Age of Sigmar - Slaanesh Replaced? plus big book, stormcast archers, dismounted celestan

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**MLaw**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Chopxsticks wrote:
Where do you guys play that people have zero social manners and would put their models bases on top of other peoples bases? You all fixate on the dumbest things.
The same place where people are WAAC beardy rules lawyer types who make their bases too large for you to charge them without moving your model on top of theirs?

Chaos spikes all over that base.. no models gonna stand up on that sucka!

**Mymearan**

MARC C wrote:
I read the 4 page rules last night.

Weaknesses :
- 2D6 charges without any bonus for the units actual speed !
- Possibility for player One the play two (three or more) consecutive turns if he wins initiative at the beginning of each round.
- Pure annihilation without any scenarios. (except for Sudden Death triggers and the like)

VERY BAD:
- The list is built during deployment. Players deploy one unit alternatively. Many units can have an Unlimited of models. «Mister Suitcases» with all the units (and multiple copies) will have a double advantage. 1) More choice. 2) See what the other player puts on the table and respond with the perfect counter unit with just the right number of troops. Limiting the number of models on the table will not prevent these avantages. Unlimited spamming possible if a unit is broken. Which leads to an arms race. Thus more profit for GW.

Once again GW uses randomized rules to determine results of strategic decisions during play. Its one of the main things that drove me away from their games. This game is not for me. If I feel the need to play medieval wars with multiple units I'll play a game of SAGA.

This game is for kids (8-12) who drop by a GW stores. The idea is probably to rebuilt a base of players from the ground up. And repeat the pattern of the last 30 years with a new cohort of players. GW gambles that low entry price, simple rules and pure annihilation will appeal the young players. They can always add scenarios and advanced rules later on. STOP / REWIND / REPLAY.

2D6 charges without accounting for movement are already in 40k, and it's works fine. Faster units tend to be way closer to their target after movement and so don't need to roll as high as a slower unit. Also like in 40k, there may be special rules allowing some units to reroll charge dice.

**pities2004**

Chopxsticks wrote:
Where do you guys play that people have zero social manners and would put their models bases on top of other peoples bases? You all fixate on the dumbest things.

That's the rules?

**edlowe**

I actually wonder who wrote the rules and what he ate in the rest of that lunch hour?

**Necros**

I think I know what happened..

Designer: Hey, I was just printing out the new rules for you to check out, but we ran out of paper. Just got these 4 pages so far.

Boss: NP, that's all we need. Thanks.

Designer: But--

Boss: Sorry, gotta take this call.

**Da Boss**

Honestly, just saying "measure from the base" would produce far fewer complications even WITH the different base shapes and sizes.

**TheWaspinator**

I would have just gone with "measure from the base" and given a valid range of base sizes for a given unit on its warscroll.

**zedmeister**

edlowe wrote:
I actually wonder who wrote the rules and what he ate in the rest of that lunch hour?

He was in the pub and phoned it in actually, so probably had his 5th pint afterwards.

**Da Boss**

Yep, might thoughts exactly. Or do what SAGA does.
Measuring from the model itself is dumb. But then, the rules overall don't reek of quality.

**agnosto**

zedmeister wrote:
edlowe wrote:
I actually wonder who wrote the rules and what he ate in the rest of that lunch hour?

He was in the pub and phoned it in actually, so probably had his 5th pint afterwards.

Functional rules are otiose and smack of pig thievery.

**zedmeister**

MLaw wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Chopxsticks wrote:
Where do you guys play that people have zero social manners and would put their models bases on top of other peoples bases? You all fixate on the dumbest things.
The same place where people are WAAC beardy rules lawyer types who make their bases too large for you to charge them without moving your model on top of theirs?

Chaos spikes all over that base.. no models gonna stand up on that sucka!

10 ~~points~~ warsrolls to the first to model bases with stilts

**Grimtuff**

SJM wrote:
Err... no! No one is going to put their scabby Bases on MY! base!

Then you'll have to base all your models on Gorkamorka bases...

Mymearan wrote:

2D6 charges without accounting for movement are already in 40k, and it's works fine.

"Fine"

Put it in front of "wine" or "dining" and you've really got something.

**rollawaythestone**

Harry confirming additional rules coming:

Harry on Warseer wrote:
Pug on Warseer wrote:
.... Seems there are additional rules coming and some kind of army composition.

I would have thought that must be obvious .... but apparently (Judging by the last thread) ... not so much.

**NewTruthNeomaxim**

rollawaythestone wrote:
Harry confirming additional rules coming:

Harry on Warseer wrote:
Pug on Warseer wrote:
.... Seems there are additional rules coming and some kind of army composition.

I would have thought that must be obvious .... but apparently (Judging by the last thread) ... not so much.

Didn't the last round on the rumor tracker leave Harry somewhere between comically stupid, and entirely not worth quoting? :-p

**rollawaythestone**

I think Harry is still pretty on track. He called Age of Sigmar / End Times out of the blue.

When he speaks I listen. Lets hope he's right.

**Chopxsticks**

This base argument seems like such a non issue.. If you base your model on a large base its gonna keep your melee unit out of combat just as well as keeping other models out of melee with it. Why are you all dwelling so much on these things? GW has a long history of not writing clear rules

**Boss Salvage**

rollawaythestone wrote:
Harry confirming additional rules coming:

Well, we do have a massive load of warscrolls rolling our way sometime between July 2 to 4

- Salvage

**pretre**

rollawaythestone wrote:
I think Harry is still pretty on track. He called Age of Sigmar / End Times out of the blue.

When he speaks I listen. Lets hope he's right.

He's pretty accurate.

Harry from Warseer - Total rumors: (47 TRUE) / (9 FALSE) / (2 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)

Harry and Hastings were basically wrong on the 'skirmish game' thing, but other than that it is still to see.

**NewTruthNeomaxim**

pretre wrote:
rollawaythestone wrote:
I think Harry is still pretty on track. He called Age of Sigmar / End Times out of the blue.

When he speaks I listen. Lets hope he's right.

He's pretty accurate.

Harry from Warseer - Total rumors: (47 TRUE) / (9 FALSE) / (2 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)

Harry and Hastings were basically wrong on the 'skirmish game' thing, but other than that it is still to see.

My apologies. In my mind I had been reading Harry, but thinking Steve the Warboss.

**MLaw**

zedmeister wrote:
MLaw wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Chopxsticks wrote:
Where do you guys play that people have zero social manners and would put their models bases on top of other peoples bases? You all fixate on the dumbest things.
The same place where people are WAAC beardy rules lawyer types who make their bases too large for you to charge them without moving your model on top of theirs?

Chaos spikes all over that base.. no models gonna stand up on that sucka!

10 ~~points~~ warsrolls to the first to model bases with stilts

LOL, the whole army will be based on display plinths! Plinths covered in Chaos spikes. It's all the rage

**pretre**

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
pretre wrote:
rollawaythestone wrote:
I think Harry is still pretty on track. He called Age of Sigmar / End Times out of the blue.

When he speaks I listen. Lets hope he's right.

He's pretty accurate.

Harry from Warseer - Total rumors: (47 TRUE) / (9 FALSE) / (2 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)

Harry and Hastings were basically wrong on the 'skirmish game' thing, but other than that it is still to see.

My apologies. In my mind I had been reading Harry, but thinking Steve the Warboss.

He, on the other hand, is full of gak:
Steve the Warboss - Total rumors: (37 TRUE) / (91 FALSE) / (6 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)

**Da Butcha**

ShaneTB wrote:
From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

So, I'm supposed to believe that the same GW who cannot be bothered to figure out points costs in any reasonably accurate manner now is going to be able to determine them for this system?

IF they had wanted to implement something like this, it would have been trivially easy to do so through their website. You could have the same army books you have now, but with the points costs removed from unit entries, and compiled in the back on a single page, accompanied by a URL telling you that updated points costs would be maintained on the GW website. You could go to the website and download a points cost PDF for your army and print it out on a single sheet. Points costs could be updated as frequently as desired, and TO would be able to access them just as easily as anyone else.

To borrow a phrase from Scalia, the whole thing is just 'jiggery-pokery' to obfuscate their incompetence (or disinterest) in balancing the game, and to leech more money for less effort out of your wallet. Plus, an app sounds modern and cool, while a pdf is soooo outdated

**zedmeister**

MLaw wrote:

LOL, the whole army will be based on display plinths! Plinths covered in Chaos spikes. It's all the rage

GW got you covered

(Yes, they are legal citadel bases!)

**MLaw**

double post

**Zhrukal**

I don't post often but here goes. Apologies if someone has already speculated about this, I've only skimmed most of the last 40 pages. Regarding the balance issue it is possible GW will use those Keyword things to limit Greater Demon, etc. spam.

For instance, let's say you're in a tournament limited to five warscrolls and let's use the popular example of Player 1 brings five units of goblins and Player 2 brings five Bloodthirsters. We haven't seen the scroll for them yet but it might contain a keyword like:

Greater Instability - A unit with this keyword must roll 6+ on a die at the start of the turn. Failure means it is unstable. A unit that is unstable cannot move fight or charge and, although it remains on the board it counts as being destroyed for that 1/3 outnumbering thing. You can try and get it stable next turn.

But Zhru, that's insane. No one will be able to use greater demons at all with a rule like that. I hate you and wish you were dead.

Yes, but let's say there's another keyword that goes like this:

Reality Anchor - The player may subtract 1 from all his instability rolls for each scroll with this keyword on the board.

So what kind of unit has a keyword like this? Well I'm imagining a weedy, pasty unit of cultists with about the same stats as goblins. Think of rules like this as the "tax" units from the MFD (aka Decurion) lists in the newer 40k codices.

But Zhru, what about dragons or Nagash or stegadons or that new dude on the demigryph thing. You know for someone on the internet you aren't very smart.

I don't have all the answers and I don't even know that GW intends to do even this. I'm just saying it may be possible to have something like balance in a system like this.

**MLaw**

zedmeister wrote:
MLaw wrote:

LOL, the whole army will be based on display plinths! Plinths covered in Chaos spikes. It's all the rage

GW got you covered

(Yes, they are legal citadel bases!)

Exalted!

I have one of those somewhere and no idea how I got it.. always assumed it was for painting models with tabs.

**docdoom77**

MLaw wrote:
zedmeister wrote:
MLaw wrote:

LOL, the whole army will be based on display plinths! Plinths covered in Chaos spikes. It's all the rage

GW got you covered

(Yes, they are legal citadel bases!)

Exalted!

I have one of those somewhere and no idea how I got it.. always assumed it was for painting models with tabs.

I have a couple from the old Space Marine Jetbike kit.

**Agent_Tremolo**

Da Butcha wrote:
ShaneTB wrote:
From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

So, I'm supposed to believe that the same GW who cannot be bothered to figure out points costs in any reasonably accurate manner now is going to be able to determine them for this system?

IF they had wanted to implement something like this, it would have been trivially easy to do so through their website. You could have the same army books you have now, but with the points costs removed from unit entries, and compiled in the back on a single page, accompanied by a URL telling you that updated points costs would be maintained on the GW website. You could go to the website and download a points cost PDF for your army and print it out on a single sheet. Points costs could be updated as frequently as desired, and TO would be able to access them just as easily as anyone else.

To borrow a phrase from Scalia, the whole thing is just 'jiggery-pokery' to obfuscate their incompetence (or disinterest) in balancing the game, and to leech more money for less effort out of your wallet. Plus, an app sounds modern and cool, while a pdf is soooo outdated

I won't pretend I have any experience with databases but... well, unless it extracts game results from thin air, that weighing algorythm needs to be fed data in order to work. Something that sounds easy and natural for a videogame, like uploading player performance data to an online database, could become an exasperating chore when it comes to a tabletop game. Are we supposed to believe that TOs and/or players will spend hours after each tournament manually feeding the AoS app with detailed breakdowns of each and every game played like Amazon Mechanical Turks?

There's some faulty reasoning behind that rumor. Either GW's has finally lost its marbles or that "pay-for-balance app" rumor is utter bull.

Also, we already know what the balancing mechanisms for AoS are: Alternating deployment and victory conditions.

**pretre**

Agent_Tremolo wrote:
that "pay-for-balance app" rumor is utter bull.

Found your answer.

**Da Boss**

I hadn't thought that through, which is dumb considering my background! Yeah, the idea that they can do weighting without input is a pile of crap.