GW: New Age of Sigmar Rulebook Spotted!

Age of Sigmar Banner Crop 1

The New Age of Sigmar Rulebook has been seen in the wild – come see the latest game changing news!

First off we have this picture that’s making the rounds this morning, that seems to match up with what the podcasters are talking about. Good money is that it’s either a timed leak by GW or someone took some snaps on their visit to Nottingham recently.


via Scanner

generals handbook

via Bad Dice Podcast

In the show, in addition to talking about the fantastic time we had meeting Jervis Johnson and other members of the studio, and getting to play stet some of the ideas and scenarios in the book and we also release more information about the contents of the book.

First thing, it’s a book and will be release in the summer.

The Generals Handbook is an awesome new release from games workshop that includes 3 new ways to play Age of Sigmar including Open, Narrative and Matched play.

Open play is pretty much Age of Sigmar as we know it now, Narrative is story driven along the line of the realm gate wars books and the 3rd version is Matched play which includes a FULL POINTS SYSTEM for all Warscrolls in the Age of Sigmar.

Ben Curry (Bad Dice Podcast), Dan Heelan (Heelanhammer), Wayne Kemp and Russ Veal (Facehammer) were invited into games workshop to, and i quote, “Help make it great”
There are 5 new campaigns including path to glory,

  • 22 new battle plans from small games all the way up to epic battles between the games biggest characters.
  • 6 new ‘Pitched Battle’ scenarios
  • Multi-player and team play and of course,
  • full points values for every Warscroll in Age of Sigmar.

Listen to the full episode for more information

That is all a direct quote from the Bad Dice Podcast page – So go check them out and show them some love.

Do you remember the Warhammer General’s Compendium? Because this is sounding a LOT like that.

Wow! man oh man this is happening. Games Workshop is not only listening to the community , but actively involving them as well.

This also seems to line up with what anonymous sources have told Spikey Bits that the second organized play system (like Tank Shock) for the summer will be for Age of Sigmar, and not 40k.



Is GW “Bringing Fantasy Back”?

Join the discussion in the BoLS Lounge:

Age of Sigmar Points Value Roundup

  • My concern is that the points are in paper format. Meaning the tournament meta will be able to bust them as they are known to do and that the points cannot be adjusted easily.

    Other then that I’m glad to see summoning get knee capped and that other campaign systems are being introduced.

    • Adrien Fowl

      Something has/had to be done about summoning.

      • Nathaniel Wright

        Sure, but you won’t like it. Those are the gimmicks of the frail armies. The only way for summoning to be ‘fixed’ is to make it so that it’s less required for those particular armies to function.

        • I don’t see how the demons or undead are that frail to be honest that they *need* to chain summon to be viable. Their stat lines aren’t that bad.

          • Nathaniel Wright

            Playing slaanesh (HA HA SLAANESH PLAYER UR SQUATTED) against Sigmar dudes was like pulling teeth. He was killing me in -droves- and the only thing I could do was summon to stay in the game. When I got in close, I had to keep summoning to replenish my numbers, otherwise it was going to be over by turn three. It was disgusting.

          • kingcobra668

            slaanesh is in everything. that “joke” is tired and old, even if you’re trying to make fun of it yourself.

    • Randy Randalman

      The points will likely make their way into the app as well, which means they could be permeable.

      Narrative gaming will still exist, as GW clearly loves to do campaign supplements. Godbeasts could keep a community busy for months, for example.

      • I know it will exist, but whether it gets played depends on your community.

        My community has a storied past of disallowing the use of anything not found in the core scenarios or rules. IE – no city fight, no planetstrike, no storm of magic, etc.

        Its an uphill bloody battle to get any use out of those things here. If your community is open to these then its not an issue.

        But if your community will only play tourney scenarios and thats it, you lose the narrative aspect of the game (unless you’re ok with playing with yourself)

        • Ben_S

          So you never used Army Books?

          • I don’t understand the context of your question or how it pertains to my post.

          • kingcobra668

            army books are clearly not in the core rulebook nor are they scenarios. hence him asking if you use army books or not since you yourself just said your group only uses core rules and scenarios.
            mean what you say, and say what you mean.

          • thats kind of pedantic. Army books are implicitly considered to be part of the core rules. You’ll note that i didn’t say “core rulebook” I said “core rules”

            So i meant what i said and said what i meant.

          • Ben_S

            As far as I’m aware, army books have always been sold as supplements, but you wouldn’t have much of a game without them. If your community has always been happy with them, then you’re obviously happy to use core rules that aren’t in the core rulebook. So, implicitly consider this part of the core rules, and you have no problem.

          • And again – I never said “core rulebook”. I said “core rules”. Army books for the past 20 years up until this moment have always been implicitly a part of the core rules … until now where you are trying to say army books are not part of the core rules but are supplements instead.

            Or – arguing for the sake of arguing.

          • Ben_S

            I didn’t say they weren’t part of the core rules. I asked in order to establish that your notion of ‘core rules’ is not confined to the core rulebook. Fair enough. But, in that case, isn’t it up to you to decide what you count as core rules?

            I think your real worry is that most of the people in your local community are competitive gamers who will want to use a points mechanism if available, whereas you want to play narratively. It is indeed a problem if you can’t find like-minded gaming buddies. But that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with one of these options being ‘core rules’ and the other not.

          • Clarence Harrison

            … and the reason I usually stopped reading the comments… Ben, you know perfectly well what Auticus meant. He went out of his way to list examples. I call gratuitous dickery…

          • Ben_S

            Actually, I’m still none the wiser as to the point he was trying to make.

            He pointed out that his local community generally refused to use ‘non-core’ rules like Planetstrike. The obvious conclusion to draw from that is that they would also refuse to use a ‘non-core’ supplement adding points to AoS, in favour of playing it as originally intended.

            And yet Auticus’s worry seemed to be that he’d be forced to use points, rather than playing narrative games. If that’s the case, it’s because his local meta is full of competitive gamers, not because they refuse to use supplemental rules.

        • kingcobra668

          then you use your brains, think and talk it over, and adapt to the times. having ANY blanket judgment is silly and short sighted.

          • That still doesn’t invalidate that it depends on your community. If your community refuses to do anything but tournament scenarios, the choice you really have is “can I accept that i want to do narrative but no one wants to so i need to find something else, or give in and play tournament style if i want to get in a game”

          • Shawn

            I feel your paint Auticus. It’s the same here in my area. While I can get casual games with these guys, it’s always got to be “tournament format” – 1850 pts, ITC rules essentially. No one plays cities of death, death from the skies, or planet strike. It drives me insane. While the rpg folks they soak up every bit of supplement book they can to add to their home games.

    • Drpx

      It’s not a question of if it’ll get busted, just a matter of how badly.

      • oh i have no question that it will be busted. Thats the thing that bothers me. I hate having to face tournament meta lists over and over again and thats what happens when points don’t get fixed in a timely manner.

        • Havik110

          so play non pointed games and ignore the people that want to play with points…

          this isnt difficult

          • its difficult when you have no opponents that will do that.

          • Havik110

            that’s more GWs fault than anyone playing the game…I feel for anyone that likes AOS, but you cant constantly tell your players you are smarter then they are and not expect what happened…

            At least they havent been dumb enough to change 40k which i was waiting for…

          • …HOW is that GW’s fault?

          • Secundum

            Eh, the 10% of people that liked AoS don’t matter when compared to the 90% that loathed it.

    • My main concern is that it’ll be a bunch of arbitrary, imbalanced point assignments that don’t create a balanced environment and we’ll just end up with Age of 40k.

      I’m in a bad way. My community dropped GW like the plague. I have absolutely no one to play with. I love the idea of fun battles, but I acknowledge the need for some framework.

      If the framework sucks, I may never get to toss these beautiful models on the table. I’m buying Archaon today…..b/c he’s beautiful! Whether or not I get to play him…..

      • paddington

        Play 8th or 9th age, there’s loads of opponents and they’re better games by miles.

      • Marky Thirteen

        Or Kings of War?
        Archaeon would make an awesome Abyssal Champion on Abyssal Mount….
        Plus if you have Khorne daemons s you pretty much have the start of an Abyssal army….

      • Westdraygon

        That’s basically what terrifies me.

        I stopped playing 40k because it got too imbalanced, and the lack of points in AOS pulled me in.

        While I do think what GW are doing is a great move overall, I am all too aware of what points are like under GWs control. I don’t want this to become the clusterfuck (pardon my blue language) that 40k has become.

        Anyway, here is being hopeful.

      • minowaman

        It is already age of 40k. It has been since it was released. Other acceptable titles include diet 40k, 40k lite, and ” i can’t believe its not 40k!”

        • Archimedes

          Age of Skub

    • Erik Setzer

      What’s this about summoning? Something mentioned in the podcast? Only thing I’ve seen from G-Dub so far was an FAQ answer that confirmed you can summon models that you didn’t start the game with (pretty much the way summoning’s always worked in WFB and 40K).

      • One of the comments either on the fb or dakka mentioned something along the lines of balancing rules that include controlling summoning (etc). Take that for what its worth.

    • Frank Krifka

      it’s my understanding that SCGT is involved in coming up with the points valuation. This actually gives me more confidence that whatever valuations given will be given careful consideration to game breaking combos.

      • That is incorrect. I know this because I thought the same thing and was explicitly told by the AOS team AND by the SCGT team on their fb that that was incorrect.

        GW wrote the point system and let the SCGT team evaluate it.

        • Frank Krifka

          that’s a little less convenient, but it still gives me hope. Those guys have seen more AoS on a tournament scale than most anybody else out there. If anybody would have a list of stuff to watch out for balance wise, it would be them.

          But even still, the fact that they waited to point models, a points list which is supposedly given in the upcoming book release makes me think the values will have more direct connection to what players are looking for balance wise. This won’t be a case of points being based off how a unit “feels” on the tabletop (a comment made by, i think, Jervis is an interview a few years back) but values made after a year of players playing the game, combined with more tournament specific feedback.

          • We shall see. Some of the stuff I’ve read is that the stormcast are pointed a lot like space marines. Which means that they will be more expensive than normal guys but still less than their actual worth, meaning that it will be more efficient to run stormcast over anything else.

            No one has seen anything though that can talk about it so we will have to wait for july to see for ourselves. I’m interested to compare their results from Azyr’s formula results.

          • Frank Krifka

            Lol. Sigmarites pointed like space marines? Now there’s a big surprise….

            All joking aside, the cost to value ratio for one army doesn’t tell us very much. Especially when there’s some sort if force organized chart that can limit combo building. After all, liberators die to glade guard in close combat as easily as anything else without the old strength vs toughness mechanic of combat.

            While I’m always concerned about external balance vs other armies, I really hope there’s some effort to write some sort of internal balance. There nothing worse than seeing the same 4 units spammed endlessly because internal balance is off. Plus to will be really nice not to have some neckbeard ask “is a night goblin really equal to Nagash on the tabletop” another 40 million times….

            I imagine pointing models in AoS might be more complicated than in 8th edition since synergy is such an important factor in army construction.

    • wibbling

      The gamers wanting points always wanted to use them to twist the game. It isn’t about balance – no conflict ever has been symmetrical and points don’t guarantee a fair game or a ‘balanced’ one. Look at the Roman legions against Germanic tribes, England at Agincourt, Rommel and Patton, the battle of Britain. Heck, has no one ever wanted to re-create Zulu in 40K/Age of Sigmar? A Bridge too Far?

      A bit like exchanging 5 sprouts for one roast potato. It just isn’t a fair exchange.

      • DeadlyYellow

        “This game shouldn’t have a system to balance relative power among armies, because REAL PEOPLE DIDN’T DO IT,” always seems like a logical fallacy to me.

    • Secundum

      Everything you said can only be a good thing. People who like narrative gaming will still do it, but everyone else can play a proper game again.
      But yeah, summoning was just stupid. I play Tomb Kings and when I can summon a whole unit per turn for every Liche Priest I have? *Shakes head*

  • Il Produttore Signor Brandolin

    understandable move, first you get used to the new rules with a booklet for free , then when you get used to the game , I will sell ( at a price ) the real rulebook
    all very intelligent, unfortunately that AOS sucks as a game and is not selling anything

    OT: i want bretonnians back

    • zeek203

      Brettonians still exist, thanks to legacy warscrolls.

      • zemlod

        If you don’t mind paying ridiculously inflated ebay prices, sure…

        • bobrunnicles

          The point of the legacy warscrolls is to accommodate those who already dropped the cash on a Bretonnian (or Tomb Kings) army. If you are starting fresh and you are still planning on collecting specifically Bretonnians and specifically for Age of Sigmar then I would say you were an extreme masochist lol.

          • Aezeal

            And of my warhawk riders

          • bobrunnicles

            Well, obviously those yes, among a multitude of other figures they dropped (of which I have no small number myself!). My point was that if you were just starting with AoS, collecting a discontinued army is somewhat masochistic 🙂

      • Il Produttore Signor Brandolin

        Minis not rules

      • Beorthulf Gudmundsoetir

        Given that the Orcs and Ogres Kingdoms warscrolls are in the Last Chance to Buy, I think it won’t be long before the Brets’ is gone either :'(

        • MPSwift

          I would imagine they’re there because they’re releasing Grand Alliance: Destruction this weekend that contains the updated versions of those warscrolls…

    • Randy Randalman

      The “real” rulebook will cost about $25, for the record.

      AoS is also a ton of fun, but needed rules for organized play. Which is what this is.

      Now all three types of players have cheap options for getting into it.

    • nurglitch

      Some of us like AoS. I personally think a fun, enjoyable, accessible Fantasy game from GW is overdue after 5th WHFB. It’s kind of amusing to see PP cribbing rules from it, like CCW ranges.

      • Sparowl

        You got that backwards – PP has always had CCW ranges (0.5″ standard, 2″ reach, 4″ for special weapons). They are just now making it more granular in the new edition.

        GW picked it up long after PP had been using it.

        • nurglitch

          WHFB has had weapon ranges since at least 4th edition. Now they’re codified as actual distances rather than ‘ranks’ or whatever. And PP is doing this quite a while after the release of AoS. Not a bad thing or dick-waving. To be honest it’s weird that this isn’t done more in miniature gaming.

          • Sparowl

            I’m pretty certain my Dwarves all had a CCW range of “melee” or “Base to base”. Seeing as how you couldn’t attack someone outside of close combat, which required charging and reaching their base. I know from 5th to 8th, no one could be out of base to base and still swing a CCW on someone.

            PP started having CCW weapon ranges in their first edition. Which is over ten years old. I’m pretty sure that predates AoS.

          • Gridloc

            PP has been doing this for a while, and tons of games have picked this up, including AoS. Malifaux, WoK, & guildball to name a few have used range on weapons. 40k was base to base, and fantasy used base to base too but said ranks could fight which could be seen as a range but not in the sense that PP did.

    • Dennis Finan Jr

      Then go ? Lol.

    • Dan Wilson

      Points for brettonians and tomb kings are in the generals handbook.

      • Il Produttore Signor Brandolin

        minis, not rules

    • surfpenguin

      As Ive said in the past: Pop down to the historical side of the hobby and rake a look at the medieval section. Lookit that! Models perfect for Beettonians, and at a lower price, too!

      • Il Produttore Signor Brandolin

        i don’t know they seem to not match with my small bret collection

    • RS TROUT

      For the Lady! And aos, even with points, is trash. Like wtf counts as the model for attacks and moves. It’s dumb really. I just want whfb 9th edition with all the old armies and no sigmarines.

  • Damistar

    I’m glad to see them doing this. I know many players who require the crutch of points to play these games and have refused to even look at AoS because of it. Hopefully this will satisfy that crowd, but I suspect that it will only give them something new to complain about (Stupid Sigmarines are so OP for their points!, My is useless because it costs too much!)

    • Slite

      Crutch? The points system is not a crutch for players. The purpose of points is to balance a game properly. In the current game you can take multiple of an individual unit, such as the Celestant Prime. Now, with points, it may be less advantageous to take multiple Celestant Primes.

      Imagine in a game, you were playing a Skaven opponent. The opponent decides that she wants to drop a unit of 20 slaves and take a unit of 20 stormvermin instead. If you’re playing by wounds, that is a perfect substitution, no problem. If you are playing by model count, its fine. If you’re playing by an agreement of “Is this okay?”, then it probably wouldn’t be an okay swap.

      The reason its not an okay swap is because the stormvermin are clearly superior to the slaves. But at what point is the swap okay? 30 slaves to 20 Stormvermin? 40 to 20? 50 to 20? Until you deem it “Balanced” it never will be. That is the purpose of points, to give an artificial balance system that everyone can agree on.

      If I said 30 slaves to 20 vermin is okay, and so does my opponent, how will the next opponent react? Will he say its not an acceptable swap? Who is right? Who is wrong?

      Points are not a crutch. They are there to help a game make sense, universally.

    • Damon Sherman

      the point about points is that’s the closest we’ll get to a measurable standard in a wargame.

    • Nathaniel Wright

      I don’t imagine the armor boys are going to be very cheap… I’m figuring they’ll be pointed similarly to Grey knights. That toughness, that armor? Yeah, there’s no way they aren’t going to be considered an ‘elite’ force.

      • i’m betting they aren’t pointed correctly. Like space marines, they’ll be more expensive than normal guys but not expensive enough to warrant their abilities and thus very “cost efficient” compared to other things. Thats my guess.

    • JJ

      Lol can we get off the “Poking at people who wanted points” bandwagon? Look it’s not that I personally need points, its that my community sees no restrictions “points/TO&E as exactly that.. 10 dragons please lol. Guess what? I don’t want to play that.

      I know that Points are not the perfect method of balancing a system, but they are a start.

      Just because something isn’t perfect doesn’t mean that it has no value, or that we should give up completely. (which is what i feel AOS is..”we can’t properly balance a game system.. You know what! let’s not even try that way we can say any balance problems are the players fault!”

      • Damistar

        It would appear that I am misunderstood. I am not against the idea of points and I understand how they can be used to “balance” a game. My point is that you can play a game that’s fair and balanced just by talking to your opponent and doing a little planning on what kind of game you’re going to play. Points are useful for going in blind, like a tournament or a random pick up game, but are not inherently necessary.

        • Severius_Tolluck

          According to the internet, these days nearly 90% are all pick up and go games with strangers!

          • WellSpokenMan

            Regardless of what game I play, the only way I will know my opponent is if I met him playing a pick up game or tournament game in the past. I’ve met a lot of super cool people this way, and I don’t understand why some players are so against playing amongst the masses.
            I don’t have any indication you personally feel this way, but it is something that has come up, particularly among UK players. I get the impression that Table Top Gaming in the UK requires being vouched for and invited into a closed community. Gaming in the US is generally more plebian. You just show up and play.

          • Secundum

            I can see that-from my experience in the UK, it’s generally all closed communities, whereas when I’ve been to the US, they have a lot of model ‘superstores’ where people can just play random games.

        • Aezeal

          No often you and your opponent will have different ideas of units strengths and often you will both be wrong anyway

    • Lewis Anderson

      Would say AoS should be the easiest to point game ever… I was puzzled that GW didn’t point the game from the beginning because AoS being so simple in number spread should be a breeze to point and then GW cold leave 40k a unbalanced point disaster and have AoS become the TRUE GAME out there, AoS is very close to balance naturally… Using model count and base size or wounds already

      • Damistar

        Applying any point system to a multi-faction war game is going to result in balance issues. It’s more difficult than it seems when you consider the variables. A unit is not always going to be useful in every game. For example: a wraithguard with a D-cannon is devastating vs. vehicles and high toughness models so it should be a high point cost, right? But how about against an Orc mob? How do you work out a point value that reflects this? Then there’s the matter of the size of the unit and how it synergizes with the rest of its army. Can it combo up with another unit or special ability, a la “superfriends”. I guess what I’m saying is that by introducing points you open the door to all kinds of issues.

        • Xodis

          I think they will have an easier time balancing AoS then they will with 40K if they ever try. The complete rework of the system should be inherently easier as units rules are dependent on the unit alone with minor bonuses for teamwork, rather than directly effected by the opponents stats (aka removing S/T and charts). Only the less numerous giant models are effected by how many wounds they have taken.
          Starcraft can do it well, so Im sure GW can get something right.

  • Havik110

    Im enjoying how its the fault of the WHFB players that felt spit on by GW that this had to do this…

    The even better one is this was planned from the beginning. You know, give them something free to get them hooked and then make them pay…except NO ONE GOT HOOKED, infact you lost over 50% of the people that played the game you discontinued…

    • Jared Swenson

      The ‘planned from the beginning’ argument stems from a series of reports from people at warhammer world when AoS first made its debut. There were reports of GW reps going around and talking about the game and answering questions. One such report was a few reps were saying GW planned to support all types of play for the game. Not necessarily saying there will be a points system, but saying that there will be a system for competitive play. BoLS did an article about it, i remember, but I’m not going to go searching for it. Anyway what it is likely we are seeing is their final decision on how to go about competitive play. It could be that before they were thinking about something else, but due to community feedback, points and comp were the most wanted options. So I wouldn’t say they were planning on points from the beginning, but they were planning on a system for competitive play from the beginning.

      • Havik110

        Or, the backlash was immediate and they realized they Effed the pooch…

        • kingcobra668

          “imma ignore everything you just said and believe what I choose to belive”

    • paddington

      50, lol try 90.

  • Eldanesh

    I keep seeing all of these “GW is finally listening to its players” warm fuzzy posts from all the usual blogs, but really, what’s more likely?

    That GW actually considered the suggestions about the blatantly obvious need for a points structure from all of the brand new AoS players over the course of the last 9 months,…

    OR they had these rules and these play styles already factored in to launch after about a year of familiarizing players with a ‘new’ game that represents the largest overhaul of a major game in the company’s history?

    GW is not “listening” to players, they’ve had this “revision” ready to go as part of the WHFB brand’s restructuring before the first boxes hit the shelves. Start out basic, gather interest (such as it is), then release revisions that become the more complex version of the way the game is expected to mature. Bonus points if it appears like good PR when you do.

    • Severius_Tolluck

      Yeah the pod casters never said how long ago they made their NDA. I would be curious to find out when they started working with GW to correct things. Like you though I believe they had this planned all along. Just like all the data sheets we got with silly rules were all stop gaps. The only thing I don’t think was planned is how soon they rushed everything out.

      • paddington

        the podcasters are bought and paid for with freebies. have been since aos launched, no one listens to bad dice/heelanhammer/face hammer any more. even dwellers listeners have mostly disappeared.

        • Severius_Tolluck

          Well regardless of what you think of them, they helped play test this, and had to sign an NDA. That is what I am curious of what time frame we are looking at from AoS launch point, to the point that the game was placed into this phase. Considering it was already far a long to have them play test it in the first place. Now no I never heard of these guys but then again I don’t listen to any podcasts of any kind except this one today for the first time for sheer curiosity. Considering they were asked to playtest, I would believe that GW thought they were listened to enough to warrant their feedback.

          • paddington

            There were some good tournament wfb players among them, but they basically lost all credibility and the number of people listening went through the floor.

        • Fungrim

          Yeah I guess those 150 people at SCGT had never even heard of Heelanhammer…

        • surfpenguin

          Oh? And you have listener numbers to prove this?

    • Havik110

      remember when people said no one was playing WFB but there were still 1 or 2 games going on in the local stores or GW stores…now NO ONE is playing so failure on GWs part…

      this wasnt planned, if it was ready to go 9 months ago they would have announced its release the second they realized no one was playing and they pissed off the already small fantasy player base…

      Guess what GW, should have stuck with the old world and introduced the new models…and if they wanted newer dynamic models introduced new ranks and unranked formations with different benefits…I would bet in 9 months when they are still selling less than old hammer they decide to do that or start adding sigmarines to 40k to sell of the stock…

      • Jared Swenson

        Your view of the world and logic is pretty flawed. Its a case of ‘I’m not seeing it, therefore it does not exist’. There are places AoS is played and it is selling. The problem is people keep looking for evidence of AoS success among the
        WHFB players and scenes, and when they don’t see it, they assume the
        case is true for everyone else. I see enough evidence of it allover the internet to show that there is a brand new community of players growing out of the game. Several youtube channels have cropped up covering AoS batreps. Even established ones such as GMG and MWG are covering it, MWG especially finds it a popular view for them. Now, is AoS as much as a success as GW hoped? I don’t think so. Which is why we are seeing this new initiative, but I think it is flawed to say ‘no one plays it’ or that it’s a ‘complete failure’

        • Havik110

          I will change my statement to No one is playing it in orlando and anyone that caries the models caries the bare minimum to keep their GW accounts in good standing…

          when you go into a game store that used to have a good fantasy player base and they are all playing warmahordes or guild ball and bashing gw its a bad sign…

          • All of my FLGS are the same. But AOS has a strong presence in our GW store. Its openly mocked at the FLGS stores though.

          • Sady Sa

            (not mocking you) Yeah, and how dare people that like AOS dont like being mocked! how dare them!

          • Jared Swenson

            You just reinforce my point, though. People are looking for AoS success amongst the WHFB crowd, and not seeing it. This game is a new game with a completely different budding community growing up around it. I think it’s too late for a majority of those that left to come back, but this new initiative will only help the new community expand.

          • RS TROUT

            Aos is dead in Pittsburgh pa. We play 8th and 40k here.

        • gordon ashacker

          WFB was a huge thing in Victoria, with tournaments regularly having more WFB than 40K players. It is all gone now, and no one plays AoS, except a few young guys at the store……

      • Carl

        Where the devil are you playing? I can’t get a 40k game for love nor money, it’s all AoS. Frustrating when you’ve got 5 40k armies between 500 and 10,000 points.

        Not that I object to AoS, it’s a great game, but a fella likes a change of pace from time to time.

    • Erik Setzer

      No, it’s actually more likely that they thought what they released was good enough, then saw that it wasn’t as sales didn’t do well, and someone actually noticed the same talking points pop up, so they figured they’d at least give a shot at doing what those talking points were mentioning. And voila, a year later (by the time it’s done), they’ll have more options that should help increase interest and get more people involved.

      We were told they’d been working on AoS for a long time (supposedly), so if they’d intended for this stuff to be in the game from the start, it would have been.

    • surfpenguin

      My god, someone who actually understands how the game business works!

      • Shardak

        The games industry is run mainly by business illiterate madmen?

        Checks out.

    • Sady Sa

      and that´s is why they asked for help from the folks over scgt, facehammer and baddice!

    • I don’t find it super-likely that GW spent a ton of time, money and goodwill trying to spread idea that points were silly and no one really needs them, only to turn around and put points in the game nine months later, no.

      What does seem likely is that it sold poorly (Hastings has been pretty clear on this), and that they’ve now changed direction in a desperate attempt to save the game.

      Good on them for the attempt, I suppose (worst game setting I’ve ever seen, tho, so still no cash from me), but the idea that they planned to screw everything up this badly is pretty ludicrous.

      • Xodis

        Is it a change in direction when the game was launched as a “living rule set” so that it could better be upgraded to fit the needs of the players?

        • I’d say so. Just because it’s a “living” rulebook doesn’t mean everything’s the same if they suddenly declare the game is, in fact, a ham sandwich. Adding a balancing mechanic – especially when they’ve been playing up how great it is to not have a balancing mechanic – is a pretty big shift in direction.

          • Xodis

            Not when its limited to a single type of play and was originally mentioned during the AoS release. We were told from the beginning that GW was looking to get involved (somewhat) back into the tourny scene, how else is that possible without some type of standard that doesn’t exist in the core rules?

          • I can’t recall a time where “we” we’re ever told this, at least not by any verifiable source. There were a lot of uncertainties about AoS early in, and rumors of just about every variant scenario bubbled up somewhere – all vaguely plausible, and mostly mutually exclusive. There will be points. There’ll never be points. GW hates tournaments and the “competitive” set. GW wants to work with tournaments. Etc.

            Just a bit of common sense and judgement makes this pretty easy to untangle. GW may have had points open as an eventual option from the beginning, but it was clearly never part of Plan A. Chucking points out the window was a hugely visible, divisive move, and one of the defining features of AoS from day one. They didn’t put the development and promotional budget of AoS so clearly on the line for an idea they always intended to go back on.

            We know AoS has been a disaster from a sales and marketing point of view. BoLS has reported on it, and Hastings has said he was told so, specifically by the same source who gave him a release list that’s turned out to be amazingly accurate so far. GW is trying to make the best of it now, and I commend their efforts (shame it’s not for a more worthwhile product), but this is clearly a disaster recovery plan, not some masterful unveiling of an original vision.

          • Xodis

            Im not sure how reliable of a source you would consider it, but it was part of that posted response from a GW employee at the beginning of launch. Again, I dont think adding points to 1/3 of the playtypes is a disaster recovery plan, as much as an easy way to sate a more vocal group of players (or potential players). As long as they continue with scenarios and narrative play, and keeping points to tournaments, they will be holding true to the original course.
            The only way we will ever be sure will be by the quality of the tournament and points release. If it looks like some garbage just thrown out there and works much like 40K does….we know you are correct and they are scrambling. If it turns out to be a well balanced point system then its probably been in production far longer than we realize. Having a playtest group OUTSIDE of GW test the system gives me hope that this is been in the works for awhile.

  • Erik Setzer

    I’ll buy the book regardless (especially if it comes in at the reasonable sounding price being talked about), but I think at least the basics of this stuff should be online, to allow for a “living rulebook” like the Specialist Games had. Sure, it might mean my book gets outdated eventually, but just put out notes on errata and we can print those and drop the folded pages into our books. You get the double bonus of making the rules more accessible, and making it easier to edit them where it might become necessary.

    • bobrunnicles

      This. I sincerely hope they at least put the points online, that way they have the ability to update them easily if it becomes necessary and all you have to do it print out the revised numbers and slip them into the book.

  • EPIC!!! I am really hoping early summer for this one!

  • Stan

    Now all they have to do is retcon the fluff a bit.

    • *massively

      Some actual civilizations and stuff off-battlefield is entirely needed right now. I am sick of novels/novellas that are basically glorified battle reports because they are solely based on the scenarios/fluff from the campaign books.

      • Brian Griffith

        In the sparkly glowing shadows of the grim future of the Age of Sigmar, there is only war.

  • Aezeal

    As long as all my old units get points I’m happy

  • chuck_lapine

    The three new ways to play arent new at all. People have been playing wargames that way since the 70’s

  • DeathBy SnuSnu

    I do remember ‘The General’s Compendium’. Probably the best expansion book I ever bought for WHFB. Might dig it up tonight and have a look since it’s still in my collection. Hopefully whatever this is will be as good for AoS.

  • James Mcclennan

    AOS willl be a nice retreat for me after a 40k tournament has melted my mind a bit.

  • Grumpy Scot

    The aesthetic, lore and rules (shooting from melee, initiative, etc) are problems. Hopefully some of this is addressed too.

    Watching with interest.

    • LordCastellan Vas

      I’m not sure if most people feel that there’s a problem with shooting or initiative Alternating activations are one of my favorite things about the game, and feel to me much more interactive and tactically interesting than looking at initiative values and then fighting in that order. As far as shooting goes, combat is jot dupposed to be quite the same as it was in 40k or fantasy. Close combat is not abstracted. You can walk out of conbat whenever you want, provided you can complete the retreat move. The combat is very literal. The models aren’t in a swirling melee. They are standing their ground, where their models are standing. In that rubric, there is nothing stopping them from shooting at someone 20 feet away instead of the bloke in front of them. People in movies all the time.

      • Grumpy Scot

        They do not shoot a longbow and then stab with a sword at a guy 3 inches in front of them.

        • LordCastellan Vas

          Have you ever seen Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Caribbean?

        • LordCastellan Vas

          Have you ever seen Lord of the Rings?

  • Gridloc

    I’m glad to hear points are coming to AoS, it may actually help sales for GW.

    I think its strange that the GW fans are now saying ‘this was always planned’. Sure if it makes you feel that your company is heading in right direction from get go, then so be it. No reason to burst any happy bubbles you create in your head to justify AoS release not going off smoothly.

    Many of us left the game because it wasn’t for us, be it for any number of reasons. This drove sales down, and when you are a public company, that is all that matters to them. So again, I am glad that the crowd of us that left has helped improve GWs stance on who they target and how they develop games for their customers.