Azyr Comp Age of Sigmar Download is Available!

azyr comp

Age of Sigmar is a “no-frills” ruleset – by design.  But one group of gamers have put up a comp system for download.  Go grab it!

PCBuilder1

The Azyr Comp system is now available in a downloadable program that includes all the unit points, and warscrolls. It allows players to:

– Build lists with the points system enabled or disabled.

– Choose to enable or disable the visible warscrolls.

– Save and print your lists.

 

Building a points-based Age of Sigmar List is easier than ever!

PCBuilder2

Azyr Composition List Builder (PC Download)

 

Here’s the underlying philosophy on the comp system: Take it away Auticus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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?

  • Matthew

    I am actually starting to see the genius of AoS design philosophy. Let someone else design/maintain any competitive environments for free.

    GW can release any model it wants and the die hards are the ones who have to figure out the balancing in the aftermath.

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah… except this never works… I mean I guess GW may have fired all their game designers which makes this a necessity, but there are a ton of good gaming systems out there which are fun to play for both competitives and non-competitives.

      It also completely removes the ability for GW to push certain models in a line by making them “OP” in version 2. Any group publishing these rules also have limited resources to modify, FAQ and maintain them, eventually forgotten as a once-was gaming system…

      • durkheim

        Not to mention it also fractures the community.

        • wibbling

          Not really. Those playing games and having fun will leave the half witted ‘competitive’ win at all costs ego on the table nits behind.

          • ZeeLobby

            What it does do is make pickup games non-existant, which are a part of the hobby I enjoyed.

          • Dan Wilson

            I played two games in the space of 45 minutes this evening. One hero and one unit of basic troops. If that’s not a “pick up” game I don’t know what is. Simple, easy to get into, especially for beginners, doesn’t take long so parents are less likely to get frustrated waiting around. Previously with 8th Edition it would have taken me 30mins just to set up my army (lots of skeletons and zombies) and 2 hours just to get to turn 4 in a 1500pt game. This is sooooo much more “pick up and go” than 8th.

          • yes, but If I spent weeks building and painting 100+ models, I don’t want to just play with 1 hero and 1 unit

          • Dan Wilson

            Paint up 1 hero and one core unit first, out of your hundreds of models, and paint your models up as you grow your army, as you play games and get a deeper feeling for the nuances of it, playing slightly bigger games each time as you finish painting up parts of your army. By the time you reach 100+ models you’ll naturally have a better feel of which units are stronger/weaker against what, and how to balance your force out against your opponents.

          • The point is for the pick up game, when I show up with all of this already painted from years in the hobby, I don’t want all that time investment to be just 1 hero and 10 models. I’d just play blood bowl, a FAR FAR SUPERIOR game to AoS or 40k or nearly anything, if I just wanted 11 models on the board…

          • Sid Singh

            How does it make pick up games nonexistent? I never understood this thinking. You bring your case of miniatures. The other guys at a shop have their miniatures. You both talk for 5 to 10 minutes on what miniatures you are both using. Then you play the game. Seriously, how hard is it to talk to another person to decide the parameters of a game?

          • ZeeLobby

            Player A thinks 20 goblins = 10 skeletons. Player B thinks 10 goblins is fair. Solve that equation with no balance indicators. Now do it for 10 diff units. Now realize that I had to take a bus to get here and could only fit 5 goblins in my case. It’s easy to walk in a game store with 2K pts of 40K and pick up a game, without even having go discuss anything. I can even decide on a list prior to going purely dependent on which store it is and whether regulars are fluffers/beatface. I’ll have a good time. AoS does not offer that same ability. At least not without agreeing to some store comp and then hoping the next store over does the same…

          • Gridloc

            Those who leave others at the table is pretty much saying dividing the community.

          • Aezeal

            wanting a guide to have a fair game is actually completely opposite of WAAC. WAAC you would just bring your 5 dragons against the newb. Foolish reply.

          • Muninwing

            i’m not a fan of the overcompetitive jerkfaces who play power-lists to try to win via advantages instead of via playing the game.

            i honestly think that such a style of play or attitude toward the game is disrespectful toward your opponent if it is not the kind of game agreed upon.

            that being said, isolating those players and insulting them is not cool either. it makes you as bad as them.

            you can also be competitive and not be WAAC. and you can be good without being either. i’ve won a crapton more than i’ve lost with all the armies i currently play, but that’s largely due to the armies i learned on and the huge volume of games i have played (for a few months, i was getting 3-5 games a week in, and it’s much easier to learn from mistakes and get better when it’s so close together.

            your constant sniping doesn’t help. and it doesn’t prove anything past that you like to troll.

          • jeff white

            umm, actually, i hate ‘competitive’ 40k but also have no love for thin-minded card games with miniatures for proxies.

      • Necroknight

        did they fire the game designers before or after creating age of sigmar?

        • V10_Rob

          Trick question, they never had any on the payroll in the first place.

          • MikeHollstrom

            All is dust!

    • Oggthrok

      I agree, and I think that might be a good thing. As a 40k player, we’re kind of stuck with what GW says. If they say a Gorkanaut costs more than a Wraithknight, I’m stuck with a model I love that can’t hold its own against an even number of points.

      In a community based balancing system that would never happen – over or under priced units could be voted on and their cost adjusted accordingly. This gives us a better game, while GW can focus on the part that we can’t do – make high quality plastic kits that fit into the background world.

      • ZeeLobby

        Or you know, GW could just balance their rules. Other companies have shown that this is possible. Now they expect us to spend $100s of dollars on their models AND balance their rules for them. I just can’t believe people are so OK with this.

        • Oggthrok

          Actually, and I agree, but I don’t think they can. I mean, having assembled the AoS Khorne troops I can say that their skill with plastic troops has become superb, and their product line remains one of the broadest, most evocative fantasy product lines I’ve ever seen.

          But, they cannot balance the rules – I’ve watched them try for decades, and every time they tighten one bolt, it just loosens something else, until increasingly they don’t try. Two years of GW play testing won’t find what two months of tournament play will instantly reveal – hence, I think leaving point balances in the hands of competition loving fans is the way to go, leaving the more casual crowd to enjoy the game as written, or feel good that people who are more into it than themselves endorse a rule system like the ITC imposes on their tournament games, or Azyr seems to offer for AoS.

          • ZeeLobby

            Except they REALLY haven’t tried. There have been rules broken in the daemon codes for years with no fix. To say they’ve tried is laughable. Balancing the game would have impressed me. Simply FAQing things in a timely matter to answer community debates, or god forbid, fix broken mechanics, should just be expected…

          • xNickBaranx

            You can bang on about this forever, but no other “balanced” system has the diversity, or more accurately “the bloat” of the GW lines.

            We’re not working with closed systems either. Situational rules make certain choices fantastic in certain scenarios and garbage in others. New scenarios/in game objectives, new army list entries or books, etc. Ask any game designer if 40K, at it’s currently level of depth of options, whether it can be precision balanced down to every model and they will tell you “No.”

            Game designers discuss this all the time. Check out Jake Thornton’s blog, Quirkworthy as an example. But none of the highly competitive systems have the level of bloat that GW’s lines have and the ones that are starting to bloat have inferior options as well demonstrating that their balance is fracturing.

          • yep which is why I am not a fan of precision points systems. Once you go precision points, you basically neuter the desire to play anything but a small handful of core scenarios because outside of that “its not fair, my army isn’t balanced for that scenario” that I hear often when playing narrative games.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well so here was their chance to take 2 starter forces and balance them against each other. Via rules and stats. And they simply just didn’t. Also, I would argue that warmahordes has a pretty diverse model count and play styles, and while there are some more powerful combos then others, one can almost guarantee a fun game heading in. They at least fix what’s broken and attempt to rebalance. 2 things GW never did, even when factions were smaller…

          • Oggthrok

            Sounds like a fun game, I need to try Warmachine sometime; their starters are excellently priced and look good.

            Out of curiosity and in all seriousness, it sounds like GW has consistently failed to meet your expectations of good game design over time. Why do you still follow news on games like Age of Sigmar?

            I see lots of active posting from folks that can’t stand it, but I’m not sure what they’re getting out of it. Did you like the Fantasy game that was lost, and its cathartic to point out the new game’s obvious problems, or is it a desire to get out the word, or?

          • Gridloc

            I know wasn’t directed at me, but as obvious poster of ‘dislike’, its because GW is still big dog in the industry, which means that changes they make ripple to other systems.

          • ZeeLobby

            I’ve played fantasy since I was 10 (29 now). I loved that game. Still played it now. And still bought new armies. I was excited for AoS. I thought we’d best case get alternative rules for a skirmish version of fantasy, worst case we’d get just new rules that had well thought out mechanics, including fun mechanics found in other systems, and at least GWs normal attempt at balance.

            Instead we got relatively expensive tho cool looking models and absolutely no rules to play by. Honestly even if traditional fantasy had gone away, at least replacing it with a solid gaming system would have appeased the fantasy masses. Instead we got a mess. A good gaming system should be able to support narrative/competitive, gaming group/pickup, etc. And this does none of that very well. GW is the shark in the minnow pond, and I just expected a little more effort then that.

            I still follow AoS because I have this dream that GW might fix it. My hope is that dismal sales will convince them to revisit the rules, rather than trash it completely. I still play 40K because a few simple store rules make pickup games vs strangers at my local store possible. Definitely not true for AoS. Because of that I’ve started looking elsewhere sadly…

          • Oggthrok

            I can definitely sympathize there then, with the hope and expectation that something genuinely better, instead of just different, might have come of Sigmar.

            I guess I’m just so cynical, I didn’t expect much from them in game rules, and was just happy they weren’t released in a $150 slip case with two books I didn’t need. (Which they did get around to later, I just didn’t need it to play;)

            And, I’ve been through this with GW before – back in the 1990s they dropped Epic Space Marine, which had been the third game in the product line, and replaced it with a completely different rule system called Epic 40k that hit the fan base like ton of Sigmarite. GW was punished with poor sales, but we were punished right back when GW dropped the game completely, with some luke warm partial support through Specialist Games before that was done away with too.

            So, if AoS really does do badly sales wise, I feel like we’ll see the end of GW and Fantasy. But, I have this feeling… there’s so many good games by competitors out these days, and so much being done with licensing through FFG and games like Total War Warhammer, that I feel like we haven’t seen the end of Classic Fantasy, or even the Old World. I just think it won’t be GW bringing it to us. Here’s to that glorious day – until then, I am at least having fun seeing where the new game goes, and enjoying that I do have an entry-drug game to introduce people to, since it’s so simple it takes no time to explain to friends who normally won’t or don’t play wargames. 🙂

          • Gridloc

            So GW doesn’t like Fantasy sales, and instead starts new game. (they gave us our old models which was nice but stated eventually going to replace with new rules) why not just start fresh and get that balance instead of falling on a ‘its too hard’.

          • ZeeLobby

            Amen. In the end it was sheer laziness. That made me lose more respect for them than anything else. I’d pay higher prices and everything if it just even looked like they cared about the gameplay.

          • Muninwing

            there is a balance.

            on one hand, to achieve full balance, the amount of work is immense. every number needs the proverbial bolt tightening. every model and unit needs to be assessed and reassessed against a variety of opponents in order to see how exactly it fits into the grand scheme.

            on the other hand, that’s a problem for making a good system better. which is not where GW is in the state of things.

            it’s like improvement-driven scores. if you are new to archery, and you only hit the target one of every ten shots, then hitting the target two of every ten is improvement. 20% and it’s improvement. but if you’re good, and you are hitting at 90% in the center… that means to improve you need to get all ten in the center. and that’s far harder to learn how to do than to just aim in the general direction not terribly more than once in a set.

            a fully calibrated, balanced, perfected points-set is a theoretical end, but to undo the damage that many of the OP dexes and armybooks did to their games, it’s a matter of making them suck less for other people.

            back when the WHF daemons were doing stupid things, and the epidemius/fateweaver combo was a nasty thing, all GW needed to do was to bring back some old fluff — if a daemon unit was on the board from a different god, they have ld penalties (-1 for tangental, -2 or even -3 for in opposition). even if it’s your opponent’s unit. thus, instability would also be affected, but you could still do it if you really wanted. same with lash to bring an opponent unit into charge range with khorne troops.

            and it works well with the fluff.

            that’s not all.

            it’s not hard for FAQ-balancing to become a model for those who want to play current tournament rules. M:tG did that eventually, with rules outside the rulebook adopted early on (max 4 of any nonland, 1 of certain special cards, no ante cards, etc) by casual and tournament players alike. but they bother to pay attention to the playing of their game, and react accordingly… whereas GW claims they are “not a game company but a model company” and screw themselves by releasing control over their product.

        • Matthew

          Other companies have shown us balance is possible?

          Here is an article on Chess where it is discussed as unbalanced because white can go first:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

          What game(s) are you referring to?

          • ZeeLobby

            Clearly your vision is limited to black and white (har har). There’s no such thing as complete balance. It is possible to have a viable build that is competitive in each faction though. Something other games do very well (DZC, Warmahordes, Infinity, etc) that GW has never been able to accomplish.

    • wibbling

      No – only a fool would waste time trying to invent points values.

      There are no ‘points’ because it is a waste of time. You obviously haven’t grasped this: fairness isn’t enforced by metrics but by the players.

      • Gridloc

        there is no points because GW wants you to play ‘story mode’ and not ‘multiplayer’ mode with their games.

        • ZeeLobby

          There’s no points because it would take effort. They’d have to actually hire game designers. All their good ones left…

      • Muninwing

        this is like the “guns don’t kill people, people do” argument. it’s true on a technicality, but it leaves out the really important center.

        how do players understand fairness?

        what if you play against an army you don’t know?

        how can you gauge the relative value or effectiveness of a unit you are unsure of?

        ” fairness isn’t enforced by metrics but by the players” implies that you and your opponent are sitting down and hashing out an agreement based on apparent or believed value.

        this is exactly what a points metric does. only it saves you half an hour (or more if you don’t know the army well)

        it’s like you read one article that questioned the value of points as a balancing system, and adopted parts of it into your opinion without understanding refinement or providing an alternative.

      • Matthew

        My post mentions nothing of points, only balancing and competitive environments.

        So what is your “No” directed at?

  • latro990

    Folks should make their own system from the ground up… If it really is 4 page trash why are folks trying to fix it? Come together and make a better game for the models and the fluff!

    • I actually have a 10 page ruleset that I wrote that I plan on releasing but I will say that if I want to play a game, then releasing my own game will maybe get me a player or two and most likely I will play with myself in my garage.

      Modding AoS with Azyr means that I have many players willing to play because they are more accepting of an “official” system with mods than they are with my own ruleset I created.

      • ZeeLobby

        Def true, would be interested to see what you put together. The only frustration is then dealing with mechanic/rule changes GW will throw into the mix. Trust me, once they realize unit X sells better than Y, expect them to release a formation, or modify the warscroll so that Y is now the new power a year from now. It might drive you mad, but if you keep it up I’d appreciate it :D.

        • It is my intent to keep up with it for as long as people are interested in it and as long as I use it for campaigns 🙂

          If you follow me on twitter (@Auticus) I post updates to the system and pdf as well as when i post my own creation which will be on the website for free download.

          • ZeeLobby

            Consider yourself followed!

          • Thank you sir 🙂

      • Muninwing

        if i wasn’t sure we lived nowhere near each other, i’d volunteer to help you test it. it sounds like a lot of fun.

        is this the d10 based version you once mentioned here?

        • It is derived from that yes but i have evolved it a bit. It is a lot simpler now, and I borrowed from the parts of AoS I liked with other things I wanted to try like fatigue etc.

    • SwervinNinja

      They have, it’s called Kings of War.

      • false-emperor

        a million times this, and there are other companies as well.

    • Because they spent hundreds, if not thousands, on the models…

  • Nelson Martinez

    its great seeing how various segments of the community is continually trying to make AoS behave like all of the other games out there, and 8th for that matter.

    The other approach has been working for us at our local club. We comp nothing and let the scenarios, and scenery rules comp our games, so far with very satisfactory results.

    We are going to run our first tourney on 9/12/15 and see if our approach holds up in that environment as well.

    • ZeeLobby

      And that’s cool that scenarios allow this. The issue is that I doubt GW has worried about balancing their scenarios either. But maybe in the end we just end up with a “balanced” scenario pack, and a bunch of fun-runner throwaways.

    • I’m glad RAW has been working for you and your group. It wouldn’t work for mine, and the scenario rules with sudden death mean that playing narrative scenarios gets tossed out the window when you can just ignore it for sudden death victory conditions.

      Which one of our demon player highlights how busted it is by showing up with 2 models, always getting sudden death, and then chain summoning a larger army than you have in one or two turns.

      • Autumnlotus

        Something that I felt bad/amused by was when my Plaguebearers kept taking 1-2 damage a round, rolled 1s for battleshock, and actually multiplied 3x

        • yeah there are a lot of wonky rules in AoS like that.

          • Autumnlotus

            That’s for every daemon unit that makes it hilarious. Add in Twiceborn with 2-4 units of nurglings and watch your army turn into a swarm.

      • A few of the scenarios I played state sudden death rules are ignored. Also if your group isn’t enjoying AoS because RAW “forces” them to play like your daemon player then I’d say your gaming group has a few tools. The game is being rendered unplayable by your group because of a mindset not purely the rules on their own. We aren’t slaves to “just cause I can”.

        • Thats great and while you aren’t wrong, public events that we run don’t have any filters on people who play in ways that we may not approve of.

          As such we need rules to enforce that, otherwise our public events will have no players in them and everyone is back to playing in their garage. thats not what I want so… there are now comp rules that let public events continue without the majority of our players getting angry and setting fire to their armies on youtube while ranting.

          Nothing is forcing someone to play like the demon player above, but the rules let it happen. If we have no rules to stop it, who is anyone to tell him that he cannot do that? Where does that end? What other things should be frowned upon?

          Thats the point of rules. to say what you can and cannot do.

          • If not having comp rules, filters out all the players that would get angry and set fire to the army then I’m happy that not having comp rules makes sure I never play that type of person because clearly they are insane lol. But whatever, I’m not opposed to comp, I’m just opposed to playing people who have the Daemon players mindset comp or not. They have a lack of judgment if they have to be brought back from extremes with the letter of the law.

          • Not having comp rules means that any public event that I try to run will have next to nobody attending. Thats not worth my time in attempting.

            Public events are a lot different than playing with small groups of friends. Small groups of friends playing probably shouldn’t need any comp, they can just say “hey can you not do that please” and that handles that.

            There are many players that play by the letter of the law but are very competitive and do not process not trying what they perceive is their best to win at a game so long as they are following the rules. If the rules are bad, then you will have problems.

      • Dan Wilson

        And how many games has this guy had playing that style?

        • i’m not sure why that matters

          • Dan Wilson

            I hadn’t seen that the thrust of your group was public competitive play when I posted this. So as you’ve mentioned elsewhere, in a public competition, of course he can turn up and play like this and get through to the final. You could introduce a Wooden Spoon prize for cheesiest tactic and after a couple of times round winning that you might find him changing ways. There are also other tactics that can counter jerk playing like that. If he’s going to turn up with two models, then take Nagash, and summon the rest of your army on turn 1. Or alternatively take a single Carrion model, which stays off the board “flying high” until it strikes, and just don’t strike. He can’t win. You won’t either but it will be a stalemate and highlight the jerk attitude of his ways.

          • I don’t think the man is a jerk to be honest. He’s a player that is playing a game by the rules. Thats why I write rules for my events that curb that kind of thing.

            Also trying to shame players is often not the way to go, at least in my opinion. It doesn’t do anything but foster ill will from the player you’re trying to shame and it doesn’t stop that the rules can be abused, which causes other players to not play in the event regardless, so I rather take care of the issue at the source of the problem, which is the rule that is open to abuse.

      • Gillbilly

        I’m still wrapping my head around it but wouldn’t summoning make the sudden death null in void as your friend now has more models and is no longer outnumbered by 3:1?

        • Sudden Death per the rules is declared after the generals are nominated if one army has 1/3 more models than the other.

          Once the generals are declared, the player with 2 models declare Sudden Death. Then the game begins and on his turn he begins chain summoning and can (and often does) outnumber his opponent afterward.

          Nothing as far as I can see cancels sudden death once you obtain more models.

          • Gillbilly

            Hmmmm…. Well then i suppose that’s how i would house rule it. I wish we could get some clarity from GW

  • Mike Linke

    You say that shooting in and out of combat needed to be removed in order to make ranged units fair.

    I’d be much more interested in seeing the rules left intact and have units costed appropriately. Maybe an archer is supposed to cost more points than a melee only model. Maybe teaching your wizard a summoning spell should cost points.

    That said, how would you adjust costs for ranged units in the context of the rules as written?

    And if the caveat were added that you needed to pay a flat points tax to teach a wizard a summoning spell, how would you price those spells?

    • Mike Linke

      I think allowing the rules to stand as written, while adding army comp limits to suit them is a superior approach to adding army comp limits AND changing the rules of the game.

      • Thats fine – these are written for the campaigns that I run. There are a lot of folks using this that are just not using the extra rules and that works too.

    • ZeeLobby

      k, you swing your sword at me, and shoot your bow, at the same time, while i cleave at you with my axe… I’m sorry, but the shooting in combat is a silly AoS rule. I’m OK with it for certain units, like duel-weilding pistoliers, but for many units it just doesn’t make sense to get both…

    • Our rules let you shoot into combat. The points took that into effect. I didn’t want to mess too much with the core rules as written.

      The half and half comes into play when units shoot into a combat that they themselves are not in.

      • Mike Linke

        The reason I’d be apt to allow shooting into and out of combat as written is because it’s precedented in other systems. I recently watched a Kings of War game and found that that system allowed pretty much the same thing. In Kings of War, there’s no such thing as locked in combat, because you always bounce out of combat at the end of the turn.

        The difference between AoS allowing you to freely shoot regardless of either the attacker or target being engaged, and KoW allowing you to freely shoot because nobody is ever engaged, is semantic.

        • Shooting into a combat that is engaged where only the enemy gets hurt is very immersion breaking to me, which is why it goes half and half the way it does.

          • TweetleBeetle

            It’s very limited already though, because you can’t shoot through models anyway.

          • Right but you can have archers on hills or mortars lobbing blasts into combat etc.

    • AircoolUK

      I suppose you could limit shooting in melee to those models who aren’t in their melee weapon range but are still in a unit engaged in melee.

      Obviously that approach isn’t RAW, but it does make a little more sense.

  • BLOOD4TEHBLOODGOD

    God I love people like these guys! I kind of wish the community could create a balanced system for 40k in a similar way, but I guess adopting such a thing on a large scale is the hard part.

    • if 40k goes the way of AoS believe me – I will have this for 40k too 🙂

      • TweetleBeetle

        40k won’t go this way.

        • Gridloc

          Well sales will determine that, nothing we say on the internet will as proven with fantasy -> AoS

  • wibbling

    And lo! They completely miss the point. Next some fool will complain about ‘balance’, then ‘points’ then fairness and someone, somewhere will whine about list building and you’re back to square 1, not having fun and just arguing in your echo chamber.

    Field what you like. Enjoy the game. Have fun. Try it.

    • Basically it comes down to this…

      When AoS was released, our campaign group was about 25-30 people strong. Playing it without points where you can bring whatever you want, bypass narrative scenarios with sudden death, etc… would have reduced that group to about 4 people.

      Playing with points has kept the group at about 14 people.

      So playing the field what you like with the group that I play with anyway would have turned into play with yourself in your garage.

      • TweetleBeetle

        Funny. Our campaign community keeps growing to where we had to launch a second “flight”, and then a third sub-campaign. We simply play by Wounds, with some restrictions on heroes, and follow the scenarios.

        It’s actually pretty hard to make it imbalanced. If you truly do the “bring whatever you want,” most people agree on some things before starting. NO ONE shows up with Nagash + 100 wounds of stuff and tries to pressure someone with only 10 Goblins to play. Those lopsided scenarios never happen, despite Internet “What if?” cries, and the majority of people aren’t dick heads.

        • I guess for me, I won’t play AoS out of the box. I played a dozen or so games and really really i like a lot of it but there are “killers” in the core rules that make me not want to touch it if i can’t house rule it.

          #1 – i like games knowing how big they are going to be. I don’t like games where we just deploy units until we feel like stopping.

          #2 – summoning out of the box is flat broken to me. The ability to chain summon as many models as you can in a turn destroys the experience for me.

          #3 – I like narrative scenarios. I don’t want to spend a lot of time making terrain and scenarios for someone to just show up and say “sorry we’re doing sudden death instead because I chose to bring 10 high powered models and you outnumber me by 1/3 now lolz.” Saw that a LOT in the first weeks of July with this system. We have a demon player that shows up with 2 models, claims sudden death and then chain summons a few dozen models onto the table in a couple of turns.

          #4 – I like structure. Playing by wounds as the balancing metric we tried… that failed hard. There are models blatantly better than others with the same number of wounds.

          #5 – I run public events open to the public. You need structure for those to work.

        • Nelson Martinez

          same here. actually.
          for every player that dropped we’re averaging about 2 new (or old timers) who have returned. Mostly because of the ability to field a goodly amount of cool minis.

          one thing we have noticed, is that if AoS was an attempt by GW at somehow being able to own or have a better lock on IP, that what it has done for many in our group is open up the ability to play with lots more miniatures from other manufacturers. That’s an aside, but an interesting reality fir us any way.

    • Gridloc

      Field what you like, then you say, if they don’t like it they won’t play you. So which is it? It sounds like the game comes down to the lowest denominator, either you both keep reducing till its where you want it, and someone may not get to play what he ‘likes’ but atleast he plays. Or he just doesn’t play…. Great system…

    • Nelson Martinez

      That’s what we’ve been doing, and tried a while ago trying to make AoS 9th edition.

      To each his own, but in our opinion this is a fresh way to play a game. For the first time in years I’ve been motivated to play with dozens of models in my WoC army that never got beyond being unboxed out of curiosity at how cool the model is .

      We have players returning because they can suddenly play with their (now) dusty, and large collections.

      We continually use nothing but the scenarios.

      We do however have 1 comp. Crap, there I’ve done it, and admitted we had to fix something!

      On the games that have no number of turns listed for duration we cap it at 8 turns.

      We let folks spam away!

      It is not all cheery obviously, but the haters have started playing other cool games which satisfied their thirst for points and perceived balance, like Infinity and SAGA (which I personally love).

      Looking forward to the new book this week.

  • Crablezworth

    I thought aos was met with wide acclaim larry, what happened?

  • Gridloc

    I have to say well done job on the work involved, now i ask why? All this energy to fix a game a month old? It only supports the company to continue this. Its like inventing a unique knife to cut out the rotten part of fruits from a grocery store, so you can continue buying rotten fruit instead of just going to another store with fresh fruit.

    • #1 – i like games knowing how big they are going to be. I don’t like games where we just deploy units until we feel like stopping.

      #2 – summoning out of the box is flat broken to me. The ability to chain summon as many models as you can in a turn destroys the experience for me.

      #3 – I like narrative scenarios. I don’t want to spend a lot of time making terrain and scenarios for someone to just show up and say “sorry we’re doing sudden death instead because I chose to bring 10 high powered models and you outnumber me by 1/3 now lolz.” Saw that a LOT in the first weeks of July with this system. We have a demon player that shows up with 2 models, claims sudden death and then chain summons a few dozen models onto the table in a couple of turns.

      #4 – I like structure. Playing by wounds as the balancing metric we tried… that failed hard. There are models blatantly better than others with the same number of wounds.

      #5 – I run public events open to the public. You need structure for those to work.

      To the second part – supporting the company – there is nothing on the market right now that even remotely interests me in terms of fantasy wargame.

      Kings of War doesn’t do it for me. Warthrone doesn’t do it for me. I can’t stand War machine. That leaves my warhammer models. Going off to just play xwing or armada or infinity or whatever doesn’t cut it since those aren’t fantasy.

      Now – I am writing my own ruleset but I know that that means i will be having fun playing with myself in my garage so that leaves supporting Age of Sigmar which with comp rules is actually fun.

      • Gridloc

        Valid points and believe its a well done job. I won’t argue on what you like, and can only apologize that I’m sorry that GW has created work for you to enjoy a game you love. I personally don’t see how i could support them until they do something like this to earn my support. So to each there own, and hope your campaign is filled with laughs and good stories 🙂

        • Well its either that or box up my armies and that would be a worse alternative to me 🙂

      • Sutr

        In regards with point 3 you realize you just win when you kill any 2 models don’t you?

      • Kenneth Portner

        “We have a demon player that shows up with 2 models, claims sudden death and then chain summons a few dozen models onto the table in a couple of turns.”

        Why do you continue playing someone so unsporting? What’s the fun of a guy doing the same thing every time?

        • because these are public events and he’s not breaking any rules. By the rules as written that’s a valid and legal tactic.

          • Kenneth Portner

            Well, that’s very generous. If the other guy was as polite as you apparently are it wouldn’t be a problem.

          • Yes the player I am referring to is a very nice guy.

  • Desmond Burke

    Will there be a Mac release?

    • Probably not. I am working on a web release though so you can build via the website.

  • Dukesofh

    Or you could just play the game as is? Websites and stores need to spend more time bringing new players in than catering to ones that will never spend any money!

    • or if you don’t like the game is – not play it as is. And those that like playing as is can play as is and those that like playing with this comp can play with this comp.

  • Kenneth Portner

    Nothing wrong with people coming up with their own rules or own ways of balancing things. I wonder if GW in fact expected or intended this instead of imposing its assessment of balance. That would in keeping with the whole approach to AoS it seems.

  • AircoolUK

    I don’t mind these sort of things, but I wish the f*****s would stop trying to make them look like an official GW release.

    As for the undying subject of points… just use the same system as you did in WHFB. The units are practically the same.

    • oh no… that is very very inaccurate.

      For example: Dark Riders are insane in AoS. They have 6 attacks on their turn, but are costed as the weaker unit they were in 8th.

  • Martin Jorra

    I didnt saw myself gettin into warhammer fantasy.. since aos i am. and i am happy with it right now. If someone comes for a visit, i tell em how the game is played and we play the game… if i want to play 40k i have to make an appointment with someone and take the day off because its more demanding and time consuming. it is more fun of course, however there are not so many opportunities to ply 40k than aos.. at least for me..

    oh and as soon my son knows how to read we´re on!!! not possible with 40k

  • Redgeran

    In some ways I’m actually glad GW isn’t responsible for balance. For one Auticus is doing a fantastic job at balancing the Azyr Comp.

    Secondly, GW is a business, and as a business its job is primarily to make a profit. It behooves GW to make imbalanced rules as that draws paychecks towards those uber new units they just released. A community attempting to balance a game doesn’t do it for profit, and so there is no need to create unbalanced units to turn a profit. Rather it does it for the fun and love of the game. It therefore behooves the community to create balanced armies to promote “fun” regardless of what units are being used. It may fracture the community a bit, but if enough people get behind one or two comps it really can work.

    The Epic Armageddon is a tried and true example of just how balanced
    armies can be when the community self regulates balance (and yes I am
    well aware that the game is OOP but that doesn’t negate my point). So
    yes while EA may not be supported anymore I still consider it to be one
    of the more sound gaming systems just for the above reasons.

    It would be nice to have GW balance their rules, but at the same time I wouldn’t count on that idea based on past codex histories.

  • Andy Meechan

    For those interested in following the various Comp threads, I fully recommend Brian ‘The Hobby Killer’ Carmichael’s blog. The reasons are many, but mainly covered in

    https://hobbykiller.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/comp-part-1/

    The Comp he has sketched out is covered in

    https://hobbykiller.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/comp-part-2/

  • UpsilonMan

    Cool! Needs a strap-line though 😉

    Azyr
    “Balancing AoS, because GW is unwilling or unable too…”

  • Muninwing

    scorint the usefulness of a model is hard, outside of statline mechanics… sometimes adding or subtracting a point based on relative effectiveness needs to happen. and in scenarios, this definitely gets borked quickly.

    the first round scenario of the first ‘ardboyz made all blasts scatter… and normally scattering ones scattered twice as far.

    i brought an armored company. 16 vehicles, almost half of which had blasts.

    so no… points don’t always measure ability.

    then again, i faced off against the old 3.5 chaos (nurgle) in that round, and the first shot of my round was a laser destroyer making a unit of 10 possessed into a fine red mist inside their exploded rhino. so it couldn’t have been that bad. i won, even if i missed every shot two rounds straight.

    there can be scenarios, though, that carry their own changes to comp scores. +1 point per model for one unit, but that unit is “scoring” or special in some way.

  • LordAK

    As I play more AoS. I find that points are not necessary for a fun pick up game. My last game was 96 (me) vs 130 wounds and was still so much fun.

    But things can easily turn tp the worst if one side has super characters and the other don’t. I would avoid super special Characters unless it was a pre-planned game.

  • Asmo

    Are you kidding me? This is one of the worst ones out right now… Just look at the point cost for some of the units it makes no sense.

    • That’s very constructive, thank you.

  • Sid Singh

    So, what makes Azyr Comp any more balanced than the myriad of other house ruled point systems?

    Generally, though this is one area that historical gamers tend to be right. Point systems are nothing more than an illusion of balance because it can never take into account any given players’ skill levels. Someone who has been playing for years is automatically at an advantage over a new player. Do comp systems handicap experienced players? Someone who spends 3-4 days playing versus someone who only plays once a month is at a greater advantage. What comp system balances for more free time?

    Point systems give players an illusion of balance and nothing more. Take for example the supposedly balanced Warmachine. Someone who has been playing since the game came out is inherently at a substantial advantage over someone who just started playing the game. Just because both players bring 35 pt armies, doesn’t mean the game is “fair.”

    • Thats fine. However if applying that philosophy to a public event, the public event likely won’t happen because few if any will bother showing up to play in it.