Good point Kanluwen. Maybe I read it wrong, but I took it as the spell once casted moves in a random matter. By that instead of die rolls and having more random die rolls, GW use the players to be random. This way who casted the spell would have it go that way, and the randomness for the next turn can go this way if your opponent would want it to do so.
So my guess is no Wizard is need. Heck I have been wrong lately, so I can be wrong again.
Davor wrote: Do we have a release date yet or is it still sometime in June?
So far just sometime in june, and apparently the imperial knights will last 1 or two weeks so nothing will be out the first week of june...which is a shame. Hopefully we get some white dwarf leaks or something soon.
Makes sense. Fiscal year ends about now so they are setting their 2018-2019 to start out with a 40k giant robot army with new models and then right after that with the AoS new boxset and rules. Solid plan for their first fiscal month. I'd expect Pre-Orders for the 16th with the release coming the 23rd.
auticus wrote: June 9 pre order. June 23 release. Several have said this on twitter that I know to be in with the studio and play with those guys so I trust that.
I can believe this, as I definitely expected a 2 week preorder window. I'd like it sooner, but...
auticus wrote: June 9 pre order. June 23 release. Several have said this on twitter that I know to be in with the studio and play with those guys so I trust that.
Assuming this is correct, then the Nighthaunt battletome will most likely be released on the 30th.
auticus wrote: June 9 pre order. June 23 release. Several have said this on twitter that I know to be in with the studio and play with those guys so I trust that.
Assuming this is correct, then the Nighthaunt battletome will most likely be released on the 30th.
I dunno. While Nighthaunt (and presumably Stormcast--theirs has gone to Last Chance to Buy) are set to get a new battletome, they could have the book coming with the new edition potentially.
Could be that June 9th is the preorder for the new edition's starter set, rulebook, gaming goodies, etc--and a general release of the free PDF rules.
Next week is the army book and assorted sundries.
Ghaz wrote: I find that unlikely. For the first week, I'm expecting the new rulebook, GHB 2018, the starter box and possibly the endless spells box.
Don't forget the objectives, command & status dice, and all the other sundry stuff.
That's why I'm saying that week 1 is basically going to be 'filler' stuff and get a 2 week lead time while week 2 can just be the actual releases of the books and a couple units(1:1 stormcast/nighthaunt) each week.
Davor wrote: Do we have a release date yet or is it still sometime in June?
So far just sometime in june, and apparently the imperial knights will last 1 or two weeks so nothing will be out the first week of june...which is a shame. Hopefully we get some white dwarf leaks or something soon.
Thank you.
auticus wrote:June 9 pre order. June 23 release. Several have said this on twitter that I know to be in with the studio and play with those guys so I trust that.
auticus wrote: June 9 pre order. June 23 release. Several have said this on twitter that I know to be in with the studio and play with those guys so I trust that.
Assuming this is correct, then the Nighthaunt battletome will most likely be released on the 30th.
wouldent that be a bitt to soon?
i would say preorder for the new NH starts at the 30th. if the rumor of a new 2 player box for 2nd ed featuring stormcast vs NH is true, then that need to be a few weeks on the marked before they start to sell the new NH stuff.
Haven't seen this posted here yet, but they talk summoning mechanics with the games designers.
I like the idea that playing Tzeentch you're gaining points when your enemy casts spells at you then turn those spells into summoned units.
I dunno about as an actual game mechanic, but it sounds fluffy
I like the idea that playing Tzeentch you're gaining points when your enemy casts spells at you then turn those spells into summoned units.
I dunno about as an actual game mechanic, but it sounds fluffy
That might be the only thing about AoS that I like, except for (some) of the models.
Narrative I think thats pretty cool. Game balance wise... I'm terrified.
Our biggest offender in AOS was a dude that would show up with his tzeentch demon army and triple the size out in two turns with chain summoning. And no thats not exaggeration. It was tripled. Then say that summoning was fine and that is the only way tzeentch demons were "viable" was to be able to triple their size. So I'm triggered
auticus wrote: Narrative I think thats pretty cool. Game balance wise... I'm terrified.
Our biggest offender in AOS was a dude that would show up with his tzeentch demon army and triple the size out in two turns with chain summoning. And no thats not exaggeration. It was tripled. Then say that summoning was fine and that is the only way tzeentch demons were "viable" was to be able to triple their size. So I'm triggered
It strikes me as something that'll create rock paper scissors match ups. Take a Tzeentch army into something with Nagash or.. I don't know who's another really high tier spellcaster, Moriathi?
Playing against them you could find yourself only gaining more and more of an advantage as they fail to utilize their army effectively, while in a match up against an army without any wizards you might find yourself overwhelmed and unable to get new units onto the table to help.
What I'm seeing shaping up isn't so much rock paper scissors, because that would mean there are three viable ways to build.
Right now in AOS 1.3, there is really only one viable way to build. You max out on mortal wound output and then you max out on high quality ranged attacks.
If an army shows up to the table doing exponentially more mortal wounds and high quality ranged attacks than their opponent, I've yet to see them lose in three years of doing this game.
This created the mortal wound arms race where we have stormcast players doing 30-54 mortal wounds a turn (yes we have stormcast players here that have lists that on perfect dice do 54 mortal wounds in one turn - and they often win most of their games by turn 2, banking on the double turn is almostt a 100% win ratio for that type of build simply because most people (including me) have no idea how to counter that)
With AOS 2.0, I think that the design team realized that mortal wounds are the corner stone of the git gud builds and so they created build #2 - spamming summoning. Whats the counter to someone doing 30-54 mortal wounds? Replacing your stuff for free.
I don't as of yet see build #3 though. I see eithery ou are going to continue maxing mortal wounds, you are going to max summoning, or you are going to hybridize mortal wound output with summoning.
If you aren't doing any of those things, you are going to get rolled in short order.
I'm hoping that there is a build #3 that I just don't see yet but going off of the podcasts now and the tweet chatter on playtesters (I was admonished for capping summoning because thats their counter to mortal wound output so I can see where they say the balance would be broken) I don't think there is one.
Also thats not really rock paper scissors where build 1 beats build 2, build 2 beats build 3, and build 3 beats build 1.
Instead its Build 1 and Build 2 are supposed to be counters to each other and whoever rolls better will have the edge, but if you show up with Build 3 against eithe Build 1 or Build 2 you will likely lose.
While I'm not a fan of rock/paper/scissors games in general because I've not yet played one where they are balanced right (and one build is always strongest which narrows down what you see on the table, which kills player interest long term), I would be interested if GW could design a viable rock/paper/scissors mechanic in AOS.
I think that you can play the game without a ton of wizards... so long as your units can produce a lot of mortal wounds (especially ranged mortal wounds) without them.
auticus wrote: June 9 pre order. June 23 release. Several have said this on twitter that I know to be in with the studio and play with those guys so I trust that.
Assuming this is correct, then the Nighthaunt battletome will most likely be released on the 30th.
wouldent that be a bitt to soon?
i would say preorder for the new NH starts at the 30th. if the rumor of a new 2 player box for 2nd ed featuring stormcast vs NH is true, then that need to be a few weeks on the marked before they start to sell the new NH stuff.
No, because the Nighthaunt reveal video specifically says June 2018. In order to meet that date, the preoder for the first releases has to be on the 23rd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marleymoo wrote: The UK Games Expo is on form the 1st - 3rd June. So hopefully tomorrow we'll hear some news on release dates.
I think GW are sponsoring it this year, so they should have a large presence there.
Yes. Their seminar is Friday at 3-4 pm BST according to the UK Game Expo program PDF. That will put it at 10-11 am EDT for us in the US.
auticus wrote: With AOS 2.0, I think that the design team realized that mortal wounds are the corner stone of the git gud builds and so they created build #2 - spamming summoning. Whats the counter to someone doing 30-54 mortal wounds? Replacing your stuff for free.
I don't as of yet see build #3 though. I see eithery ou are going to continue maxing mortal wounds, you are going to max summoning, or you are going to hybridize mortal wound output with summoning.
If you aren't doing any of those things, you are going to get rolled in short order.
auticus wrote:Narrative I think thats pretty cool. Game balance wise... I'm terrified.
Our biggest offender in AOS was a dude that would show up with his tzeentch demon army and triple the size out in two turns with chain summoning. And no thats not exaggeration. It was tripled. Then say that summoning was fine and that is the only way tzeentch demons were "viable" was to be able to triple their size. So I'm triggered
I believe that speaks more of the player than the game.
auticus wrote:
Spoiler:
What I'm seeing shaping up isn't so much rock paper scissors, because that would mean there are three viable ways to build.
Right now in AOS 1.3, there is really only one viable way to build. You max out on mortal wound output and then you max out on high quality ranged attacks.
If an army shows up to the table doing exponentially more mortal wounds and high quality ranged attacks than their opponent, I've yet to see them lose in three years of doing this game.
This created the mortal wound arms race where we have stormcast players doing 30-54 mortal wounds a turn (yes we have stormcast players here that have lists that on perfect dice do 54 mortal wounds in one turn - and they often win most of their games by turn 2, banking on the double turn is almostt a 100% win ratio for that type of build simply because most people (including me) have no idea how to counter that)
With AOS 2.0, I think that the design team realized that mortal wounds are the corner stone of the git gud builds and so they created build #2 - spamming summoning. Whats the counter to someone doing 30-54 mortal wounds? Replacing your stuff for free.
I don't as of yet see build #3 though. I see eithery ou are going to continue maxing mortal wounds, you are going to max summoning, or you are going to hybridize mortal wound output with summoning.
If you aren't doing any of those things, you are going to get rolled in short order.
I'm hoping that there is a build #3 that I just don't see yet but going off of the podcasts now and the tweet chatter on playtesters (I was admonished for capping summoning because thats their counter to mortal wound output so I can see where they say the balance would be broken) I don't think there is one.
Also thats not really rock paper scissors where build 1 beats build 2, build 2 beats build 3, and build 3 beats build 1.
Instead its Build 1 and Build 2 are supposed to be counters to each other and whoever rolls better will have the edge, but if you show up with Build 3 against eithe Build 1 or Build 2 you will likely lose.
While I'm not a fan of rock/paper/scissors games in general because I've not yet played one where they are balanced right (and one build is always strongest which narrows down what you see on the table, which kills player interest long term), I would be interested if GW could design a viable rock/paper/scissors mechanic in AOS.
I think that you can play the game without a ton of wizards... so long as your units can produce a lot of mortal wounds (especially ranged mortal wounds) without them.
Very well said. I think this is how AoS 2.0 will be played. It's a shame GW doesn't have you part of the "testing" team.
I was involved in some discussions about playtetsting because of Azyr Comp but ultimately the direction I wanted out of the game is not the direction that gw wants out of the game (i want less listbuilding influence and more gameplay influence) so my contributions wouldn't have been in synch with the desired product's outcome.
I am working on my own system in Unreal Engine though called Primo Victoria. Hopefully one day I can finish it and unveil what a game would look like if I ruled the world.
Have they done any previews for Khorne stuff yet? With Mystic Shield and Arcane Bolt getting nerfed, I don't imagine their stacking +1 save roll "spell" or d6 mortal wound "spell" that can't be unbound will go untouched.
Marmatag wrote:What is the point of paying points for an endless spell if your opponent can effortlessly use it against you?
It's a random spell. So this way it may go your way so you control it or the randomness is having your opponent use it and it goes against you or travel away from your opponent if it's not in range of you.
I prefer this to the more random die rolling we are doing now. As well it's a mechanic for the loved/hated double turn mechanic. Adds a bit of a spin on that mechanic so you may not want to go first if you just went last.
Marmatag wrote:What is the point of paying points for an endless spell if your opponent can effortlessly use it against you?
It's a random spell. So this way it may go your way so you control it or the randomness is having your opponent use it and it goes against you or travel away from your opponent if it's not in range of you.
I prefer this to the more random die rolling we are doing now. As well it's a mechanic for the loved/hated double turn mechanic. Adds a bit of a spin on that mechanic so you may not want to go first if you just went last.
Which might just end up with them being mostly ignored, putting us right back where we started with the problem of the double turn.
Marmatag wrote:What is the point of paying points for an endless spell if your opponent can effortlessly use it against you?
It's a random spell. So this way it may go your way so you control it or the randomness is having your opponent use it and it goes against you or travel away from your opponent if it's not in range of you.
I prefer this to the more random die rolling we are doing now. As well it's a mechanic for the loved/hated double turn mechanic. Adds a bit of a spin on that mechanic so you may not want to go first if you just went last.
Which might just end up with them being mostly ignored, putting us right back where we started with the problem of the double turn.
If it's ignored then we have no fault to blame ourselves then.
Marmatag wrote:What is the point of paying points for an endless spell if your opponent can effortlessly use it against you?
It's a random spell. So this way it may go your way so you control it or the randomness is having your opponent use it and it goes against you or travel away from your opponent if it's not in range of you.
I prefer this to the more random die rolling we are doing now. As well it's a mechanic for the loved/hated double turn mechanic. Adds a bit of a spin on that mechanic so you may not want to go first if you just went last.
Which might just end up with them being mostly ignored, putting us right back where we started with the problem of the double turn.
Yes no one is going to use an endless spell that has any chance of being used against you, but that doesn't mean the endless spells won't be used.
Purple Sun will only rarely be cast by armies that don't have some method of increasing it's cast range(Morathi, Umbral Spellportal, Arkhan). Also remember that the casting player gets to move it first, which means that even if the opponent does get to move it first in the next battle round, it will only be able to get as far back as its starting point. Anyone going second who can cast this spell and hit enemies while being out of range of the return move will have a brilliant setup for the next round. Does your opponent take the turn and eat another round of Purple sun to the face or does he give you the double turn just to be able to avoid taking the endless spell damage.
Umbral spellportal will be massive for any army with a large number of casts. Nagash+Arkhan+Arkhan's battalion has access to 15 spells and so many boosts that the risk of someone casting back through it is almost nonexistent.
The prismatic wall thing is amazing for protecting high value units like Slann+Astrolith or Morathi or glass cannon units from first turn missle attacks.
Of all the things we've seen about the new edition the endless spells are easily the best, except for Umbral spellportal. As cool as the idea is, it's going to create issues.
Purple Sun is Shyish and Umbral Spellportal is Ulgu. As far as we can tell right now, you can't double up--but it won't keep you from taking advantage of someone else's.
Is it just me, or does 1/6 chance make purple sun trash against things like skeletons and any other 1 wound model. Not a lot of risk if you're LoN casting this thing
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Is it just me, or does 1/6 chance make purple sun trash against things like skeletons and any other 1 wound model. Not a lot of risk if you're LoN casting this thing
You're rolling a dice for every model in the unit. So yeah, it's a 1:6 chance--but a unit of Skeletons might lose a big chunk just because it's going to have more dice having to be rolled.
I'm going to be interested to see if it counts as an 'enemy' model based upon who controls it. Would make the Isharann Ritual that makes things lose "Fly" a hell of a gamechanger when fighting against this thing.
Kanluwen wrote: Purple Sun is Shyish and Umbral Spellportal is Ulgu. As far as we can tell right now, you can't double up--but it won't keep you from taking advantage of someone else's.
There's actually no indication either way whether or not you'll be able to use multiple endless spells all at once. It's highly unlikely the realm selected will be the deciding factor though. The fact that the spells get bonuses for being in their home realms means a 99% chance they'll be usable in other realms.
Kanluwen wrote: Purple Sun is Shyish and Umbral Spellportal is Ulgu. As far as we can tell right now, you can't double up--but it won't keep you from taking advantage of someone else's.
There's actually no indication either way whether or not you'll be able to use multiple endless spells all at once. It's highly unlikely the realm selected will be the deciding factor though. The fact that the spells get bonuses for being in their home realms means a 99% chance they'll be usable in other realms.
I get that, what I was saying is that because you pick a Realm for your army now--you can't necessarily pick Ulgu and Shyish both.
This is GW we're talking about, where restrictions are something they aggressively shy away from.
I wouldn't be surprised if each batallion in your force can hail from a different realm. The stories also back that direction up (ex: stormcast from azyr fighting alongside sylvaneth from ghyran)
auticus wrote: I have a feeling that the tournament community will decide which of these rules the rest of us end up using.
Because aside from representing a small part of the game's community, tournament players somehow control casual players so heavily that they lack any personal agency or ability to decide for themselves?
auticus wrote: This is GW we're talking about, where restrictions are something they aggressively shy away from.
I wouldn't be surprised if each batallion in your force can hail from a different realm. The stories also back that direction up (ex: stormcast from azyr fighting alongside sylvaneth from ghyran)
Azyr isn't one of the Realms we can pick to hail from, going off the Relic lists.
I don't think there are any restrictions on picking the endless spells. The fella on the storm-pod-cast thing said they are useful for filling up your army if you have 20-40 points left.
Also, if they are being sold in a box set, half the box would be invalid for some players if there was restrictions.
I don't think the point is worth arguing until we know for sure how those spells are chosen. It may be tied to your army's realm affinity (which would be my guess), or it may just be an upgrade you add to your army the same way you would a unit (how the Balewind Vortex works right now).
The choice of which realm you decide to set your battle in is up to you – the realm you fight in might depend on the story you want to tell, while for structured events, you could have every single game take place in the same Mortal Realm, journey through several, or roll a dice to decide. Likewise, if you don’t fancy using a Mortal Realm, you don’t have to – but you’ll be missing out on some really fun stuff if you do.
EnTyme wrote: I don't think the point is worth arguing until we know for sure how those spells are chosen. It may be tied to your army's realm affinity (which would be my guess), or it may just be an upgrade you add to your army the same way you would a unit (how the Balewind Vortex works right now).
Eh? Since they have point values it seems clear its an upgrade to the army.
The other realm spells are simply all available to every wizard fighting in that realm.
I like the realm spells idea. I've been using that in my campaigns since the first ones came out in the realmgate wars. Yeah using time of wars has also gotten me screamed at in a store (twice) but overall the narrative guys enjoyed it a lot to be worth getting screamed at.
Also means stuff like Banishment should only happen if you're in Hyish so the uhauls carrying the entire stormcast population from azyr to hyish likely won't be happening.
If you’re looking to use the endless spells in your army, you’ll want to make sure you pick up a Firebelly. As well as having seen a points reduction, this guy is great for healing your units with an Emerald Lifeswarm, and if you want to do some damage, there are loads of options – although for pure style, you can’t beat flinging a cloud of Quicksilver Swords at the foe:
Well, guess the Realm article confirms that spells are tied to the realm you're playing on and not your army's realm of origin. Note that the WHC FB page has confirmed that Endless Spells are buffed by that realm you are playing on, but can be cast on any realm. It also does seem like Endless Spells are purchased just like units, so my guess was wrong there. I like that better, though.
Umbral spellportal will be massive for any army with a large number of casts. Nagash+Arkhan+Arkhan's battalion has access to 15 spells and so many boosts that the risk of someone casting back through it is almost nonexistent.
The prismatic wall thing is amazing for protecting high value units like Slann+Astrolith or Morathi or glass cannon units from first turn missle attacks.
Of all the things we've seen about the new edition the endless spells are easily the best, except for Umbral spellportal. As cool as the idea is, it's going to create issues.
Edit: Also, regarding the Beastclaw Raiders article... I'm vaguely horrified. We've already got one of "those" guys locally who brings him Thundertusk spam to "casual" games, claiming they're all he owns (they aren't...). Him getting to bring more of those absurd things thanks to a big points reduction feels ridiculous.
They have definitely widened the gulf between power gaming and casual gaming.
Thundertusk spam getting cheaper though means he will have comparable mortal wound output to stormcast builds, which is likely the dev's desired goal. From a balance standpoint, this is balanced... if you are in a powergamer environment. Stormcast could do many more mortal wounds than BCR, which is why they died off.
From a casual standpoint.... this definitely makes me need to finish my power rating utility so that I can gauge actual power not by points, but by your mathematical outputs to weigh opponents for who they need matched up against.
Feeding casual lists to the power guys feels to me to be like handing over baby seals for clubbing.
EnTyme wrote: Well, guess the Realm article confirms that spells are tied to the realm you're playing on and not your army's realm of origin. Not that the WHC FB page has confirmed that Endless Spells are buffed by that realm you are playing on, but can be cast on any realm. It also does seem like Endless Spells are purchased just like units, so my guess was wrong there. I like that better, though.
Really all the the Realm article just confirmed was the existence of full lores associated with each Realm. We knew that Endless Spells are buffed from the realm that they're from(the warscrolls for the Purple Sun and Umbral Spellportal confirmed that) but the rest of it is still a bit unclear.
I'm hoping there will be narrative events where the realms will be used. I don't care if it's not balanced if it makes the game have some flavor; narrative and fun games don't place the same level of emphasis on winning and losing.
AoS seems like it doesn't suffer from the blandness that 40k does, if you actually use the robust ruleset. Tournament AoS feels like a joke to me. There are very clear paths to victory here, and it becomes an exercise in flipping a coin.
auticus wrote: Yeah but people often still demand tournament style. My biggest hurdle if i want to continue campaigns is matching people up now.
Our powergamers are ready to melt opposing lists down and im not sure what this is going to do to interest.
That's a shame, honestly.
I feel like powergaming in AoS is like taking a magnifying glass to ants. Congratulations, you can exploit a rulset that was never designed for what you're doing. But nerd culture surrounding these games seems to be more about dick measuring than actually playing a game. "I won therefore i'm smarter! DERP"
The situation is that the current AOS design team are very close to the UKGT organizer(s) and those are also the playtestters, to the influence of the game development is and has been very much tournament/power gaming-oriented.
I would be very interested in hearing the game devs discuss the gulf between casual play and power play and how they think the current direction would be received by casual players.
Phil Kelly was asked that once at a Games Day, and him standing about 10 feet from me replied "don't play with gits"... so that might be the answer today as well.
I feel like we've moved so far away from the design paradigm that I prefer that I can't even understand what they're trying to achieve. This game is really obviously not designed to be played competitively, and trying to contort it to fit that framework produces some really dissonant statements and design.
I don't mind entirely narrative games, but making them into wargames doesn't work well as far as I'm concerned. If you want to play a narrative fantasy game, pick up a role playing game.
I'm following this thread in the vague hope that something will come through that will make me want to use my 4 fantasy armies again for something other than KoW, but I'm not seeing it so far, just more of the same design paradigm that drove me away.
Kanluwen wrote:Thundertusk spam getting cheaper though means he will have comparable mortal wound output to stormcast builds, which is likely the dev's desired goal. From a balance standpoint, this is balanced... if you are in a powergamer environment. Stormcast could do many more mortal wounds than BCR, which is why they died off.
From a casual standpoint.... this definitely makes me need to finish my power rating utility so that I can gauge actual power not by points, but by your mathematical outputs to weigh opponents for who they need matched up against.
Feeding casual lists to the power guys feels to me to be like handing over baby seals for clubbing.
I totally forget how to play AoS and waiting for the new edition before I try learning the rules so I can be wrong here. How can you have Thundertusk spam? I mean at most you can have 2, maybe 3? So how is that spam? I thought because they have the Behemoth keyword you can only have 2 or 3 if playing a large point game. Has this changed now?
Kanluwen wrote:Thundertusk spam getting cheaper though means he will have comparable mortal wound output to stormcast builds, which is likely the dev's desired goal. From a balance standpoint, this is balanced... if you are in a powergamer environment. Stormcast could do many more mortal wounds than BCR, which is why they died off.
From a casual standpoint.... this definitely makes me need to finish my power rating utility so that I can gauge actual power not by points, but by your mathematical outputs to weigh opponents for who they need matched up against.
Feeding casual lists to the power guys feels to me to be like handing over baby seals for clubbing.
I totally forget how to play AoS and waiting for the new edition before I try learning the rules so I can be wrong here. How can you have Thundertusk spam? I mean at most you can have 2, maybe 3? So how is that spam? I thought because they have the Behemoth keyword you can only have 2 or 3 if playing a large point game. Has this changed now?
auticus wrote: Yeah but people often still demand tournament style. My biggest hurdle if i want to continue campaigns is matching people up now.
Our powergamers are ready to melt opposing lists down and im not sure what this is going to do to interest.
That's a shame, honestly.
I feel like powergaming in AoS is like taking a magnifying glass to ants. Congratulations, you can exploit a rulset that was never designed for what you're doing. But nerd culture surrounding these games seems to be more about dick measuring than actually playing a game. "I won therefore i'm smarter! DERP"
Honestly, the fluff players tend to be the bigger issue. Competitive players bring the best lists they can but very few of the guys that are actually placing well in GTs care about anything other than going out there and doing the best they can and testing their skill and planning against other similarly skilled players.
Meanwhile fluff players whine about armies being too powerful while misusing even good armies to such a degree that you couldn't hand them the game if you tried. They are also 100% sure how everyone SHOULD be playing the game and are VERY LOUD at expressing those beliefs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: You can take max monster allotment in normal thundertusks and then you can take heroes on thundertusks in addition.
No you can't. 4 Behemouths, leader or not is irrelevant.
auticus wrote: The situation is that the current AOS design team are very close to the UKGT organizer(s) and those are also the playtestters, to the influence of the game development is and has been very much tournament/power gaming-oriented.
I would be very interested in hearing the game devs discuss the gulf between casual play and power play and how they think the current direction would be received by casual players.
Phil Kelly was asked that once at a Games Day, and him standing about 10 feet from me replied "don't play with gits"... so that might be the answer today as well.
Except the realm rules are the most Anti-tournament inclusion into any tabletop game I've seen outside of release AoS's 'everything is legal'.
auticus wrote:You can take max monster allotment in normal thundertusks and then you can take heroes on thundertusks in addition.
I was told we couldn't do this. Is this something in the 2.0 edition or can we do this in the 1.x edition as well?
You cannot do that. It was in GHB 2016 and has stayed the same since.
Correct, a unit with those keywords counts towards the counts of all the unit types they apply to. A leader that's also a behemoth counts towards the limits on leaders and behemoths.
Unless, of course, the battletome or unit rules let you bypass this somehow.
Sorry my bad, its been a while since I've seen BCR. So four max indeed.
Meanwhile fluff players whine about armies being too powerful while misusing even good armies to such a degree that you couldn't hand them the game if you tried.
I'm sure we all have our experiences. Here is the experience I try to avoid:
Show up with a normal list that may have 12 mortal wounds output a turn, basic 4+ saves, etc.
Opponent across from you is doing the stormcast build doing 30-54 mortal wounds a turn.
In an event that has been listed as a narrative campaign where those type of lists shouldn't be brought, but they decided to bring them anyway.
Thats not a very fun game. I'd assume for either people.
Thats the kind of disparity that exists in the game today that I would give anything for the developers to address, instead of making the gulf wider.
They are also 100% sure how everyone SHOULD be playing the game and are VERY LOUD at expressing those beliefs.
Most of the people that I know, power gamer or non alike, don't tell people how they should play the game. The casual guys that quit the game quit because they just want some games out at the store where they can have a close game without having to field a min/max list.
I do know some narrative guys who do scream about powergamers being evil and you should never play that way.
In converse, I was also publicly shamed across a few message boards for teaching players to play the game wrong by allowing house rules and capping power lists, which the tournament guys said handicaps the community and makes our tournaments a joke because the new players weren't being taught how to powerplay properly.
auticus wrote: Yeah but people often still demand tournament style. My biggest hurdle if i want to continue campaigns is matching people up now.
Our powergamers are ready to melt opposing lists down and im not sure what this is going to do to interest.
That's a shame, honestly.
I feel like powergaming in AoS is like taking a magnifying glass to ants. Congratulations, you can exploit a rulset that was never designed for what you're doing. But nerd culture surrounding these games seems to be more about dick measuring than actually playing a game. "I won therefore i'm smarter! DERP"
Honestly, the fluff players tend to be the bigger issue. Competitive players bring the best lists they can but very few of the guys that are actually placing well in GTs care about anything other than going out there and doing the best they can and testing their skill and planning against other similarly skilled players.
Meanwhile fluff players whine about armies being too powerful while misusing even good armies to such a degree that you couldn't hand them the game if you tried. They are also 100% sure how everyone SHOULD be playing the game and are VERY LOUD at expressing those beliefs.
So, there's a lot wrong with your post.
No one is complaining about the fact that tournaments exist, or about people in tournaments "doing the best they can." The ultimate goal of going to a competitive event is to win. If you can crush your opponent, and he feels bad, that's his problem. I tabled a guy horribly in a tournament where I didn't lose a model, and I didn't feel bad at all for him, because it was a tournament. This is the mindset and it is acceptable.
The issue is when the tournament mindset is applied to games with players who don't share that mindset. It has nothing to do with the power of the lists, it has everything to do with the philosophy that it's OK to crush your opponent. The only way i can try and explain it is that there's a fundamental difference between playing against someone and playing with someone. These can overlap of course, but for players who only attend tournaments, and players who only play outside of tournaments, you're going to have cognitive dissonance when they meet.
Tournament players have an avenue to experience the game how they want: tournaments. Casual players have to find other ways to play. If Auticus wants to create a casual ruleset that limits powergaming, why should power gamers get upset with the rules? Do they have any right at all to feel this way? I experienced something similar running a casual narrative event. Instead of just declining to play, some local power gamers not only got angry but went on huge facebook rants about the rules and how they were exclusionary towards some lists. I don't get that. You already have your game modes. Let other people have theirs.
I'm in the camp that goes "Why the heck do tournaments exist?" to be honest. I'm not complaining that they do exist, I just don't understand how a bunch of nerds can get together, look at a game as horribly unbalanced and unpredictable, with so many random elements as Age of Sigmar (or 40k) and think:
"Y'know what? This would make a great competitive game!"
I just don't get the mindset. I don't get the mindset about winning all the time. I don't get the purpose of buying an army on e-bay because it's 'meta', slapping it together as quick as you can, paying someone else to paint it, and then selling it off as soon as it's not in the meta any more (which can be as short as two weeks, due to the frequency of FAQ's now).
When I play, I want to play those close games without min-maxing. I want to enjoy the game as a social experience and a more casual/narrative experience, while also slowly improving myself as a strategist, modeler, painter, and gamer overall. When tournament players table their opponents turn 2 and say 'good game', I roll my eyes. When they feign feeling bad because they've tabled their opponent without losing a single model, I look at them and think "Is that all this game is to you? Winning as hard as you can?"
It just doesn't make sense to me. Tournament players seem to speak their own language, have their own set of rules, and are just as ornery as the regular 'casual' player. If not for 'comp' (ie: painting, sportsmanship, etc), you'd see tournaments that are seas of gray and dickery. Nary a painted model and hardly a smile or laugh heard. You know how I know this? Look at other kinds of tournaments outside of 40k/AoS. Look at the rising tide of E-Sports. Those kids playing Overwatch or Starcraft are shaking hands at the end of the game begrudgingly, not out of any sense of sportsmanship, but because it's just an archaic expectation that they stick to. I witnessed a competitive POKEMON player flick off the audience when they booed him for slow-playing against an opponent that would have beaten him if he hadn't run down the clock on every decision, while an oblivious judge looked on and thought "this is fine". And the best part? He didn't even get banned, despite being a 20+ something d-bag and flicking off an audience of children on a livestreamed event.
Sure, there are great tournament players out there. Friendly guys, good guys that do want their opponents to have a good time and have a remarkable sense of chivalry, honor, and sportsmanship, on top of having a great sense of humor that doesn't rely on misogyny. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that there are more of these great players than there are awful scumbags. I'd even say that, yes, many casual players are whiny crybabies that just want their wins handed to them, that haven't learned the skill of losing gracefully and have about as much sportsmanship as a toddler that hasn't had his nappy-time yet. I agree that on both sides you have the good players and you have the bad. I don't mind that tournaments exist, I just don't play in them and I tend to avoid the gamers that think that that's the way the game should be played. Basketball? Poker? Chess? Baseball? I can understand these games being played competitively. Even Overwatch, Super Smash Brothers, League of Legends.
40k and AoS, in my mind, are the farthest you can get from a game that was meant to be played competitively.
And bringing it all back around to the new edition coming out in June, I really hope that my local group does use the new realm rules. In fact, I'm sure they will, because they're a mix of players that do want to explore all the different angles of the game, from tournament to narrative players. It seems like a lot of fun and if GW has bothered to put it all into the game, then we should see if we can have some fun with it. If you run across a jerk that wants to forego those rules in favor of tabling you by turn 2, then... don't play with that guy?
drbored wrote: I'm in the camp that goes "Why the heck do tournaments exist?" to be honest.
People have competitive mind sets i guess. its the same thing with MTG a card game originally designed for children.
i want to say 50% for that prize money and glory, 40% grot measuring competition, 10% because they enjoy it.
with a splash of trying to be social and meet people.
I'd suggest tournaments exist so many of us can play a given game at all. Depending on your location, population density, etc... some games are obscenely hard to find players for.
If I want a game of 40k I can drive thirty minutes to a decent venue and be set, but for AoS I need to head to Albany (despite my best efforts to help the game locally), and that means an almost two-hour drive, and a full day commitment.
Tournaments mean I will get a full day of AoS in, with people who likewise travelled, meaning new lists, new opponents, etc...
I don't disagree that those games will be 50% power-game wankery, and a bad experience until you chase the dragon too... but if you really put love and time into your models, etc... its better than not getting to play at all... I guess.
Its just a byproduct of a world where people increasingly gravitate towards hobbies of instant gratification.
It gets pretty boring playing against someone who doesn't want to win. Likewise, sandbagging or steamrolling an opponent are also boring (and insulting, in the case of the former). Competitive balance is important because it ensures that the game is enjoyable and approachable regardless of the faction you choose to play. Having Timmy's list of favoured units fluctuate with the release of a new book/edition/faction from reasonable to completely oppressing his community is not good for casual or competitive mindsets. Moreover, the line between what a 'casual' and 'competitive' list is ends up being entirely arbitrary.
Healthy competitive environments encourage creativity, since they force players to come up with novel solutions in order to outmaneuver other players own solutions. They also should craft their own narratives organically.
Fafnir wrote: It gets pretty boring playing against someone who doesn't want to win. Likewise, sandbagging or steamrolling an opponent are also boring (and insulting, in the case of the former). Competitive balance is important because it ensures that the game is enjoyable and approachable regardless of the faction you choose to play. Having Timmy's list of favoured units fluctuate with the release of a new book/edition/faction from reasonable to completely oppressing his community is not good for casual or competitive mindsets. Moreover, the line between what a 'casual' and 'competitive' list is ends up being entirely arbitrary.
Healthy competitive environments encourage creativity, since they force players to come up with novel solutions in order to outmaneuver other players own solutions. They also should craft their own narratives organically.
Spot on.
Also FYI to those in the conversation; ERJAK has historically approached things from the perspective of competitive players being very upright in behavior and criticisms of WAAC or unsportsmanlike behavior at tournaments are very exaggerated, part of the 'narrative' community that is the real problem. Keep that in mind if engaging with him on the topic.
Ive rarely seen or experienced problems with gaming in general as long as the expectations are clear. If you go to a tournament, bring a hard list and play to win. Playing in my garage with a couple people who don’t even own their own models.. CAAC all the way.
The problems arise becuase a very small percentage of gamers are stuck in one mindset, and aren’t willing to compromise in situations where the expectations aren’t explicitly clear.
In olden days, I always brought 2 lists when playing WFB or 40k for pickup games. One that could at least put up a fight against the netlist/I’m practicing for a tournament/obviously just a competitive hombre games, and one with the cheese trimmed out. I didn’t care, becuase I was prepared to play either way.
The problem I personally have with AoS in particular though is that it seems intentionally designed, RAW, to not be very fulfilling as a competitive game. Frankly I’m surprised to hear the primary feedback and play testing is done by a tournament crowd. It must be different in the UK or Europe becuase it’s just not taken that seriously around me, as seems right.
Da Boss wrote: I feel like we've moved so far away from the design paradigm that I prefer that I can't even understand what they're trying to achieve. This game is really obviously not designed to be played competitively, and trying to contort it to fit that framework produces some really dissonant statements and design.
I don't mind entirely narrative games, but making them into wargames doesn't work well as far as I'm concerned. If you want to play a narrative fantasy game, pick up a role playing game.
I'm following this thread in the vague hope that something will come through that will make me want to use my 4 fantasy armies again for something other than KoW, but I'm not seeing it so far, just more of the same design paradigm that drove me away.
You probably won't, to be honest. AoS isn't the game you want it to be, and I think that's okay.
I started with narrative wargames in the late 80s. I'll never understand how people continue to push that wargames shouldn't be narrative and only RPGs should be that.
D&D used to be highly competitive and had tournaments all the way into the mid 90s... anything can be competitive. And anything can tell a story / be narrative.
I wouldn't be here today if it hadn't been for narrative wargaming coming up as a teen.
dosiere wrote: Ive rarely seen or experienced problems with gaming in general as long as the expectations are clear. If you go to a tournament, bring a hard list and play to win. Playing in my garage with a couple people who don’t even own their own models.. CAAC all the way.
The problems arise because a very small percentage of gamers are stuck in one mindset, and aren’t willing to compromise in situations where the expectations aren’t explicitly clear.
In olden days, I always brought 2 lists when playing WFB or 40k for pickup games. One that could at least put up a fight against the netlist/I’m practicing for a tournament/obviously just a competitive hombre games, and one with the cheese trimmed out. I didn’t care, becuase I was prepared to play either way.
And this is where one of the major issues comes into being. A lot of people arrange their pick-up games via social media now without really putting much thought into their postings. My local group has a couple of postings for today, where people have just said "will be at local shop with 2k points. <insert army and time here>."
That's cool and all, but what are you wanting to play? A casual game? "Tournament" practice? I put quotes around "tournament" because the people who tend towards claiming this never actually attend any of the local tournaments, they just bring netlists and then somehow can't find time to attend the tournament despite showing up 15-16 times to practice. Maybe you want to try a multi-stage game, ala the new Idoneth battleplans?
I've said this before and I can basically be assured to say it again, but communication is key for arranging games. You don't have to know someone particularly well to communicate with them. I've seen too many instances where someone tries to put the blame onto the other person for the game "not being how they wanted it to be". I personally saw a pretty ridiculous argument where someone was trying to force the other person to use the beta rules for 40k deployment because "they needed to try them out". Other person didn't know the beta rules so didn't want to use them.
auticus wrote: The situation is that the current AOS design team are very close to the UKGT organizer(s) and those are also the playtestters, to the influence of the game development is and has been very much tournament/power gaming-oriented.
I would be very interested in hearing the game devs discuss the gulf between casual play and power play and how they think the current direction would be received by casual players.
Phil Kelly was asked that once at a Games Day, and him standing about 10 feet from me replied "don't play with gits"... so that might be the answer today as well.
I wonder if any of them play... well a lot of armies, but I play KO, and KO seems to be getting done dirty.
Fafnir wrote: It gets pretty boring playing against someone who doesn't want to win. Likewise, sandbagging or steamrolling an opponent are also boring (and insulting, in the case of the former). Competitive balance is important because it ensures that the game is enjoyable and approachable regardless of the faction you choose to play. Having Timmy's list of favoured units fluctuate with the release of a new book/edition/faction from reasonable to completely oppressing his community is not good for casual or competitive mindsets. Moreover, the line between what a 'casual' and 'competitive' list is ends up being entirely arbitrary.
Healthy competitive environments encourage creativity, since they force players to come up with novel solutions in order to outmaneuver other players own solutions. They also should craft their own narratives organically.
Spot on.
Also FYI to those in the conversation; ERJAK has historically approached things from the perspective of competitive players being very upright in behavior and criticisms of WAAC or unsportsmanlike behavior at tournaments are very exaggerated, part of the 'narrative' community that is the real problem. Keep that in mind if engaging with him on the topic.
Personally, every single one of the best games I've ever played have been at tournaments, and the only 2 negative experiences I've EVER had in a competitive setting came from narrative players who had clearly been roped into the event by friends and weren't prepared mentally or...list-ally for that kind of environment, which I totally get.
That said, I have recently experienced the WAAC A-hole I thought was largely a myth, by following a game a couple of friends of mine were playing at a large doubles tournament. There was a 'team'(player) who was playing his daemon army so thouroughly wrong that it might as well been a homebrew book. It was to the point where there were so many lies about what the units did and what buffs they got that even if you caught a handful it wasn't enough to stop the army from being ridiculously beyond its actual ken.
So I know that crap WAAC players exists, I just take exception to the idea that non-competitive players don't have their equivalenr donkey cave or that casual/narrative play is "Real 40k/Sigmar", it's all real Sigmar, it's just different.
auticus wrote: The situation is that the current AOS design team are very close to the UKGT organizer(s) and those are also the playtestters, to the influence of the game development is and has been very much tournament/power gaming-oriented.
I would be very interested in hearing the game devs discuss the gulf between casual play and power play and how they think the current direction would be received by casual players.
Phil Kelly was asked that once at a Games Day, and him standing about 10 feet from me replied "don't play with gits"... so that might be the answer today as well.
I wonder if any of them play... well a lot of armies, but I play KO, and KO seems to be getting done dirty.
They play pretty much all the armies. I know for a fact that Russ Veal was working on a Kharadron list that GHB2 killed.
Why tournaments:
It is easier for some to get a free weekend every 2 months to play 5 games than to get a free evening once a week
Controlled environment, as everyone who goes there has accepted the rules and point size used.
No worries that your store pick up game fails to happen because your opponent is late or does not come at all or wants to play something different than said before
And WAAC is a thing but you know what lits you are going to meet there
In a random pick up game you never know if someone comes up with a "normal" list or "WAAC I don't care about GHB restriction" list.
If you have a fixed local group that meets regularly, tournaments are not a thing of course, but for others they are the only way to get a game
Ooh. I highly approve of official base-to-base measuring now, and the subtle change to Pile In is likewise good. No more getting stuck just because you're already in b2b.
That change to pile ins is HUGE, the only way it could be considered slight is in the wording. Seriously I cannot understate how big of a deal that is.
wow that can make for a huge deal when fighting against large models. Monsters just got a bit more scared of infantry. Also you can slightly shift your front lines around to allow for better reach with backline models. Anything that uses a 2" range is going to love this change
NinthMusketeer wrote: That change to pile ins is HUGE, the only way it could be considered slight is in the wording. Seriously I cannot understate how big of a deal that is.
Agreed. The wording is subtle and it's a small technical change, but man it is going to have a big impact.
Am I right in thinking it only significantly alters hordes vs. elite units, or single large models? I mean, big unit vs. big unit is still going to have a harder time with models moving in such a way that they aren't further from the nearest enemy model, thus making it unlikely to get to many more attacks in?
Not that it is an issue, I just want to make sure i'm understanding the ramifications correctly.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Am I right in thinking it only significantly alters hordes vs. elite units, or single large models? I mean, big unit vs. big unit is still going to have a harder time with models moving in such a way that they aren't further from the nearest enemy model, thus making it unlikely to get to many more attacks in?
Not that it is an issue, I just want to make sure i'm understanding the ramifications correctly.
I think it will affect large models more, since now you can "orbit" if you're already b2b whereas you couldn't before, but it'll also have some effect on the edges of larger units, too. Hence why I said "subtle" meaning "so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe."
But yeah, the impact vs. large based models is definitely significant, and now allows a unit to truly envelop big dudes.
NinthMusketeer wrote:That change to pile ins is HUGE, the only way it could be considered slight is in the wording. Seriously I cannot understate how big of a deal that is.
I haven't played in years. I don't see the change here at all. Can someone explain what the change is? it seems the same to me.
NinthMusketeer wrote:That change to pile ins is HUGE, the only way it could be considered slight is in the wording. Seriously I cannot understate how big of a deal that is.
I haven't played in years. I don't see the change here at all. Can someone explain what the change is? it seems the same to me.
As currently written, if a model is already in b2b with another they cannot move at all during Pile In, since you have to end closer to the enemy model than when you began, and if you're b2b that is impossible. This is confirmed in the FAQ:
Q: If you are already in contact with a model, do you still get to
pile in and rotate around the enemy units?
A: No.
The new wording allows you to move around a model you're already in b2b with, so long as you still end that move b2b.
Been using base to base since day 1, as have I assume most of you all.
So thats cool. But like clockwork a couple hours after this came out I get messaged.
"Now that base to base is official, if you let people play at the store using squares or older smaller bases and not make people rebase, you are allowing cheating."
Even though GW also writes:
Which bases should I use? Whichever ones you want! If you’ve got a collection that’s beautifully based, you can put away the clippers – there’s no enforced, single standard for how you should base your models. However, on release, you’ll be able to download a chart of recommended base sizes for every miniature in the Mortal Realms – if you’re a tournament organiser who wants to ensure a consistent standard for your event, feel free to use this, while if you’re making the jump to putting an older collection on round bases, this should help you out a lot.
auticus wrote: Been using base to base since day 1, as have I assume most of you all.
So thats cool. But like clockwork a couple hours after this came out I get messaged.
"Now that base to base is official, if you let people play at the store using squares or older smaller bases and not make people rebase, you are allowing cheating."
Even though GW also writes:
Which bases should I use? Whichever ones you want! If you’ve got a collection that’s beautifully based, you can put away the clippers – there’s no enforced, single standard for how you should base your models. However, on release, you’ll be able to download a chart of recommended base sizes for every miniature in the Mortal Realms – if you’re a tournament organiser who wants to ensure a consistent standard for your event, feel free to use this, while if you’re making the jump to putting an older collection on round bases, this should help you out a lot.
Man, it really does sound like your community is pretty toxic. As you said, even GW says straight up you don't have to rebase. I'm sorry.
Edit: And yeah, b2b measuring was the first and most easily agreed upon house rule, especially since it was mentioned in GHB1 anyway.
auticus wrote: For reference, a lot of people liked that rule that they didn't have to rebase. Its only 2 or 3 out of fifteen or so that have a big beef with it.
Always seems to be a very vocal minority that can cast a gak light over everything.
Fafnir wrote: Does this imply that you can now slide around models if you're already in base-to-base?
Yes, that's exactly what it now allows.
I disagree. Here's the wording for second edition:
... you can move each model in the unit up to 3". Each model must finish its pile-in move at least as close to the nearest enemy model as it was at the start of its move.
Compare that to the wording for piling-in for Warhammer 40,000:
You may move each model in the unit up to 3" – this move can be in any direction so long as the model ends the move closer to the nearest enemy model.
Essentially the same, so I have no problem seeing THIS FAQ being applied to AoS as well:
Note that if a model is in base-to-base contact, it cannot possibly end a move closer to the enemy, and so cannot move when its unit piles in or consolidates.
Applying a previous edition FAQ to a new edition is unwise. Also, I don't think the new wording prohibits it at all; if you start in B2B, you may still move so long as you end still B2B. Also, the 40k wording is different as it still requires ending closer than when you started.
The wording is subtle, but "at least as close" and "closer" are not equivalent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the article even touts this difference:
Where previously, you could only pile in towards the closest enemy model before having to stop, now, you can pile in even if you’re right next to someone – provided you don’t move any further away from the nearest enemy model.
And looks like that's what the FB folks are going with, too. (Yes, I know, they're not really "official" rules people, but ...)
auticus wrote: The facebook group already confirmed this lets you move models that are in base to base so long as you are still in base to base.
The GW facebook account said that they liked that about the new rule.
And you ninja'ed me as I was posting a screenshot. But yup, definitely seems to be the case and the wording IMO was changed specifically to allow that.
This will be interesting to see now with the additional limitations on shooting, and I think will make melee units a little better off since not only can they tie down shooters (like you intuitively think they should), but may also be able to more effectively surround single large bases and even scooch around edges of other units to get a few more blokes in combat.
Valander wrote: Applying a previous edition FAQ to a new edition is unwise.
You did see where I said it was a FAQ for the current edition of 40k? Like I said it's similar enough that I could see them making the same ruling, but if they've already clarified otherwise then that's all the better.
Valander wrote: Applying a previous edition FAQ to a new edition is unwise.
You did see where I said it was a FAQ for the current edition of 40k? Like I said it's similar enough that I could see them making the same ruling, but if they've already clarified otherwise then that's all the better.
FAQ for a different game is even more dangerous to apply.
Yes, they're similar but the old AOS Pile In rule was far more like the 40k.8 Pile In than the new AOS one.
I would not be surprised to see a clarification, either way, in the new AOS 2.0 FAQ, because it will likely really be a Frequently Asked Question.
auticus wrote: The facebook group already confirmed this lets you move models that are in base to base so long as you are still in base to base.
The GW facebook account said that they liked that about the new rule.
And you ninja'ed me as I was posting a screenshot. But yup, definitely seems to be the case and the wording IMO was changed specifically to allow that.
This will be interesting to see now with the additional limitations on shooting, and I think will make melee units a little better off since not only can they tie down shooters (like you intuitively think they should), but may also be able to more effectively surround single large bases and even scooch around edges of other units to get a few more blokes in combat.
It also creates a bit more incentive to run 'blocks' of models next to each other to prevent themselves from being wrapped by incoming attackers, which in turn creates more incentive for flanking. I doubt it will be a huge impact in this regard but there is some subtle pushes towards more tactical realism here. That said lining up units as blocks has always been a surprisingly effective way to play, almost as if those real world armies had something figured out
NinthMusketeer wrote:That change to pile ins is HUGE, the only way it could be considered slight is in the wording. Seriously I cannot understate how big of a deal that is.
I haven't played in years. I don't see the change here at all. Can someone explain what the change is? it seems the same to me.
As currently written, if a model is already in b2b with another they cannot move at all during Pile In, since you have to end closer to the enemy model than when you began, and if you're b2b that is impossible. This is confirmed in the FAQ:
Q: If you are already in contact with a model, do you still get to
pile in and rotate around the enemy units?
A: No.
The new wording allows you to move around a model you're already in b2b with, so long as you still end that move b2b.
Thank you. That is what I thought but my brain was telling me no it can't be. I am curious as to why they did this. So more models can be moved closer I take it?
I noticed that units now have to pile in if they are in position. Was there ever a situation where you wouldn't want to attack if you have a unit within 3" of an enemy, though? Even if your unit is weak in melee and going up against a melee juggernaut, wouldn't it be better to try to do some token damage than to let your opponent pile in and wipe out your unit?
EnTyme wrote: I noticed that units now have to pile in if they are in position. Was there ever a situation where you wouldn't want to attack if you have a unit within 3" of an enemy, though? Even if your unit is weak in melee and going up against a melee juggernaut, wouldn't it be better to try to do some token damage than to let your opponent pile in and wipe out your unit?
Yes, some units deal damage when attacked. And if it would be your turn next, it was sometimes safer to shoot them.
Wrathmongers - you don't want to hit them because if you kill them theymake you attack your own unit. Particularly lethal if you have a nasty unit like ogors that do 3-4 damage per hit attacking themselves.
Horrors - you don't want to hit them because then they split and can contest objectives better.
Some units deal damage (often mortal wounds) or attack again if you kill them.
I'm glad for this change of rules because it is yet another nonsensical garbage immersion breaking scenario now thrown out the window and things make more sense.
Unlike other predatory endless spells, the Aethervoid Pendulum moves constantly in a straight line, cleaving across the battlefield – making it less risky to your forces. Should it make contact with a unit, it’ll deal a decent chunk of mortal wounds to them, too.
EnTyme wrote: I noticed that units now have to pile in if they are in position. Was there ever a situation where you wouldn't want to attack if you have a unit within 3" of an enemy, though? Even if your unit is weak in melee and going up against a melee juggernaut, wouldn't it be better to try to do some token damage than to let your opponent pile in and wipe out your unit?
Yes, some units deal damage when attacked. And if it would be your turn next, it was sometimes safer to shoot them.
auticus wrote:Yes.
Wrathmongers - you don't want to hit them because if you kill them theymake you attack your own unit. Particularly lethal if you have a nasty unit like ogors that do 3-4 damage per hit attacking themselves.
Horrors - you don't want to hit them because then they split and can contest objectives better.
Some units deal damage (often mortal wounds) or attack again if you kill them.
I'm glad for this change of rules because it is yet another nonsensical garbage immersion breaking scenario now thrown out the window and things make more sense.
Okay. I figured there had to be something out there. I agree, auticus. This is a good (if minor) change for immersion.
Unlike other predatory endless spells, the Aethervoid Pendulum moves constantly in a straight line, cleaving across the battlefield – making it less risky to your forces. Should it make contact with a unit, it’ll deal a decent chunk of mortal wounds to them, too.
auticus wrote: Been using base to base since day 1, as have I assume most of you all.
So thats cool. But like clockwork a couple hours after this came out I get messaged.
"Now that base to base is official, if you let people play at the store using squares or older smaller bases and not make people rebase, you are allowing cheating."
Even though GW also writes:
Which bases should I use? Whichever ones you want! If you’ve got a collection that’s beautifully based, you can put away the clippers – there’s no enforced, single standard for how you should base your models. However, on release, you’ll be able to download a chart of recommended base sizes for every miniature in the Mortal Realms – if you’re a tournament organiser who wants to ensure a consistent standard for your event, feel free to use this, while if you’re making the jump to putting an older collection on round bases, this should help you out a lot.
I would link the person to that exact quote, then tell them politely to go themselves.
I would link the person to that exact quote, then tell them politely to go themselves.
I did link that quote. They responded back with some crappy snide remarks about house ruled BS.
I created a fall event that I'm going to try to hit BOLS up with once a week ... a narrative Firestorm blog. Only the narrative guys are going to be a part of it. Both the private and public event though are not enforcing bases so long as you are using bases your model came with.
I would link the person to that exact quote, then tell them politely to go themselves.
I did link that quote. They responded back with some crappy snide remarks about house ruled BS.
I created a fall event that I'm going to try to hit BOLS up with once a week ... a narrative Firestorm blog. Only the narrative guys are going to be a part of it. Both the private and public event though are not enforcing bases so long as you are using bases your model came with.
If this guy is still claiming it's a houserule after you showed him that GW literally said there is no standard, I would reiterate that he could fornicate himself with an iron rod.
I would link the person to that exact quote, then tell them politely to go themselves.
I did link that quote. They responded back with some crappy snide remarks about house ruled BS.
I created a fall event that I'm going to try to hit BOLS up with once a week ... a narrative Firestorm blog. Only the narrative guys are going to be a part of it. Both the private and public event though are not enforcing bases so long as you are using bases your model came with.
If this guy is still claiming it's a houserule after you showed him that GW literally said there is no standard, I would reiterate that he could fornicate himself with an iron rod.
The "houserule BS" comes from "if its not a tournament rule, then its a houserule". It is a mindset that has always frustrated me greatly.
See my previous reply. This isn't the kind of person I'd ever play against, and if he wants to participate in a public event I was running, I'd remind him that I was the event organizer of said event and he is welcome to not participate.
I'd bust out my tourney list and see how much he likes a dose of his own medicine. Once again I have to say it's really nice to have one of those around
EnTyme wrote: I noticed that units now have to pile in if they are in position. Was there ever a situation where you wouldn't want to attack if you have a unit within 3" of an enemy, though? Even if your unit is weak in melee and going up against a melee juggernaut, wouldn't it be better to try to do some token damage than to let your opponent pile in and wipe out your unit?
I run a plaguetouched warband. at Adepticon this year... I had a unit of 35 nurgle marauders which proc'ed the battalions ability because it was set-up in a multiple of 7. So any wound roll of 6 made against it (by the enemy) in melee kickbacked a mortal wound. I added a plague priest to my army (not in the batallion but doent matter) which has a prayer that adds +1 to the wound rolls made AGAINST A UNIT WITHIN 13". So i would use the vague wording of that ability to cast that on my own unit of maruaders.. therefore giving the nemy +1 to wound against my own unit but which triggered mortal wound kickback on 5s now.
I ran them straight at my opponents infantry, along with 14 chaos warriors who also kick back mortal wounds and he refused to attack me for several rounds of combat. I was ok with this.
Tournament/WAAC players have spent the last three years complaining that many of the things that narrative/fun players do are against the rules- taking models as count as, using cool and slightly unusual basing, using things that no longer 'existed'. One chap was even giving out to a member of staff on their official facebook page for basing his models 'wrong'.
And yet nearly every single one of them change the measure from the model rules to suit themselves, and spent the past year telling everyone that would listen that 'everyone plays base measuring anyway'. (as if they speak for everyone!)
Seeing this change has annoyed me a bit- not because the rule makes too much of a difference but it does show that GW is willing to change things for whoever is being the loudest, most obnoxious on facebook posts, even after spending all this time trying to convince people that its ok to play by house rules or do what you find fun as long everyone agrees.
With the new base to base measuring and with GW wording the new base rules to include tournaments can vary the base rules to suit their own needs, I feel that the most obnoxious part of the community are going to use that throw in everyone's face, at every opportunity they get!
I like that GW responds to the community but it feels a little like they are bowing to the noise, rather than making changes that have been asked for.
Well not measuring from the base is just pure stupidity.
oh look, my model gets an extra 2" range cuz its wings are 2" outside the base......
But i dont agree on the loose basing style.
It realy aint that hard to make clear round wrap around bases for the models that still uses square bases but dont want or can swap to round bases for a company sutch as GW.
I've now lived through five or so basing changes in the course of my time with GW.
I'm primarily a hobbyist.
When I finish a model, to include its base, I'm not messing with the base again in the future because GW decides its now going to be on a base that is 7mm bigger.
The loose basing style is largely because there are a large chunk of us that are not hyper-concerned about 7mm smaller bases.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Well not measuring from the base is just pure stupidity. oh look, my model gets an extra 2" range cuz its wings are 2" outside the base......
But i dont agree on the loose basing style. It realy aint that hard to make clear round wrap around bases for the models that still uses square bases but dont want or can swap to round bases for a company sutch as GW.
It's only stupidity if you are playing against the spirit of the rules or against the spirit of fun. Oh look, my model gets and extra 2" range cuz I've used a titan base, with overhanging cork, to base one moonclan grot.
See, basing can be just as easily abused, and yes I exaggerated a bit a titan base is beyond silly, but the point stands, just as easy to abuse any rule if you play against the spirit of the rules.
I've never seen the need for anyone to need to rebase or need base extenders. It doesn't take much brain power to 'see' where a round base would be in place of the square the model is one. If you can't imagine a circle around a square then maybe there is more at issue here than basing. Loose basing is there to keep more people in the hobby. I'd rather see everyone encouraged to play AoS, rather than see more and more people driven out the hobby altogether. Forcing people to do rebasing to a 30 year old army is not the way to keep a player and not going to help encourage older players to carry on buying into new AoS stuff.
I've had the same exact problem with the Kings of war crowd- telling me that using a 40mm circle base is against the rules as it needs to be a 40mm square- like you can't 'see' where the corners or the edges were. And this wasn't at some big strict tournament or playing with a stranger in a pug. This was in a private game, with my two of my own forces, against my other half and I had people giving out over the game to the point I was told I'd be removed from hobby if the rules police had their way (this was an official mantic site as well)
I'd hate to see this ridiculous mindset become precedent in the AoS hobby. Not everyone plays official obey all rules tournament WAAC style and not everyone plays fun, friendly no rules narrative games, but things like this are pushing the two sides apart even further which is widening the gap between players. A lot more give and take needs to be had, so both sides can continue playing but it does seem like GW is favouring the tournament side more and more
They are, because the guys playtesting their rules, coming up with their points, and giving them the most direct feedback (that being, face to face in the pub not a faceless email) are the UK Grand Tournament guys and their club(s).
But I will also be fair and say that GW did try the pure narrative route, and it apparently failed big-time with no one wanting to buy anything. The tournament energy has always been a big seller. At least over in north america. No tournament scene for a game in north america means no one really plays or buys it at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And now the sirens are going off around the net because people are upset that the game has gotten bigger than 4 pages of rules.
Core book, GH 2018, and Sorcery box. My wallet is going to hurt. Oh and some scenery dice because magical terrain Is awesome and Id love to play with it more
Assuming the Flaming Skull is on a 32mm base, we can get a pretty good idea how big these spells are actually going to be. Those are some decent-sized models. If the rumored $40 price point is correct (I'm skeptical. I would assume closer to $75 at least), that box is going to be one hell of a deal!
Skimask Mohawk wrote: What I meant was if endless spells were a core part of the rules, or an optional expansion
The magic box comes with the spells and its own rulebook, so I'd say it is an expansion.
That being said, in the latest stormcast podcast they mention the endless spells in the new core book- but did not mention if that meant rules or just the fluff behind them.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: What I meant was if endless spells were a core part of the rules, or an optional expansion
The magic box comes with the spells and its own rulebook, so I'd say it is an expansion.
They're spells, and part of the main game. In much the same way the bale wind vortex is a part of the main game now, even though its rules come packaged with it.
Calling it an 'expansion' makes it sound like an optional add-on or alternative to the core game that both players agree to play as an alternative to 'baseline' AoS, like Apocalypse.
I think they are an optional add-on or alternative to the core game. Certainly I'm seeing a lot of people posting on forums or tweets or whatever that they don't plan on using anything beyond the four pages (or whatever) core rules and don't plan on integrating any of the living spells etc.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: What I meant was if endless spells were a core part of the rules, or an optional expansion
The magic box comes with the spells and its own rulebook, so I'd say it is an expansion.
They're spells, and part of the main game. In much the same way the bale wind vortex is a part of the main game now, even though its rules come packaged with it.
Calling it an 'expansion' makes it sound like an optional add-on or alternative to the core game that both players agree to play as an alternative to 'baseline' AoS, like Apocalypse.
It looks very much like an optional add-on, being that it boxed separately. If it was part of the core game then the rules would be in the core book, not as a separate book.
If the rules for them are in the core rules/starter set and the magic box is just optional models to represent them, then I'd agree it's not an expansion. But if so then I don't understand why there is such a large looking rulebook included in the magic set.
From the Warhammer Community article (emphasis added)
Got a wizard in your army? Get this expansion, and they’ll have 13 new endless spells to play with, summoned sorceries with massive in-game effects...
Inside the Malign Sorcery box, you’ll find the full Malign Sorcery supplement – your guide to magic in the Mortal Realms. This book takes a closer look at magical lore in the Age of Sigmar, and the arcane materials that accumulate in each realm, such as Aetherquartz and Cyclestone. There are pages of spectacular new art and background depicting the unbound living magic rampant across each of the realms. You’ll even find painting guides for many of the endless spells, to help you get them ready for your own games.
There’s MORE. Seriously, even without the endless spells this would be a pretty hefty supplement. Skirmish on the Realm’s Edge lets you fight battles with a handful of models in some of the Mortal Realms’ most unstable landscapes as they hunt and bind wild spells for coin and renown. You can even expand your games to Path to Glory, as your warband grows into a fully fledged army gathering new spells to its cause.
For larger games, meanwhile, this book contains no fewer than 84(!) magical items that you’ll be able to use in any game, allowing you to customise your Heroes more than ever before, while the Spells of the Realms add a whole lore’s worth of magic to each of the Mortal Realms, building on the rules already found in the Core Book.
There’s even a set of Pitched Battle profiles, giving you the points you need to use your endless spells in matched play, while two Malign Sorcery battleplans aimed at matched play have a chance of showing up in any of your games where both players bring endless spells.
They say it's an expansion, plus there's more in the book than just the rules for the endless spells.
auticus wrote:I think they are an optional add-on or alternative to the core game. Certainly I'm seeing a lot of people posting on forums or tweets or whatever that they don't plan on using anything beyond the four pages (or whatever) core rules and don't plan on integrating any of the living spells etc.
RexHavoc wrote:It looks very much like an optional add-on, being that it boxed separately. If it was part of the core game then the rules would be in the core book, not as a separate book.
Literally every unit in the game is boxed separately from the core rules. That doesnt mean they're an 'expansion' on top of the base game. Your opponent isn't prevented from taking an endless spell, or a balewind vortex, or an army of sylvaneth just because you haven't elected to buy those models.
There are plenty of reasons not to buy the endless spell box, plenty of reasons not to be interested, but calling them an optional add-on (and the implication that your opponent can veto your being able to take them) is disingenuous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghaz wrote: From the Warhammer Community article (emphasis added)
Got a wizard in your army? Get this expansion, and they’ll have 13 new endless spells to play with, summoned sorceries with massive in-game effects...
Inside the Malign Sorcery box, you’ll find the full Malign Sorcery supplement – your guide to magic in the Mortal Realms. This book takes a closer look at magical lore in the Age of Sigmar, and the arcane materials that accumulate in each realm, such as Aetherquartz and Cyclestone. There are pages of spectacular new art and background depicting the unbound living magic rampant across each of the realms. You’ll even find painting guides for many of the endless spells, to help you get them ready for your own games.
It's an optional addon that will hopefully prove popular enough that it becomes default in most player areas. Honestly I'd be ok with that evne if its just the perma spells that become default - the idea of magic being not just a roll on the dice but an actual thing in the physical area of the game is a really neat thing and it gives the game a difference to 40K
Technically any new model kit is an expansion of the game. The term doesn't carry the same weight here as it does in video game land.
Essentially saying, "I don't want to play the endless spells expansion" means you aren't playing matched play anymore as they are a facet of matched play; you're playing house rules where certain things are disallowed.
They say it's an expansion, plus there's more in the book than just the rules for the endless spells.
Just be aware that this is labelled as an expansion as well, and I don't think anyone is going to argue that those models aren't part of the core game. As Marmatag pointed out, "expansion" means something different in the context of wargames.
I think when the "expansion" is clearly just an army box of existing models in the existing codex and used with the core rules then its clearly just an army expansion in terms of expanding your model collection.
When said expansion comes with its own rule book and unique models that are not tied to a single army and which thus require an additional resource to use in addition to hte core rules then clearly its an "expansion" of those core rules.
Ergo its an addon - ergo its optional. You can play Sigmar without the magic addition.
Of course many players will use it and chances are it wil lbe the default expected feature in most games. But its no more a requirement than Apoc or Cities of Death or any of the other number of rules expansions.
I feel that its an expansion or an option the same as the Time of wars are. They make a cool optional addition but are not required.
If we're looking for "its core, therefore players MUST allow it to be used" I think we're barking up the wrong tree. Particularly when a few things were part of the old core rules that were never used (hell special terrain is something a lot of people actively don't use and thats one example)
Overread wrote: It's an optional addon that will hopefully prove popular enough that it becomes default in most player areas. Honestly I'd be ok with that evne if its just the perma spells that become default - the idea of magic being not just a roll on the dice but an actual thing in the physical area of the game is a really neat thing and it gives the game a difference to 40K
I'd bet good money that the endless spells get adopted into the matched play scene almost immediately. They cost points, they come with obvious counter-play, they help mitigate the double turn. The endless spells are honestly pretty great.
They say it's an expansion, plus there's more in the book than just the rules for the endless spells.
Just be aware that this is labelled as an expansion as well, and I don't think anyone is going to argue that those models aren't part of the core game. As Marmatag pointed out, "expansion" means something different in the context of wargames.
What word you use for it is irrelevant. The question is always 'will people want to use this in their games enough to not just ignore it' and I think endless spells are well enough designed that they'll see adoption.
For those of you that play 40k too, remember, death from the skies wasn't optional, and how'd that go for them?
Overread wrote: It's an optional addon that will hopefully prove popular enough that it becomes default in most player areas. Honestly I'd be ok with that evne if its just the perma spells that become default - the idea of magic being not just a roll on the dice but an actual thing in the physical area of the game is a really neat thing and it gives the game a difference to 40K
I'd bet good money that the endless spells get adopted into the matched play scene almost immediately. They cost points, they come with obvious counter-play, they help mitigate the double turn. The endless spells are honestly pretty great.
Yeah, what's another case of miniatures you have to haul down to the FLGS just to play
Overread wrote: It's an optional addon that will hopefully prove popular enough that it becomes default in most player areas. Honestly I'd be ok with that evne if its just the perma spells that become default - the idea of magic being not just a roll on the dice but an actual thing in the physical area of the game is a really neat thing and it gives the game a difference to 40K
I'd bet good money that the endless spells get adopted into the matched play scene almost immediately. They cost points, they come with obvious counter-play, they help mitigate the double turn. The endless spells are honestly pretty great.
Yeah, what's another case of miniatures you have to haul down to the FLGS just to play
To be fair barring the barrier spells and the giant ball most of them are not super huge. Heck by modern standards the yare pretty small considering the flying turtles and knights and other big stuff GW throws at us today.
But yeah I'd also agree that there's a very high chance that the perma spells will enter into mainstream gaming very fast. As an expansion its a neat way for GW to test the waters with this idea and if it isn't taken up it won't hurt the core product. Whilst if it is they can easily build upon it.
I can see it being a really big feature of fantasy in the future and something that helps Sigmar stand apart not just from Warhammer 40K but also a LOT (if not nearly all) other model ranges
Its also not "another box of miniatures you need to bring to play". :-p Its a part of your army, you presumably paint points for. If it isn't a part of your list, why are you bringing all the spells?
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Its also not "another box of miniatures you need to bring to play". :-p Its a part of your army, you presumably paint points for. If it isn't a part of your list, why are you bringing all the spells?
That's assuming you put your list together before you left the house...
I really doubt endless spells will be any more optional than any other unit you pay points for. We've even seen how their mechanics interact with the double turn. I guess there isn't any point in arguing, though. We'll know for sure in about a week.
There is a difference though, people were banning Forgeworld when there were clear problematic units, completely lacking in balance. Malefic Lords, Big Bird, there were numerous smoking guns... And forgeworld rules writers aren't GW rules writers; further, FW was not included in GW or closed playtesting. Lastly, there was a history of restricting Forgeworld, it was relatively recent that it was even allowed in a broad sense.
Meanwhile, this is an addition of new models to the core game, by the same design team that created and maintains the edition, and are accessible to anyone. We don't know how they function. Talking about restricting or banning these at this juncture is about as premature as it gets. New editions bring change... don't be afraid, 8th edition was a massive step up from 7th, and this will probably be a significant lessons learned from 1.0, and 40k 8th. Except the double turn, for some reason that slice of awful stupid is sticking around, masquerading as a delicious piece of the AoS pumpkin pie.
Indeed most people it seems want the magic in the game and are expecting it to be standard. It's more of a debate on what is allowed to be called an "expansion" and what should be considered "core" rules/components of the game.
It's basically arguing about "can my opponent deny me this rightfully even though I've bought it" or "can I expect to see this in any pick-up game or have to ask for it specifically."
Many people maintain that the core rules and codex/army book is the core of the game. From there you get things like the Magic addition here, or Cities of Death or Apoc which expand the core rules with new features. Then you've got Forgeworld unique units which, again, expand upon the games core army rosters.
Some maintain that these expansions are "legal" and thus justifiable to take in any pick-up game. Myself I've always held the view that they are perfectly fine to take, but that as they expand from the core its the kind of thing you agree with in advance with your opponent.
A simple "Hey lets play Sigmar, with the magic rules and FW models ok?"
I'm just struggling to see how this spell kit is any different from say taking a couple Battlemages in a Stormcast army. You're not really adding a layer to the game like you are with things like Cities of Death or Apocalypse, you're just adding another warscroll to your army.
The description on the warscroll is more for Open Play or Narrative Play. If a unit has a minimum size (x models cost y points), it'll be listed on the Match Play profile.
Marmatag wrote: There is a difference though, people were banning Forgeworld when there were clear problematic units, completely lacking in balance. Malefic Lords, Big Bird, there were numerous smoking guns... And forgeworld rules writers aren't GW rules writers; further, FW was not included in GW or closed playtesting. Lastly, there was a history of restricting Forgeworld, it was relatively recent that it was even allowed in a broad sense.
Meanwhile, this is an addition of new models to the core game, by the same design team that created and maintains the edition, and are accessible to anyone. We don't know how they function. Talking about restricting or banning these at this juncture is about as premature as it gets. New editions bring change... don't be afraid, 8th edition was a massive step up from 7th, and this will probably be a significant lessons learned from 1.0, and 40k 8th. Except the double turn, for some reason that slice of awful stupid is sticking around, masquerading as a delicious piece of the AoS pumpkin pie.
Ok I'll give another example from 40k. Knights. GW models. When they came out many people and events banned either the whole army of knights or got even to the extreme of removing them altogether from the game. Same concept.
Let it be known I am using all of this stuff in my games, so I'm not against it at all.
I think we're arguing the same point, auticus. I'm sure there will be people who try to ban stuff like the endless spells from their games or tournaments, but doing so is just as arbitrary as banning a specific army or unit. To me, these spells look to be as much a part of the game as any other kit.
Yeah. We will see how things pan out. For me personally what the tournament community does won't impact me, I plan on using everything... because its fun as hell and why would you not
Doubt it, but I still wish GW would give AoS points as in 40k points as opposed to points as in 40k power levels. Make the current points granular and replace the simplified structure with renown levels as an analogous version to power levels. Would totally love to see that happen.
Doubt it, but I still wish GW would give AoS points as in 40k points as opposed to points as in 40k power levels. Make the current points granular and replace the simplified structure with renown levels as an analogous version to power levels. Would totally love to see that happen.
I'd be good with more granularity, too, to at the very least differentiate weapon load outs for units. Even if it wasn't a full per-model thing (though I wouldn't mind that, either).
Doubt it, but I still wish GW would give AoS points as in 40k points as opposed to points as in 40k power levels. Make the current points granular and replace the simplified structure with renown levels as an analogous version to power levels. Would totally love to see that happen.
Why in the sweet hells would you want that?
We don't have enough options in AoS' arsenals to be justifying them mucking about with that crap.
I personally would like it. My dog ate a model and so i have a squad thats down a model and its 15 bucks on ebay to replace it from a 30$ kit on ebay. I'd rather have a squad of 9. And it's a 5 man squad of 180 points. It's 36 points a model. Let me take 4 models at 144 points. I won't even get access to the special weapon as it's a 1 per 5.
auticus wrote: I think non granular points are as alien to people as the concept of pointless gaming was on launch to be honest.
Games like saga do it, but to the masses, granular points are as necessary as oxygen and water.
I think this is especially true for folks who cut their teeth on non-historical games (which tend to not even have points, or very abstract). GW games in particular have always had fairly granular points from what I remember, with the exception being, well AOS.
Doubt it, but I still wish GW would give AoS points as in 40k points as opposed to points as in 40k power levels. Make the current points granular and replace the simplified structure with renown levels as an analogous version to power levels. Would totally love to see that happen.
Why in the sweet hells would you want that?
We don't have enough options in AoS' arsenals to be justifying them mucking about with that crap.
When was the last time you saw Judicators with crossbows on the table? Hell, how many players even know that option exists?
My main stormcast opponent has them, simply because he built them that way cause he liked their look. I've played against them once and while they weren't awful, they didn't do much. Also to be fair, he wanted to see if 30 liberators in a squad was good... it's not.
Carnith wrote: My main stormcast opponent has them, simply because he built them that way cause he liked their look. I've played against them once and while they weren't awful, they didn't do much. Also to be fair, he wanted to see if 30 liberators in a squad was good... it's not.
OP as all hell with that one battalion, called harbinger or something...? Lets them teleport to a prosecutor unit without a minimum range to the enemy.
Doubt it, but I still wish GW would give AoS points as in 40k points as opposed to points as in 40k power levels. Make the current points granular and replace the simplified structure with renown levels as an analogous version to power levels. Would totally love to see that happen.
I'd be good with more granularity, too, to at the very least differentiate weapon load outs for units. Even if it wasn't a full per-model thing (though I wouldn't mind that, either).
Why? 90% of units don't have any significant difference between their weapons profiles(3+ 4+ vs 4+ 3+ ooh) And the ones that do have one that is so clearly superior to the other (judicators) that it would either still be auto-take or it would be priced out and no one would take the unit at all. I'm editing to emphasize this, if they put a separate cost on crossbows vs regular bows it's much more likely that Judicators see themselves shelved than given crossbows simply because the crossbows don't have a workable function. The short range makes them bad at pretty much everything.
AoS really has very little to gain from a 40k 'granular' point system. Sure a few underused options would see more play but ultimately balance would be almost exactly the same and the vast majority of units would have the same loadouts(if the upgrade pricing was correct.).
Carnith wrote: My main stormcast opponent has them, simply because he built them that way cause he liked their look. I've played against them once and while they weren't awful, they didn't do much. Also to be fair, he wanted to see if 30 liberators in a squad was good... it's not.
OP as all hell with that one battalion, called harbinger or something...? Lets them teleport to a prosecutor unit without a minimum range to the enemy.
Vanguard wing, and they FAQed it to still have to land outside of 3"
Doubt it, but I still wish GW would give AoS points as in 40k points as opposed to points as in 40k power levels. Make the current points granular and replace the simplified structure with renown levels as an analogous version to power levels. Would totally love to see that happen.
Why in the sweet hells would you want that?
To use my 4 warbosses on foot and without the Waaagh! Banner without feeling stupid for not taking him on a boar with the Waaagh! Banner, for example.
I think a big reason people don't understand how big of a difference non-granular costs make is because the victims are more or less unseen. There are tons of options that simply never get used because they are less than ideal. I'm not talking where the profile is 3+/4+ vs 4+/3+ such things would obviously just cost the same (duh!). I'm talking about...
-Phoenix without an Annointed riding it
-Hurricanum without a wizard on top
-Foot characters that pay points for a horse (there are a number of them)
-Tzaangor Enlightened on foot
-Vampire Lord on Dragon with options other than Shield & Blood Chalice
-Infantry without shields (currently a free upgrade)
-Stormcast Paladins without 2 per 5 starsoul maces (one could make these mortal wound spammers cost more...)
-Ogor Tyrant with weapons other than dual wield & pistol
I could go on. There's a ton of cool options out there for armies and general diversity that unfortunately is largely eliminated in a power level setting. Part of it for me is I was able to play with these things being distinct options that had differing costs using fan points from before the GHB, so I've seen how nice it is. I'd really like to be able to play that way again.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think a big reason people don't understand how big of a difference non-granular costs make is because the victims are more or less unseen. There are tons of options that simply never get used because they are less than ideal. I'm not talking where the profile is 3+/4+ vs 4+/3+ such things would obviously just cost the same (duh!). I'm talking about...
-Phoenix without an Annointed riding it
-Hurricanum without a wizard on top
-Foot characters that pay points for a horse (there are a number of them)
-Tzaangor Enlightened on foot
-Vampire Lord on Dragon with options other than Shield & Blood Chalice
-Infantry without shields (currently a free upgrade)
-Stormcast Paladins without 2 per 5 starsoul maces (one could make these mortal wound spammers cost more...)
-Ogor Tyrant with weapons other than dual wield & pistol
I could go on. There's a ton of cool options out there for armies and general diversity that unfortunately is largely eliminated in a power level setting. Part of it for me is I was able to play with these things being distinct options that had differing costs using fan points from before the GHB, so I've seen how nice it is. I'd really like to be able to play that way again.
I honestly like this because theres some loadouts that just will never be seen. People laughed when they said "oh hey, put enlightened on foot... or for an extra wound, massive movement, and the Daemon keyword, put them on a mount for free" cause it made no sense not to put them on there. For my Ironjaw Brutes, to me, the claw and weapon is always better. When you use the +attack command ability, you get 2 extra attacks, one with the claw, and one with the club. It's just too good not to use them, but the Boss Choppa should have its place, sadly it doesn't feel like it does.
I don't think the problem is wide spread enough that we need to revamp the entire point system. I think a lot of those would be easier to fix by making some of these into different warscrolls.
Venerable Ironclad wrote: I don't think the problem is wide spread enough that we need to revamp the entire point system. I think a lot of those would be easier to fix by making some of these into different warscrolls.
I agree with this. Have one scroll for Freguild General, and one for Freeguild General on Horseback. Things like the Starsoul Mace would be tougher to do, but you could just change them to 1 per 5 or something similar to make them less spammable.
Venerable Ironclad wrote: I don't think the problem is wide spread enough that we need to revamp the entire point system. I think a lot of those would be easier to fix by making some of these into different warscrolls.
What's weird is that they took the time to do different warscrolls for stuff that they ceased production on(I have warscrolls for the Glade Lord on Great Stag, Great Eagle, Forest Dragon, and Steed--none of them have models anymore) but then you have stuff like the Freeguild General and the Order Draconis hero or the Dreadlord on Black Dragon(not even an option for a Drakespawn Chariot or one on foot/Drakespawn) for Order Serpentis.
Venerable Ironclad wrote: I don't think the problem is wide spread enough that we need to revamp the entire point system. I think a lot of those would be easier to fix by making some of these into different warscrolls.
I agree with this. Have one scroll for Freguild General, and one for Freeguild General on Horseback. Things like the Starsoul Mace would be tougher to do, but you could just change them to 1 per 5 or something similar to make them less spammable.
The funny thing here is how that doesn't address the banner option for the general being worth much more. In this case it would need to be general on foot, general on foot with banner, general on horse, general on horse with banner. You see the obvious issue. It also doesn't address weapon upgrades, command groups, units with powerful but non-scaling abilities, or something that a lot of people want which is buying units by model rather than in blocks. A player that wants to run 8 liberators must pay for 10. 30 clanrats must pay for 40, etc. It really is a very widespread problem that can go unnoticed because people don't realize what they are missing. Again, I've played it both ways and found AoS has a ton of diversity left behind by using only power levels.
Hey look, free mortal wounds like crazy. If you bring a blob of 10 of these, that would be 20 dice dealing mortal wounds on a 4+. Even with 5 of them, 10 dice looking for 4s, just flat dealing mortal wounds? That's insane, even a Mega Boss on Maw Krusha can't get to these level of mortal wounds.
This is kind of what I was ranting about a few weeks ago... GW doubling down on mortal wound spam and then saying "so now its ok to summon spam".
Automatically Appended Next Post: And stormcast have been since inception the faction that can deliver the most mortal wounds... which is why they've been a powergaming favorite since inception of AOS.
Marmatag wrote: At face value that looks brokenly overpowered.
Hey look, free mortal wounds like crazy. If you bring a blob of 10 of these, that would be 20 dice dealing mortal wounds on a 4+. Even with 5 of them, 10 dice looking for 4s, just flat dealing mortal wounds? That's insane, even a Mega Boss on Maw Krusha can't get to these level of mortal wounds.
They're models that will likely be costed similar to Wizards(meaning a bit higher prices), can only cast a single spell(Empower) while they're a unit of 2 or more models. They have an ability that is specifically tied to them getting into CC.
We have no idea of unit sizes for matched play. These cards are for Open Play.
auticus wrote: This is kind of what I was ranting about a few weeks ago... GW doubling down on mortal wound spam and then saying "so now its ok to summon spam".
Automatically Appended Next Post: And stormcast have been since inception the faction that can deliver the most mortal wounds... which is why they've been a powergaming favorite since inception of AOS.
I can deliver more Mortal Wounds with Nurgle or Tzeentch than Stormcast could dream of.
can re-roll wound rolls of 1 within 3" of skinks
steel trap jaws can cause mortal wounds on a wound roll of 6, but only if player's roll is greater than opponent's roll, but attack can cause no damage if = or less than opponent's roll.
If Evocators (theoretically) are 200pts per 3 models, which unit would you rather have?
Personally, I'd take 6 Evocators over 6 Kroxigors any day of the week.
Most of the units I've seen with "any number of models" on their warscroll have been 3-6 in Match Play, so I would expect something similar for them. They definitely look scary, but I'm willing to hold off until I see a profile before I panic. I do have the nagging feeling they'll end up as a "Battleline if . . . " unit, though.
can re-roll wound rolls of 1 within 3" of skinks
steel trap jaws can cause mortal wounds on a wound roll of 6, but only if player's roll is greater than opponent's roll, but attack can cause no damage if = or less than opponent's roll.
If Evocators (theoretically) are 200pts per 3 models, which unit would you rather have?
Personally, I'd take 6 Evocators over 6 Kroxigors any day of the week.
Well let's crunch some numbers. Fighting each other we are looking at 4.5 wounds from Kroxogor compared to 6.5 wounds from Evocators, not counting buffs on either side or potential mortals from bites. Seems good for the Evocators.
But lets put them against, say, 20 skeletons. We are looking at at least 6 models in range of the moonstone mace, assuming the skeletons aren't bunched up to maximize their own attack power (they likely would be, but for the sake of example we'll say no).
Evocators are now doing 7.8 wounds average, with Kroxigor doing 7.8 as well. Still looking good for the Evocators, but consider the Kroxigor have three more wounds and will do significantly more damage after losing some of the unit. Re calculating assuming each unit has suffered 6 wounds, the averages go to 2.5 for Evocators verses 5.3 for Kroxigor.
Ultimately I'd say Evocators have the edge, but then they also cost 20 points more. I couldn't say I preferred one or the other because they are used for different things and depend on what else is in the army to see how useful they will be. This it what things should be when comparing units, an argument that will be rendered moot when Evocators come out at 160 points per 3
auticus wrote: Battleline if... undercosted... high damage output with the mortal wound spam... utility spell... yeah.
The stormcast players are prepping their favorite socks and bottles of jergens.
Now, where did you see that the Evocators are "Battleline if"?
Also: Whittle the unit down and it ceases to be a Wizard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EnTyme wrote: The worst part is that just about any Order army will be able to ally them in.
Honestly, I'd actually say that's a good thing. Them plus the mage Knight looks like a solid, fluffy way for people to add a Wizard and her Mage-Knight bodyguards in...but well y'know, I guess it's bad when fluff and rules collide to a good extent.
auticus wrote: Those skaven stormfiends sure caused a lot of people to say "eff AOS" for a few months.
They did the same in 8th, so that shouldn't exactly be earthshattering news.
Skaven, in general, tend to be broken. Sometimes it goes broken in a "why would I ever take that?!" way and sometimes it goes broken in a "why would I never take that?!" way.
auticus wrote: Battleline if... undercosted... high damage output with the mortal wound spam... utility spell... yeah.
The stormcast players are prepping their favorite socks and bottles of jergens.
No they aren't because in general they understand how the game works and how the game works is: No delivery system=useless hunks of plastic. If they don't get something better than Scions of the storm to get across the table they might as well just be liberators. This is the exact problem Paladins run into and the degree to which evocators would have to be superior to be worthwhile is unlikely to happen. Retributors right now see almost no play at 220 simply due to the Hammerstrike being their own reliable way to get where they need to go. Even at 180 they'd still be too unwieldy to use reliably. Evocators will have exactly the same problem unless they get a reliable way to hit the front lines.
This may be unpopular but to me if you need a guaranteed turn 1 alpha strike or some kind of mechanic to give you the ability to shove guys into contact without risk of being hurt first to consider something good, there might be some other issues (unless I'm just totally misunderstanding you). I'd also say wargaming may not be for you, since using the battlefield and outmaneuvering your opponent to get your key units into combat should be part of what makes a battle a battle... not just drawing the pokemon card and saying "KeiShu contact your unit <rolls dice>"
Retributors are seen in every stormcast list here. So I don't know about the "they almost see no play". They also tear apart the casual lists pretty easy. You also know I only play in the campaign crowd, so whether or not they are using retributors in their tournaments I couldn't say, but in campaign play they are wrecking balls.
If these units dropped even more in points there would be no reason to even try to play casually anymore and on my power sheets they are ranked pretty high in efficiency, meaning they are still a tad UNDERcosted.
auticus wrote: Battleline if... undercosted... high damage output with the mortal wound spam... utility spell... yeah.
The stormcast players are prepping their favorite socks and bottles of jergens.
Now, where did you see that the Evocators are "Battleline if"?
Also: Whittle the unit down and it ceases to be a Wizard.
I think he was referring to my statement about how I had a nagging feeling they would be a "battleline if . . ." unit. I was mostly just exaggerating to point out how this is a unit with the potential to be horribly unbalanced if not handle carefully.
EnTyme wrote: The worst part is that just about any Order army will be able to ally them in.
Honestly, I'd actually say that's a good thing. Them plus the mage Knight looks like a solid, fluffy way for people to add a Wizard and her Mage-Knight bodyguards in...but well y'know, I guess it's bad when fluff and rules collide to a good extent.
There is nothing wrong with fluff and rules colliding. I love it when that happens. The issue is that I've yet to see a comparable unit which can be included in every Destruction army, nor Chaos nor Death. If Evocators aren't properly costed, they'll be an auto-include for Order armies, and something this powerful will tip the scales heavily in favor of Order.
auticus wrote: Battleline if... undercosted... high damage output with the mortal wound spam... utility spell... yeah.
The stormcast players are prepping their favorite socks and bottles of jergens.
No they aren't because in general they understand how the game works and how the game works is: No delivery system=useless hunks of plastic. If they don't get something better than Scions of the storm to get across the table they might as well just be liberators. This is the exact problem Paladins run into and the degree to which evocators would have to be superior to be worthwhile is unlikely to happen. Retributors right now see almost no play at 220 simply due to the Hammerstrike being their own reliable way to get where they need to go. Even at 180 they'd still be too unwieldy to use reliably. Evocators will have exactly the same problem unless they get a reliable way to hit the front lines.
I'm a little bit unsure where this is coming from. Is there a way to avoid melee in this game? How are you destroying these things before they get into combat? I play death. I can cast spells and kill one unit... but i'm eating a gak ton of mortal wounds one way or the other.
The stormcast podcast dropped a couple of bits of new info. Flesh Eater Courts units will not be able to grow beyond their original size and some points have been changed to account for the new summoning abilities.
There will inevitably be some winners and Losers in Aos2, but with points drops and increases as well as the relative unreliability of some of the summoning, the answers may not be as obvious as we thought.
Chikout wrote: The stormcast podcast dropped a couple of bits of new info. Flesh Eater Courts units will not be able to grow beyond their original size and some points have been changed to account for the new summoning abilities.
There will inevitably be some winners and Losers in Aos2, but with points drops and increases as well as the relative unreliability of some of the summoning, the answers may not be as obvious as we thought.
Increasing the cost of summoning units but allowing them to return from the dead....I mean, in game modes based on total kill points, these lists auto-lose.
Chikout wrote: The stormcast podcast dropped a couple of bits of new info. Flesh Eater Courts units will not be able to grow beyond their original size and some points have been changed to account for the new summoning abilities.
There will inevitably be some winners and Losers in Aos2, but with points drops and increases as well as the relative unreliability of some of the summoning, the answers may not be as obvious as we thought.
Increasing the cost of summoning units but allowing them to return from the dead....I mean, in game modes based on total kill points, these lists auto-lose.
That entirety depends on the points changes. It's not like ghoul kings are going to increase by more than a hundred points. Also aos games are not usually decided by kill points.
I'm a little bit unsure where this is coming from. Is there a way to avoid melee in this game? How are you destroying these things before they get into combat? I play death. I can cast spells and kill one unit... but i'm eating a gak ton of mortal wounds one way or the other.
You find this same sentiment in 40k, where if you cannot alpha strike turn 1 with a melee unit, then it is considered 'garbage' because it can be targeted and shot at before it gets into melee.
I'm a little bit unsure where this is coming from. Is there a way to avoid melee in this game? How are you destroying these things before they get into combat? I play death. I can cast spells and kill one unit... but i'm eating a gak ton of mortal wounds one way or the other.
You find this same sentiment in 40k, where if you cannot alpha strike turn 1 with a melee unit, then it is considered 'garbage' because it can be targeted and shot at before it gets into melee.
You're letting your local scene push you into grand statements again. And your lack of knowledge of another game show. In regards to 40k you can't 1st turn alpha period anymore because they removed that options. Additionally in 40k good combat units need to be able to appear and strike as in general 75%+ of damage is done by shooting which is generally inverted with AoS.
That said Retributors never find a home in my lists because of a) price and b) speed. They simply can't pick their battles. And if you can't pick your battles when the game goes horde then all those mortals wounds are so much waste. It really is that simple. Unable to choose where to hit + lots of large units where mortals are less useful = currently hot garbage.
I'm a little bit unsure where this is coming from. Is there a way to avoid melee in this game? How are you destroying these things before they get into combat? I play death. I can cast spells and kill one unit... but i'm eating a gak ton of mortal wounds one way or the other.
You find this same sentiment in 40k, where if you cannot alpha strike turn 1 with a melee unit, then it is considered 'garbage' because it can be targeted and shot at before it gets into melee.
You're letting your local scene push you into grand statements again. And your lack of knowledge of another game show. In regards to 40k you can't 1st turn alpha period anymore because they removed that options. Additionally in 40k good combat units need to be able to appear and strike as in general 75%+ of damage is done by shooting which is generally inverted with AoS.
That said Retributors never find a home in my lists because of a) price and b) speed. They simply can't pick their battles. And if you can't pick your battles when the game goes horde then all those mortals wounds are so much waste. It really is that simple. Unable to choose where to hit + lots of large units where mortals are less useful = currently hot garbage.
He just said that the sentiment exists (it does). Also you have statements with that sentiment in AoS literally right up the page, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Also, no offense but if you can't get use out of Retributors it isn't the unit. Tournament players manage them just fine. To call the unit hot garbage is just... Simply untrue. Doubly so for saying that a unit designed to fight enemy elites is bad at killing hordes, that's not their role. "They can't pick their targets" is no defense here because again, that isn't the fault of the unit.
I'm a little bit unsure where this is coming from. Is there a way to avoid melee in this game? How are you destroying these things before they get into combat? I play death. I can cast spells and kill one unit... but i'm eating a gak ton of mortal wounds one way or the other.
You find this same sentiment in 40k, where if you cannot alpha strike turn 1 with a melee unit, then it is considered 'garbage' because it can be targeted and shot at before it gets into melee.
You're letting your local scene push you into grand statements again. And your lack of knowledge of another game show. In regards to 40k you can't 1st turn alpha period anymore because they removed that options. Additionally in 40k good combat units need to be able to appear and strike as in general 75%+ of damage is done by shooting which is generally inverted with AoS.
That said Retributors never find a home in my lists because of a) price and b) speed. They simply can't pick their battles. And if you can't pick your battles when the game goes horde then all those mortals wounds are so much waste. It really is that simple. Unable to choose where to hit + lots of large units where mortals are less useful = currently hot garbage.
Lol they didn't remove the ability to alpha strike. Warptime still very much exists, as does ynnari shinning spears.
That being said, the sentiment is more appropriate since the game is literally mostly shooting by design.
I'm a little bit unsure where this is coming from. Is there a way to avoid melee in this game? How are you destroying these things before they get into combat? I play death. I can cast spells and kill one unit... but i'm eating a gak ton of mortal wounds one way or the other.
You find this same sentiment in 40k, where if you cannot alpha strike turn 1 with a melee unit, then it is considered 'garbage' because it can be targeted and shot at before it gets into melee.
You're letting your local scene push you into grand statements again. And your lack of knowledge of another game show. In regards to 40k you can't 1st turn alpha period anymore because they removed that options. Additionally in 40k good combat units need to be able to appear and strike as in general 75%+ of damage is done by shooting which is generally inverted with AoS.
That said Retributors never find a home in my lists because of a) price and b) speed. They simply can't pick their battles. And if you can't pick your battles when the game goes horde then all those mortals wounds are so much waste. It really is that simple. Unable to choose where to hit + lots of large units where mortals are less useful = currently hot garbage.
He just said that the sentiment exists (it does). Also you have statements with that sentiment in AoS literally right up the page, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Also, no offense but if you can't get use out of Retributors it isn't the unit. Tournament players manage them just fine. To call the unit hot garbage is just... Simply untrue. Doubly so for saying that a unit designed to fight enemy elites is bad at killing hordes, that's not their role. "They can't pick their targets" is no defense here because again, that isn't the fault of the unit.
Man, any disagreement with you or Auticus and it's on with you isn't it? It's cute. I agree that he put sentiment the problem is that it's not true BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO IT. There is no sentiment for alpha strike turn 1 combat units because you can't alpha strike turn one. Which is what I pointed out
Regarding the unit I pointed out why they are hot garbage "currently". A good player with screening (upper level lists tend to have them) means you're not getting thru to juicy stuff, especially with no solid redeploy/speed options. Retributors aren't magically going to go around that unit of nurgle marauders/priests or horror of whatever stripe or skinks. Heck skeletons and ghouls stop them dead in their tracks. It might come down to tournament scenes but people at events I attend tend to have screens. You can magically say they are good and feature in good lists but no SCE army list I've seen that's placed high at larger events has had them. I've personally never seen them used by good players and I personally don't use them, though we've established that that part is on me cause I'm bad
The options for Paladins is a) deepstrike b) lightning chariot or c) walk. Unless you roll hot on your charge (18%) deepstrike and lightning aren't that good of an idea. Especially if he's still screening with juicy stuff. Essentially they are easy enough to avoid/ignore that engaging them isn't needed and if you do you can do with with whatever you choose to tie them down with. 10% of my list locked up in those is bad. That's not even taking into account magic which makes them sadder.
I'm a little bit unsure where this is coming from. Is there a way to avoid melee in this game? How are you destroying these things before they get into combat? I play death. I can cast spells and kill one unit... but i'm eating a gak ton of mortal wounds one way or the other.
You find this same sentiment in 40k, where if you cannot alpha strike turn 1 with a melee unit, then it is considered 'garbage' because it can be targeted and shot at before it gets into melee.
You're letting your local scene push you into grand statements again. And your lack of knowledge of another game show. In regards to 40k you can't 1st turn alpha period anymore because they removed that options. Additionally in 40k good combat units need to be able to appear and strike as in general 75%+ of damage is done by shooting which is generally inverted with AoS.
That said Retributors never find a home in my lists because of a) price and b) speed. They simply can't pick their battles. And if you can't pick your battles when the game goes horde then all those mortals wounds are so much waste. It really is that simple. Unable to choose where to hit + lots of large units where mortals are less useful = currently hot garbage.
Lol they didn't remove the ability to alpha strike. Warptime still very much exists, as does ynnari shinning spears.
That being said, the sentiment is more appropriate since the game is literally mostly shooting by design.
Touche but essentially yes, they did. Warptime/Ynarri both still require the unit start in your deployment zone or deploy into your deployment zone. Meaning you only get alpha struck if you can't measure and deploy poorly which is different than going full alpha strike with melee units. That said that is the two examples who could on turn 1 get into combat. And I agree the sentiment makes more sense in the general "melee units need to be able to arrive and attack same turn or their toast" way.
In a casual scene, with casual lists, retributors very much wreck stuff pretty much at will. We also use screens.
In a tournament environment, I can't comment because I currently actively avoid those while the game is in the state it is in (for me).
The sentiment that if a melee unit cannot reliably get into combat by turn 1 or 2 then its garbage has been a sentiment since late 6th edition whfb, and is largely why 7th whfb was cavalry-hammer.
I don't see retributors as garbage at all in the context of non tournament gaming. They feature in almost every list I have to come across and they always do a number because of the gross amount of offensive output they put out.
Would those guys take the retributors at Adepticon? No idea.
But not every discussion needs to be about a unit in the vacuum of powergaming. Otherwise lets just go through the stores and remove 90% of the inventory because its not needed anyway.
Hulksmash wrote: It might come down to tournament scenes but people at events I attend tend to have screens.
You mean to tell me that tournament players saw a bunch of armies deepstriking turn one and adapted their list and strategy to compensate? I'm shocked that such a thing would happen in a strategy game with heavy list building elements.
So retributors are bad because screens can block them. That's just saying "this unit is bad because there is a tactic to use against it" which means nothing. Retributors don't exist in a vacuum without anything to support them. Again we circle back to you not knowing how to use a unit, so it must be bad. Also, if a unit doesn't show up in winning tournament lists it's bad? Really?
auticus wrote: In a casual scene, with casual lists, retributors very much wreck stuff pretty much at will. We also use screens.
In a tournament environment, I can't comment because I currently actively avoid those while the game is in the state it is in (for me).
The sentiment that if a melee unit cannot reliably get into combat by turn 1 or 2 then its garbage has been a sentiment since late 6th edition whfb, and is largely why 7th whfb was cavalry-hammer.
I don't see retributors as garbage at all in the context of non tournament gaming. They feature in almost every list I have to come across and they always do a number because of the gross amount of offensive output they put out.
Would those guys take the retributors at Adepticon? No idea.
But not every discussion needs to be about a unit in the vacuum of powergaming. Otherwise lets just go through the stores and remove 90% of the inventory because its not needed anyway.
Absolutely. In non tourney play they can definitely have a place. That's where we see them too to be honest or I pull out a small squad for a game night because they drop my hard core list down a bit. Because while they hit hard they're a good way to teach newer players the importance of target selection and screening
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: So retributors are bad because screens can block them. That's just saying "this unit is bad because there is a tactic to use against it" which means nothing. Retributors don't exist in a vacuum without anything to support them. Again we circle back to you not knowing how to use a unit, so it must be bad. Also, if a unit doesn't show up in winning tournament lists it's bad? Really?
I articulated numerous ways in which in a tournamen environment they were bad. You said "no, you just don't know how to use them" I replied why I wouldn't and in more detail why they are a poor choice. I also pointed out that I haven't seen a successful tournament army use them as a support for my position. If you think they're spectacular in the curgent set up I'd be more than happy to watch battle reports or see results where it shows something different but it's not happenig man. So take a breath and realize that not everything is and fight.
Additionally yes, if a 60pt screen can keep a 220 point unit busy/away for 3 turns minimum it's a bad unit when it's goal is to hit heavy stuff.
What 60 point screen is keeping them off three turns? Honest question because if that is a thing I'll conceed the point. Also, I'll give you that base Retributors aren't great at tournaments by themselves but Hammerstrike Force is very much a thing (even after the tiny nerf).
What they certainly aren't is "hot garbage" which is how you referred to them in general, not even exclusively at tournaments. Something you did an about-face on just now.
My last game against stormcast with me using nurgle, the retributor squad chewed through my plague bearer screen in one turn and then took off 10 of my great unclean one's wounds before they finally went down.
They more than made up for their point cost.
Game before that they were responsible for wiping out my blight king unit and my plague bearer unit.
They are averaging about 15 wounds a turn, and barring really lucky rolls on my things that have a 5+ vs anything save, once they get into contact with me I'm done.
My screens are plague bearers. I have two units of 10. I can usually always screen them but that screen doesn't last longer than a turn.
The SCE armies also have other things that do a lot of damage too, so my target priority is saturated. They aren't running around by themselves, and they are going full bore into my force from the beginning so they are getting into combat by turn 2 and I have little at range that can really do anything to them.
So, turn 1 sees them deepstrike or lightning chariot 9" away right? On the 82% chance they don't make that charge then they either move close and bock the line of advance without charging or get charged if you double turn. Either way you spend turn 2 in cc with the marauder/skink screen. Turn 3 is because in all likely hood you're out of charge range of what you cam to kill after that.
I'm not saying a single unit holds them 2-3 turns in cc. I'm saying it takes a 5 man out of the game for 3 of your player turns. But minimum 2. Now math says that's a win in a 5 turn game. It's a simplified example but the essential idea. But when all is said and done you get good screens easily in the top armies. Marauders, skaven plague priests, skinks, brimstones, and for 80pts per 10 even skellies.
A 10 man has a different dynamic but also suffers from costing over 20% of your costs.
In other words there are better ways to spend points. Which is why we see so dracoth mounted units in SCE instead of a slower unit. Which in turn makes them a bad tournament choice. In a more relaxed environment I find them fun and usable. But that's because in a fun environment they actually get to the enemy.
The % of a 9+ is 28%, or basically a little better than 1:4
With a reroll its 49%
The thing with the teleporting run people away from AOS batallion, they aren't the only things teleporting in.
Every four units deep struck in has one making it in. Not counting if you can find reroll shenanigans (and with the upcoming command point fun about to drop, i'll be highly surprised if rerolling alpha strikes are not a thing)
So typically when I see this deployed on me, there will be about seven or eight units coming in and typically three of those (it should be two but my luck is always three) units are in my face and pounding on my screens.
The retributors that don't make that roll are in combat turn 2... against my good stuff since my screens are tied up.
Its very frustrating and annoying because it requires very little thought on my opponent's part. THey just appear and do it.
But yes in a tournament environment, just like past editions of warhammer fantasy, faster units are always chosen unless you didn't hve the choice (dwarves). Powergamer Auticus totally agrees that a 28% of getting into contact turn 1 is hot flaming garbage, because I need a number close to 90% - 100% because that is most optimal, and thats what cavalry units that can move, run, charge, and spray your face with a sweet mortal wound load should be doing if I am aiming to win the golden treasure and accolades of tournament championships.
My GT army back then was either the black knight bus (all mounted vampire count cav loaded with characters in the front of one unit) or all mounted chaos knights, horsemen, and chariots.
I cracked top 10 several times with those. Because mobility is always going to be king unless they actually put in hard counters to cav like proper wargames do (spears that hard stop cavalry, hail caesar does something like this, whfb used to have pikes)
Hulksmash wrote: So, turn 1 sees them deepstrike or lightning chariot 9" away right? On the 82% chance they don't make that charge then they either move close and bock the line of advance without charging or get charged if you double turn. Either way you spend turn 2 in cc with the marauder/skink screen. Turn 3 is because in all likely hood you're out of charge range of what you cam to kill after that.
I'm not saying a single unit holds them 2-3 turns in cc. I'm saying it takes a 5 man out of the game for 3 of your player turns. But minimum 2. Now math says that's a win in a 5 turn game. It's a simplified example but the essential idea. But when all is said and done you get good screens easily in the top armies. Marauders, skaven plague priests, skinks, brimstones, and for 80pts per 10 even skellies.
A 10 man has a different dynamic but also suffers from costing over 20% of your costs.
In other words there are better ways to spend points. Which is why we see so dracoth mounted units in SCE instead of a slower unit. Which in turn makes them a bad tournament choice. In a more relaxed environment I find them fun and usable. But that's because in a fun environment they actually get to the enemy.
So when you said a screen holds them up for three turns you meant a screen holds them up for one turn. Because holding them up means additional rounds it takes them to get there, the rounds they would spend anyways without the screen don't count as being part of the screen's effect. And I am assuming you are admitting fault on the "hot garbage" even outside tournaments claim? Because that is what set off this line of discussion in the first place, at least for me. The opinion you are giving now is considerably different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: My last game against stormcast with me using nurgle, the retributor squad chewed through my plague bearer screen in one turn and then took off 10 of my great unclean one's wounds before they finally went down.
They more than made up for their point cost.
Game before that they were responsible for wiping out my blight king unit and my plague bearer unit.
They are averaging about 15 wounds a turn, and barring really lucky rolls on my things that have a 5+ vs anything save, once they get into contact with me I'm done.
My screens are plague bearers. I have two units of 10. I can usually always screen them but that screen doesn't last longer than a turn.
The SCE armies also have other things that do a lot of damage too, so my target priority is saturated. They aren't running around by themselves, and they are going full bore into my force from the beginning so they are getting into combat by turn 2 and I have little at range that can really do anything to them.
Definitely not "hot garbage".
Hit penalties are your friend, a 30 man plaguebearer unit they have a huge amount of trouble with, even with starsoul maces. Also where is your witherstave!?
My bad, I did 2/11 and not 3/11. But we're saying the same thing. It was only Ninth stating I needed to get good to use them in a tournament army that was an issue. We agree in a more casual environment they are good and in a tournament environment there are better choices.
On topic I'm prettt excited for 2nd ed and what we've seen. I have high hopes but grounded expectations
I run multiple smaller units of plague bearers because I need the flexibility of moving them to cover multiple threats lol. But I'll look into grouping them up into an HIV blob of 30 to see how that does
I have begun penning an advanced version of Firestorm map campaign for the fall, so my interest level is fairly high right now as well.
Hulksmash wrote: My bad, I did 2/11 and not 3/11. But we're saying the same thing. It was only Ninth stating I needed to get good to use them in a tournament army that was an issue. We agree in a more casual environment they are good and in a tournament environment there are better choices.
On topic I'm prettt excited for 2nd ed and what we've seen. I have high hopes but grounded expectations
So you go from 'this unit is hot garbage [in any game setting]' to 'they are good in a casual environment and sub par in tournaments' in less than a page then act like nothing happened? Then try to brush it off by misrepresenting about what I said? Really?
The goal is a blog with battle reports. I've got it mandated that the models have base colors on them at a minimum so pictures don't show grey plastic or primered black at all for presentation
Yeah that technical paint looks pretty boss... there's really no excuse for anyone from the noobest noob to the most veteran player to field an unpainted nighthaunt army with that stuff.
Hulksmash wrote: My bad, I did 2/11 and not 3/11. But we're saying the same thing. It was only Ninth stating I needed to get good to use them in a tournament army that was an issue. We agree in a more casual environment they are good and in a tournament environment there are better choices.
On topic I'm prettt excited for 2nd ed and what we've seen. I have high hopes but grounded expectations
So you go from 'this unit is hot garbage [in any game setting]' to 'they are good in a casual environment and sub par in tournaments' in less than a page then act like nothing happened? Then try to brush it off by misrepresenting about what I said? Really?
Don't be a whiney baby man. I was speaking in tournament terms. I do apologize for not making that clear but that appeared to be the manner in which Erjack was discussing them too. However I stand by hot garbage in a tournament because there are better choices. As for what you said you literally said I didn't know how to use the unit and it's my fault their bad and that tournament players in your area handle them fine. If that isn't "Get good" then what is bubba? Coming at it sideways doesn't mean it isn't what you said.
It's possible your local scene isn't a good as you think it is or it's possible it's just different. That doesn't change that they don't show up in major tournament upper level lists and that they are easily sidelined by the big kid books. I only see them brought by people to tone down lists so they won't roll over newbies.
Hulksmash wrote: My bad, I did 2/11 and not 3/11. But we're saying the same thing. It was only Ninth stating I needed to get good to use them in a tournament army that was an issue. We agree in a more casual environment they are good and in a tournament environment there are better choices.
On topic I'm prettt excited for 2nd ed and what we've seen. I have high hopes but grounded expectations
So you go from 'this unit is hot garbage [in any game setting]' to 'they are good in a casual environment and sub par in tournaments' in less than a page then act like nothing happened? Then try to brush it off by misrepresenting about what I said? Really?
Don't be a whiney baby man. I was speaking in tournament terms. I do apologize for not making that clear but that appeared to be the manner in which Erjack was discussing them too. However I stand by hot garbage in a tournament because there are better choices. As for what you said you literally said I didn't know how to use the unit and it's my fault their bad and that tournament players in your area handle them fine. If that isn't "Get good" then what is bubba? Coming at it sideways doesn't mean it isn't what you said.
It's possible your local scene isn't a good as you think it is or it's possible it's just different. That doesn't change that they don't show up in major tournament upper level lists and that they are easily sidelined by the big kid books. I only see them brought by people to tone down lists so they won't roll over newbies.
How immature of me to ask that people make honest arguments. Devolving to personal insults has really shown me that your position is valid.
Kanluwen wrote: Let's all focus on the important thing right now...
Do you guys think my Idoneth are going to be able to summon an Eidolon?!
No, because their battletome was designed with the new edition in mind so if there was going to be a method it would have been put in already. A side point would be a need for some totally new mechanism to prevent it showing up in the first two rounds or so, tying it to tides doesn't work since they can be reversed.
Kanluwen wrote: Let's all focus on the important thing right now...
Do you guys think my Idoneth are going to be able to summon an Eidolon?!
No, because their battletome was designed with the new edition in mind so if there was going to be a method it would have been put in already. A side point would be a need for some totally new mechanism to prevent it showing up in the first two rounds or so, tying it to tides doesn't work since they can be reversed.
It's funny you say that, because there's the Isharann Rituals that could be used.
Rituals can only be used once per Hero Phase(not "per Ritual". You can only use one at a time), have to be done 9" away from enemy models. 2D6 with +1 for a Gloomtide, +1 if they're a Priest, +1 for each other friendly Isharann Hero(+2 for Priests)--requiring a 10+ to succeed.
I mean, we even have a Ritual right now that seems like it should have been used to summon and/or buff. The Ritual of Rousing.
I could see an Errata for it in GHB where the wording becomes this:
Before rolling, declare which effect you want from the Ritual of Rousing: Place an Eidolon within 3" of the model invoking the Isharann Ritual.
Heal 1 Wound allocated to each friendly Eidolon on the battlefield. In addition, you can re-roll failed hit rolls and casting rolls for friendly Eidolons until your next Hero Phase.
I'd also add that I definitely feel like they could be given something preventing more than one of each type on the table at a time.
Also nooooo, I totally haven't been thinking of how a thing that has "summoned" all over its fluff/unit description could be summoned.
Kanluwen wrote: Let's all focus on the important thing right now...
Do you guys think my Idoneth are going to be able to summon an Eidolon?!
No, because their battletome was designed with the new edition in mind so if there was going to be a method it would have been put in already. A side point would be a need for some totally new mechanism to prevent it showing up in the first two rounds or so, tying it to tides doesn't work since they can be reversed.
It's funny you say that, because there's the Isharann Rituals that could be used.
Rituals can only be used once per Hero Phase(not "per Ritual". You can only use one at a time), have to be done 9" away from enemy models. 2D6 with +1 for a Gloomtide, +1 if they're a Priest, +1 for each other friendly Isharann Hero(+2 for Priests)--requiring a 10+ to succeed.
I mean, we even have a Ritual right now that seems like it should have been used to summon and/or buff. The Ritual of Rousing.
I could see an Errata for it in GHB where the wording becomes this:
Before rolling, declare which effect you want from the Ritual of Rousing:
Place an Eidolon within 3" of the model invoking the Isharann Ritual.
Heal 1 Wound allocated to each friendly Eidolon on the battlefield. In addition, you can re-roll failed hit rolls and casting rolls for friendly Eidolons until your next Hero Phase.
I'd also add that I definitely feel like they could be given something preventing more than one of each type on the table at a time.
Also nooooo, I totally haven't been thinking of how a thing that has "summoned" all over its fluff/unit description could be summoned.
The issue is that's directly equivalent to being able to drop a GUO on the board round 1 for free, drop a second one round 2 for free, and summon a new one if either dies.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The issue is that's directly equivalent to being able to drop a GUO on the board round 1 for free, drop a second one round 2 for free, and summon a new one if either dies.
I'm going to have to disagree with this.
On 2D6, with none of the 'bonuses' you have to get:
A 4 and a 6
A 5 and a 5
A 5 and a 6
A 6 and a 6
To get anything easier, you have to start positioning for it--which means that for turn 1, it's going to affect your deployment. While that might not sound too cumbersome, remember that in order to get the "+2" from having an Isharann Priest? It means your Soulscryers are starting the game on the board--which means you're not holding anything back to come on as a 'deep' striker.
To minimize your chances of failing at your Ritual, you're going to be piling things in--meaning they can't be used for anything else successfully.
NinthMusketeer wrote: There shouldn't be a chance at getting a free 340 point model rounds one or two, period.
Also, Royal Council plus a shipwreck = +4, now only needs a 6 to go off.
Royal Council plus a shipwreck still equates to you putting a Soulscryer(a full +2 of that +4) on the board rather than deepstriking two(3 if Briomdar) units in with you. The difference that makes is huge when put into that context.
Aspect of the Storm=400, Sea=440 by the way. But there's no options on them. You get what you get.
So royal council sucks then? Your opinion was different a month ago. We've come back to you trying to justify free buffs for the army you play that you wouldn't support for other armies.
If you support free Eidolons then you support Maggotkin being able to summon a GUO on a 2d6 6+ by parking a Harbinger, a Poxbringer, and Gutrot Spume next to a tree.
Marmatag wrote: Don't they have 3 damage hammers? Doesn't that clean out hordes fairly quickly?
I don't see hordes as ultimately viable because damage spillover exists, and battleshock is a real thing in this game.
Have we seen a preview of how damage is resolved in 2.0, or have they confirmed it will be the same as 1.0? I'm genuinely curious. Should they change it to 40k's method and excess damage no longer spills over, it would make hordes much more powerful, and basically completely change the way the game is played.
Also, the Eidolon speculation seems awfully wishlisty, Kan. If they were going to make a change, they probably would have done it in the Idoneth FAQ.
They'd need to rebalance everything that does more than 1 damage to suit that. Often a low number of attacks will have a very high damage potential; they'd all need to get more attacks, that would then make multi-wound worse still.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So royal council sucks then? Your opinion was different a month ago. We've come back to you trying to justify free buffs for the army you play that you wouldn't support for other armies.
I think you're letting earlier interactions color this one. First, I'm totally on board with the Royal Council. Nowhere in here have I said it sucks.
I said that half of the +4 that you mentioned is on the Soulscryer. The Soulscryer is a character that has one purpose, effectively: To bring in some hardhitting stuff as a 'deep strike' contingent and to make sure that stuff can almost guarantee its charge(since "Seeker of Souls" happens at the start of the Charge phase rather than Hero). Having him on the table at the start of the game is a problem.
Now, sure you can bring along 'spare' Soulscryers for the purposes of gaming the system--but you could also write it in so that this ability could only be triggered at High Tide. We have two different Command Abilities that have the same thing, some Warlord Traits, etc. I'd be fine with that.
If you support free Eidolons then you support Maggotkin being able to summon a GUO on a 2d6 6+ by parking a Harbinger, a Poxbringer, and Gutrot Spume next to a tree.
All honesty: did you just pick random characters from the Maggotkin list for your comparison? Now, if you made it so that doing so only took the exact profile as listed(no Artefacts, weapons had to be as modeled, etc) and prevented further GUOs from being summoned by any means possible and it could only happen during a specific phase of the Corruption Cycle?
Skimask Mohawk wrote: They'd need to rebalance everything that does more than 1 damage to suit that. Often a low number of attacks will have a very high damage potential; they'd all need to get more attacks, that would then make multi-wound worse still.
It would break the system
It would definitely have some odd consequences, but they could make some core rules to help out. Maybe something like this:
Sweeping Blows - If a model is removed from play by the attack of a model with the Monster and/or War Machine keyword, any unsaved wounds that are left over are not lost but instead must be allocated to another model in the same unit. Keep doing this until all unsaved wounds have been allocated or there are no model left in the unit.
Inelegant, I know, but this would mean that Monsters and War Machines are still good against hordes, but units like Retributors have a niche against elite units.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So royal council sucks then? Your opinion was different a month ago. We've come back to you trying to justify free buffs for the army you play that you wouldn't support for other armies.
I think you're letting earlier interactions color this one. First, I'm totally on board with the Royal Council. Nowhere in here have I said it sucks.
I said that half of the +4 that you mentioned is on the Soulscryer. The Soulscryer is a character that has one purpose, effectively: To bring in some hardhitting stuff as a 'deep strike' contingent and to make sure that stuff can almost guarantee its charge(since "Seeker of Souls" happens at the start of the Charge phase rather than Hero). Having him on the table at the start of the game is a problem.
Now, sure you can bring along 'spare' Soulscryers for the purposes of gaming the system--but you could also write it in so that this ability could only be triggered at High Tide. We have two different Command Abilities that have the same thing, some Warlord Traits, etc. I'd be fine with that.
If you support free Eidolons then you support Maggotkin being able to summon a GUO on a 2d6 6+ by parking a Harbinger, a Poxbringer, and Gutrot Spume next to a tree.
All honesty: did you just pick random characters from the Maggotkin list for your comparison?
Now, if you made it so that doing so only took the exact profile as listed(no Artefacts, weapons had to be as modeled, etc) and prevented further GUOs from being summoned by any means possible and it could only happen during a specific phase of the Corruption Cycle?
Also, the Eidolon speculation seems awfully wishlisty, Kan. If they were going to make a change, they probably would have done it in the Idoneth FAQ.
Of course it's wishlisty, but still--everywhere on the Eidolon it talks about them being summoned.
You may be right, I was more abrasive than I should have been. At any rate the Maggotkin characters were actually very specific (though for someone who doesn't play them I see that they would seem random) the Harbinger is a 7-wound General equivalent to the King in this analogy, the Poxbringer is a wizard corresponding to the Tidecaster, and Spume is a character used to deep strike with another unit corresponding to the Soulscryer.
I would support the high tide idea except it can be reversed for round two summoning, and its still an issue of being rather easy to summon a tremendously strong model on round three (I don't like how Maggotkin can do this either). On the fluff, note that they are summoned using the souls in their not-infinty circuit that exists within the city but not out in the field. It doesn't seem like it's a small number of them either.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: They'd need to rebalance everything that does more than 1 damage to suit that. Often a low number of attacks will have a very high damage potential; they'd all need to get more attacks, that would then make multi-wound worse still.
It would break the system
It would definitely have some odd consequences, but they could make some core rules to help out. Maybe something like this:
Sweeping Blows - If a model is removed from play by the attack of a model with the Monster and/or War Machine keyword, any unsaved wounds that are left over are not lost but instead must be allocated to another model in the same unit. Keep doing this until all unsaved wounds have been allocated or there are no model left in the unit.
Inelegant, I know, but this would mean that Monsters and War Machines are still good against hordes, but units like Retributors have a niche against elite units.
Wouldn't work. About half of all the 'large' units in the game aren't MONSTERs or WAR MACHINES(something GW forgets all the time too), not to mention it's clunky, unnecessary, and leads to the 'hordes are the best option for everything' problem 40k is dealing with right now.
If you want something to have a niche against elite units give it rend, that's much easier. GW is FAR too conservative with rend and WAY too liberal with mortal wounds.
I agree that GW is too liberal with mortals and too conservative with rend. I think they tend to overlook how mortals are inherently stronger even against units with no save at all because while they usually have a 'hit' mechanic they don't need to roll to wound.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You may be right, I was more abrasive than I should have been.
No problem, we've been at each others' throats a bit over the rollercoaster ride that has been AoS2.0 reveals.
At any rate the Maggotkin characters were actually very specific (though for someone who doesn't play them I see that they would seem random) the Harbinger is a 7-wound General equivalent to the King in this analogy, the Poxbringer is a wizard corresponding to the Tidecaster, and Spume is a character used to deep strike with another unit corresponding to the Soulscryer.
I had a feeling this was the reasoning but I do think it worth mentioning that Spume, IMO, brings more to the table than the Soulscryer. Personal opinion there.
I would support the high tide idea except it can be reversed for round two summoning, and its still an issue of being rather easy to summon a tremendously strong model on round three (I don't like how Maggotkin can do this either).
I'm curious to see how exactly they're handling things. We know that Deepkin were written for 2.0, but it does seem like there's a bit of stuff that seems a bit 'off' to me when comparing wording vs Maggotkin and Daughters. Can't really quantify it exactly, just there's something.
On the fluff, note that they are summoned using the souls in their not-infinty circuit that exists within the city but not out in the field. It doesn't seem like it's a small number of them either.
The Ritual of Rousing actually specifically calls out them tapping into the 'energy of the chorrileums'. P15 of the Idoneth book has a specific mention of an Eidolon of Mathlann being summoned in the field when Slaanesh forces followed them. It's a whole plot hook as to how the Idoneth are discovered by Archaon.
I mean, maybe the way to go would be to make it so that specific Aspects could be summoned during specific Tides phases? Aspect of the Storm, for example, could be summoned during Ebb Tides only(so turn 4--or turn 1 with a Tidecaster as General, assuming that doesn't get cleaned up/altered) while the Aspect of the Sea gets summoned during High Tide?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I agree that GW is too liberal with mortals and too conservative with rend. I think they tend to overlook how mortals are inherently stronger even against units with no save at all because while they usually have a 'hit' mechanic they don't need to roll to wound.
It's super weird to say the least. I really feel like archers, at the least, should have a -1 Rend for most types. Or something like "within half of this weapon's range, add -1 to the Rend characteristic".
I wouldn't go that far based on what we've seen. It could very well be true but keep in mind that for Stormcast in particular the bar is quite high on mortal wound output so to even meet that would be significant. Evocators may dish out a bunch of mortals but unless they are costed ridiculously low their output will still be much less than what stormcast already have. A five man retributor unit is throwing down a bit over six mortals on average, double what evocators are putting out.
Also note that unlike current nighthaunt the new ones are not doing mortal wounds on 6s to hit.
I am so, so okay with Suffocating Gravetide. It's both a boon(the barricade part) and a NOPENOPENOPE! in the form of the gravetide y'know...eating you.
auticus wrote: When I say doubling down on it I mean nothing I have seen seems to really counter it or make you not want to spam as much of it as possible still.
It does kinda feel like the two main listbuilding tricks for AOS2 might be get as many mortal wounds as you can (no change), and minmax the summoning capabilities you have (new). I do get the feeling that some of the tweaks to summoning were also in response to MW spam, in addition to most feeling summoning in matched play was useless. Rather than dialing back MW, offer a "counter" to it. I think also semi-related is points drops for stuff; the more models you have on the table, the slightly less effective MW spam is (granted, not by much).
auticus wrote: When I say doubling down on it I mean nothing I have seen seems to really counter it or make you not want to spam as much of it as possible still.
The Suffocating Gravetide is... weird. I don't get the point of the Roiling Barricade. You have to have ALL of the models in the unit be within 1" of it, which means big units of things like Thralls and Reavers won't benefit from the bonus. Maybe the various cavalry might, but tbh, I wouldn't want my models to be within 1" of that thing in case my opponent takes 2nd turn and moves it to knock on my models with mortal wounds and bravery debuffs.
If I want killy things, I'll take the Purple Sun. If I want defensive things, I'll take the Pallisade.
drbored wrote: The Suffocating Gravetide is... weird. I don't get the point of the Roiling Barricade. You have to have ALL of the models in the unit be within 1" of it, which means big units of things like Thralls and Reavers won't benefit from the bonus. Maybe the various cavalry might, but tbh, I wouldn't want my models to be within 1" of that thing in case my opponent takes 2nd turn and moves it to knock on my models with mortal wounds and bravery debuffs.
If I want killy things, I'll take the Purple Sun. If I want defensive things, I'll take the Pallisade.
It's not really intended to be 'defensive' I think. It's something for you to plop down and follow in. That's my take on it at least.
drbored wrote: The Suffocating Gravetide is... weird. I don't get the point of the Roiling Barricade. You have to have ALL of the models in the unit be within 1" of it, which means big units of things like Thralls and Reavers won't benefit from the bonus. Maybe the various cavalry might, but tbh, I wouldn't want my models to be within 1" of that thing in case my opponent takes 2nd turn and moves it to knock on my models with mortal wounds and bravery debuffs.
If I want killy things, I'll take the Purple Sun. If I want defensive things, I'll take the Pallisade.
You move it then move your troops up behind it to take cover. Alternatively it gets moved towards/over you and you get behind it for cover. It's a tactical option using a model on the board.
I am a little sad that, given that they listed all of those elf sub-factions separately in their preview, they don't seem to be merging them any time soon.
Looking at the unit builder, Stormcast Eternals has 19 unit options. Legions of Nagash has 15. Each of those are about to get several more just from the 2.0 starter set.
Sylvaneth, a relatively modern AOS faction, has 4. Wanderers has 6. Is it really too much to ask to merge them?
See also the 1 in Eldritch Council and the 5 in Swifthawk. It is just silly to fragment them like that.
Well not all factions are created equally, which IMO is fine. There's no need for all of them to be on par with one another in options but rather it's important to take options into account when designing allegiance. There's a reason that very restrictive factions like Idoneth or Kharadron have comparatively strong allegiance abilities, while the allegiance for a whole alliance is comparatively weak. Note that when a diverse faction also has strong allegiance it creates problems (Tzeentch). Stormcast are a diverse faction but the benefits (and I'm sure I'll be grilled for saying this) aren't all the great. Tons of stuff from other factions allows deep striking, often with some restriction but also with complete control rather than needing a 3+. What makes Stormcast so strong is the units (and battalions) themselves; only a tiny sub section of options perform at tournaments, let alone win them.
TheWaspinator wrote: I am a little sad that, given that they listed all of those elf sub-factions separately in their preview, they don't seem to be merging them any time soon.
I feel rather saddened by it too. I really hoped GHB would add Sea Warden on foot to the SHA, lowering the cost of Shadow Warriors don't feel like it's going to matter at all as you have announcements of other units also receiving point reduction, while others can summon free units on the table. The tone of the faction focus felt more in the line with "these guys could make nice allies", it was likely foolish to expect any other comment.
Facebook stated they have no information on a digital version of the Malign Sorcery supplement, so there's no way to get the rules and not the models at this time either.
My prediction is that due to the cost of buying the box, tournaments will not have this be a part of tournament play, which means that like all GW expansions since the dawn of time, getting people to play these will be difficult.
I'm planning to have sorcery a part of all of my games. It adds so much immersion to the games. But I can understand there's too much that depends on the realm of battle that TOs won't add it since it's hard to keep it going for matched play games where you only bring 1 list.
My plan is to do the same. My private map advanced firestorm campaign will definitely use these.
Our public shop campaign this fall people have already raised the alarm bells that they don't want optional expansions in the store events though, and if this isn't adapted by LVO or Adepticon that this won't be used in the store events. Same with the realm spells.
auticus wrote: My prediction is that due to the cost of buying the box, tournaments will not have this be a part of tournament play, which means that like all GW expansions since the dawn of time, getting people to play these will be difficult.
Yes and no, thing is whilst it comes with a cost it makes such a great addition to the visual aspect of the game. I can well see a lot of people soaking the cost or building their own converted spells from spare parts to get involved.
I've gotten more people from my store on board with doing narrative games. Stuff balanced by matched play (i.e. points just make sure games can be somewaht balanced) but just not heres my four objectives that we have to fight over.
auticus wrote: My plan is to do the same. My private map advanced firestorm campaign will definitely use these.
Our public shop campaign this fall people have already raised the alarm bells that they don't want optional expansions in the store events though, and if this isn't adapted by LVO or Adepticon that this won't be used in the store events. Same with the realm spells.
Whine whine whine. That's all your group seems to do.
Tell them to get over it. Seriously. It's $85 (or less--they weren't exactly 100% clear) for ALL of the Malign Sorcery stuff. I'm planning on getting at least two, just so I can huck around Suffocating Gravetides(plural!) with my Idoneth.
I can respect not wanting it in events--it's a lot of time and energy crammed into 1-2 days for a tournament so dealing with only the base rules becomes very appealing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I can respect not wanting it in events--it's a lot of time and energy crammed into 1-2 days for a tournament so dealing with only the base rules becomes very appealing.
I can't. Events with chunks of the rules missing might as well just be called "AOS: We don't actually want to play it".
It's one thing if, say, it's a tournament. It's another thing entirely when it's a campaign like he alluded to.
Also, I can't find it but do Charging units go first now? I want to say that was a thing we saw?
Those guys want the public events to all reflect tournament play because thats what they care about. They can't test their tournament lists if there are rules involved that they wouldn't be using in their tournaments.
They want all of their games to be using the same standard rules, in or out of tournaments. They also don't want to be forced into buying a magic supplement that they'd only use in campaigns, when the bulk of their games are tournament prep or tournament games, and they don't want others to use something that they can't (same reasons for why they want forgeworld banned). Its a timeless complaint that I've had to deal with since the mid 2000s and Forgeworld and the old 40k expansions like cityfight.
Thats why I took my more fun campaigns and made them private where the tournament guys aren't a part of, and the public store campaigns just use standard tournament rules.
It causes a lot less stress on me, and it means people aren't riling up the drama factor because everyone is getting what they want. Surprisingly enough the bulk of our AOS players asked to be a part of the map campaign too knowing the house rules like -1 to shoot through forests and the sudden death victory conditions for spamming mortal wounds or summoning more than 25% of their force.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I can respect not wanting it in events--it's a lot of time and energy crammed into 1-2 days for a tournament so dealing with only the base rules becomes very appealing.
I can't. Events with chunks of the rules missing might as well just be called "AOS: We don't actually want to play it".
It's one thing if, say, it's a tournament. It's another thing entirely when it's a campaign like he alluded to.
Also, I can't find it but do Charging units go first now? I want to say that was a thing we saw?
Oh, I didn't realize it was a campaign. I still don't begrudge them for wanting to play a certain way though; there isn't a wrong choice, even if I think it's an odd one.
themselves.
