GW simply toned it down instead of replacing it, same with 40k, Less is more .

        • CoffeeGrunt

          I dunno, the Fantasy system as a whole was pretty unattractive to a lot of people. They’re taking a punt on pulling in a different kind of customer. It’s quite clearly not marketed to the people who enjoyed Fantasy, warts and all.

        • jeff white

          agreed. gw screwed fantasy, now fanboys use that failure as an excuse for this aos fiasco…

    • Razer Free

      Actually kind of ironic that AoS is such a good game that BOLSs Larry Vela and Rob Baer have to mention it every two articles so we don’t forget…

      It’s a game that needs Errata and FAQs from DAY 1, and the numerous articles about rule changes and crazy special abilities proves it.

      • euansmith

        So just like every other game with the word “Warhammer” in the title? 😉

        • Xodis

          Shhhh, 40K is perfect…didn’t you hear?

          • euansmith

            No, I think it could do with a radical updating to, I dunno, “Age of Calgar”.

          • Xodis

            Call it Age of Horus and I’m sold!!!

      • AircoolUK

        Errata? FAQ? I can understand the rules perfectly.

        • Razer Free

          A shame then you don’t seem understand what Errata or FAQs are. Errata is for correcting text passages that would otherwise be abused, like limiting the casting of summoning spells to 1 per game so that your opponent can’t summon an entire army. FAQs are for answering common questions among players, like if abilities that allow re-rolls stack with eachother, since rolling re-rolled dice is forbidden in 40K but it isn’t mentioned in the AoS 4 page rules.

          But if you like the rules as they are now then you either just don’t care about those things or your IQ is too low to notice them…

          • Firefly

            Page 1,
            “You can never re-roll a dice
            more than once, and re-rolls happen before
            modifiers to the roll (if any) are applied.”

            o_o But hey, why should we actually read the rules, right? That’d be a waste of time.

            As far as re-rolls stacking, it comes down to the language… same as it always has. Some clearly allow stacking, some do not. That is an issue that seems to be brought up in every edition, most notably 8th.

            Summoning, frankly, is a matter of opinion. I’ve heard people say it’s broken, and I’ve herd otherwise. Aircool makes a good point that every summon cast takes away a more useful spell, to which I agree. Mystic Shield, for example, is something that I’d take over summoning every time. The summoned units are small and easily crippled, whereas Mystic Shield prevents a unit from becoming small and crippled.

    • Shawn Pero

      YOU clicked & commented. Must be doing something right.

    • Xodis

      Same reason every news channel tell you things you’ve already heard. News is news and anything that brings attention, negative and positive, works to your advantage when your goal is to just get them here….and here you are, so its working.

    • fabiobile

      They do seem to shill for them more than IGN does for AAA game companies.

    • Animatronica

      you’re wearing a Fedora, your opinion is invalid.

  • Brian Griffith

    GW: “Here is a simple system that makes games easy to set up.”
    Grognards: “THIS WILL NOT STAND.”

    • WanderingMind

      couldn’t put it better myself

    • dodicula

      Sorry to break it to you but the grognards have already moved on

      • Brian Griffith

        Then who’s writing these needless comp systems?

        • crevab

          Ah, so Grognards are anyone that have differing opinions from GW

          • Brian Griffith

            I’ve seen comp systems that outlaw about half of 40k and require absurd amounts of number crunching.

            Opinions are fine, but nearly every comp system I’ve seen adds needless complexity and turns everything into Math-Hammer. Why even bother?

          • AircoolUK

            You can never make it fair. Even with carbon copy lists and symmetrical terrain, someone still has to go first.

          • Shawn Pero

            More like anyone who doesn’t like AoS – or any other GW game – and has to mention it at every opportunity. GW would be like an ex-wife if a grognard had ever known the touch of a woman.

          • by definition they are

      • Shawn Pero

        then why do these articles still have 100+ comments of their whining?

    • deris87

      If I care about having either side have a roughly equal chance of winning, it’s a system that doesn’t hold up. It’s full Beer and Pretzels, and you never go full Beer and Pretzels.

  • Scott Adams

    I recently saw a battle report… Some restrictions and wound caps.. easy and fairly effective… Not perfectly balanced… but no war game/unit/faction/ally/dice roll is balanced. Keep it simple! And the rules are easy, effective, deeper than most think, and best of all completely different than oldhammer.

    1-6 warscrolls
    1-2 heroes keywords
    0-2 monster keywords unless required by battalion/formation
    20 wound warscroll cap
    60 wound total
    Warscrolls may only be deployed twice unless required by battalion/formation. No duplicated named heroes/monsters

    Change it up for you own taste.
    Keep it simple.

    • Porky_Poster

      You must be new round these parts.

      • Scott Adams

        Just trying to help people enjoy their collections in an easy and fun manner. You know… Instead of burning then. 🙂

        • Porky_Poster

          That’s fighting talk, right?

          • Scott Adams

            You want a fight? On a message board? Damn dude… Relax.

          • euansmith

            I think what we have here is a failure to communicate 😉 As I read it Porky_Poster was agreeing with you in a rather oblique manner; implying that any apparently rabid hatred of AoS is a knee jerk reaction, like the Two Minute Hate in 1984… of course, it might be that I misread your response and so I am just coming off as some Whiteknight. 😉

          • Scott Adams

            My bad porky 🙂 good reference too, even though I missed it 😛 And the burning of the army is definitely knee jerk 😛 Peace love and dice rolling hehe.

          • Porky_Poster

            Yep, euansmith’s right. It was just a bit too oblique. I was admiring how constructive you were being in the face of how wild it gets here sometimes, and poking a little fun at that wildness.

          • Scott Adams

            Haha man! I suck! Thanks bro!

          • Porky_Poster

            Thanks for that. You know pretty well by now I’d imagine. I should have guessed it could be unclear.

          • Hendrik Booraem VI

            You must be new to the internets, Scott Adams. The purpose of a message board is to have fights…

          • Scott Adams

            What is teh interwebs?

      • euansmith

        But we have always been at war with Age of Sigmar!

    • false-emperor

      Nagash, enough said.

      • Scott Adams

        He is nasty. But he will die. Even mundane units seem extra killy. Plus his hand of dust spell is kinda fun… Unless you pick the wrong hand… Cause then you’re dead 🙁

    • deris87

      That does cover a lotof the big discrepancies (no taking 5 warscrolls of Greater Demon vs my 5 Warscrolls of Spears), but it still doesn’t help with the difference in quality between say a unit of Clan Rats and a unit of Swordmasters. If I can still take 20 Sword Masters for every 20 Clan Rats, you’re going to run into problems.

      • Scott Adams

        Yea, it is true and unit/hero synergy is even more so important in this game. Skaven weap teams can “hide” inside clan rats using a formation. Thin those sword master before they have rat for dinner. (Elves might be above eating rats :P)

        But I do agree with you! And there will always be stronger units and power gamers who just want to steam roll people.

  • OleTimer56

    I am sorry but the rules proposed in the PDF are way to complex for my taste. But that is just my opinion 🙂

    • AircoolUK

      I’m with you. Balancing a game doesn’t seem to be difficult at all. A lot of games depend on the amount of mini’s you actually have for a faction.

      • there is a simple way to balance the game – get hold of a copy of chain of command by two fat lardies and use the deployment and command rules – adapted to taste

        I suspect GW will move in this direction when the scenarios come out – and if they do – I cannot wait for the exploding heads at the idea that a player may get multiple moves and whilst not being able to move everything they want…. etc

    • well obviously – as they reflect the culture that killed WFB – overly complex rules, badgering by an elite group about how the game should be played and no one quite knowing what they were doing or why they were playing

      • Michael Gerardi

        No. The “culture that killed WFB” is the GW culture of creating edition after edition and army book after army book with rules intended to sell plastic crack, rather than IMPROVE THE GAME. GW figured they had enough fanboys addicted that they could keep on doing so indefinitely.

        GW finally reached the point where too many of its customers were spitting out the crap sandwiches they kept serving. Then, rather than serving something more palatable, they blamed the customers for spitting the crap out and blew up the kitchen.

        BTW: I don’t have much good to say about 8th. Nor about anything in 7th that idiot Ward got his grubby paws on. 9th should have undone the damage these crapfests did.

        • your reply confirms my point

          • Michael Gerardi

            Nothing could confirm your point. It’s pointless.

  • Nythrulas

    Turd, meet polish.

    • Manwiththedogs

      You can’t polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.

      • jonathan beatty

        Actually Myth Busters proved you can polish a turd. It took them using a very special Japanese technique long long hour of applying elbow grease and in the end the had a Shiny Piece of Crap.

        Then GW took that Turd and dropped it into our punch bowl and said “Drink Up.”

  • Jason McFarland

    I like the composition numbers, all seem to make sense, but rewriting the rules to reflect 8th is unnecessary to me. The draw of AoS to me is that it is more of a less restrictive ruleset, much more casual.

    • Its more or less done so we can continue doing public campaigns with a semblance of balanced forces.

      As it is I would never run an event where someone can plop down 5 blood thirsters in a small scale game.

      The campaigns that I play in and run are meant to be casual… but even casual needs boundaries of some type.

      • Jason McFarland

        I can get behind that part of it

      • Firefly

        Why nerf shooting? In all of my games (even against wood elves and artillery) shooting into combat did not strike me as unbalanced.

        • For the point system given, if a model can both shoot into combat and fight in melee, it becomes more useful than a melee-only model. In fact from a power gaming standpoint I would never have models that couldn’t shoot if that were the case because a model that can crank out just 1 shot at range plus 1 melee attack has the damage output of a 2 attack model and would need to be costed accordingly.

          As such if we raise the restriction on shooting into combat then missile troops will need boosted in points because they can just stick a unit in combat and hit it from all points on the table in range and those models have double the utility for the same cost.

          • Firefly

            I see what you’re saying, but I disagree. In my experience, a dedicated melee model has beat a shooter every time in melee (depending on who goes first, of course).

            As far as combined arms go, I think that’s sort of the point of the game… yes, shooters can shoot and all, but they’re also poor combatants for the most part when it comes time to attack, and they have poor saves and/or bravery to boot. I suppose that Irondrakes are the extreme of your example?

          • euansmith

            That didn’t work out too well at Agincourt… but that was a special case…

          • Simon Chatterley

            Heavy Armour and thick mud don’t play well together. Who knew eh?

          • I disagree as well. A dedicated melee model does not have the reach of a missile model. If a missile model can both shoot at range and fight in melee he is putting out the same attack dice, and in the AoS system there isn’t much of a difference anymore.

            So a model that can shoot once and fight once is the same as a model that can fight twice.

            It can also be argued that the ranged model has more utility even though he has the same number of attacks because he can hit the melee model at range possibly several times before the melee model gets to use his attack.

            This has been playtested as well (we have 15 test games with shooting into combat leaving the points as-is) and it was decided shooting into combat was too powerful with the current points and that missile units would go up +1 point a unit if they could shoot into combat, so for now they cannot.

          • Firefly

            I don’t know, it still seems ill-advised. What about running? Marching? Charging? Piling in? These are all things that greatly increase the melee model’s “range.”

            Imagine that two units of the same move value are chasing one another. The player with 30 shooters needs its most distant models to remain within 16″ to shoot, meaning that its closest model is, let’s say, only 12″ away (or 13″, just for sake of argument, though that does make a very wide, crescent-shaped formation which would push the front rank even closer). They take their shots, kill a couple models.

            The melee unit moves 5″ up (this seems to be standard, though Saurus can move 8″ with an Oldblood, but we’ll say he’s not here). Now we’re looking at only an 8″ charge (assuming 13″), with most of the stuff in the game influencing charge rolls… so 7″, maybe? Or how about 8″ with a re-roll? Or maybe both (again using Lizardmen as an example, which they can do)? Now, I get an extra 3″ for pile-in… so I’ve moved 16″ in one turn, with spears giving me a 2″ range (because why wouldn’t you take spears). An effective 18″ range with 3 attacks each… this isn’t even touching on the number of special rules that boost their combat prowess.

            If I go first, their melee attacks don’t matter, because a lot of them are going to die… and I likely would choose to go first, for that very reason. Again, dedicated melee units are better-outfitted for melee than most shooting units. Because of special rules, number of attacks won’t be very important here. An equal-sized unit of Saurus, for example, will be delivering 3 attacks each, with +1 to hit because, again, their whole purpose is melee. I haven’t seen a shooting unit yet that has significant rules like that in the combat phase… and this isn’t even touching on the 5 other combat rules I can get.

            Now, the Saurus can’t even be targeted by shooters outside the combat… meaning this combat is basically over, and that the Saurus will definitely win it. It just seems that shooters basically lose all effectiveness after turn 3 when you disallow shooting into combat, is what I’m getting at.

          • these have been covered in playtesting as this is a common complaint and in all cases the playtesting revealed that shooting into combat made the missile units worth more to the point where the playtesters were foregoing taking any melee only models because they didn’t have as much utility.

            It has been pretty much unanimous to not let them shoot into combat OR to boost them up a point if we let them shoot into combat.

          • Firefly

            I dunno, man… that just has not been my experience at all. Not even once, to be honest. Were you guys running numbers or playing actual games? I guess I gave my melee units enough support to take the attention off of the combat. Kind of a, “Well, those Saurus are tearing up my Crossbowmen, and I’d like to shoot at them… but all of this other crap is in my face now.”

          • its entirely about the points 🙂 its trying to keep things balanced by the point system. i’m not opposed to shooting into combat but if that route is taken i just want to make sure the points reflect that, and as written now they do not so thats why it is what it is.

          • There are several examples. Shooting and melee are basically the same thing and this is a general system not a precision system.

            A precision system would take a 4+ and rate it better than a 5+ by X points.

            A general system is in general this unit of 10 is about like this unit of 10.

            Look at dwarfs

            A dwarf warrior hits in melee about as good as thunderers or quarelers.

            A cross bow hits on 4+ wounds on 4+ and does damage 1.
            A ranger axe has identical stats except one – the 20″ range vs the 1″ range.

            A quareler can do both, so has 2 attack dice hitting on 4 wounding on 4 doing 1 point of damage.

            A dwarf warrior only has one attack hitting on 3 wounding on 4 doing 1 point of damag e(or hitting on 4 wounding on 3 with rend -1)

            Disallowing shooting into combat – the two are equal. Allowing shooting into combat, the quareler is clearly the better choice. He gets 2 attack dice doing roughly the same damage as a dwarf warrior but he gets 2 of them instead of 1.

            Thunderer – 1 ranged attack 4+/3+ rend 1 damage 1 and a melee attack 4+/5+ 1 damage. Again two attacks, one is at range vs the dwarf warrior who has just one attack. Which one is better?

            Why would I ever take a dwarf warrior? Because he has a pip better on one of his attacks? He has to get up in a model’s face to do any damage, the thunderere gets more attacks AND can get attacks in before the melee-only model can.

            That is why the two are by far not equal if the missile unit can both shoot and fight in the same turn and blast into combat.

            I’m not opposed to blasting into combat but the missile units will come up in points to compensate if we go that route. The math tells me that is so as does over a dozen playtest games.

          • Dave

            Still, in 40k having a weapon in one hand an a pistol in the other gives you a +1 attack. Same thing I recon. And yes, I know there is a difference between a bolt pistol and firing a bow, but it is “Fantasy” after all

          • I’m not looking at it as shooting into combat. That part doesn’t bother me.

            I’m looking at it as a missile armed unit that can shoot into combat has 20 attacks vs a melee unit that has 10 attacks in terms of pointing them for balance.

          • Dave

            No war game is truly “balanced” even “real” ones like paintball and Airsoft :). I plan on enjoying the game for what it is. A scenario driven tabletop game. I never played in tournaments (except a few staff ones when I worked for GW) so the competitive balance issues were never a big deal for me

          • I really don’t care about tournament balance to be honest, but I am a public event organizer and for my campaigns to work with strangers that don’t know each other I need a mechanism that at least gives them a boundary on what they can bring to the table.

          • bobrunnicles

            Agreed; this is actually still pretty loose but gives *some* structure to building your army that as it is was missing. I printed off some copies last night and handed them out at ‘paint night’ at the store and they were well received.

          • great let me know how it goes. Check out the forum topic in the lounge for feedback!

          • Brian Griffith

            I always thought the +1 attack from having a sidearm in close combat represented pistol whipping. It’s not like you get to use the pistol’s firing profile, even after they started using the same stats profiles for melee weapons as ranged.

          • Dave

            Meh, pistols are a decent enough “point blank” weapon too. Also the military does train in CQB as well and some of those distances get real close, real fast.

            Then there is 40k artwork out there through various editions where there is point blank shooting as well.

  • For those interested in constructive feedback (yes I know already that you shouldn’t have to write comp, that the rules out of the box suck, that you can just play something else instead), you can join in the discussion in the BOLS lounge here

    Or you can check out our facebook

    The point of doing all of this is that underneath it all there is a good system that can be had, and while it is understandable that some people are very angry that you can’t play the game in an organized way out of the box, that with a bit of effort that can be achieved.

    Also – there is no other game out on the market right now that really drives me and my warhammer collection will not just sit on shelves. I’m not interested in WM/H, mantic’s KOW is still bland, and really there’s nothing else on the market that engages me. I have a shelf with a dozen games I can’t play because no one else will play them regardless of the quality of the game rules, and so as of now the choice is either abandon my hobby because nothing else excites me or help work to make it enjoyable.

    There are others that feel the same way, so this is an alternate for you and right now we are knee deep in an End Times campaign that will be concluding in september and we will be running a small escalation Azyr campaign starting at 5 points and ending at 10.

    Also this ruleset changes as we tweak it with playtesting (we have 29 playtesters right now and about 60 games in) and scenarios will soon be introduced.

    Also check out our initial chaos dwarf offering:

    There is a formatting error as of the time of this post that I am correcting momentarily (double entries)


    • false-emperor

      Keep up the good fight!

    • Jared Swenson

      I really like what you have so far. My 40k buddies and I are excited to give this comp system a shot. I really like AoS, but i can get the apprehension with no army building system. So we have been looking for an alternative, and this is the best we’ve seen so far. Keep it up! Also, for the players who have the AoS box set armies, can you make pages for those? I know from here on out we can expect the game to be balanced by wounds with the newer stuff, but for fighting newer stuff vs older stuff we still need these rules.

      • I plan on adding the new stuff once I get the book this saturday.

    • vonevilstein

      Great stuff Auticus. Haven’t played AoS yet, but when we do we’re going to kick off with the scenarios, see how those fair and then compare them to your system and give you some feedback…well that’s the plan anyway..;)

      • appreciate it bud. I am looking forward to seeing what the scenarios do as well and plan on tweaking accordingly.

  • Simon Chatterley

    I’ve been a GW fanboy for more than 20 years. If they made a 40k pregnancy tester I would have bought it. I have 2 floor to ceiling cupboards full of a life time of hoarding their products.

    But tomorrow I play my first games of Kings of War. My first game of a non GW tabletop game. Ever.

    It’s a brave new world I guess folks.

    • rrooster1977

      I was the same way until I tried Kings of War 3 years ago. It has been my preferred large scale fantasy battle system since. It upscales really nicely too. If you ever decide you want to play a massive 3000 point battle it’s definitely the way to go.

      • Simon Chatterley

        Much has been said about AoS. It’s become wargaming Marmite (Love it or Hate it for those not aware of the foul spawn of satan spread that is Marmite..)

        But whilst writing my verse to a lost friend I went to said cupboards to inspect my horde.

        In it I found GW soap and a little cloth with an Imperial Eagle on it from some collectors brush set years ago. Pretty sure I didn’t need it and I haven’t used them. They are sat in there lovely little wooden Imperial Eagle box.

        Sigh – I feel like a dying Yoda here.

        Mmmm…Rest I need. Yes…rest

        • euansmith

          Sigmarmite (I made the same gag yesterday… and I’ll keep doing it ’til I get it right).

          • Simon Chatterley

            Here I was trying to work Marmite into a gag!

            But in other news, whilst trying to work out what the point of a cloth with the GW Eagle on is I found the little Brass bolter shell water pot.

            Brought a tear to my eye that did

          • euansmith

            Just read your Imperial Infantryman’s Uplifting Primer, and I’m sure you will feel better…

          • Simon Chatterley

            I raised my flag of Cadia to half mast on Sunday and played the bugle whilst giving 8th the double Rimmer salute send off it deserves.

            Neighbours weren’t happy mind but they just don’t understand

          • euansmith

            Did GW every produce quality reproductions of actual 40k insignia? That would be really cool. Maybe they could set up a new department to make things like that and call it Craft World…

          • Simon Chatterley

            Me and mate went to a GW event with the Blue Aquila’s Flight Display Team and we had flight suits and patches (basically as in the profile pic)

            We had a mate make us a flag of Cadia from an image in a rulebook/codex. It’s a decent quality pic so I reckon that would blow up to be flag size easy enough.

            I recall I actually prized that up but it was about £50 to get custom made.

            Still, GW are missing a trick not making stuff like that. I reckon a lot of people would happily pay cash monies for stuff like that to hang on their walls. Sure they have canvas prints of stock images but where is the imagination there.

          • euansmith

            That sounds like some quality 40k Cosplay.

        • rrooster1977

          Yes after 22 years of Warhammer Fantasy it is a bittersweet farewell. The game and the company hasn’t been the same wonderful experience I fell in love with back in 4th edition for quite some time.

          • Azrell

            just as the Imperium never recovered from the loss of the emperor, GW never recovered from the loss of Andy Chambers.

          • euansmith

            Apparently Andy Chambers still sits upon the Porcelain Throne and, one day, will return to save us all! The deaths of a few thousand psykers per week is a small price to pay…

    • hamilton geyser

      All this talk of KoW in Warhammer threads, meanwhile in KoW threads, there is not even a whisper…

      I don’t think that many people are switching.

      • rrooster1977

        That’s funny because on the Kings Of War Fanatics Facebook page every day there’s at least 3 “New to KoW, I’m a former WHFB player and I have a question…” Not to mention the countless new members on the Mantic forums with July 2015 starting dates.

  • rrooster1977

    They said they were giving away free rules when in actuality they were just giving away a starting point for writing your own game system. Thanks but no thanks Age Of Smegmar is not for me. I just wish BOLS could give some coverage of any of the hundreds of other miniature games. Seeing 3 to 5 AoS posts a day is getting old.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      They do give coverage to other games. No one clicks and no one posts. That means Larry doesn’t get any money, so why bother paying for articles that generate you no money?

  • vlad78

    According to BOLS, AOS was a fantastic game. So why does the day need to be saved?

    • Crablezworth

      Yeah, I thought it ushered in a new golden age? What changed?

  • Matthew Gillaspy

    Yeah everyone is doing it wrong. Play it as written. That’s the strategy part. You pick something then I pick a unit to respond to that unit or I pick a unit that I want for some other strategic reason. We go back and forth picking units until one of us cries Uncle and we play the game. The whole thing is based on the presumption that I have access to as many of every kind of everything that I want from the whole games workshop line of models. I love it. Its a shame everyone is too locked into their preconceptions to realize how revolutionary this new system is.

    • euansmith

      Player 1, “So is that you sorted then?”

      Player 2, “No… um… wait a bit… I’ve just ordered some more minis on line…”

    • Simon Chatterley

      From a historical viewpoint we can safely say not every revolution works out for the best….

      You know, for the commoner. Those in power seem to do alright I guess.

    • no thanks. But enjoy playing it as written. For the campaigns that i want to do that won’t work.

    • MPSwift

      This occurred to my gaming group a few days ago. If you also consider that the person who places the first model chooses who goes first you get an added layer of balance. The person deploying second can always counter the person deploying first: Player 1 places Bloodthirster, Player 2 places equally nasty monster to counter it. Player 1 places block of light spearmen, Player 2 places archers to whittle them down etc. etc. However, this also allows the second player to “get the drop” on the first player with his final deployment, leaving a particularly nasty unit until last so it can’t be countered by Player 1 as they have no more units to deploy.

      However (and here’s the balancing part), Player 1 can always choose to take the first turn and put an alpha strike on this surprise unit if they need to deal with it quickly. Now that every unit can hurt every other unit due to fixed rolling (barring any modifiers and special rules) there is nothing in any army that can’t be dealt with in some way.

      I’m with you on this one, it is a really quite clever and innovative system. All that gentleman’s agreement needs to consist of really is number of scrolls in use as most other items should naturally fall out of the written process.

      And all of this “it’s not balanced” talk is taking in isolation the concept of a straight up brawl when the game is marketed as a scenario driven narrative game.

  • Mike Linke

    Why do so many of these comp systems try to over reach by forbidding shooting into combat? I can see why shooting into combat is problematic for a lot of players, but I don’t see what it has to do with comp.

    • very simply because the system is pointed where a model can do one or the other not both at the same time.

      If a model can both shoot and fight in combat, he has essentially 2 attack dice.

      If a melee model only has 1 melee attack, he has one less attack dice, and therefore the missile models would need to be bumped up accordingly in points if they could do both shoot and fight in the same turn.

    • Jared Swenson

      This is not just a Comp system, it’s a document for things like a local tournament. The guy who made this was most likely trying to come up with a balancing system and tournament rules so they could run AoS events at the store. It’s not so different than restrictions and rules errata you would encounter for things like 40k tournies

    • Mike Linke

      I can agree that engaged models should not be able to shoot. And I can see why this is part of a comp document as it has a huge impact on action economy.

      I don’t see why every document needs to start by banning unengaged models shooting into combat. I can agree that banning it is safer than working out a complex random allocation system. But I don’t think it has anything to do with comp I’m just surprised that every idea starts with it.

      • there is in the document actually an alternate rule we are testing where half of the hits get allocated to your own unit and the other half the target unit if firing into combat.

        • Mike Linke

          The problem with allocating half the hits on your own guys is that it reverses the logic regarding which combats you’d want to fire into. Realistically, you want to fire into melee where your own force is outnumbered, because if the arrow hits a random target it will probably hit the enemy. If we just allocate half the hits to our own models, then a player will only want to fire into combats where he is winning.

          Random allocation is the most logical method, but the slowing effect it had on play might be too great.

          • The problem with any rule is that no matter what the rule, one can find a legit argument against it, no matter how tight it is.

            Firing into combat with no penalties at all is

            * brainless. It makes missile troops that much more better to the point that as demonstrated in our playtesting – why would anyone take melee only? They weren’t, they were going majority shooting because the utility was just that much more greater.

            * nonsensical. If I drop a mortar round on a combat, why are only your guys getting hit?

            As to the slow down – its as easy as saying half these attacks are on my guys half are on yours. There really is no real slow down.

            It makes shooting into combat have downsides instead of the obvious to use and take that it was during playtesting.

            Shooting into combat should be a drastic thing, not par for the course. IMO. Everyone is free to disagree and I realize that my ruleset is not going to be the world standard so that’s ok with me.

          • Mike Linke

            What about this:

            Firing into melee works as described in the Age of Sigmar rules, with the caveat that only unengaged models can shoot. However during the battleshock phase, wounds caused to the opponents models also count against each unit owned by the firer that is engaged with the targetted unit. This covers both the psychological effect of having your own comrades firing arrows into your melee, as well as making the situation dangerous for both sides.

          • If I ‘m a dwarf player I would embrace that change, because I have abilities that make most of my army immune to battleshock anyway so I would just freely be firing away while playing with my magnificent beard and raising a mug of ale to my expert sharpshooters that were drilling all of the enemy without scratching their buddies that were engaged in mortal combat with them 😉

  • AircoolUK

    I like AoS. I like that there’s new fluff and its obviously been designed to be expanded upon. They can advance the storyline in any direction, and we get to play those scenario’s that go with it.

    I did feel for all those players who were hoping to get a (truly) competitive game, but I’m tired of hearing them complain now, so could you please just f**k off back to Deadhammer and let the rest of us enjoy stuff posted on here?

    • el_tigre

      The irony being that 10 years from now there’ll probably be a small but still active “Deadhammer” community. AoS? I doubt I’ll remember enough about it to make a joke as clever as Deadhammer.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Deadhammer is dead. You and your buddy may play in your basement but 10 years from now, it won’t be seen any where.

        Remember all those people who hated 8th edition and said they would stick with 7th? Where are they now? There were hordes of them now there are none.

      • thornoo1

        I prefer the term: Droppedhammer. Because it hurt so much when it landed.

    • Gridloc

      Why leave? Its been amazing how hard it is for you guys to enjoy your game. And when people bad mouth it, it seems to upset the current AoS players. Thats rage you feel, thats what a lot of us felt when this was given instead of 9th. So naturally people want to share the misery – as misery loves company (why you never see a lone fly on a fly trap, the one stuck fools his friends to try the sugary trap).

  • AircoolUK

    Ok, let’s be honest here. Most of the people complaining about practically every aspect of the game haven’t really played the game much have they?

    Summoning a unit of 10 Bloodletters isn’t really a big deal as they can be wiped out with a few units of peasant archers (or better). Or you could just summon a unit of whatever your wizard can summon to hold them off.

    Of course, the wizard actually has to get the spell working in the first place, y’know, (approx 72% success), and hopefully another wizard won’t unbind it. So getting a summoned unit on the table isn’t as simple as snapping your fingers.

    Hopefully the enemy isn’t forcing your wizard to cast defensive spells, otherwise you might find summoning 10 Bloodletters a pretty silly tactic when there’s more important stuff for your wizard to be doing.

    C’mon guys… at least play the game long enough to understand the underlying fundamentals of the game. There’s an absolute ton of stuff going on that ‘should’ make you realise that being able to summon a unit of Bloodletters isn’t going to be an instawin unless you’re in a damned good position in the first place.

    • false-emperor


      • Firefly

        Nagash is Nagash, though.

        • Brian Griffith

          Exactly. Nagash is of a class intended to be checked by other End Times dudes. You’ll be wanting to throw the Glottkin up against him, or Thanquol and Boneripper. That sort of thing.

          • el_tigre

            “Intended”? I like your optimism buddy.

      • COsteve

        I very much like that these suggested rules pretty much limit Nagash to Apocalypse-level battles and keep him out of skirmish. It didn’t make sense that he just happened to decide to join a patrol or something one day.

        • Yeah thats the idea. Though I’m wanting to open up special scenarios where it may be a 10 point game and nagash is part of that but that would be a special scenario.

    • Firefly

      But it’s so much easier to ridicule from afar and make up rules that fit my playstyle. :/

    • rrooster1977

      “Most of the people complaining about every aspect of the game haven’t really played the game much have they” Wow that’s funny. This is pretty much the same thing I’ve been saying to rabid GW fanboys about Kings Of War for 3 years now. Oh the irony.

  • Michael Gerardi

    I like this system. I hope it works out and is widely adopted. With a few further tweaks, it might even convince me to rethink AoS. Good job Auticus!

    • Dave

      I second that…..great job!

    • Thank you

  • false-emperor

    Has anyone addressed the size difference of the new models compared to a Terminator?
    Has the SCALE actually changed?
    Is this the future?

    I wish them luck, but good luck with start up games using the same AoS “House Rules,” as the 40k community cannot even agree on a set of rules house rules, and 40k has several very large tournaments, clubs, and groups, and is 100 times more popular than WHFB “was,” AoS will be obliterated in an explosion, just as the old world was.

    • Brian Griffith

      The scale hasn’t changed. Stormcast Eternals aren’t human, strictly speaking.

      Likewise the Khorne warriors in the set are superhuman in the same sense that Chaos Warriors always have been. Reapin’ skulls gets you pretty swole.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Getting jacked, getting ripped, getting awesome! #BloodForTheBloodGod

      • false-emperor


        • Brian Griffith

          Yeah, just you’re still dealing with apples and oranges. A lot of stuff has been shown to be just straight up rebased and tossed into Age of Sigmar. All the Wood Elf nature spirit stuff is going in as-is, Giants (now Gargants) are going in under the same scale, etc. Heck with the Gargants we’ve seen that they’re doing new models to match the existing kit and provide more options, as you can now field them en masse.

          So all evidence is kind of pointing to Stormcast Eternals just being… beefy. They’re likely more akin to Custodes than Space Marines (and wouldn’t make a half bad conversion base for such).

  • Venthrac

    Can’t take this seriously when they house rule away the shooting rules.

    • Firefly


      • No – its not too powerful. It would just mean pricing the missile units 1 point higher which if there was an overwhelming desire to do I would have no problem doing.

        My replies on this subject to you are down below displaying the math and my reasoning in detail.

        When costing units I don’t see how quarrelers vs dwarf warriors are disingenuous. They are both costed the same right now and the math shows you how quarrelers are mathematically superior in every way if you let them also shoot in combat.

        At the end of the day you aren’t going to use this anyway so i don’t see why it matters that much to you.

    • I hope you find something else that you can take seriously then. Good luck and good gaming.

      • Venthrac

        Why not design a comp system that works with the rules as they’re written? As you said in the design notes, if units can shoot into combat and fire while engaged, they should be worth more. You solved it right there – make them worth more. But instead, you rewrote the shooting rules. I respect the work you did, but you aren’t playing Age of Sigmar here, you’re playing a variant. This comp system does not work for those of us who want to play the game properly.

        I apologize if my remarks come across as harsh, that’s not my intent. You’ve done good work here, it’s a good start and is appreciated.

        • The issue I have is that even pointed right – our group was gravitating towards the majority or total composition of their army being missile troops and that just doesn’t “feel right”.

          However we are moving the half attacks into combat go to your own side optional rule to try that, and it may make the final version instead (so if you shoot into combat, half the hits go to your own side half to your opponents)

          Think of a giant mortar landing on a combat – it doesn’t make sense to only hit the enemy with that.

          I appreciate your feedback sir.

          • Firefly

            When applied to Warhammer, “doesn’t make sense” doesn’t make sense.

          • True but for the purposes of the campaigns that I run and the people I run them for, “doesn’t make sense” means “not going to play it”

          • Venthrac

            Like the classic scene from Braveheart.

            Longshanks: Archers.

            English Commander: I beg pardon, sire. Won’t we hit our own troops?

            Longshanks: Yes… but we’ll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack.

            What I’d be inclined to do, if I were to adapt your design for a game that used the stndard AoS shooting rules, would be make missile units a bit more expensive than standard infantry. For example, as a Bret player, I would not object to Peasant Bowmen being 1 for 8 instead of 1 for 10 as the Men-at-Arms are. That’s just off the top of my head, mind you. Little tweaks like that could make AzyrComp work well with the default rules, I think.

          • That I think is also a valid path. The reason I am not going with that at this time is that it breaks the “realism barrier” which a lot of the guys that play in our campaigns would not like. Dropping a giant mortar shot into combat should hurt both sides.

            But I think if missile troops and warmachines that shot came up +1 point that that would also be valid. I may put that as an optional rule in the core packet.

          • Venthrac

            Totally feel you there. I admit, seeing the totally unrestricted shooting rules was a surprise for me as well.

  • Sean Parker

    Sad that the competitive mindset has infected the Miniatures Wargaming hobby so thoroughly that they have to add it back into a game that is trying so hard to move the hobby back to a “fun game between friends”…

    If you want a balanced system geared for competitive play, just play Chess… That’s what you are looking for anyway…

    • Firefly

      What kills me is that the game isn’t even two weeks old and it’s being comped as though most players understand it inside and out.

      • I’m sorry that that kills you.

    • Manxol Adria

      You can play a “fun game between friends” from a competitive game. Just play as you want, a competitive set doesn’t afect your beers and chips game.

      The problem is it doesn’t work otherside. So, in the end, a way to play a game has been removed. And I find so mean the huge amount of people finding it right

    • You can’t do public events without boundaries. I don’t really care about tournaments or competitive mindsets. What I care about is being able to continue hosting public campaigns and unless I enjoy playing with myself in my garage, I can’t get strangers to show up to an event and say “just throw down whatcha feel like!” because no one is going to sign up for that event.

  • Firefly

    I read through the PDF and couldn’t help but to think, “This isn’t even AoS.”

    • Yeah when I added the campaign rule forests block line of sight I was also told by a couple guys that “this isn’t WHFB now”.

      When we added the no spam rule in 40k they also said “this isn’t 40k now”.

      For those that don’t like it they simply won’t use it and I’m ok with that.

  • Marek Franciszek Raczyński

    Looks cool 🙂 worth trying. But what about new armies – they are not covered with this document?

    • the only new armies right now are the starter box and I’m waiting on the book this weekend to add those to the document.

  • wibbling

    What’s the point? It’s a game, not supposed to be ‘competitive’, just fun. Have you tried actually just having fun? If you want to compete, do so at something that doesn’t involve random chance.

    • This comp packet design has nothing to do with competing or caring about tournaments though those events could feasibly use it if they desired.

  • Syrenjester

    Warhammer Fantasy didn’t do well, bottom line. So why would they target those exact same people again. With this new system at least there is a chance of something different. If you think it is so terrible there is this option called…ummm…oh yeah not playing IT!

    • yeah i could also set fire to my model collection but I’m not doing that. I want to continue using my model collection so that leaves me with a few options:

      1) keep playing 8th. The dead game that we know from history means in a year from now finding games of it will be rough.

      2) play kings of war. Tried it. Couldn’t get into it.

      3) play Age of Sigmar. Out of the box – no.

      4) there are no other alternatives other than just play a completely different game so bin my models.

      So that means tweaking the rules so that I like it, and then proposing it to my play group – which I have done.

      Not liking it so don’t play it is not an option. This rigid code of law that says “thou shalt never mess with the Rules as Written” is not one I’ve ever applied in my life.

      • MPSwift

        While, personally, I disagree that AoS needs a comp system if it keeps you in the hobby and playing games, maintains or even expands your gaming group and brings you more enjoyment from the game then go for it!

        End of the day some of the best scenarios I’ve ever played in have had homebrew rules or limitations on units forcing you to adapt and it’s possible that once the full rules for scenarios drops this weekend it’ll cover off a lot of your concerns but if not, go for it. You seem to be catching a lot of flak for putting the time into doing this and sharing it but much like any set of comp/homebrew rules people don’t have to use them but it’s nice to give them the option.

        So, in short, while I don’t feel the game needs this comp system the fact you’ve put time into doing it and your gaming group is enjoying it is all that really matters.

        Also, on your last point about not messing with the rules; is it just me or have GW always encouraged people to play around with rulesets and generate their own scenarios, characters, campaigns etc?!?!

        • To your last point – exactly. They said that with Age of Sigmar as well – that it was a loose framework to do with as you wanted.

          So in the interest of helping to maintain my community’s interest (along with another local group that has made their own version) I and a few others did so.

          • MPSwift

            And good on you for it 🙂 I hope it works out for you guys!

            I’ve saved a copy of the rules pack, going to play a few more games in “out of box” mode and see if I still feel the same way. If not, I’ll give your alterations a crack!

          • appreciate it. Yeah I ran six games on opening weekend out of the box, and we have a very vibrant fantasy community and I watched that all come to a screeching halt that weekend and it bothered me (the possibility of losing what we had built)

            It could be the new scenarios this weekend help too, I know I am looking forward to reading them.

          • MPSwift

            Same here, I think they’ll give a much greater idea of what the game as a whole is supposed to be. I can’t wait to see the new armies as they come out too – the Seraphon and the Aelfs in particular are interesting me.

          • Syrenjester

            The thing is this is the best way the company thinks things will go. You can try make it happy and do something about it, or you can sit on these articles flaming 24/7 where you won’t get heard. There is still so much still to happen so I don’t get why people flame before it comes out.

          • Syrenjester

            And Auticus I support what you have done I am not against you. You have done something about it which makes you enjoy the game.

  • Michael

    nice, simple, balanced rules – good job. People that are complaining about development of house rules…. c’mon -> in the “good old days” there are tournament event specific rules that are longer than this! An additional 3 (4 including optionals) pages of rules at large fonts that could easily compress onto a single page – well done guys

  • RJ Payne

    Hey guys, great post and solid comp, just a quick question: Are there plans to give the new Stormcast models pts values? here would be my suggestion:

    Lord Selescant On Demi Dragon Mount: 2 points

    Lord Selescant on foot: 1 point

    Lord Relictor: 1 point

    Liberators 1 for 5

    Retributors 2 for 5

    Prosecutors 2 for 5

    Judicators 2 for 5


    • Once I get the book this weekend I plan on adding the new stuff as well.


      • RJ Payne

        Awesome thanks 🙂

        • make sure you check out the BOLS lounge discussion as well so you know when the document has been updated.

  • Clarence Harrison

    Nice work, Auticus. Since you asked for feedback, I think the Lichemaster should be 2 points. I realize with a low point system there will be some overlap, especially on characters, but he has a shed load of abilities beyond the ‘normal’ necromancer. I used Kemmler in a game last week and was pleasantly surprised to find out how powerful he was (and rightly so)!

    • Cool I’ll look at him. Right now the base point values are general.

      Would you say that Kemmler is therefore on par with a demon prince (who is a 2 point model)?

      • Clarence Harrison

        Haven’t used a demon prince yet, but Kemmler get two spells per turn, the chaos tomb blade, the innate ability to mirror your look out sir rule even in close combat, +1 to dispel, the Invigorate spell, and the Cloak of Mists and Shadows (which gives him a 2d6 move at the start of the Hero phase which is really powerful for extending the range of his spells).

        • Cool – you’re right that is a lot better than a necromancer he may warrant the two points. Thanks for the update and feedback Clarence.

  • A new version of the file has been uploaded with several changes, to include how heroes are included (after much discussion back and forth) as well as shooting into combat being the default.