Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Pre-orders are usually announced on a Sunday, around 6pm U.K. time. I concede I may have missed an announcement that the, erm, announcement, is coming today.
In other news, I just built my Kragnos. What a really lovely kit! Nothing too fiddly, and I’d argue designed for sub-assemblies of the tactical rock, Kragnos and the shield.
Now to find a painting guide and copy it
Warcom said yesterday "check out here tomorrow when you can preorder".
tneva82 wrote: Still nothing so looks like warcom article was in error
I don't believe so. They're usually pretty quick to correct errors on Warhammer Community. Plus there's this from the Age of Sigmar Facebook page on the thread for yesterday's article:
REDACTED wrote:Can I preorder tomorrow yea
Warhammer Age of Sigmar wrote:Not quite, but we will be announcing when you can!
So unless they also gave the Social Media team the wrong information it should be today.
tneva82 wrote: Still nothing so looks like warcom article was in error
I don't believe so. They're usually pretty quick to correct errors on Warhammer Community. Plus there's this from the Age of Sigmar Facebook page on the thread for yesterday's article:
REDACTED wrote:Can I preorder tomorrow yea
Warhammer Age of Sigmar wrote:Not quite, but we will be announcing when you can!
So unless they also gave the Social Media team the wrong information it should be today.
Do we know same team isnjt behind both? And besides it's not like both don't make mistakes. Lots of them. Claim cc was stock item remained until it sold out so like week.
Kanluwen wrote: That's not new, it takes around 2-3 minutes usually for an article to propagate to the US site. We can cheat it though by getting a direct link.
Dysartes wrote: I may have missed this being mentioned in another article, but it looks like AOS is joining 40k with the resized board "minimum size" palaver...
The Realmgate Objective markers are leaps and bounds better than what 40k got from the Indomitus release. Sigmar shrine takes the cake, but the broken statue with banner is also really nice. Shame the upper part of the statue is probably a sculpted base, not a separate piece.
Also you can see the new terrain on the boxart of the gaming boards and the possible content of one of the starter tiers
Good catch. That terrain looks kinda cool. Impractical, since the swirly magic means you cant easily have models inside. A bit KO looking imo, though it's definitely not
Also you can see the new terrain on the boxart of the gaming boards and the possible content of one of the starter tiers
Good catch. That terrain looks kinda cool. Impractical, since the swirly magic means you cant easily have models inside. A bit KO looking imo, though it's definitely not
I think you could easily remove the Citadel Swirly Bull Gak(tm) for personal use, at least that's how it looks.
Hobgrots? They have that weedy early days lead orc vibe a bit... I can’t touch a recaste nu Mary Sue model due to the sheer heresy of it all, but those weedy orcses might have a place at a table someday.
DarkStarSabre wrote: Looks like a mirror of Indomitus' release but for AoS. This means the prices are fairly easy to guess (just look at the 40k stuff).
However, I suspect this also means no more digital book support for AoS.
Wonder if this also means Warscroll Builder is going and being replaced with an AoS app with a horrible subscription model too :(
The 40k equivalent of Warscroll Builder is still available.
If there are cheap Orc halves on Ebay I might just have to buy one even if the number of people I know who play AoS continues to be very low.
(Admittedly I've said this through half a dozen AoS armies - but if its an Indomitus style release it may get cheap enough to be an irrelevance. Will I ever finish those Necrons? Odds are low..)
Tyel wrote: If there are cheap Orc halves on Ebay I might just have to buy one even if the number of people I know who play AoS continues to be very low.
(Admittedly I've said this through half a dozen AoS armies - but if its an Indomitus style release it may get cheap enough to be an irrelevance. Will I ever finish those Necrons? Odds are low..)
Define cheap? if this is $250 retail you are probably looking at $80-90 for a half.
Surely you can hire staff (Family,friends) to do the purchase for you if you can't do it whilst at work?
Unfortunately the only person who I know for sure doesn't have anything better to do at 10am on a Saturday morning is barely computer literate. And there is a good chance he will have dozed off by then
tneva82 wrote:
Can't ask flgs for a reservation?
I sure won't try lottery on gw site
*chews straw*
No such thing as a flgs around here I'm afraid. At least not a non GW one, and that's stretching the definition of local.
But its not really a big deal. Dominion is something I would have liked to get. But I sure as heck don't need it. In a way its kind of a relief as it stops me getting swept up in the hype train.
*chews straw*
No such thing as a flgs around here I'm afraid. At least not a non GW one, and that's stretching the definition of local.
But its not really a big deal. Dominion is something I would have liked to get. But I sure as heck don't need it. In a way its kind of a relief as it stops me getting swept up in the hype train.
I mean, if you're able to get online at work and don't mind doing it via GW? You can load up a virtual gift voucher on their webstore with the amount the set is once we see the price leaks on June 13th/14th.
Since you're in GBP there's no surprise amount like there is here in the US for tax, right?
Hm, if the new GHB is just matched play and points (plus endless spell warscrolls I can get elsewhere) that would save me the trouble of buying it but I would remain disappointed.
Mad props for arranging things such that AoS 3rd lands on the 3rd day of the month though!
Yeah, not impressed with the GHB reduced to pitched battles only. I was actually looking forward to at least the collected White Dwarf articles and other surprises.
Da Boss wrote: I think that's the right way to look at these fomo products. If you can't get it, just let it pass you by.
True. If you don't play sce and have no interest starting orcs it's not too bad. If you do though you miss out on getting about 200e of one side for 160e. Plus book and other side.
Da Boss wrote: I think that's the right way to look at these fomo products. If you can't get it, just let it pass you by.
True. If you don't play sce and have no interest starting orcs it's not too bad. If you do though you miss out on getting about 200e of one side for 160e. Plus book and other side.
Gets expensive that way.
Even if you like all of the box you don't need it and different people make different decisions regarding these fomo products.
Personally I will not get it and like OP I just avoid the stress/artificial hype and concentrate on other things.
This also means that even my interest in potentially getting these individual minis later, is placed so further back on my list that I will probably miss it all. Happened to indomitus, cursed city.
So yep I think this FOMO thing has the opposite effect on me and probably other folks too.
Its like cant get the box now, will look into it later, looks at prices of individual kits and thinks Meh! Never needed this in the first place and moves away, strangely happier and relieved.
Well. If you play sce you wgll end up losing more in the end withott them. Gw will make them eventually hotter than old models. Like sequitors replaced liberators etc
tneva82 wrote: Well. If you play sce you wgll end up losing more in the end withott them. Gw will make them eventually hotter than old models. Like sequitors replaced liberators etc
I understand that and I do collect them I have nice sequitor army ( the multipart sequitors are such a nice kit too) but I can live with that. Since I have the army these new models would be extras to it even if hotter.
Maybe will get multiparts of these one day, you never know.
In indomitus I kind of wanted a few of the models there but ended up disappointed with the prices and bundles they came up with after so my wolf boys got nothing in the end.
What im saying is the Fear of missing out kind of will not change how I think and act and strangely makes me less interested in getting new stuff as consequence.
I can guarantee you that there will always be a new better looking model coming in the future
Dysartes wrote: I may have missed this being mentioned in another article, but it looks like AOS is joining 40k with the resized board "minimum size" palaver...
They talked about it on the announcement stream.
That would explain why I missed it - I didn't see it in the article at the time, and had no interest in watching the stream, so this is the first time I'd seen anything about it.
It's quite interesting how they're doing the SCE releases in the starters now. My Marine collection is made from a bunch of different starters going from 2e to 6e. All of them are close enough in scale and design to be used together in one force, so over time I collected a reasonably sized marine army kinda by accident. I'm quite happy with it though and don't mind.
But the SCE each time have a very different aesthetic, and these ones look like a straight visual upgrade on the chonkier first release. I like them, but I already have the stuff from the first boxed set and plan on painting them up as elemental themed. So these ones don't really fit and therefore I have no real use for them. I think that's interesting because with the old 40K starters (and Fantasy starters that had O&G) I could just plop the minis into my existing armies without that feeling.
It's clear that SCE are supposed to be the Space Marines of AoS but the way the models have been done is a little different. I'd only be interested in the Orc half of this in any case. And even then, I don't need more orcs that don't fit with my existing collection.
I think the problem is the 1st ed sce were trying too hard to be marines and newb-friendly. Large, flat, undecorated surfaces and general tubby appearance to bulk them up, and it's clear to everyone (by the merciless ribbing and sheer amount of 2nd hand on-sprue sce on the market) that that take wasn't too popular, so now they went and made them more like other new armies- proportioned like functional bipeds, with details on the armor and shields.
Da Boss wrote: It's quite interesting how they're doing the SCE releases in the starters now. My Marine collection is made from a bunch of different starters going from 2e to 6e. All of them are close enough in scale and design to be used together in one force, so over time I collected a reasonably sized marine army kinda by accident. I'm quite happy with it though and don't mind.
But the SCE each time have a very different aesthetic, and these ones look like a straight visual upgrade on the chonkier first release. I like them, but I already have the stuff from the first boxed set and plan on painting them up as elemental themed. So these ones don't really fit and therefore I have no real use for them. I think that's interesting because with the old 40K starters (and Fantasy starters that had O&G) I could just plop the minis into my existing armies without that feeling.
It's clear that SCE are supposed to be the Space Marines of AoS but the way the models have been done is a little different. I'd only be interested in the Orc half of this in any case. And even then, I don't need more orcs that don't fit with my existing collection.
I think In regards of SCE you pick one look style chamber and that is the majority of your faction then you can dip into other chambers for extras. Unlike marines they do look different enough so all chambers in one would look a bit chaotic. With that said I noticed that a small amend like changing the helmet to be the same on all makes such a dramatic difference on a stormCast.
As much as I like the new guys my Dracolines and sequitors still look better.
Anyone willing to take a guess on the contents of the parsed down Dominion Recruit, Command and Elite edition starter set equivalents that we will be getting for AOS?
I recall the 40k release of those sets was quite soon after Indomitus came and went as well.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Anyone willing to take a guess on the contents of the parsed down Dominion Recruit, Command and Elite edition starter set equivalents that we will be getting for AOS?
I recall the 40k release of those sets was quite soon after Indomitus came and went as well.
Storm Strike, Tempest of Souls and Soul Wars have just gone "last chance to buy" so expect those new replacement sets sooner rather than later.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Anyone willing to take a guess on the contents of the parsed down Dominion Recruit, Command and Elite edition starter set equivalents that we will be getting for AOS?
I recall the 40k release of those sets was quite soon after Indomitus came and went as well.
Well this is the breakdown of the sprues
3 Praetors - single sprue
5 Vindictors - small triple sprue
10 Gutrippas
10 Hobgrots - small triple sprue
Knight Arcanum - Killaboss with Stab grot - matched sprue
Lord-Imperatant with Gryph-hound - Swampcalla Shaman and Pot-grot - matched sprue
Yndrasta, 3 Annihilators, Knight-Vexillor with Banner of Apotheosis
Killaboss on Great Gnashtoof, 3 Man-skewer Boltboyz, Murknob with Belcha-banna
So the 3 boxes will be made of variants of those with the Knight Arcanum - Killaboss with Stab grot combo probably being in recruit and Lord-Imperatant with Gryph-hound - Swampcalla Shaman and Pot-grot combo in the other 2 sets with a mix of Vindictors, Praetors and Gutrippas and Hobgrots. Comman edition will get the new terrain as well.
The 2 big character sprues will probably get sold separately later for a large mark up.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Anyone willing to take a guess on the contents of the parsed down Dominion Recruit, Command and Elite edition starter set equivalents that we will be getting for AOS?
I recall the 40k release of those sets was quite soon after Indomitus came and went as well.
Spoiler:
Going off of the unboxing video?
Knight-Arcanum and Killaboss wif Stabgrot are a joined frame.
Lord-Imperatant with Gryph-Hound and Swampcaller Shaman are also a joined frame.
Yndrasta, the Celestial Spear, is on a full frame with the Knight-Vexillor and Annihilators.
Killaboss on Great Gnashtoof is on a full frame with Murknob with Belcha-Banner and Man-Skewer Boltboyz.
Everything else looked to be individual frames.
I'm going to guess that the Knight-Arcanum and Killaboss with Stabgrot are going to be featuring in the "Recruit" styled set, alongside of Vindictors and Gutrippaz.
The "Elite" version is likely to be the Lord-Imperatant with Gryph-Hound and Swampcaller Shaman, Vindictors, Gutrippaz, adding in Praetors and Hobgobs.
"Command" will be that plus scenery, which we've seen teased.
I'll be curious to see whether Yndrasta is truly a unique character or just a name for a sculpt.
What's presented is this:
"Kruleboyz are still brutal, but their cunning makes them more amenable to picking off foes at range and stabbing someone in the back instead of charging in headlong."
That seems on brand for a variety of orcs and goblins (and various subraces of both in the fantasy genre). They're not setting ploys 'underneath the underneath' or playing 5 dimensional chess in their heads. Or pulling the full Xanatos and every failure is actually a victory for the real scheme. They just favor ambushes, poisons, flanking maneuvers and problematic terrain. That's pretty classic gobbo behavior.
One thing can lead to another. I'm all fine with singular greenskinz being absolute militar geniuses amongst the greentide, but it worries me about a whole faction to start to do that. I want them to stay as fantasy Deathskulls.
I'm hoping we get the Soul Wars as Start Collecting, since AOS still gets Start collecting. But GW didn't do that with the 40k starter set, Dark Imperium. They released some of the models separately, but the majority of that set is currently gone
GaroRobe wrote: I'm hoping we get the Soul Wars as Start Collecting, since AOS still gets Start collecting. But GW didn't do that with the 40k starter set, Dark Imperium. They released some of the models separately, but the majority of that set is currently gone
AoS 1.0 Starter kit is now two Start Collecting! kits
What's presented is this:
"Kruleboyz are still brutal, but their cunning makes them more amenable to picking off foes at range and stabbing someone in the back instead of charging in headlong."
That seems on brand for a variety of orcs and goblins (and various subraces of both in the fantasy genre). They're not setting ploys 'underneath the underneath' or playing 5 dimensional chess in their heads. Or pulling the full Xanatos and every failure is actually a victory for the real scheme. They just favor ambushes, poisons, flanking maneuvers and problematic terrain. That's pretty classic gobbo behavior.
One thing can lead to another. I'm all fine with singular greenskinz being absolute militar geniuses amongst the greentide, but it worries me about a whole faction to start to do that. I want them to stay as fantasy Deathskulls.
Yeah, I'm still not sure where any of that is coming from. There are no 'absolute military geniuses' on display. Just basic ambush tactics. More Blood Axes (takktiks and being a little un-orky according to the local Goff equivalents) than Deathskullz.
AduroT wrote: The objectives strike me as weird because they’re not all on the same size/shape of base.
Either AOS stays as it is objective wise and base is irrelevant or there will be another even bigger laugh than in 40k where base size matters yet official objectives are different size than they are supposed to be.
GaroRobe wrote: I'm hoping we get the Soul Wars as Start Collecting, since AOS still gets Start collecting. But GW didn't do that with the 40k starter set, Dark Imperium. They released some of the models separately, but the majority of that set is currently gone
AoS 1.0 Starter kit is now two Start Collecting! kits
And so was Shadowspear. However, Indomitus wasn't. Dark Imperium wasn't either.
I'm hoping it'll be split into start collectings, but GW hasn't always followed the logic of "starter set--->two start collectings"
I'm hesitant to think we'll get to keep SC sets. We'll likely see Combat Patrol-esque sets coming, especially in light of generic "battalion" layouts coming with AOS3.
I'd be curious if we got the Soulwars for Start collecting, as at least on the Nighthaunt side you have some very odd model numbers on the Grimghast and Glaivewraith side.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I feel like if that were the case SGL wouldn't have gotten a new start collecting box.
*shrug*
We got the two Shadowspear halves as SC in the runup to 9E. The SGL box has no warscroll battalion in it. It could very well be that they're going the "Battleforce" route for AoS after the edition drops and as they release new books.
With a 2+ Save and 3 Wounds each, they are hard to kill, even in small units. Send them into the thickest fighting and watch a minimum-sized unit, like the three you get in the Dominion box, dish out 10 very solid Attacks (the unit’s Champion throws in an extra Attack just to show the others how it’s done).
Stormcast Eternals’ favourite trick is to drop out of the sky during the battle to take an objective or hound the enemy’s backline. Annihilators’ special rules make them particularly devastating in this case, especially if they make a successful charge.
Mortal wounds bypass the enemy’s Save roll, which means they are extremely useful for dislodging powerful units, Heroes, and Monsters who often head into battle with heavy armour of their own. Annihilators don’t just deal mortal wounds when they arrive on the battlefield, they can potentially land even more in the midst of the fighting too.
I like those rules, my concern is simply what's to stop them from melting to MWs in return? But I am particularly glad to see they aren't dealing MWs with their attacks and instead making it a conditional thing. I also hope the introduction of such high save models heralds a greater degree of rend being given out. But I am reminded what that is the first step towards...
More rend is last thing game needs. There's already too much resulting in 4+ and worse irrelevant. More rend and soon gw hands out inv like candy as only it is relevant save besides fnp
It is more common for units to deal MWs that ignore saves entirely than have rend -2 where a 4+ still has a chance, so I don't know what you're on about.
Nice, ogor charge bonus but better is...i guess there's only so many ways they can give unit MW without the truth of "all special rules give MW" coming out
The save is nice, but 3W each they will melt as easily as paladins do now to MW and high rend attacks.
GaroRobe wrote: I'm hoping we get the Soul Wars as Start Collecting, since AOS still gets Start collecting. But GW didn't do that with the 40k starter set, Dark Imperium. They released some of the models separately, but the majority of that set is currently gone
AoS 1.0 Starter kit is now two Start Collecting! kits
And so was Shadowspear. However, Indomitus wasn't. Dark Imperium wasn't either.
I'm hoping it'll be split into start collectings, but GW hasn't always followed the logic of "starter set--->two start collectings"
If you want a biiig clue as to which sets can be split up, you can look at the sprues.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm hesitant to think we'll get to keep SC sets. We'll likely see Combat Patrol-esque sets coming, especially in light of generic "battalion" layouts coming with AOS3.
I don't think we will start getting bigger Combat Patrol boxes yet. In 40k they started doing Combat Patrol boxes because compounding point discounts since 7th and early 8th edition made the Start Collecting boxes no longer 500 points. A few like the Ork and old Mechanicus one were around 250-300 points. Instead of increasing the points drastically to bring them back to 500 points they just released bigger boxes.
Meanwhile in AoS most SC boxes are still around 400-500 points since there has been less point deflation. There is no need for bigger boxes since they are still around the basic point limit of 500 pts. They are still good Starter sets for armies.
I feel a burning need to point out the unit has an ability that causes what is traditionally called impact hits but has a name that implies falling from the sky, and an ability that works when they fall from the sky but is named Impact.
Ghaz wrote: Seems right to me. They arrive on the battlefield with a Blazing Impact and on a charge they hit the enemy with the Force of a Falling Star.
As a contrast with arriving on the battlefield with the Force of a Falling Star and on a charge hitting the enemy with a Blazing Impact? ^_^
Ghaz wrote: Seems right to me. They arrive on the battlefield with a Blazing Impact and on a charge they hit the enemy with the Force of a Falling Star.
As a contrast with arriving on the battlefield with the Force of a Falling Star and on a charge hitting the enemy with a Blazing Impact? ^_^
Because the charge isn't a Blazing Impact as the fluff says they have '... twin-tailed trails streaking behind them as an earth shattering shockwave blasts apart the foes of Sigmar' whereas the Force of a Falling Star is just another way of saying it hits hard (e.g., hits like a Mack truck) without any additional pyrotechnics.
Hey look another unit that does mortal wounds on the charge. I really enjoy the amount of mortal wounds in Sigmar already, it’s a really good mechanic that is very fun to not be able to interact with at all. I’m really glad they keep ham fisting them into every unit they can.
At least they aren’t getting a 3rd rule to do them on their attacks.
Why? They won’t be distributed until the Monday before the preorder, like every other preorder.
The Cadian price is concerning though, ouch.
Ouch indeed, I'm not looking forward to seeing the Oz pricing. They're already too expensive for crappy models of which you need many, a 30% price hike isn't terribly appealing. I was hoping they'd just sell the sprue separately, it's not like you need or even want one for every single unit.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Gaunt's Ghosts are the same price as the new Nundam Suits.
That's AUD$18.30 per model. That's pretty rich for a bunch'a Guardsmen.
They’re expensive, but you’d only have one, and they’re more a collectible painting project type thing really. I think the Cadian price is much more egregious for models that are 90% 18 years old and a tiny part of an army. Even accounting for inflation and the extra bits, they’re double the price they were when they were first released, again, 18 years ago.
tneva82 wrote: Likely catch all term to damage resist aka fnp. 6+++
Unlikely there's 4th save besides armour, ethereal(aka invulnerable) and fnp
I'm wondering if it's their new shorthand for ethereal or for woundshrug/fnp. Hard to tell with the context we have. In WHFB it was more like an fnp in that you got your armor save and then a ward save, but that doesn't mean AoS is going to make it work like that.
*sigh* I complain a lot about mortal wounds but... staahp! I’m just going to assume every unit in the game from now on will vomit a constant stream of mortal wounds.
jaredb wrote: Giving priests the ability to unbind endless spells really helps the armies which have less access to Wizards as well, which is nice to see.
I just hope we see priest prayers get the same 'Rule of 1' which we already see for spells.
Did you mean “endless prayers” instead of spells? I don’t think priests will cancel spells.
jaredb wrote: Giving priests the ability to unbind endless spells really helps the armies which have less access to Wizards as well, which is nice to see.
I just hope we see priest prayers get the same 'Rule of 1' which we already see for spells.
Did you mean “endless prayers” instead of spells? I don’t think priests will cancel spells.
Seems like they can now, after that article seemed to mention they do. Which is really good news.
mokoshkana wrote: Did you mean “endless prayers” instead of spells? I don’t think priests will cancel spells.
By the looks of it, prayers and endless spells will now fall under Invocations, with priests having the ability to dispel all Invocations. I think Invocation is a new keyword, maybe wrong, but either way, priests can now dispel endless spells.
Invocations is just what the 'endless spells' for the wizardless armies were called, its nothing new to 3rd. Just they can now be dispelled by enemy priests, afaik that couldn't happen before.
jaredb wrote: Giving priests the ability to unbind endless spells really helps the armies which have less access to Wizards as well, which is nice to see.
I just hope we see priest prayers get the same 'Rule of 1' which we already see for spells.
Did you mean “endless prayers” instead of spells? I don’t think priests will cancel spells.
From articve: This gives priests a really interesting place in your army as they can counter both invocations AND Endless spells, where Wizards can only counter spells.
Though didn't see any rule covering it so still possibility warcom is in error. But they can now by look of it.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: ...aaaaand the War Shrine just became mandatory in Tzeentch armies. Because screw Khorne telling me I just don't get to play.
Care to explain? I looked at the Warshrine scroll and I’m not making a connection.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: ...aaaaand the War Shrine just became mandatory in Tzeentch armies. Because screw Khorne telling me I just don't get to play.
Care to explain? I looked at the Warshrine scroll and I’m not making a connection.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: ...aaaaand the War Shrine just became mandatory in Tzeentch armies. Because screw Khorne telling me I just don't get to play.
Care to explain? I looked at the Warshrine scroll and I’m not making a connection.
Short of allying with say khorne slaughterpriests warshrine is only way to get priest to tzeentch army.
Though as tzeentch has survived so far without denying invocations shouldn't have too much trouble with them for now. Maybe if GW introduces even more powerful ones(bleargh. Some armies don't have priest period)
Considering most armies have a religious connection to a god (or gods) of some kind; we might see this as the start of GW adding more priests into the game for each army. Also we have to consider that many armies have fought against priest armies without counterpriest options and vis versa for priest armies against wizards - and its not seemingly been a big problem.
Overread wrote: Considering most armies have a religious connection to a god (or gods) of some kind; we might see this as the start of GW adding more priests into the game for each army. Also we have to consider that many armies have fought against priest armies without counterpriest options and vis versa for priest armies against wizards - and its not seemingly been a big problem.
Well before there weren't counterpriest options besides killing them
And since article claims invocations work as before except for priest ability to un-invocate them guess those aren't moving each turn like endless spell so those aren't getting power boost.
Speaking of double move damage dealing ones can become mean. Purple sun moving twice over targets before they get to move? That's 30% of unit dying basically.
Speaking of double move damage dealing ones can become mean. Purple sun moving twice over targets before they get to move? That's 30% of unit dying basically.
When I read the rules I instantly thought of Purple Sun.
Tiberius501 wrote: You guys liking the tasty mortal wound feast of 3rd edition?
Was thinking the same. This edition's beginning to sound pretty lethal.
Gotta take those expensive toys you spent hours painting off the table quickly so you have more room for more expensive toys. I guess it does cut down on the number of rolls you have to make.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: ...aaaaand the War Shrine just became mandatory in Tzeentch armies. Because screw Khorne telling me I just don't get to play.
I've been sitting on my StD for years waiting to get back into fantasy. Is the Start Collecting the only place to grab the new chaos warriors?
Manfred von Drakken wrote: ...aaaaand the War Shrine just became mandatory in Tzeentch armies. Because screw Khorne telling me I just don't get to play.
Is the Start Collecting the only place to grab the new chaos warriors?
A lot of this terrain was shown earlier. I wonder if it's all new terrain or just a conversion they're really, really proud of
The terrain featured on the cover of the upcoming board back, a bit like the newer 40k terrain showed up on the cover of this, before actually showing in this, and then finally this.
A lot of this terrain was shown earlier. I wonder if it's all new terrain or just a conversion they're really, really proud of
The terrain featured on the cover of the upcoming board back, a bit like the newer 40k terrain showed up on the cover of this, before actually showing in this, and then finally this.
Gives me more aelf vibes, but given that we're getting Dawnbreaker crusades or something, I'm expecting Cities of Sigmar to get a revamp, or at least play a larger role in 3rd edition
GaroRobe wrote: Gives me more aelf vibes, but given that we're getting Dawnbreaker crusades or something, I'm expecting Cities of Sigmar to get a revamp, or at least play a larger role in 3rd edition
I am speculating that Dawnbringer crusades will be their own battletome that will work and entwine with Cities. Cities by itself is already a huge book.
fething dammit GW. I wanted to be optimistic but the back of my head knew this was coming.
*sigh* I suppose I would rather have excellent core rules and questionable allegiance/warscroll ones than the reverse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jaredb wrote: Big changes to the chronomatic cogs, not as potent as they used to be.
Except they affect multiple wizards now. Tzeentch and Lumineth needed a boost, so they can castle around the cogs with 3-5 wizards getting an extra spell quite easily.
Krule Boyz with multiple shamans boosting the ranged units are going to be utterly lethal for pumping out mortals, never mind weight of hits in melee....
NinthMusketeer wrote: fething dammit GW. I wanted to be optimistic but the back of my head knew this was coming.
I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.
One of the biggest problems with AoS is mortal wound spam--armies dealing out a lot MWs commonly using abilities/buffs so their attacks are dealing them. If you ask players what they dislike about AoS, it is possibly the most common answer after double turn. And they just gave it to all the Krulboyz. This is paired with there being no design conundrum whatsoever; this is not a difficult dance to appease old players verses new, maintain theme while keeping things simple, or a difficult mechanic to balance. These abilities could easily be made to either trigger on the wound roll or have the hit roll wound automatically instead of dealing mortals. It is just bad on multiple levels and honestly speaks to a certain disregard for players' concerns.
Oh and they just broke cogs when used in hi-magic armies to boot. Tzeentch and Lumineth can easily pile around them and be getting 3-5 extra spells every turn. This speaks simply to a sheer lack of consideration for the consequences of warscroll changes on the table. It further shows that while GW is obviously making some great updates to the core rules their classic issue of not understanding/not thinking things through remains as strong as ever.
Noticed also lambent light holds until next hero phase. While irrelevant in aos2 it now becomes good charge deterrant. Dare to charge near sentinels? Eat 10.5 mw's...
Have fun. They don't even care about that -1 to hit thing...
Hopefully new points compensate but not hopeful.
Even as lumineth player(one of 11) i'm starting to feel dirty. So far good buffs seen for shooting in general and lumineth loves several changes(life swarm btw comboes nicely with teclis. You can basically heal 3d3 if you only do new heroics on your turn. 4d3 if both...) seen so far.
Rihgu wrote: But yea, 3.0 definitely looks like Age of Mortal Wounds.
It's never not been that. They have half a decade of people complaining about stuff dealing too many MWs and they ignore it outright. It shows me that while they have (clearly) gotten better at writing rules they are still doing it in their own bubble. And I do give them credit for getting better at that; the changes to the core rules have been great and they look both thematic and fun without being overpowering. I think they really worked hard and did a lot of internal testing to get them there. Which actually makes their inability to replace "hit roll of 6" with "wound roll of 6" all the more infuriating.
My eyebrows hurt a little after the Swampcaller's poison ability.
Forgo casting to give a unit MWs on unmodified 5+ to hit? Oh... OK then. And they equal the damage characteristic? Huh.
The killaboss with this upgrade does 4.3 MW or so per turn, and a single hero is pretty small potatoes.
If those archers come in big units (or the army has attack multipliers), its going to be nuts.
-----
Also, am I reading the implication right and the new swamp orcs are just going to be folded into the general Orc Warclans book?
Daedalus81 wrote: I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.
I think he's worried that GW are doing something very new with 3rd Ed AoS: Introducing units that cause mortal wounds. It's something that's not really been all that prevalent in the game before, so this sudden addition of so many new sources of Mortal Wounds are a concern.
Daedalus81 wrote: I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.
I think he's worried that GW are doing something very new with 3rd Ed AoS: Introducing units that cause mortal wounds. It's something that's not really been all that prevalent in the game before, so this sudden addition of so many new sources of Mortal Wounds are a concern.
Daedalus81 wrote: I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.
I think he's worried that GW are doing something very new with 3rd Ed AoS: Introducing units that cause mortal wounds. It's something that's not really been all that prevalent in the game before, so this sudden addition of so many new sources of Mortal Wounds are a concern.
Thanks all. Disappointing for sure unless some other mechanic reigns this in.
When a non mount attack for a model with this weapon hits on a 6, auto mortal wounds to the number of damage from that weapon, and the attack sequence ends - do not roll to wound or to save rolls.
So if a unit has these players will have to roll for each model individually as otherwise no way to know which attacking model rolled the '6'?
Also if a 6 is rolled do all of the other hits from that model get ignored or is the cessation of the attack phase ONLY for the dice that rolled the 6?
When a non mount attack for a model with this weapon hits on a 6, auto mortal wounds to the number of damage from that weapon, and the attack sequence ends - do not roll to wound or to save rolls.
So if a unit has these players will have to roll for each model individually as otherwise no way to know which attacking model rolled the '6'?
Also if a 6 is rolled do all of the other hits from that model get ignored or is the cessation of the attack phase ONLY for the dice that rolled the 6?
Why would you even ask a silly question like are all the other hits ignored? That's ridiculous and nobody would think that.
Daedalus81 wrote: Thanks all. Disappointing for sure unless some other mechanic reigns this in.
I was being sarcastic. Age of Sigmar is a MW generating factory. 3rd Edition AoS seems to be building a second factory to pump out even more Mortal Wounds.
It's one of AoS' biggest failings: Everyone and his dog has a way (if not 2+ ways) of generating MWs. It's why I always make fun of Endless Spells whenever a new set comes out, because, inevitably, 2 of the 3 will just be new ways of causing MW in slightly different ways.
More MWs! More ways to shoot your opponent off the table! Ridiculously restrictive coherency rules that make 9th edition's rules look positively permissive! Everything the AOS player base was crying out for! GW truly is a master at reading the room.
Remember: Everything above 5 models is a horde, so needs to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit.
This will of course create situations where 5 big models in a unit can stretch out to full coherency, but 6 of the same have to be crammed together to avoid accidentally losing models.
sound familiar if you play 40k, so Rank&File it is again (as 6 large models need to be in 2 ranks, like it used to be in good old Warhammer Fantasy)
mortar_crew wrote: Their war scroll rules are the problem, not the core rules.
the core rules were never a big problem, in none of the GW games, it was always a problem with the unit/army rules
for now it looks like the AoS Team is at least playing their own game but they are not playing all factions there and only with the studio models, hence why changes are looked at a closed bubble of limited factions and maximum 1 of each unit (they just don't know that 5 wizards around Cogs might be a problem because they never thought about playing 5 as they don't have enough painted models)
When a non mount attack for a model with this weapon hits on a 6, auto mortal wounds to the number of damage from that weapon, and the attack sequence ends - do not roll to wound or to save rolls.
So if a unit has these players will have to roll for each model individually as otherwise no way to know which attacking model rolled the '6'?
Also if a 6 is rolled do all of the other hits from that model get ignored or is the cessation of the attack phase ONLY for the dice that rolled the 6?
You don't need to care about which model throws attack. You pick up weapon for unit to attack. Then you roll dice for each attack for that weapon for the unit. Every 6 causes MW's and you remove those dices from hit pool. Roll to wound for rest.
It's simple. Basically no different to say lumineth weapons except MW count is based on damage value of weapon which means if it's random amount you would need to then roll mw amount separately. Also more powerful generally than lumineth.
1. Allow scale creep until most models are on 32mm bases rather than 25mm bases.
2. Change coherency rules to penalise models that are more than 25.4mm away.
3. Profit?!
I think it should have kicked in at 11+ instead of 6+ but it doesn't seem that bad to me. I am actually glad because I always hated when the viable tactic was stringing things out in some weird noodle because it just doesn't feel very narrative and that is important to me. Yeah I know I can just not do that (and I do), but it is still an artificial handicap which reduces fun for me.
But I actually like paying attention to formation and ideal placement, and I can definitely see how other people would find this change as unfun for them as it is fun for me. So I certainly respect the position of people who do not like it
I do hate how 40k and AoS have so many very similar rules that are not quite the same. Dumb stuff like one system counting wounds remaining and the other counting wounds received. I always have to stop and remember which slight variation of many things the particular game I’m playing uses.
His Master's Voice wrote: Are people really complaining about slightly more compact unit footprints?
Why? What's the issue here?
Units with larger than 25 or even 32mm Bases, meaning units of 6+ of cavalry, monstrous infantry, etc. are very hard to keep in coherency once in combat or being unable to pull them all in weapon range.
Remember its the same for your opponent as it is for you. This keeps up the idea of a block of infantry rather than sprawling daisy chains. It might also mean that instead of taking lots of full units you take several smaller ones and then combine attacks; hitting on the flanks of combat instead of having one big unit that hits and then spreads out
the idea behind this rules is that units should form closed blocks instead of congas or line formation, but makes it a time consuming task to execute
make it 6+ models must be in base-to-base contact with at least 2 other models of that unit unless in melee were 1" to 1 other model is enough (movement after close combat must be used to get back in formation) and you get your closed blocks without the need to measure each model everytime you move and the large models can fight in melee
His Master's Voice wrote: Are people really complaining about slightly more compact unit footprints?
Why? What's the issue here?
Issue comes for many in combat. 12 gluttons. If only 6 fight that's squad that's not worth the points when half the squad is just sitting back.
Even 6 loses third of it's melee power...And your only option is units of 3...
These sort of units starts to need bigget discount for full unit...but GW has started to REMOVE discounts for bigger squads...
It's basically GW forcing MSU into the game. Cavalry, 40mm base guys etc don't want to go 6+. Of course some of those have no real way to do it. Glutton on 3 size punch very little and can't have banners etc.
Aye, but don't forget its universal for both sides. In addition this lowers the potential lethality of units. This might return some of the push-shove aspect of close combat which is closer to real world close combat battles. Rather than having big units that hit with everything in their first round of combat. Units behind have to wait their turn to get into the thick of combat.
Of course at the same time GW seems to be adding more and more mortal wound sources and damage.
In the end it will be interesting to test, but to remember that whatever you suffer from your opponent also suffers from in this case.
Nah it just means units get split up. Same as before except now in MSU which is generally superior anyway. Except some armies can't do that as well. So this will screw some armies and help others. Basically if you are 32mm 1" range or bigger you are screwed if you go above 5.
The new coherency rules are great from a gameplay/narrative perspective (the same as heroic actions and monstrous rampage, everything is more cinematic now)
The problem is, this is an effective nerf to melee combat, reduce the combat efficiency of all mele units with 6+ models by half (or force you to pick polearms that usually got worst stats, how curious that both new Stormcast and new Orruks use polearms, uh.)
That mean the value of shooting is again improved, so this is a nerf to mele and a buff to shooting, something the game desperately not need.
A shooting unit can now shoot you in the shooting phase (you can use +1 save CA here) and shoot you again in the charge phase (no +1 save CA here) with a -1 to hit (let say if it hit before on a 4+ now it hit on a 5+, that is 33% less damage output [1 out of 3 success to hit is now a failure])
So a shooting unit now proyect 166% damage compared to before, while a mele unit of 6+ models proyect 50% the damage that it did before. The +1 hit and +1 save CA can be used by both in the shooting and combat phase respectively (but not the charge phase) so there is no need to account them as they counter each other.
When a non mount attack for a model with this weapon hits on a 6, auto mortal wounds to the number of damage from that weapon, and the attack sequence ends - do not roll to wound or to save rolls.
So if a unit has these players will have to roll for each model individually as otherwise no way to know which attacking model rolled the '6'?
Also if a 6 is rolled do all of the other hits from that model get ignored or is the cessation of the attack phase ONLY for the dice that rolled the 6?
You don't need to care about which model throws attack. You pick up weapon for unit to attack. Then you roll dice for each attack for that weapon for the unit. Every 6 causes MW's and you remove those dices from hit pool. Roll to wound for rest.
It's simple. Basically no different to say lumineth weapons except MW count is based on damage value of weapon which means if it's random amount you would need to then roll mw amount separately. Also more powerful generally than lumineth.
Thanks, I am just starting out in AOS and the writing of the rule for a new player moving from very well written rules system left me thinking there is no way they would make it as difficult as it seemed as written.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think it should have kicked in at 11+ instead of 6+ but it doesn't seem that bad to me. I am actually glad because I always hated when the viable tactic was stringing things out in some weird noodle because it just doesn't feel very narrative and that is important to me. Yeah I know I can just not do that (and I do), but it is still an artificial handicap which reduces fun for me.
But I actually like paying attention to formation and ideal placement, and I can definitely see how other people would find this change as unfun for them as it is fun for me. So I certainly respect the position of people who do not like it
Until you play big units like Ogres and Minotaurs with 1" range attack weapons and suddenly your 6 man unit can't attack with half his models because this stupid rule.
Meanwhile 25mm based morterk guard with their 2" spears will hit like a fething truck.
It's fine, you just need to lose 1 model to be able to hit with all 5 that are left. It's ironically better to not shoot an unit of 6 gluttons so they have to pile in after 1st CC phase to hit with more models than to kill 1 model with shooting.
His Master's Voice wrote: Are people really complaining about slightly more compact unit footprints?
Why? What's the issue here?
Units with larger than 25 or even 32mm Bases, meaning units of 6+ of cavalry, monstrous infantry, etc. are very hard to keep in coherency once in combat or being unable to pull them all in weapon range.
Yea I think the system works fine in 40K, but when you get to attack based on weapon ranges it seems like this will nerf melee even more.
I think this just encourages MSU of cavalry units. Also, more likely to "side/strafe" run your cavalry units into your opponent just to keep within range of weapons.
I'll be honest and say that it does feel like this rule wasn't really thought out. I mean, I do not see how I can reliably run more than 5 eels at a time with Idoneth and get everyone into combat, at the same time I am forced into this rule if I want more than 3 man units as the Eels come in pack of 3s.
Unless we are paying for individual models in units and not the current size leaps.
DaveC wrote: Hopefully the new terrain can be assembled in a variety of ways and the walls are stackable.
Spoiler:
Looking at the way the wooden beams are molded on their it doesn't look stackable, unfortunately. Stuff looks nice, but is probably much more limited than it needed to be.
You can fight in two(ish) ranks with 40mm bases, though. Just space each rank out an inch and have them all nestle into the gaps in b2b, and the second rank is within 1" of the front of the first rank.
It's needlessly fiddly and may not achieve anything besides annoying people, but it's not worse than maximizing 25mm bases with 1" reach. Technically you've even got more wiggle room, as you have a couple spare mm, not just .4.
I like the style of then new terrain. It's not ruins, because they're buildings that haven't been finished yet. Plus the statue and the water sphere are cool.
DaveC wrote: Hopefully the new terrain can be assembled in a variety of ways and the walls are stackable.
Overread wrote: Remember its the same for your opponent as it is for you. This keeps up the idea of a block of infantry rather than sprawling daisy chains. It might also mean that instead of taking lots of full units you take several smaller ones and then combine attacks; hitting on the flanks of combat instead of having one big unit that hits and then spreads out
Cept you fan still aboslutely daisy chain and attacking with several small units ends up with your units dying before they get to swing most of the time.
His Master's Voice wrote: Are people really complaining about slightly more compact unit footprints?
Why? What's the issue here?
Units with larger than 25 or even 32mm Bases, meaning units of 6+ of cavalry, monstrous infantry, etc. are very hard to keep in coherency once in combat or being unable to pull them all in weapon range.
Yea I think the system works fine in 40K, but when you get to attack based on weapon ranges it seems like this will nerf melee even more.
Also when coherency is half as long. it's only 1" in Sigmar
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Nah it just means units get split up. Same as before except now in MSU which is generally superior anyway. Except some armies can't do that as well. So this will screw some armies and help others. Basically if you are 32mm 1" range or bigger you are screwed if you go above 5.
It's not equal for all.
MSU is NOT superior in Sigmar and never has been. Combat alternates activations so splitting up a 6 man unit of Eels for example, just means 3 of your eels are going to die before they swing.
You also don't get the same buff density considering Sigmar tends to use as many targeted buffs as auras.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Aye, but don't forget its universal for both sides. In addition this lowers the potential lethality of units. This might return some of the push-shove aspect of close combat which is closer to real world close combat battles. Rather than having big units that hit with everything in their first round of combat. Units behind have to wait their turn to get into the thick of combat.
Of course at the same time GW seems to be adding more and more mortal wound sources and damage.
In the end it will be interesting to test, but to remember that whatever you suffer from your opponent also suffers from in this case.
Unless I only bring shooting units and monsters. Then I don't suffer at all.
The recent article on warhammer community about slaves to darkness mentions Grand Strategies. Anyone know anythingabout this yet? Looks like maybe secondary objectives for aos?
jaredb wrote: The recent article on warhammer community about slaves to darkness mentions Grand Strategies. Anyone know anythingabout this yet? Looks like maybe secondary objectives for aos?
It looks like you just pick one (or more). If you fulfill it, you get bonus VPs.
In this case, if you pick 'Hold the Line' and you have a Battleline unit somewhere on the field, you get 3 VPs.
So, its a strategy for tough armies facing armies with low raw killing power.
Or if you can teleport/run a minimum point cost batteline unit into a corner on the last turn...
Trimarius wrote: You can fight in two(ish) ranks with 40mm bases, though. Just space each rank out an inch and have them all nestle into the gaps in b2b, and the second rank is within 1" of the front of the first rank.
It's needlessly fiddly and may not achieve anything besides annoying people, but it's not worse than maximizing 25mm bases with 1" reach. Technically you've even got more wiggle room, as you have a couple spare mm, not just .4.
The issue is more with the oval bases of various cavalry units. They will suffer the most on this. At least in 40k you don't have to worry about melee ranges when it comes to bikes and cavalry units.
Trimarius wrote: You can fight in two(ish) ranks with 40mm bases, though. Just space each rank out an inch and have them all nestle into the gaps in b2b, and the second rank is within 1" of the front of the first rank.
It's needlessly fiddly and may not achieve anything besides annoying people, but it's not worse than maximizing 25mm bases with 1" reach. Technically you've even got more wiggle room, as you have a couple spare mm, not just .4.
The issue is more with the oval bases of various cavalry units. They will suffer the most on this. At least in 40k you don't have to worry about melee ranges when it comes to bikes and cavalry units.
You can get 5/6 of your cav into melee with 1" reach. One guy has to ride sideways in the back as the connector piece, but it works out. For 60x35 bases, you just have to slide the outer two back an inch and over into b2b, but for 75x42 you do need to angle them a bit to achieve coherency while maintaining that 1" reach to the front line. It's pretty exacting on the larger bases, though, which is annoying. Custom movement trays might be in order if the people you play with aren't down with it being "provable but not exact" for the sake of expediency.
If you ignore the hilarious "crab rider" in the back, it actually give your cavalry a bit of a lance look, as a throwback for all the bretonnian fans out there.
Well, my friend who has drafting software at work made this up for us quick to demonstrate that 1" ranged 40mm models don't have it so bad off, assuming you can mathematically perfectly place their bases tangentially
Spoiler:
edit: For the most part, since we don't play tournaments really and everybody is used to the concept from Infinity, I'm going to try to push a more "play by intent" model for AoS to make it so nobody feels like they need to spend an hour with protractors to maximize their units' combat efficiency. If we know, mathematically, that your models can fight in whatever ranks, don't even bother spacing them out "perfectly" unless we're in dire need of precisely measuring model locations. Have a 3x2 formation of Ogor Gluttons all count as within 1", just for Sigmar's sake don't pull out the protractor. I don't really care that much!
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think it should have kicked in at 11+ instead of 6+ but it doesn't seem that bad to me. I am actually glad because I always hated when the viable tactic was stringing things out in some weird noodle because it just doesn't feel very narrative and that is important to me. Yeah I know I can just not do that (and I do), but it is still an artificial handicap which reduces fun for me.
But I actually like paying attention to formation and ideal placement, and I can definitely see how other people would find this change as unfun for them as it is fun for me. So I certainly respect the position of people who do not like it
Until you play big units like Ogres and Minotaurs with 1" range attack weapons and suddenly your 6 man unit can't attack with half his models because this stupid rule.
Meanwhile 25mm based morterk guard with their 2" spears will hit like a fething truck.
Well it's not that bad. 2 out of 6 at back is 33%.
Well one can hope in theory that ghb2021 points factor this in
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote: It's fine, you just need to lose 1 model to be able to hit with all 5 that are left. It's ironically better to not shoot an unit of 6 gluttons so they have to pile in after 1st CC phase to hit with more models than to kill 1 model with shooting.
Well gluttons can opt to spread during charge, attack with 6 accepting 1 will die end of turn and having buffer to lose to return attacks. If enemy kills 1, no difference
I think people are vastly overestimating how common units of 6+ models with 40mm or larger bases are, and also vastly overestimating how many models in those units are getting to fight with the current coherency rules. That 12-man glutton unit was not fighting with all 12 except on rare occasion. Generally speaking 2/3 of the unit getting in range was what one could count on as an average. Now in a protacted combat obviously more models could shift and more could get into range, but models also die. And that is really what the extras are there for; ablative wounds that die without costing the unit offense. I say this with a lot of experience in running 40mm and 50mm units, before someone makes that accusation.
jaredb wrote: The recent article on warhammer community about slaves to darkness mentions Grand Strategies. Anyone know anythingabout this yet? Looks like maybe secondary objectives for aos?
Looks like that but end game bonus points rather than in game book keeping like 40k
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think it should have kicked in at 11+ instead of 6+ but it doesn't seem that bad to me. I am actually glad because I always hated when the viable tactic was stringing things out in some weird noodle because it just doesn't feel very narrative and that is important to me. Yeah I know I can just not do that (and I do), but it is still an artificial handicap which reduces fun for me.
But I actually like paying attention to formation and ideal placement, and I can definitely see how other people would find this change as unfun for them as it is fun for me. So I certainly respect the position of people who do not like it
Until you play big units like Ogres and Minotaurs with 1" range attack weapons and suddenly your 6 man unit can't attack with half his models because this stupid rule.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think people are vastly overestimating how common units of 6+ models with 40mm or larger bases are, and also vastly overestimating how many models in those units are getting to fight with the current coherency rules. That 12-man glutton unit was not fighting with all 12 except on rare occasion. Generally speaking 2/3 of the unit getting in range was what one could count on as an average. Now in a protacted combat obviously more models could shift and more could get into range, but models also die. And that is really what the extras are there for; ablative wounds that die without costing the unit offense. I say this with a lot of experience in running 40mm and 50mm units, before someone makes that accusation.
Getting 6/6 wasn't that hard before.
Stormcast, ogres, fec, gloomspite. 4 armies i have this affects. Hell sce doesn't have 25mm or 32mm bases...
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think people are vastly overestimating how common units of 6+ models with 40mm or larger bases are, and also vastly overestimating how many models in those units are getting to fight with the current coherency rules. That 12-man glutton unit was not fighting with all 12 except on rare occasion. Generally speaking 2/3 of the unit getting in range was what one could count on as an average. Now in a protacted combat obviously more models could shift and more could get into range, but models also die. And that is really what the extras are there for; ablative wounds that die without costing the unit offense. I say this with a lot of experience in running 40mm and 50mm units, before someone makes that accusation.
Getting 6/6 wasn't that hard before.
Stormcast, ogres, fec, gloomspite. 4 armies i have this affects. Hell sce doesn't have 25mm or 32mm bases...
40mm isn't really impacted (combat wise, they still have to clump up, obviously), as you can get 6/6 into melee. Light and heavy cav gets 5/6, as one guy has to sit in the back sideways. 50mm is the worst hit, as they can only manage 4/6 as a frontage.
So minos and trolls might not be ideal in larger units. At least until you start losing some, anyway.
I agree with tneva and I think it leads to a larger point; this hurts 6-man 40mm units more than anything else. I really wish they had it kick in at 11 instead.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think people are vastly overestimating how common units of 6+ models with 40mm or larger bases are, and also vastly overestimating how many models in those units are getting to fight with the current coherency rules. That 12-man glutton unit was not fighting with all 12 except on rare occasion. Generally speaking 2/3 of the unit getting in range was what one could count on as an average. Now in a protacted combat obviously more models could shift and more could get into range, but models also die. And that is really what the extras are there for; ablative wounds that die without costing the unit offense. I say this with a lot of experience in running 40mm and 50mm units, before someone makes that accusation.
I play ogres and khorne minotaurs. Tell me I'm overestimating anything.
How I'm gonna play my minotaur units with 50mm bases and 1" great axes? This change is horse gak and we all know it. It only makes the gap between those monstrous infantry units and hordes bigger. And hordes were allready the most strong unit in the game.
We have to remember that these are the core rules, individual armies might get alterations to those rules which adapt them. Armies with all huge bases might well get special changes. Or we might see a wave of weapon profile changes as well.
Until we see rules in full it is somewhat a bit of guesswork how things might interact.
GW does tend to over-compensate whenever they change something for the better; or make core rules one thing and then have a multitude of armies that ignore/change those rules.
Overread wrote: We have to remember that these are the core rules, individual armies might get alterations to those rules which adapt them. Armies with all huge bases might well get special changes. Or we might see a wave of weapon profile changes as well.
Until we see rules in full it is somewhat a bit of guesswork how things might interact.
GW does tend to over-compensate whenever they change something for the better; or make core rules one thing and then have a multitude of armies that ignore/change those rules.
This is itself a problem on it's own.
Let's say Beasts of Chaos get a new book early on, and their 50mm minotaurs get 3" swingin' range to compensate for new coherency rules... Sure they're fine but think about the Pusgoyle Blightlord/Nurgle Airforce players? When will they get their book?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think people are vastly overestimating how common units of 6+ models with 40mm or larger bases are, and also vastly overestimating how many models in those units are getting to fight with the current coherency rules. That 12-man glutton unit was not fighting with all 12 except on rare occasion. Generally speaking 2/3 of the unit getting in range was what one could count on as an average. Now in a protacted combat obviously more models could shift and more could get into range, but models also die. And that is really what the extras are there for; ablative wounds that die without costing the unit offense. I say this with a lot of experience in running 40mm and 50mm units, before someone makes that accusation.
I play ogres and khorne minotaurs. Tell me I'm overestimating anything.
How I'm gonna play my minotaur units with 50mm bases and 1" great axes? This change is horse gak and we all know it. It only makes the gap between those monstrous infantry units and hordes bigger. And hordes were allready the most strong unit in the game.
Tell me the percentage of players playing ogres and minotaurs then I'll get back to you.
Overread wrote: We have to remember that these are the core rules, individual armies might get alterations to those rules which adapt them. Armies with all huge bases might well get special changes. Or we might see a wave of weapon profile changes as well.
Until we see rules in full it is somewhat a bit of guesswork how things might interact.
GW does tend to over-compensate whenever they change something for the better; or make core rules one thing and then have a multitude of armies that ignore/change those rules.
This is itself a problem on it's own.
Let's say Beasts of Chaos get a new book early on, and their 50mm minotaurs get 3" swingin' range to compensate for new coherency rules... Sure they're fine but think about the Pusgoyle Blightlord/Nurgle Airforce players? When will they get their book?
As a member of the latter, it isn't a big deal. Pusgoyles are bought in increments of 2 and 4-man is the largest size you generally want to go. Additionally half the models are higher-offense thanks to an extra weapon, so the front half of models are a majority of damage output rather than just half. Plague drones enjoy 6-man but even with fly it is rare to get more than 4 of them in range unless one strings them out, which is itself risky because an enemy can flank you and you're screwed. And even then, as soon as one dies it is no longer a factor where if none of them are dying things are going pretty well already.
Cronch wrote: It's fine, you just need to lose 1 model to be able to hit with all 5 that are left. It's ironically better to not shoot an unit of 6 gluttons so they have to pile in after 1st CC phase to hit with more models than to kill 1 model with shooting.
Well gluttons can opt to spread during charge, attack with 6 accepting 1 will die end of turn and having buffer to lose to return attacks. If enemy kills 1, no difference
You aren't allowed to break coherency after any move.
It's just stupid that 6 32mm models cannot stand shoulder to shoulder in a line according to the new rules. Talking about what's "immersive" is a bit of a joke when the rule doesn't allow that, but does encourage weird sideways-moving cavalry in complex geometric patterns.
If they really wanted to do 40k-style coherency, just do 40k-style coherency, and move the basic measure to 2". W/in 1" of 2 models creates absurd results. Even visual stupidity aside, there are going to be cases where you are not allowed to charge with your unit because the opponent has cheesed the coherency rules so you can't get into whatever gap it is while meeting the coherency rules; this is going to be particularly bad with stuff on big bases. 6 pigs will be a nightmare, for example.
Chikout wrote: We still don't know if AoS has inherited a version of the second rank rule from 40k. This would solve a lot of the problems.
It would also neccessate errating _every single unit_ in the game.
Not necessarily. You could just say a model can fight if it is in range or within 1/2 an inch of a model that is in range. 2 inch range is still valuable because it lets you fight in three ranks in some cases. It would make the combat phase much faster as you don't have to measure everything.
There would be some fallout from that though, there is some serious exploitation possible in AoS that isn't viable in 40k because of the radically different attack dynamic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It's just stupid that 6 32mm models cannot stand shoulder to shoulder in a line according to the new rules.
Are there any pitched battle profiles where it is possible to take a 6-man 32mm unit? Seems like it would always be 5 or 10. And regardless--you want to stagger them anyways in order to give the unit a more narrow frontage.
Chikout wrote: We still don't know if AoS has inherited a version of the second rank rule from 40k. This would solve a lot of the problems.
It would also neccessate errating _every single unit_ in the game.
Not necessarily. You could just say a model can fight if it is in range or within 1/2 an inch of a model that is in range. 2 inch range is still valuable because it lets you fight in three ranks in some cases. It would make the combat phase much faster as you don't have to measure everything.
You don't think invalidating point of many weapons would require errating?
"Oh gee I have weapon that gave me advantage X and now everybody gets that for free"
hint: Ability to fight in two ranks is SUPPOSED to be advantage some weapons have in return of having weaker punch. So now you are suggesting fighting in two ranks with better weapons for free.
If none in book had range bigger than 1" maybe but as they have no.
It still means without rewriting every unit at once(at least with weapon ranges longer than 1") they cant just make core rule based on distance to enemy model or own model in range to enemy like 40k
This new coherency would make sense if combat range worked similarly as in 40k, but one of the new SC units revealed still has a melee range stat so I believe we won't see much change.
I do believe this might result in a point crunch as quite a few units have now potentially less damage.
"Reinforcements are 4 max in a 2000 point army. Take a unit from 10 - 20 is 1 reinforcement. Battleline units can be reinforces 2 times. None battleline only 1 time."
If true, alongside the new coherency rules which are causing such consternation, it's pretty clear GW are pushing MSU.
One bonus of GW pushing more smaller units is there's more chance of fitting more model types into the same 2K points even if point values remain the same. Instead of 2 or 3 units of the same model bulked out to 30 you might have several different kinds if smaller units become more viable and functional in the game. So you might have one big unit and then 5 or 6 smaller ones.
For armies like Stormcast, with big unit rosters, this will be a boon in encouraging variety of builds.
One thing that will annoy me a bit is that a lot of old world models have musicians and standards and it just seems freakishly odd and visually wrong to me to see those present in large numbers on thebattlefield. I don't even like GW's attitude of allowing multiple banners per 10 models in a unit and such (and yet always only 1 leader model).
On the one hand, I do like the possibility of there being a lot more variety on the table and cohesion will be much less of a concern.
On the other hand, I don't like that I've just spent an entire edition bulking everything up to take advantage of the horde discount to now, if true, have a ridiculously large number of excess models.
More variety is good I think in the long run. I do think armies like Fyreslayers will still suffer until GW can bulk out their armies with more variety.
With wargames there's always a bit of a battle between fielding big units and fielding lots of units. Players generally want to use more of their toys and nothing is worse than having lots of armies with lots of optoins, but only ever seen a tiny fraction of them actually make it to the table.
Agreed. Overall, I like the idea of more variety and as someone who wants to focus more on my SCE, I look forward to mixing and matching far more of my collection. My poor Nighthaunt though...
Just a quick one about Fyreslayers, this might not be a massive concern if the rumours of a combined Dwarf faction comes true.
lare2 wrote: I'm sure some of you will have seen this rumour.
"Reinforcements are 4 max in a 2000 point army. Take a unit from 10 - 20 is 1 reinforcement. Battleline units can be reinforces 2 times. None battleline only 1 time."
If true, alongside the new coherency rules which are causing such consternation, it's pretty clear GW are pushing MSU.
There is also a discrepancy(or rather new design paradigm) I found interesting in the last two tomes. The new Daughters of Khaine and Soulblight tomes omit all Max Size bonuses so there is no longer an incentive to maximize units. So I agree that GW appears to want people to run smaller units, or at least not incentivize maximizing them in regards to point costs.
The max unit size thing was rarely applied appropriately IMO. A lot of units were just min to fill requirements or max to get the discount and no reason to run them in-between. So removing that is more balancing and opening up options than anything else. The new coherency rule seems pretty clearly designed to restrict daisy chains IMO, and doesn't fit into the MSU argument much to begin with since the majority of units are stuck on one side or the other; heroes, monsters, and chariots don't care, anything with a min size of 6 or more doesn't have a choice, and a decent portion of what's left were best used at 5-man to begin with. What it stops is 10-man chaff units making a 20" screen.
I agree, so far these changes sound like they are fixing problems and issues. Removing daisy chains and making more unit composition options viable within the game.
A big unit is still going to deal more damage (over time) and take more damage. It's still going to have a lot of power on the tabletop. It's just now you might run a few smaller units alongside for support and to move around. We might even see mid-sized forces become the normal.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The max unit size thing was rarely applied appropriately IMO. A lot of units were just min to fill requirements or max to get the discount and no reason to run them in-between. So removing that is more balancing and opening up options than anything else. The new coherency rule seems pretty clearly designed to restrict daisy chains IMO, and doesn't fit into the MSU argument much to begin with since the majority of units are stuck on one side or the other; heroes, monsters, and chariots don't care, anything with a min size of 6 or more doesn't have a choice, and a decent portion of what's left were best used at 5-man to begin with. What it stops is 10-man chaff units making a 20" screen.
Problem being when 30 isn't equal value to 3x10. Which it often isn't.
GW games at the core encourage small units. MSU has been the go to generally with the exception of 1-2 if there's lots of things combining. And that works for 1 unit.
And that's why 30-strong Liberator blobs were part of the meta for a while, or 20-strong grimghast blobs being peak NH. Blobbing has usually been the way to go except for specific armies like Idoneth who rely on cavalry.
NinthMusketeer wrote: There would be some fallout from that though, there is some serious exploitation possible in AoS that isn't viable in 40k because of the radically different attack dynamic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It's just stupid that 6 32mm models cannot stand shoulder to shoulder in a line according to the new rules.
Are there any pitched battle profiles where it is possible to take a 6-man 32mm unit? Seems like it would always be 5 or 10. And regardless--you want to stagger them anyways in order to give the unit a more narrow frontage.
Kind of old to reply to now but Endrinriggers/Skywardens for Kharadron come in sets of 3 up to 12.
lare2 wrote: I'm sure some of you will have seen this rumour.
"Reinforcements are 4 max in a 2000 point army. Take a unit from 10 - 20 is 1 reinforcement. Battleline units can be reinforces 2 times. None battleline only 1 time."
If true, alongside the new coherency rules which are causing such consternation, it's pretty clear GW are pushing MSU.
lord_blackfang wrote: Let's not pretend this is motivated by anything else than f ing up your rosters to make you buy new stuff.
How does taking you 30 man unit and running it as 3x10 "make you buy new stuff"? Come on guys, this is obviously just them copying a rule to limit units spreading out and it having some unfortunate consequences.
Probably unforeseen ones, as they aren't the best at this.
lord_blackfang wrote: Let's not pretend this is motivated by anything else than f ing up your rosters to make you buy new stuff.
How does taking you 30 man unit and running it as 3x10 "make you buy new stuff"? Come on guys, this is obviously just them copying a rule to limit units spreading out and it having some unfortunate consequences.
Probably unforeseen ones, as they aren't the best at this.
People say the latter, and its sometimes true. But sometimes they are foreseen... the studio can be randomly persnickety about how the game 'should' play in a way that seems alien to the wider player base.
Ivory Tower game design strikes when least expected.
Not everyone has read the Gravelords book enough to know those are current rules.
Additionally?
Now that you know a bit more about the Soulblight Gravelords, we’ll hand you over to Warhammer Age of Sigmar playtester and Nagash’s Mortarch of Tournaments, Steve Curtis, to tell us more about how they play in the new edition.
It's just a "faction overview" for the new edition. I'll totally agree that Soulblight is a weird choice for one though. Would rather have seen Idoneth or Maggotkin.
When 40k got its new edition with the Marines and Necrons as the focus, Sisters had a strong presence even though they had no particular connection to 9th ed. GW probably promotes vampires for the same reason as Sisters, to get some extra sales out of their latest release while it's still on people's mind.
That's almost half the price of PS5 (possibly the only thing more scarce than GWLE Not Starter boxes) for a handful of models and a book, that's a yike.
Cronch wrote: That's almost half the price of PS5 (possibly the only thing more scarce than GWLE Not Starter boxes) for a handful of models and a book, that's a yike.
You must have quite large hands then, since it's 50 models.
While I generally think GW could always benefit from going lower the price is reasonable enough I'm going to preorder.
Cronch wrote: That's almost half the price of PS5 (possibly the only thing more scarce than GWLE Not Starter boxes) for a handful of models and a book, that's a yike.
A PS5 is 449 pounds.125 is quite far from almost half.
Well gw's solution to coherency issues. Remove most units above minimums. 4 size increases for 2k. So 12 gluttons, 75% of unit sizes. 12 gluttons, 8 ironguts, rest have to be min sized. Guess that's one way...
And of course toughest lumineth list doesn't care at all.
Another gw typical blanket rule that screws some armies(generally already weak ones) and favours others(often the top dogs anyway)
Cronch wrote: That's almost half the price of PS5 (possibly the only thing more scarce than GWLE Not Starter boxes) for a handful of models and a book, that's a yike.
A PS5 is 449 pounds.125 is quite far from almost half.
Cronch wrote: That's almost half the price of PS5 (possibly the only thing more scarce than GWLE Not Starter boxes) for a handful of models and a book, that's a yike.
A PS5 is 449 pounds.125 is quite far from almost half.
PS5 retail price is 499$. rumored 200$ is $50 short of half of it's retail price, and I am sorry but 50 toy soldiers and a book are not worth as much as half a brand new gaming console.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The max unit size thing was rarely applied appropriately IMO. A lot of units were just min to fill requirements or max to get the discount and no reason to run them in-between. So removing that is more balancing and opening up options than anything else. The new coherency rule seems pretty clearly designed to restrict daisy chains IMO, and doesn't fit into the MSU argument much to begin with since the majority of units are stuck on one side or the other; heroes, monsters, and chariots don't care, anything with a min size of 6 or more doesn't have a choice, and a decent portion of what's left were best used at 5-man to begin with. What it stops is 10-man chaff units making a 20" screen.
Problem being when 30 isn't equal value to 3x10. Which it often isn't.
GW games at the core encourage small units. MSU has been the go to generally with the exception of 1-2 if there's lots of things combining. And that works for 1 unit.
Uh, no? The inherent disadvantages of one large unit over MSU also comes with upsides--being a single pick in the combat phase is quite notable. But more importantly than that, most buffs affect one unit regardless of size so with 3x10 you are buffing 10 models, whereas the 1x30 is buffing 30 models. With the generic command ability buffs getting stronger this is even more relevant to every army in the new edition by default, let alone any buffs the army may have itself.
lord_blackfang wrote: Let's not pretend this is motivated by anything else than f ing up your rosters to make you buy new stuff.
How does taking you 30 man unit and running it as 3x10 "make you buy new stuff"? Come on guys, this is obviously just them copying a rule to limit units spreading out and it having some unfortunate consequences.
Probably unforeseen ones, as they aren't the best at this.
Totally agreed. Saying this rule change is some ploy by GW to make us buy new stuff is conspiracy-theory levels of absurd. Even the most cynical would have to admit that GW does not demonstrate awareness of the nuance to their own rules when writing them, but suddenly they are able to parse out that a coherency change will alter lists such that players will feel obligated to buy new figures?
NinthMusketeer wrote: There would be some fallout from that though, there is some serious exploitation possible in AoS that isn't viable in 40k because of the radically different attack dynamic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It's just stupid that 6 32mm models cannot stand shoulder to shoulder in a line according to the new rules.
Are there any pitched battle profiles where it is possible to take a 6-man 32mm unit? Seems like it would always be 5 or 10. And regardless--you want to stagger them anyways in order to give the unit a more narrow frontage.
Kind of old to reply to now but Endrinriggers/Skywardens for Kharadron come in sets of 3 up to 12.
So they do exist! Thank you sir, this is a good piece of trivia.
You do know making people buy new stuff doesn't require intelligence? Trained monkey can do that...
At it's simplest roll dice each unit. 1-2, reduce price 20%, 3-4 keep, 5-6 up price.
What's good and bad changes instantly...
Making things balanced requires skill. Shifting imbalance is stuff even trained monkey can do. There's reason gw hires not by talent. You don't need one and less you got better you fulfill gw's goal
lord_blackfang wrote: Are they... are they previewing rules printed in books that are already out, and why are you hotlinking them?
Yep. But at least the playtester did clarify that Riders of Ruin is a "normal move" so you can run afterwards or charge back into the unit with renewed buffs.
Which points to a change in the movement rules in 3.0. separating a Retreat as it's own type of move. (Currently it is a type of normal move preventing that action)
Should have forseen the latest news. Typically if decide to do something for fun non-competive before edition change new edition kicks it teeth.
40 blood reavers. Rather than build them as 4x10 and use as screen/blood tithe like everybody else let's go 2x20 and pretend they fight.
Fast forward 2 months and now it is found this will eat half unit size increases you get to do in 2k
No bloody point waste half of unit size upgrades for cheap chaff...those 2 upgrades could be used to get 15 chaos warriors with reroll saves for example. Lot better.
Now just need to convert unit leaders and maybe banners and horns if didn't have 1/10 each.
lare2 wrote: I'm sure some of you will have seen this rumour.
"Reinforcements are 4 max in a 2000 point army. Take a unit from 10 - 20 is 1 reinforcement. Battleline units can be reinforces 2 times. None battleline only 1 time."
If true, alongside the new coherency rules which are causing such consternation, it's pretty clear GW are pushing MSU.
There is also a discrepancy(or rather new design paradigm) I found interesting in the last two tomes. The new Daughters of Khaine and Soulblight tomes omit all Max Size bonuses so there is no longer an incentive to maximize units. So I agree that GW appears to want people to run smaller units, or at least not incentivize maximizing them in regards to point costs.
Which is unfortunate for many, many units. Using the DoK example, Sisters of Slaughter and Witch Aelves are already completely irrelevant in their own book even being able to rank up to 30. If you also had to choose between ranking them up or ranking something like blood Stalkers up, it's not even a contest.
In a vacuum (obviously ignoring all other changes) this would result in no one bringing Witch Aelves except for MSU screens ever again.
So, what I've gathered so far from different sources:
- Pile in: Models no longer need to pile in towards the nearest enemy model. The new wording is: When you make a pile-in with a model, it must finish the move no further from the nearest enemy unit than it was at the start of the move.
- Attack Sequence: Hit and Wound roll modifiers capped at +1/-1
- Slain models: A minor change that has a large impact on some armies: slain models are now not removed until all wounds caused to its units have been allocated and all attacks that inflicted damage on that unit have been resolved.
- Wards: Basically Feel no Pain
- Contesting Objectives: Unless rules says otherwise, Monster count as 5 models, and non-monsters with a wound characteristic of 5 or more count as 2 models when contesting objects.
- The players receive an extra command point if their general is on the table in Hero Phase. Command Points not spent at the end of the Battle Round are lost.
- Redeploy: A reactive Command Ability that is used in an enemy movement phase, and that allows moving a unit D6.
- Run and Movement phase Command Abilities: A unit that has rolled a Run roll cannot then be Commanded to "At the Double". It must be made before a roll.
- Charge Phase Command Abilities: Forward to Victory is a Command Ability that allows a charging unit to reroll the charge roll. Unleash Hell is a reactive Command Abnility that allows a unit near to the charging enemy unit to shoot the charging unit.
In a 2000 point game you get 4 reinforcement points. To make an MSU unit double its size costs 1 reinforcement point. To make it triple its size costs 2 reinforcement points total.
Eldarsif wrote: - Redeploy: A reactive Command Ability that is used in an enemy movement phase, and that allows moving a unit D6.
I like this - feels like the old flee if a lot more limited.
In a 2000 point game you get 4 reinforcement points. To make an MSU unit double its size costs 1 reinforcement point. To make it triple its size costs 2 reinforcement points total.
Is this for when summoning units back you can upsize them?
Eldarsif wrote: - Redeploy: A reactive Command Ability that is used in an enemy movement phase, and that allows moving a unit D6.
I like this - feels like the old flee if a lot more limited.
In a 2000 point game you get 4 reinforcement points. To make an MSU unit double its size costs 1 reinforcement point. To make it triple its size costs 2 reinforcement points total.
Is this for when summoning units back you can upsize them?
No. Army building.
You have 2x60 night goblins, rest of your units have to be minimum. Both units took 2 reinforcement points so you spent all 4.
- Slain models: A minor change that has a large impact on some armies: slain models are now not removed until all wounds caused to its units have been allocated and all attacks that inflicted damage on that unit have been resolved.
So after all units have attacked? As otherwise don't see difference.
Eldarsif wrote: - Redeploy: A reactive Command Ability that is used in an enemy movement phase, and that allows moving a unit D6.
I like this - feels like the old flee if a lot more limited.
In a 2000 point game you get 4 reinforcement points. To make an MSU unit double its size costs 1 reinforcement point. To make it triple its size costs 2 reinforcement points total.
Is this for when summoning units back you can upsize them?
For building units.
So if you have a unit that is MSU 10 models it doesn't cost RP. If you want to double that unit in size it costs 1 RP to do that. If you want to add to it again it costs 2 RP. So if you have a 10 MSU squad and want to take it to 30 it costs 2 RP.
- Slain models: A minor change that has a large impact on some armies: slain models are now not removed until all wounds caused to its units have been allocated and all attacks that inflicted damage on that unit have been resolved.
So after all units have attacked? As otherwise don't see difference.
Honestly not sure. I just typed down a leak I found.
Here's the leak (in French) for army building. There's going to be a lot of minimum sized units running around if you only get 4 RP points at 2,000 pts. suddenly coherency isn't as much of a problem
DaveC wrote: Here's the leak (in French) for army building. There's going to be a lot of minimum sized units running around if you only get 4 RP points at 2,000 pts. suddenly coherency isn't as much of a problem
I am really disappointed by this if it means what I think it does. I just started collecting Soulblight Gravelords and now I am severely limited on Skeletons, Zombies, and Grave Guard since all three benefit greatly from reinforced units. I feel like this helps Elite style armies a lot and really hinders everyone else.
There's english picture describing what reinforcements do floating around. Yes it does what you think it does. 2 units of 30 skeletons, all else minimum.
When gw wants people to play certain way they make it so ridiculously obvious that it's like killing a fly with a nuke. Subtlety isn't what gw is interested at
Core Battalion rules are also out there - 6 in total
Warlord
1-2 Commanders (leader)
2-4 Sub Commanders (leader with less than 10 wounds)
1-2 Troops (anything that's not a Behemoth or Artillery)
Strategists - extra CP once per battle at start of hero phase
Magnificent - pick 1 extra enhancement
Battle Regiment
1 Commander
0-2 Sub Commanders
2-5 troops
0 -1 Behemoth /Artillery
Unified - 1 drop deployment
Grand Battery
1 Sub Commander
2-3 Artillery
Slayers - once per battle 1 unit can use all out attack or unleash hell without the command being issued or using a CP
Vanguard
1 Sub Commander
1-3 Troops
Swift - once per battle 1 unit can use at the double or forward to victory without the command being issued or using a CP
Linebreaker
1 Commander
2-3 Behemoth
Expert - once per battle 1 unit can use all out attack or all out defence without the command being issued or using a CP
Command Entourage
1 Commander
2-3 Sub commanders
Strategists/Magnificent
DaveC wrote: Here's the leak (in French) for army building. There's going to be a lot of minimum sized units running around if you only get 4 RP points at 2,000 pts. suddenly coherency isn't as much of a problem
Spoiler:
So you can have one understrength unit for each type of unit (i.e., Battleline, Artillery, etc)?
Been a long time since I've played and never really noted that rule before
DaveC wrote: Core Battalion rules are also out there - 6 in total
Warlord
1-2 Commanders
2-4 Sub Commanders (less than 10 wounds)
1-2 Troops
Strategists - extra CP once per battle at start of hero phase
Magnificent - pick 1 extra enhancement
Battle Regiment
1 Commander
0-2 Sub Commanders
2-5 troops
0 -1 Monster/Artillery
Unified - 1 drop deployment
Grand Battery
1 Sub Commander
2-3 Artillery
Slayers - once per battle 1 unit can use all out attack or unleash hell without the command being issued or using a CP
Vanguard
1 Sub Commander
1-3 Troops
Swift - once per battle 1 unit can use at the double or forward to victory without the command being issued or using a CP
Linebreaker
1 Commander
2-3 Monsters
Expert - once per battle 1 unit can use all out attack or all out defence without the command being issued or using a CP
Command Entourage
1 Commander
2-3 Sub commanders
Strategists - extra CP once per battle at start of hero phase
Magnificent - pick 1 extra enhancement
Yes! I have been waiting for these. And wow, they seem even better than I hoped. And do armies still get a bonus CP and a bonus relic for each one? That is going to be wild.
Core Battalion rules are also out there - 6 in total
Warlord
1-2 Commanders (leader)
2-4 Sub Commanders (leader with less than 10 wounds)
1-2 Troops (anything that's not a Behemoth or Artillery)
Strategists - extra CP once per battle at start of hero phase
Magnificent - pick 1 extra enhancement
Battle Regiment
1 Commander
0-2 Sub Commanders
2-5 troops
0 -1 Behemoth /Artillery
Unified - 1 drop deployment
Grand Battery
1 Sub Commander
2-3 Artillery
Slayers - once per battle 1 unit can use all out attack or unleash hell without the command being issued or using a CP
Vanguard
1 Sub Commander
1-3 Troops
Swift - once per battle 1 unit can use at the double or forward to victory without the command being issued or using a CP
Linebreaker
1 Commander
2-3 Behemoth
Expert - once per battle 1 unit can use all out attack or all out defence without the command being issued or using a CP
Command Entourage
1 Commander
2-3 Sub commanders
Strategists/Magnificent
I like that these are fairly weak and very standardized, battalions had largely become a noose around the game's neck at this point, I just wish Stormcasts had Non-Leader behemoths.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Just in case anyone thought they were trying to make the game better and not just add random gak to sell a new rulebook
The generic battalions are definitely gonna make the game better. The old battalion system sucked.
Eldarsif wrote: - Redeploy: A reactive Command Ability that is used in an enemy movement phase, and that allows moving a unit D6.
I like this - feels like the old flee if a lot more limited.
In a 2000 point game you get 4 reinforcement points. To make an MSU unit double its size costs 1 reinforcement point. To make it triple its size costs 2 reinforcement points total.
Is this for when summoning units back you can upsize them?
Nope, when you purchase models for you list. Want a blob of 30 liberators? Well you can't, you can take 2 sets of 15 and MSU from there.
The D6 redeploy in the enemy charge phase is the strongest ability we've seen. That will win more games than any other command ability in the game.
ERJAK wrote: I like that these are fairly weak and very standardized, battalions had largely become a noose around the game's neck at this point, I just wish Stormcasts had Non-Leader behemoths.
No, they really haven't. What became a millstone around the game's neck is the insistence by tourney players(which means it filters down into casual play, unfortunately, by virtue of the discussions tending to be framed in that regard) that "everything needs to be minimal drops".
And it looks like this new system is keeping that, so have fun!
'Everything needs to be minimal drops' is hardly a tourney player thing. It means turn choice, and turn choice means the difference between getting the double or getting double'd on. Don't blame tourney players for random initiative existing.
@Reinforcement points. Well that's dumb, and it sucks hardcore for matched play-ers and with a wild degree of inconsistency between armies. Like one of those head-scratchers that leaves me wondering 'were they just drunk or something?' because it does not seem to fill any purpose. Also pretty funny coming from the company that was so excited to introduce the max unit discount a few years back.
@Core battalions. Look pretty cool, and not nearly as exploitable as I feared. I will reserve judgement until we have that full list of enhancements but so far looking like a pretty big step up.
Hopefully, the new Battalions don't keep the "Deploy as one unit" rule anymore. Not liking the Reinforcement Points thing at all.
The reinforcement point thing sounds like they've taken a simple system and replaced it with a slightly similar system that's basically the same but sounds more convoluted. Though that said I'm only picking up dreg ends from things as I'll likely only really process and read through all the rules once I've got the book in hand rather htan random pages quotes and such
