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.

Belthanos wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You can usually take the style of the last tome of the edition as some sort of indicator. And as FEC's book is the same format, i find it unlikely that the new ed is going to be a complete redo. I don't see that book being written off in just a six month period.

Didn't they release world eaters well inside 6 month of getting invalidated? Unfortunately late edition books have no quaranteed long lifetime anymore.

The new daughters of khaine army of renown looks interesting but not going to build one yet. Wait and see what happens with new edition.

WE was a pretty weird codex, to be fair. dropped the subfaction rules that had been a thing for the rest of the edition. in retrospect, it feels like they didn't know what they were doing with it; the upcoming sharp transition in rules sticks out

I'm really disapointed, but not at all surprised, they're doing a hard reset. It seems like the new approach will be a new edition every 3 years and a complete reset every 6.

I welcome a hard reset, even if I just paid for a FEC book...

I hope they come up with something better than the reinforcements system. Whilst I understand why they did it and I appreciate the move toward making things other than huge blocks of infantry have value in the game, I still feel like it was an over-reaction.


Of course my dream is that they drop the double turn but that's a hard dream to have it seems. The other dream would be alternate activation; but I'm not holding my breath on that one happening either.

A hard re-set sure - but I'm honestly not expecting world changing things


If anything I'd expect it to copy the new 40K - so cut down on unit options (although considering AoS already made most weapon options on units nearly identical there isn't that much more to just making them flat out have one close combat profile and no weapon variation at all).
I'd be shocked if they cut the magic out, but then again I never thought GW would remove psy powers from 40K and yet they did. Remaining psy attacks don't even do anything for the attacker, if anything they are a negative as the only thing that references them are a few counter psy abilities. Meanwhile whilst some auras remaind they don't feel like psy abilities now as they are just an aura.



GW did do Endless Spells and Faction terrain in AoS and both of those feel like they've become less of a focus over this last edition. It wouldn't surprise me if both those features just "went away" With the new edition. Or get more marginalised.
Granted some of the faction terrains are silly big (the Ossiarch one) and thus often didn't really work all that well; but some like the Herdstone, are really flavourful parts of the faction that feel like cutting them out would be a huge mistake.

 Overread wrote:

Spoiler:

I hope they come up with something better than the reinforcements system. Whilst I understand why they did it and I appreciate the move toward making things other than huge blocks of infantry have value in the game, I still feel like it was an over-reaction.


Of course my dream is that they drop the double turn but that's a hard dream to have it seems. The other dream would be alternate activation; but I'm not holding my breath on that one happening either.

A hard re-set sure - but I'm honestly not expecting world changing things


If anything I'd expect it to copy the new 40K - so cut down on unit options (although considering AoS already made most weapon options on units nearly identical there isn't that much more to just making them flat out have one close combat profile and no weapon variation at all).
I'd be shocked if they cut the magic out, but then again I never thought GW would remove psy powers from 40K and yet they did. Remaining psy attacks don't even do anything for the attacker, if anything they are a negative as the only thing that references them are a few counter psy abilities. Meanwhile whilst some auras remaind they don't feel like psy abilities now as they are just an aura.



GW did do Endless Spells and Faction terrain in AoS and both of those feel like they've become less of a focus over this last edition. It wouldn't surprise me if both those features just "went away" With the new edition. Or get more marginalised.
Granted some of the faction terrains are silly big (the Ossiarch one) and thus often didn't really work all that well; but some like the Herdstone, are really flavourful parts of the faction that feel like cutting them out would be a huge mistake.

with underworlds stuff as the exception, i think profiles in aos are as simple as they should be. if there's an error to be fixed, it's with how it's formatted (10th actually does a really good job with this, compared to fitting it all in a single paragraph) but that's just a templating issue, not a rules issue

the issue GW cited with psychic is how one-sided it was, but i think magic happening in the hero phase is a good solution to that since non-magic armies can still have a lot to do in their her/command phase (and that's what should have happened with 40k)

i don't see faction terrain or endless spells going away. endless spells are one of the big selling points of the game, so at worst i expect nothing to change for that. faction terrain is spottier, but stuff like the herdstone or especially the sylvaneth forest are a big deal to their respective armies (tho there is the rumor that beasts of chaos won't survive the jump to indexes, so it feels possible that most faction terrain gets cut or scaled back and the armies that rely on it get to be special while gw figures out a solution)

I figure BoK, Fyreslayers and at least Dwarves or Darkelves in Cities of Sigmar should get some major attention this edition. They are pretty much the last armies in terms of not really having any major update.

Skaven will take the lions share, but those 3 forces should see some updates. At that point pretty much every army in AoS will have a firm foundation; battletome and model range an we hit the stage of adding to it. EG Daughters of Khaine Ossiarchs and Idoneth could all do with some more models.

from a simplistic point of view USRs are the only thing AoS needs to get cleaned up, everything else is already simplified enough

but this would not really justify a reset, as that could be easily done with an Errata

might be that this is more a reset for the setting in general rather than the rules, to remove the last connections with The Old World and clean things up which would make the need to remove the old books as you cannot alter the background when the old background is still sold

if they really want major changes to the game, I need to get some more popcorn as I know some people who called AoS the best game ever and perfect rules are going to defend every single change on how the game was not able to continue without it

Bettes terrain rules, good models. If less mortal wounds, or even better removed, all the better.

Expecting lots of changes. Some I'll like, some I'll hate. As usual with warhammer. But quoting weak & decadent spectacular models and good friends and it will be fun.

Too bad can't drink beer where I play.

Biggest worry is they're going to make it more like 40k. And 10th edition 40k is dogshit.

I'm hoping they improve the terrain without making it bland symmetrical garbage.

Symmetrical is what players do. At 40k neither rulebook nor mission pack has ever set up terrain layouts and already at aos you see symmetrical setups. And often with small pieces that do nothing.

Unless gw forces non-symmetrical terrain at rules hard to stop players from putting symmetrical boards. Even core rule forbidding symmetrical might not be enough...

I personally want less books around my game. Book selling has gone out of hands, years ago.

Game wise, I wish AoS would encourage more versatile army building. I would degrade "rule of three" into "rule of two" - just to see different entries, and more versatility within an army list.

Well, a change to double turn to make scoring harder on it is already something that was on my list, so, happy with that.

Realistically, I'd love to see a few more core command abilities added that give you a response equivalent in power to Unleash Hell/Redeploy gives you to units coming to charge you in melee, but for units shooting/casting spells at you from range.

It sounds like there may be a potential 'declare a charge' reaction that might work for getting shot in the face from short range. I can see a "Take Cover!" command that allows you to move X" towards the nearest terrain feature that would grant you a cover bonus and get an additional defensive boost on top of it.

in terms of sacred cows I'd like them to slaughter - All Out Attack. It really feels like the Command Point decision tree is much, much more interesting if you dont have adequate opportunity to expend your command points on just "Moar Damagez" in an extremely straightforward way.

I'd also like to see a CA that makes a spellcast roll un-deniable (before you roll to cast). The main thing that would be attempting to help out with is making it more viable to include just 1 lower-level wizard in your army and not have that be totally wasted points against a magic domination army.

in light of the new article, i'm really hoping the new army construction rules are used to their fullest. i think there's a lot of potential in regiments, so i'm hoping they do some interesting things with it. it's sort of like conditional battleline as already existed, but expanded further

Well battleline was removed entirely.

Belthanos wrote:
Well battleline was removed entirely.

that's the "sort of like" part lol. it's similar in that you can use less standard options to build out your army depending on what characters you have in the army

Condolances to all Beast of Chaos and SCE players. I dread what GW may do to my Lords in 2-3ed.

Big lumps of Skaven gone as well, I'm not happy as I've spent years building this army. I'm lucky I suppose as after discussions in our group we're saying sod off 4th we're sticking with these

Jaxmeister wrote:
Big lumps of Skaven gone as well, I'm not happy as I've spent years building this army. I'm lucky I suppose as after discussions in our group we're saying sod off 4th we're sticking with these

Yeah but skaven are getting a big update this summer - it was basically on the wall a lot that Skaven were going to get a huge update and with that you had to expect many of the old metal/finecast/old plastics to go away and get replaced with new kits or new ideas.
For skaven this isn't a loss, its just them announcing the end of production before they've launched into marketing models that will becoming out this june/july period.

We know there is meant to be an update but we don't know what's in it. All we can do is guess, which I'm not prepared to do. After they killed WHFB we had to rebase all the Skaven and now they expect us to throw all the money spent and time spent away. Nope no thanks. We'll stick to playing this edition. Even if they did like for like why would I want to waste money replacing perfectly good Stormvermin, Clanrats, rattling guns etc.
Added to the fact in our group we have BOC, SCE and Orc players ( Orc uses bonesplitters). Why would we want to put these armies aside just to invest in new box sets, battletomes etc? No thanks we'll stick to this edition and GW can stick TOW and 4th where the sun doesn't shine.
Side note that we've all been staunch supporters of GW even through the mess of killing off WHFB, but this is just extracting the urine and they've lost us from buying any new products from 4th onwards. Rant over.

when they replace clanrats in the starter box, you'll still be able to use your old ones. i know this is annoying, but people are really overexaggerating what this announcement means

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
when they replace clanrats in the starter box, you'll still be able to use your old ones. i know this is annoying, but people are really overexaggerating what this announcement means

For Skaven, maybe. BoC and wild orks are just being outright squatted (unless someone gracious lets you proxy the models as different army). Stormcast, though? It's one gigantic pile of because while some 1st edition models might be replaced, all of 2nd edition ones they squatted were one of the best looking, flexible, fun and interesting models in range, and these are not coming back this edition unless you seriously believe SCE will get 50+ releases in the next 3 years. You like magic, artillery and cavalry? Frak off and don't come back!

And the worst part is, some of the old, ugly, terrible (and not fun to play) models SCE have from 1st edition are not on retirement list, meaning they are staying without refresh - why these get a pass when GW killed vastly better 2nd ed range I have no idea...

Jaxmeister wrote:
We know there is meant to be an update but we don't know what's in it. All we can do is guess, which I'm not prepared to do. After they killed WHFB we had to rebase all the Skaven and now they expect us to throw all the money spent and time spent away. Nope no thanks. We'll stick to playing this edition. Even if they did like for like why would I want to waste money replacing perfectly good Stormvermin, Clanrats, rattling guns etc.
Added to the fact in our group we have BOC, SCE and Orc players ( Orc uses bonesplitters). Why would we want to put these armies aside just to invest in new box sets, battletomes etc? No thanks we'll stick to this edition and GW can stick TOW and 4th where the sun doesn't shine.
Side note that we've all been staunch supporters of GW even through the mess of killing off WHFB, but this is just extracting the urine and they've lost us from buying any new products from 4th onwards. Rant over.

Obviously you & yours aren't planning to be 4e tourney players....
If you'd read the article you'd have noticed that they tell you all this stuff that's going away - is going to get 4e Legends entries. Including the BoC!

So why exactly are you getting upset??

They think that GW discontinuing miniatures means they can't use them while playing with their mates.

 Jammer87 wrote:
They think that GW discontinuing miniatures means they can't use them while playing with their mates.

A LOT (most I'd wager) people think Legends = Can't use at all, tournament or not. Because they won't get updates so could be *gasp* unbalanced. I don't play in tournaments and can count on one hand the number of people who will allow legends even in casual games. The stigma exists that they shouldn't be allowed.

Wayniac wrote:

 Jammer87 wrote:
They think that GW discontinuing miniatures means they can't use them while playing with their mates.

A LOT (most I'd wager) people think Legends = Can't use at all, tournament or not. Because they won't get updates so could be *gasp* unbalanced. I don't play in tournaments and can count on one hand the number of people who will allow legends even in casual games. The stigma exists that they shouldn't be allowed.

Mark Rosewater (MTG's head designer) has talked about this issue with their "un-" sets (essentially, lighthearted sets with weirder mechanics). since a lot of the mechanics handle things that can't be covered by the rules, all of those sets* are not tournament legal... and that means, as far as most people are concerned, those cards don't exist. even in strictly casual formats, with no tournament play even possible, the attitude is often, "well, it's cool, but it's not legal so what's the point"— nevermind the fact that they could just say "we're playing casually, so do you mind if i play these weird cards?"

the solution is to be the one bringing it up yourself**. if you have models getting removed from the game that aren't replaced, then ask people you play against "hey, i have this unit but it's legends, are you fine with that?"

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Jammer87 wrote:
They think that GW discontinuing miniatures means they can't use them while playing with their mates.

A LOT (most I'd wager) people think Legends = Can't use at all, tournament or not. Because they won't get updates so could be *gasp* unbalanced. I don't play in tournaments and can count on one hand the number of people who will allow legends even in casual games. The stigma exists that they shouldn't be allowed.

Mark Rosewater (MTG's head designer) has talked about this issue with their "un-" sets (essentially, lighthearted sets with weirder mechanics). since a lot of the mechanics handle things that can't be covered by the rules, all of those sets* are not tournament legal... and that means, as far as most people are concerned, those cards don't exist. even in strictly casual formats, with no tournament play even possible, the attitude is often, "well, it's cool, but it's not legal so what's the point"— nevermind the fact that they could just say "we're playing casually, so do you mind if i play these weird cards?"

the solution is to be the one bringing it up yourself**. if you have models getting removed from the game that aren't replaced, then ask people you play against "hey, i have this unit but it's legends, are you fine with that?"

I have a completely different attitude & approach.
If I'm not playing in a tourney (and I never am) I see no need to beg my opponents permission to use the rules as written.
I don't have to (and dont) ask the opponent if I can use some rule like "Flying". So why should I have to ask if I could use a model with current edition rules?
So I dont'.

ccs wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Jammer87 wrote:
They think that GW discontinuing miniatures means they can't use them while playing with their mates.

A LOT (most I'd wager) people think Legends = Can't use at all, tournament or not. Because they won't get updates so could be *gasp* unbalanced. I don't play in tournaments and can count on one hand the number of people who will allow legends even in casual games. The stigma exists that they shouldn't be allowed.

Mark Rosewater (MTG's head designer) has talked about this issue with their "un-" sets (essentially, lighthearted sets with weirder mechanics). since a lot of the mechanics handle things that can't be covered by the rules, all of those sets* are not tournament legal... and that means, as far as most people are concerned, those cards don't exist. even in strictly casual formats, with no tournament play even possible, the attitude is often, "well, it's cool, but it's not legal so what's the point"— nevermind the fact that they could just say "we're playing casually, so do you mind if i play these weird cards?"

the solution is to be the one bringing it up yourself**. if you have models getting removed from the game that aren't replaced, then ask people you play against "hey, i have this unit but it's legends, are you fine with that?"

I have a completely different attitude & approach.
If I'm not playing in a tourney (and I never am) I see no need to beg my opponents permission to use the rules as written.
I don't have to (and dont) ask the opponent if I can use some rule like "Flying". So why should I have to ask if I could use a model with current edition rules?
So I dont'.

i think that's also fair!

I have never intended to play in tournaments, not of any interest to me. For those that are then great, enjoy yourselves. Also as none of us will now be playing 4th then legends don't matter.
What mainly gets us angry is GW squatting fantasy armies again. Sure we could rebase everything and buy into the Old World, which is probably GW thinking. Move armies, players follow and give us more money. Been there done that, not doing it again. As I said previously it's ending up doing us a favour as it means no more books or boxes being bought from us.
All in our group have extensive collections with most of us playing for well over 25 years. The money we save will allow us to try out some more of the games out there that have nothing to do with GW.

ccs wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Jammer87 wrote:
They think that GW discontinuing miniatures means they can't use them while playing with their mates.

A LOT (most I'd wager) people think Legends = Can't use at all, tournament or not. Because they won't get updates so could be *gasp* unbalanced. I don't play in tournaments and can count on one hand the number of people who will allow legends even in casual games. The stigma exists that they shouldn't be allowed.

Mark Rosewater (MTG's head designer) has talked about this issue with their "un-" sets (essentially, lighthearted sets with weirder mechanics). since a lot of the mechanics handle things that can't be covered by the rules, all of those sets* are not tournament legal... and that means, as far as most people are concerned, those cards don't exist. even in strictly casual formats, with no tournament play even possible, the attitude is often, "well, it's cool, but it's not legal so what's the point"— nevermind the fact that they could just say "we're playing casually, so do you mind if i play these weird cards?"

the solution is to be the one bringing it up yourself**. if you have models getting removed from the game that aren't replaced, then ask people you play against "hey, i have this unit but it's legends, are you fine with that?"

I have a completely different attitude & approach.
If I'm not playing in a tourney (and I never am) I see no need to beg my opponents permission to use the rules as written.
I don't have to (and dont) ask the opponent if I can use some rule like "Flying". So why should I have to ask if I could use a model with current edition rules?
So I dont'.

Opponent isn't obligated to play though.

Minority is closing more games by not following standard than otherway arounm(

Jaxmeister wrote:
I have never intended to play in tournaments, not of any interest to me. For those that are then great, enjoy yourselves. Also as none of us will now be playing 4th then legends don't matter.
What mainly gets us angry is GW squatting fantasy armies again. Sure we could rebase everything and buy into the Old World, which is probably GW thinking. Move armies, players follow and give us more money. Been there done that, not doing it again. As I said previously it's ending up doing us a favour as it means no more books or boxes being bought from us.
All in our group have extensive collections with most of us playing for well over 25 years. The money we save will allow us to try out some more of the games out there that have nothing to do with GW.

there are quite a few other games that the GW fantasy line are perfect for, e.g. the magical version of SAGA runs to pretty much any fantasy trope you can imagine (smaller armies though), KoW is the obvious one, there are others