Sludgeraker : is a huge crocodilian that's more of a force of nature than a unit. 16W, 2+ save, ignores wounds or mortals on a 6, main weapon (it's jaws) is 5/+3/+3/-3/D4. +1 to wound rolls if it charged. It's also about 150 points less than it ought to be. What's the catch? After the first time it fights it *MUST* charge the nearest enemy if able for the rest of the game, although a Breaka-boss can check it for a command point.
Skyrippa : is a giant bat w/ a scorpion tail rode by a killaboss. 8W, 3 up save, 16 move. Can deep strike. -1 to be hit.
Other rumours from War of Sigmar
First Battletomes - SCE and Orruks
Next 4 - Maggotkin, GSG, Ogors and BoC 3 new armies planned - Oathbreakers/Chaos Dwarves, Umbraneth (with Tyrion releasing at the same time), Dawnbringer Crusades (CoS)
Battlebox - GSG vs BoC GSG new Scuttleboss, Spider Riders (current models) and Rockguts (current models)
BoC new Doombull, new Bullgors and new Jabberslythe
Would be surprised if they redid Bullgors, though I know a lot of people aren't big fans. Isn't the new store exclusive stormcast carrying one of their heads?
I'm all over a new spider rider grot. Hopefully something not too scuttling, though even in fantasy, the higher up forest goblin had multiple eyes, etc. I like the current spider rider kit (my first fantasy models), but I know they could do something really, really cool if they get remade. Maybe they'll have a Underworld team eventually.
tneva82 wrote: There's english picture describing what reinforcements do floating around. Yes it does what you think it does. 2 units of 30 skeletons, all else minimum.
When gw wants people to play certain way they make it so ridiculously obvious that it's like killing a fly with a nuke. Subtlety isn't what gw is interested at
It seems likely GW will write around it for certain armies.
If this is true, hopefully it will lead to some of the other Chaos Beasts that were released for the WHFB Storm of Magic supplement will be redone in plastic. I would love to have a plastic Cockatrice to go with my Tzaangor Warflock.
Can someone explain the reinforcement point thing to me, and how it relates to current AoS (does AoS have reinforcement points right now?).
lord_blackfang wrote: Are they... are they previewing rules printed in books that are already out, and why are you hotlinking them?
GW really hasn't worked out how previews work yet. Remember their big Sisters of Battle preview that was almost entirely stuff they'd already shown off?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can someone explain the reinforcement point thing to me, and how it relates to current AoS (does AoS have reinforcement points right now?).
lord_blackfang wrote: Are they... are they previewing rules printed in books that are already out, and why are you hotlinking them?
GW really hasn't worked out how previews work yet. Remember their big Sisters of Battle preview that was almost entirely stuff they'd already shown off?
If they didn't have a preview for a new army that didn't really have anything to show off for the new edition then those playing that army wouldn't let GW hear the end of it. It's damned if they do, damned if they don't...
Those rumors sound pretty plausible. Excited to see them, but then I'm excited for most AoS stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Then maybe do what Kan suggested: Use something that didn't just come out?
Anyway - Reinforcement points. Please someone dumb it down for me.
You have a squad of 10 termagants as the minimum. If you want to take double the minimum, 20, that costs a reinforcement point. This is the same for every unit; 6 zoanthropes is a reinforcement point, 20 hormagaunts is a reinforcement point, etc. For units that are troops they can go up to 3x their minimum size but it costs two reinforcement points.
At 2k, you have 4 reinforcement points. Brought two squads of 30 termagants? All of your other units are minimum size now. Period.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Then maybe do what Kan suggested: Use something that didn't just come out?
Anyway - Reinforcement points. Please someone dumb it down for me.
Currently units have a minimum and a maximum numbers of minis in a unit. So you can have 10, 20, or 30 skeletons in a unit. In third edition You will still have a minimum size but in order to increase that you will need to use reinforcements. It cost one reinforcement point to increase the number. So a unit of 10 skeletons would cost 2 reinforcement points to take it up to 30.
Battleline troops can be reinforced twice and other troops only once. So if you have 2 units of 30 skeletons in an army everything else can only used at the minimum size. You could for example have 2 units of 40 Zombies (min 20) and 2 units of 20 skeletons in an army but that means you would have to keep your 20 grave guard in 2 units of 10. You could even have 2 units of 60 zombies if you wanted but everything else would be a minimum.
Big units make the combat phase grindy and slow. This should speed things up and make the combat phase more interesting. as players take turns activating units, there will be more back and forth with smaller units.
Personally I’m a fan of this change. It means only certain armies will have hordes.
Sludgeraker : is a huge crocodilian that's more of a force of nature than a unit. 16W, 2+ save, ignores wounds or mortals on a 6, main weapon (it's jaws) is 5/+3/+3/-3/D4. +1 to wound rolls if it charged. It's also about 150 points less than it ought to be. What's the catch? After the first time it fights it *MUST* charge the nearest enemy if able for the rest of the game, although a Breaka-boss can check it for a command point.
Skyrippa : is a giant bat w/ a scorpion tail rode by a killaboss. 8W, 3 up save, 16 move. Can deep strike. -1 to be hit.
Other rumours from War of Sigmar
First Battletomes - SCE and Orruks
Next 4 - Maggotkin, GSG, Ogors and BoC 3 new armies planned - Oathbreakers/Chaos Dwarves, Umbraneth (with Tyrion releasing at the same time), Dawnbringer Crusades (CoS)
Battlebox - GSG vs BoC GSG new Scuttleboss, Spider Riders (current models) and Rockguts (current models)
BoC new Doombull, new Bullgors and new Jabberslythe
Oh the dawnbringer crusade army has me really, really excited if that artwork has any bearing at all on its aesthetic. I'm also excited for chaos dwarves if they follow the recently discontinued FW look.
So Ardboyz are bought in multiples of 5 with a max unit size of 30. Under the new rules I can only take half that many in a unit, because who associates Orcs with hordes? /s
Sludgeraker : is a huge crocodilian that's more of a force of nature than a unit. 16W, 2+ save, ignores wounds or mortals on a 6, main weapon (it's jaws) is 5/+3/+3/-3/D4. +1 to wound rolls if it charged. It's also about 150 points less than it ought to be. What's the catch? After the first time it fights it *MUST* charge the nearest enemy if able for the rest of the game, although a Breaka-boss can check it for a command point.
Skyrippa : is a giant bat w/ a scorpion tail rode by a killaboss. 8W, 3 up save, 16 move. Can deep strike. -1 to be hit.
Other rumours from War of Sigmar
First Battletomes - SCE and Orruks
Next 4 - Maggotkin, GSG, Ogors and BoC 3 new armies planned - Oathbreakers/Chaos Dwarves, Umbraneth (with Tyrion releasing at the same time), Dawnbringer Crusades (CoS)
Battlebox - GSG vs BoC GSG new Scuttleboss, Spider Riders (current models) and Rockguts (current models)
BoC new Doombull, new Bullgors and new Jabberslythe
I hope these rumours are true, as my spiderfangs would L O V E a new scuttleboss model!
Nostromodamus wrote: So Ardboyz are bought in multiples of 5 with a max unit size of 30. Under the new rules I can only take half that many in a unit, because who associates Orcs with hordes? /s
I would expect to see certain minimums changed. Especially warclans as they will be one of the first books to come out.
Chikout wrote: I would expect to see certain minimums changed.
So now they have to patch other units to fix the patch they made to fix another problem.
Why do we keep giving these people money for rules when they clearly don't know what they're doing?
Your second point us sometimes true but in this instance I don't see it as a problem. An edition change is a perfect opportunity to fix edge cases like Ardboyz. ( You can buy them in 5s but they only count as battleline if you buy 10).
For me the move to big units with discounts for buying max size units was a mistake which seemed explicitly designed to sell models. It drove the average model count of each army up considerably and contributed to the slowing down of the game. I see this change as reversing that big error.
The armies that are hordes in the narrative still can be. You can have 4 units of 40 clanrats in an army.
Ironjawz are described as an elite army. It makes sense for the rules to reflect that.
As far as I'm aware you don't play AoS but I'm confident this will make the game play better which is supposed to be the whole point of an edition change.
First Battletomes - SCE and Orruks
Next 4 - Maggotkin, GSG, Ogors and BoC 3 new armies planned - Oathbreakers/Chaos Dwarves, Umbraneth (with Tyrion releasing at the same time), Dawnbringer Crusades (CoS)
Battlebox - GSG vs BoC GSG new Scuttleboss, Spider Riders (current models) and Rockguts (current models)
BoC new Doombull, new Bullgors and new Jabberslythe
Planned? Unless he's talking seriously past tense that's 2+ year later releases then.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Scenario(this one shifting objective reimagined) got leaked. Seems mix of 40k and current. Point for holding 1, 2, and more per round, this one each turn 1 objective counts as 2 objectives. 2 vp if you score your secondary(looks like picked each turn yfu pick?) And another 3vp for end game secondary.
Chikout wrote: I would expect to see certain minimums changed.
So now they have to patch other units to fix the patch they made to fix another problem.
Why do we keep giving these people money for rules when they clearly don't know what they're doing?
The change makes some degree of sense if you consider they're trying to limit the power of buff stacking without limiting the amount of buffs they can give an army to stack.
They're very much trying to have their cake and eat it too, but it's not totally directionless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: And I'm afraid of it coming to 40k. That and the 1" coherency malarkey.
AoS has been 1" coherency since 2015. I wouldn't worry about it. The rest of the rules are actually FROM 40k.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Seems like a sledgehammer approach to fixing a problem that could have been done with individual units.
Actually the larger context makes it slightly worse; large units were only a problem because of the horde discount, which they initially introduced because they only saw people taking minimum battleline and burning points on elite units. This in turn was because they took the points from a fan comp system that intentionally undercosted those units because they were 'cool to see on the table'. When people did take hordes it was at max size to take advantage of size-scaling buffs. So GW made the strongest way to run hordes stronger and when that proved to be an issue bumped the prices of the whole units just so the discounted horde price would be in line, making the unit only viable as min size to fill requirements or max to be a worthwhile investment. So they started removing the horde discount, which is great and bringing things into a space where all sizes are viable BUT this is GAMES WORKSHOP BABY LETS FIX WHAT FINALLY AINT BROKE!
And that's one of many stories as to why I don't play matched play in Warhammer. But seriously, I reccomend it to anyone. Just give up. Do the Nurgle thing. Accept that the balance is a steaming pile, has always been such, and will remain such in the foreseeable future. Be like the Nurgle daemon and smile at its absurdity
Chikout wrote: I would expect to see certain minimums changed.
So now they have to patch other units to fix the patch they made to fix another problem.
Why do we keep giving these people money for rules when they clearly don't know what they're doing?
Because while we do spend more time talking about what's bad there is a lot of good there. And say what we will about balance but Warhammer certainly isn't bland. When it gets things right they are really right. I'm paying for these rules not for the gawky points I barely look at but for the Anvil of Apotheosis, the heroic & monster actions, the warlock engineer trying to do extra damage but blowing himself up, the GUO whose best damage output comes from enemies trying to hit him then getting blasted with pus, the exalted champion cutting down an enemy hero and turning into a daemon prince... or chaos spawn. I put up with warhammer's bad because it is counterbalanced by wtf insanity that is simply really hard to find elsewhere.
Even this post! On no other subject can I find myself whip lashing from outright mockery to genuine praise so rapidly or so often.
Makes me wonder if a battalion enhancement allows more reinforcement points to be spent and that ends up so (un-)impactful as to be seen as a useless gesture towards horde armies or the go to choice because it sustains the large unit buff-o-rama.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Question is: Does the Dawnbreaker Crusade book suddenly make Cities of Sigmar vanish. It is an entire army of legacy models, after all.
Legions of Nagash seems to have been parted out into the other Death armies and now that most of it is found in Gravelords it's fully replaced and gone. I could see Cities of Sigmar suffer a similar fate.
Geifer wrote: Makes me wonder if a battalion enhancement allows more reinforcement points to be spent and that ends up so (un-)impactful as to be seen as a useless gesture towards horde armies or the go to choice because it sustains the large unit buff-o-rama.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Question is: Does the Dawnbreaker Crusade book suddenly make Cities of Sigmar vanish. It is an entire army of legacy models, after all.
Legions of Nagash seems to have been parted out into the other Death armies and now that most of it is found in Gravelords it's fully replaced and gone. I could see Cities of Sigmar suffer a similar fate.
With the rumors about a new dwarf tome consolidating dwarves(or Duardin) I imagine Cities of Sigmar will see some streamlining by removing excess weight and partitioning that weight to other tomes. I imagine exciting new changes are ahead of us.
Exciting it one way of putting it. If it actually includes new models this time around I'll even agree. But in typical GW fashion a good thing can't just be a good thing and one can't be certain what is retained, removed or changed, and so I'm not all that excited to work on my models in the meantime.
Galas wrote: Reinforcement points show the absolutel lack of direction AoS has.
We started 2.0 with horde discounts being the new hotness! Hordes are weak! You should all buy them!
Then, by mid to late edition they stopped with horde discounts. And now this.
WTF. Is extremely complex and it doesnt fix anything? If buff stackin was a problem, is using a bad band-aid to fix a wound only themselves caused.
What you need to understand is GW isn't at any point trying to make a good game. They're making a constantly changing ruleset that incentivizes you to keep buying models to keep your army legal/relevant/competitive.
my undergut list is literally either useless or illegal- 2x9 bulls and 8 leadbelchers cannot be made as it's 5 reserve points if i count correctly. And leadbelchers have min size of 2
Cronch wrote: my undergut list is literally either useless or illegal- 2x9 bulls and 8 leadbelchers cannot be made as it's 5 reserve points if i count correctly. And leadbelchers have min size of 2
2 per glutton, 3 lead. 7 actually...
Oh and 8 leadbelcher illegal. You can at most triple unit size so 6 is biggest leadbelcher unit you can have. No charge bonus for them.
Battlepacks
Before you choose a mission, you need to figure out which battlepack you’ll be using. Battlepacks bundle together a suite of rules – introducing restrictions, determining the size of the battlefield, and dictating the number of units you can bring to the fight.
The Contest of Generals battlepack in the Core Book is one such option, designed for matched play. It’s been carefully crafted to make your games as balanced as possible. Take a look at this chart to get a sense of how it’ll work.
The Contest of Generals battlepack allows you to build your army using a new type of battalion, called a core battalion.
Core Battalions
There are now two types of battalions in Warhammer Age of Sigmar. The warscroll battalions you know and love are for units of renown and represent a specific focus, a special leader, or additional training. On the other hand, core battalions are intended to balance out the various units in exchange for distinct abilities.
Guys, don't forget that the GHB comes with updated points and unit sizes. Your current unit sizes and points mean nothing in 3.0 you got to save your complains until you see the new unit sizes. Ogors may change size. Orruks may change size. Melusai and other problematic units may be mark as "single" (wich mean cannot be reinforced) and so on.
This change is really good. MSU don't often delete the thing they charge. This will create a lot more multi-combat situations with back and forth, wich is one of the big focus on the new edition. They aren't only improving the balance, they are also workin on improving the fun of the game. Heroic actions for both players, numerous CA both active and reactive in all phases. Monstrous Rampages for both players, and more small combats all around the board that go back and forth more often. Even if they screw up, it is imposible to not see the good intention of the new ruleset.
This is more a game supposed to be fun than a sport supposed to be balance. And we still got to see the full core book and GHB to know the real balance of the game.
Given how much MW stuff already generates, there absolutely will still be units that will just delete MSU. They toned down number of models without toning down damage output of models. Which is good i suppose, with the shorter ranges it means the game will be done by turn 2 instead of dragging out till turn 3...
Yoid wrote: Guys, don't forget that the GHB comes with updated points and unit sizes. Your current unit sizes and points mean nothing in 3.0 you got to save your complains until you see the new unit sizes. Ogors may change size. Orruks may change size. Melusai and other problematic units may be mark as "single" (wich mean cannot be reinforced) and so on.
This change is really good. MSU don't often delete the thing they charge. This will create a lot more multi-combat situations with back and forth, wich is one of the big focus on the new edition. They aren't only improving the balance, they are also workin on improving the fun of the game. Heroic actions for both players, numerous CA both active and reactive in all phases. Monstrous Rampages for both players, and more small combats all around the board that go back and forth more often. Even if they screw up, it is imposible to not see the good intention of the new ruleset.
This is more a game supposed to be fun than a sport supposed to be balance. And we still got to see the full core book and GHB to know the real balance of the game.
Ah the naivety of new players. Over 2 decades every time new book comes players figure out problems ahead time. Every time new player claims it's allright, we don't know full picture.
And every time naive player claiming we don'' know full picture so problem won't be problem is proven wrong.
23 years and counting as bare minimum.
Gw games aren't hard to figure. There's no subtle interactions. And gw's goal isn't improving game but force miniature sales. This makes figuring problems and solving best army for new release even months ahead
Depends on the box. Crypt Ghouls come in boxes of 20(except in the SC) except they are now MSU 10 so they might very well increase to 20 as MSU to count for the box contents, especially if the SC ends up going away like they have done in 40k.
So I could very well imagine some MSU changing in the next GHB.
Depends on the box. Crypt Ghouls come in boxes of 20(except in the SC) except they are now MSU 10 so they might very well increase to 20 as MSU to count for the box contents, especially if the SC ends up going away like they have done in 40k.
Or GW is getting ready for the next price hike/ cut model count in next wave of boxes, so the new boxes will be the same price but with 10 ghouls or 5 'Ard Boyz.
Yoid wrote: Guys, don't forget that the GHB comes with updated points and unit sizes. Your current unit sizes and points mean nothing in 3.0 you got to save your complains until you see the new unit sizes. Ogors may change size. Orruks may change size. Melusai and other problematic units may be mark as "single" (wich mean cannot be reinforced) and so on.
This change is really good. MSU don't often delete the thing they charge. This will create a lot more multi-combat situations with back and forth, wich is one of the big focus on the new edition. They aren't only improving the balance, they are also workin on improving the fun of the game. Heroic actions for both players, numerous CA both active and reactive in all phases. Monstrous Rampages for both players, and more small combats all around the board that go back and forth more often. Even if they screw up, it is imposible to not see the good intention of the new ruleset.
This is more a game supposed to be fun than a sport supposed to be balance. And we still got to see the full core book and GHB to know the real balance of the game.
Ah the naivety of new players. Over 2 decades every time new book comes players figure out problems ahead time. Every time new player claims it's allright, we don't know full picture.
And every time naive player claiming we don'' know full picture so problem won't be problem is proven wrong.
23 years and counting as bare minimum.
Gw games aren't hard to figure. There's no subtle interactions. And gw's goal isn't improving game but force miniature sales. This makes figuring problems and solving best army for new release even months ahead
I didn't said that. By no mean I implied there will be no problems with 3.0. In fact I implied that problems may come. But i also said that complaining about stuff that is gonna change with the release of the new GHB in a month is pointless, because then you are complaining on speculation, not facts.
I ensure you GW will screw something, is statistically imposible that they don't. But everything that I stated is still true. People complaining about Orruks being 5-15 and Ogors being 2-6 need to chill until GHB come, then you can complain or don't based on that.
And someone negatively saying that unit sizes will not change because they match boxes. The complains about Orruks and Ogors are precisely because the box dosn't match the current minimum size of the unit. And that can easily change in GHB. The same for the guy claiming that no one will reinforce witch aelves instead of bow-snakes. We don't know wich units are gonna be single.
Pre-complaining for a rule that we know is gonna change in a month is pointless. Not just that is gonna change in a month, but is gonna change at the same time 3.0 release, so the is gonna be literal 0 days with unit sizes and points being missmatched with the new core rules.
There will always be negaive things about the system, but don't simply feed even more negativity without any meaning or fundation. Many improvements are coming too. We may end with a good balance of things going bad and things going good.
AduroT wrote:Like ‘Ardboyz, who have a minimum unit size of five, require ten to be Battleline, but come in a box of fifteen?
Eldarsif wrote:Depends on the box. Crypt Ghouls come in boxes of 20
Warhammer Fantasy Legacy Models, any AoS models were the Box content does not fit Unit size outside from Starter Boxes?
Black Orcs were in boxes of 10 in Fantasy, they were reboxed to 15 during AoS. The models might be ‘legacy’ but the amount in the box is unique to AoS.
AduroT wrote:Like ‘Ardboyz, who have a minimum unit size of five, require ten to be Battleline, but come in a box of fifteen?
Eldarsif wrote:Depends on the box. Crypt Ghouls come in boxes of 20
Warhammer Fantasy Legacy Models, any AoS models were the Box content does not fit Unit size outside from Starter Boxes?
Bladegheist Revenants, Dreadscythe Harridans, and Boingrot Bounders/Squig Hoppers of the top of my head.
Bloodreavers, Blood Warriors, Liberators, Judicators, Prosecutors, Sequitors, Kairic Acolytes, Mortek Guard... off the top of my head. There are a lot of them.
Yoid wrote: Guys, don't forget that the GHB comes with updated points and unit sizes. Your current unit sizes and points mean nothing in 3.0 you got to save your complains until you see the new unit sizes. Ogors may change size. Orruks may change size. Melusai and other problematic units may be mark as "single" (wich mean cannot be reinforced) and so on.
This change is really good. MSU don't often delete the thing they charge. This will create a lot more multi-combat situations with back and forth, wich is one of the big focus on the new edition. They aren't only improving the balance, they are also workin on improving the fun of the game. Heroic actions for both players, numerous CA both active and reactive in all phases. Monstrous Rampages for both players, and more small combats all around the board that go back and forth more often. Even if they screw up, it is imposible to not see the good intention of the new ruleset.
This is more a game supposed to be fun than a sport supposed to be balance. And we still got to see the full core book and GHB to know the real balance of the game.
Ah the naivety of new players. Over 2 decades every time new book comes players figure out problems ahead time. Every time new player claims it's allright, we don't know full picture.
And every time naive player claiming we don'' know full picture so problem won't be problem is proven wrong.
23 years and counting as bare minimum.
Gw games aren't hard to figure. There's no subtle interactions. And gw's goal isn't improving game but force miniature sales. This makes figuring problems and solving best army for new release even months ahead
I didn't said that. By no mean I implied there will be no problems with 3.0. In fact I implied that problems may come. But i also said that complaining about stuff that is gonna change with the release of the new GHB in a month is pointless, because then you are complaining on speculation, not facts.
I ensure you GW will screw something, is statistically imposible that they don't. But everything that I stated is still true. People complaining about Orruks being 5-15 and Ogors being 2-6 need to chill until GHB come, then you can complain or don't based on that.
And someone negatively saying that unit sizes will not change because they match boxes. The complains about Orruks and Ogors are precisely because the box dosn't match the current minimum size of the unit. And that can easily change in GHB. The same for the guy claiming that no one will reinforce witch aelves instead of bow-snakes. We don't know wich units are gonna be single.
Pre-complaining for a rule that we know is gonna change in a month is pointless. Not just that is gonna change in a month, but is gonna change at the same time 3.0 release, so the is gonna be literal 0 days with unit sizes and points being missmatched with the new core rules.
There will always be negaive things about the system, but don't simply feed even more negativity without any meaning or fundation. Many improvements are coming too. We may end with a good balance of things going bad and things going good.
Yup. By all means criticize the rule, but the one who comes across as a newcomer is the one who believes the minimum sizes won't be updated.
Vindictors 5 / 140 Battleline
Annihilators 3 / 180
Praetors 3 / 155
Imperatant 160
Vexillor 125
Knight Arcanum 150
Yndrasta 300 (monsters within 3" are treated as having 10 less wounds when looking at damage brackets)
Total in box 1,350
Killaboss with Stabgrot 140
Killaboss on Great Gnashtoof 200
Murknob with Belcha-banna 115
Swampcalla Shaman 125
Hobgrotz 10/95
Manskewer Boltboyz 3/120
Guttrippaz 10/180
Total in box 1,070
Roughly 1,000 points each if you leave Yndrasta out.
Daughters of Khaine's points have been increased - "Sisters up 20, stalkers up 30. Morathi up 60, basically everything went up 10 or more"
I hope the DoK point changes are just in line with the rumored general pump everything's getting because if not DoK are going to be TRASH. They're already pretty mediocre after the new book.
AduroT wrote:Like ‘Ardboyz, who have a minimum unit size of five, require ten to be Battleline, but come in a box of fifteen?
Eldarsif wrote:Depends on the box. Crypt Ghouls come in boxes of 20
Warhammer Fantasy Legacy Models, any AoS models were the Box content does not fit Unit size outside from Starter Boxes?
Bladegheist Revenants, Dreadscythe Harridans, and Boingrot Bounders/Squig Hoppers of the top of my head.
Bloodreavers, Blood Warriors, Liberators, Judicators, Prosecutors, Sequitors, Kairic Acolytes, Mortek Guard... off the top of my head. There are a lot of them.
Yoid wrote: Guys, don't forget that the GHB comes with updated points and unit sizes. Your current unit sizes and points mean nothing in 3.0 you got to save your complains until you see the new unit sizes. Ogors may change size. Orruks may change size. Melusai and other problematic units may be mark as "single" (wich mean cannot be reinforced) and so on.
This change is really good. MSU don't often delete the thing they charge. This will create a lot more multi-combat situations with back and forth, wich is one of the big focus on the new edition. They aren't only improving the balance, they are also workin on improving the fun of the game. Heroic actions for both players, numerous CA both active and reactive in all phases. Monstrous Rampages for both players, and more small combats all around the board that go back and forth more often. Even if they screw up, it is imposible to not see the good intention of the new ruleset.
This is more a game supposed to be fun than a sport supposed to be balance. And we still got to see the full core book and GHB to know the real balance of the game.
Ah the naivety of new players. Over 2 decades every time new book comes players figure out problems ahead time. Every time new player claims it's allright, we don't know full picture.
And every time naive player claiming we don'' know full picture so problem won't be problem is proven wrong.
23 years and counting as bare minimum.
Gw games aren't hard to figure. There's no subtle interactions. And gw's goal isn't improving game but force miniature sales. This makes figuring problems and solving best army for new release even months ahead
I didn't said that. By no mean I implied there will be no problems with 3.0. In fact I implied that problems may come. But i also said that complaining about stuff that is gonna change with the release of the new GHB in a month is pointless, because then you are complaining on speculation, not facts.
I ensure you GW will screw something, is statistically imposible that they don't. But everything that I stated is still true. People complaining about Orruks being 5-15 and Ogors being 2-6 need to chill until GHB come, then you can complain or don't based on that.
And someone negatively saying that unit sizes will not change because they match boxes. The complains about Orruks and Ogors are precisely because the box dosn't match the current minimum size of the unit. And that can easily change in GHB. The same for the guy claiming that no one will reinforce witch aelves instead of bow-snakes. We don't know wich units are gonna be single.
Pre-complaining for a rule that we know is gonna change in a month is pointless. Not just that is gonna change in a month, but is gonna change at the same time 3.0 release, so the is gonna be literal 0 days with unit sizes and points being missmatched with the new core rules.
There will always be negaive things about the system, but don't simply feed even more negativity without any meaning or fundation. Many improvements are coming too. We may end with a good balance of things going bad and things going good.
Yup. By all means criticize the rule, but the one who comes across as a newcomer is the one who believes the minimum sizes won't be updated.
Agreed. It's much more naive to think the community is going to right about the impact of sweeping edition changes. Dakka's batting average is especially terrible. I still remember people thinking 8th was going to be a garbage fire compared to 7th edition 40k when they literally couldn't possibly have made the game worse.
Well I don't want to unilaterally condemn all the predictions, if anything I find the communal predictions tend to be right more often than not with the most common error being hyperbole over severity. The bad predictions come from people jumping to unjustified conclusions, like assuming minimum unit sizes will not be updated to account for this change. Doubly so considering the newest tomes clearly have.
NAVARRO wrote: Minimum, max sizes can kiss my mushroom pads... so when are we going back to square bases?
Come to Kings of War, we have tactics
Ah yes, the wonderful KoW tactic of leaving for 30 minutes to do laundry and it literally doesn't matter.
Compared to the wonderful tactic of having to be there to roll saves and doubling the length of a match while having zero actual agency like GW had for 90% of its existance.
ERJAK wrote: Ah yes, the wonderful KoW tactic of leaving for 30 minutes to do laundry and it literally doesn't matter.
and the difference to AoS is that standing there for 1 hour because the opponent got a double turn to roll saves is really exciting and adds tactical depth
I am pretty happy about the changes so far. Hard to draw too many conclusions without the book in hand, but I am feeling pretty hyped for AOS right now.
I am curious how existing battalions interact with core battalions. Also, how faction terrain will work in the new 'path to glory' system. Overall, the changes from what I've seen look positive so far.
NAVARRO wrote: Minimum, max sizes can kiss my mushroom pads... so when are we going back to square bases?
Come to Kings of War, we have tactics
Ah yes, the wonderful KoW tactic of leaving for 30 minutes to do laundry and it literally doesn't matter.
Compared to the wonderful tactic of having to be there to roll saves and doubling the length of a match while having zero actual agency like GW had for 90% of its existance.
jaredb wrote: I am pretty happy about the changes so far. Hard to draw too many conclusions without the book in hand, but I am feeling pretty hyped for AOS right now.
I am curious how existing battalions interact with core battalions. Also, how faction terrain will work in the new 'path to glory' system. Overall, the changes from what I've seen look positive so far.
It does mention that Warscroll Battalions are still in.
That said? We'd just need an errata to add the perks from the Core Battalions in.
No removal of double turn and major in game impact of base size is really unfortunate for this edition. Probably means I won't be buying in to this edition, which is disappointing because it'd be convenient for me if Age of Sigmar was something I was interested in playing.
Ah well. Given how fast the editions come these days, I'll not have too long to wait til the next one anyway.
Oh I've seen plenty of editions come and go, I just look back to where AoS (and the world) was at 3 years ago verses now and have a hard time reconciling that as a 'short period'.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Oh I've seen plenty of editions come and go, I just look back to where AoS (and the world) was at 3 years ago verses now and have a hard time reconciling that as a 'short period'.
Also to answer your question; a long time.
See thats the point, 3years in real world lockdown is an eternity, 3years in a tabletop game with so many factions and army books that take large portions of time/dedication to flesh out is errr nothing.
This is not about the "game" per say or the guy that already spent the money in a couple armies and cant finish them up before new edition kicks in... This new edition and all this biz model is about making you buy minis and updated books and nothing else.
If GW could have editions with the life span of a year and make all redundant next edition they would.
Like who played AoS during covid? Yet here we are, only opening again and Shazam, the game no one could play has a new edition. Did we need it?
Im pretty sure everyone on board here knows this. Thats why "waiting for next edition cause this edition sucks" is a breeze... Actually skipping editions is fun these days and opens doors to other systems and games etc ( I think thats why smaller speciallist games have been spammed so much to keep people who skip the big 2 games busy.)
I suppose we have different interpretations. I look at AoS now verses AoS three years ago and see very different situations that encompassed some dramatic changes in how people go about building armies, how certain armies play, and even which armies exist. My main army is Nurgle, which has had the same tome this whole time, and it still saw some pretty big shake-ups.
Blackfang mentioned Kings of War in a snarky reply on the past page. Someone else made a snarky reply back and it's, as usual, spiralled into taking over the thread.
So kindly either get back on topic or stop posting in this thread. It's not hard to do.
Kanluwen wrote: Blackfang mentioned Kings of War in a snarky reply on the past page. Someone else made a snarky reply back and it's, as usual, spiralled into taking over the thread.
So kindly either get back on topic or stop posting in this thread. It's not hard to do.
Da Boss wrote: No removal of double turn and major in game impact of base size is really unfortunate for this edition.
We rarely play, but when we do, we forget double turn exists.
Not feeling anything particular about this edition, monster actions are cute, but not feeling about the rest, mostly layers of things that I feel are not needed, and you can dip into 40k to get that fix, if that's your fancy. Shooting should be more restrained and movement really needs facing constraints, nothing kills the immersion faster than seeing some silly side drifting with oval bases.
Wonder what else they did with magic. My shining elves cannot complain, but it'd be nice, if they've gone back to WHFB roots and included some generic spells and artefacts that anyone can grab.
ERJAK wrote: Ah yes, the wonderful KoW tactic of leaving for 30 minutes to do laundry and it literally doesn't matter.
and the difference to AoS is that standing there for 1 hour because the opponent got a double turn to roll saves is really exciting and adds tactical depth
Sure if you decide to skip doing your stuff on opponents turn. Lose almost half the damage output often that way but xhatever
NinthMusketeer wrote: Oh I've seen plenty of editions come and go, I just look back to where AoS (and the world) was at 3 years ago verses now and have a hard time reconciling that as a 'short period'.
Also to answer your question; a long time.
See thats the point, 3years in real world lockdown is an eternity, 3years in a tabletop game with so many factions and army books that take large portions of time/dedication to flesh out is errr nothing.
This is not about the "game" per say or the guy that already spent the money in a couple armies and cant finish them up before new edition kicks in... This new edition and all this biz model is about making you buy minis and updated books and nothing else.
If GW could have editions with the life span of a year and make all redundant next edition they would.
Like who played AoS during covid? Yet here we are, only opening again and Shazam, the game no one could play has a new edition. Did we need it?
Im pretty sure everyone on board here knows this. Thats why "waiting for next edition cause this edition sucks" is a breeze... Actually skipping editions is fun these days and opens doors to other systems and games etc ( I think thats why smaller speciallist games have been spammed so much to keep people who skip the big 2 games busy.)
A) people did play. I started aos february 2020 and been playing more aos than 40k in usual year
B) by the time covid hit aos3 was pretty much done. Gw could of course delay...which means no aos releases for what year? Which means no sales for a year. If gw paused 40k releases in same way gw would have no real sales for a year. Can gw even survive year with no real income?
tneva82 wrote: A) people did play. I started aos february 2020 and been playing more aos than 40k in usual year
Cool for you, during the past 15 months I've been not in lockdown for 4, so maybe 16 game nights in a year and a quarter, if I was free every Saturday, and that overlapped with summer vacation when half the group isn't here. There's Lumineth players out there who've had to buy a second book before they had had a single chance to legally play one game with the first book.
3 years are not very long, specially for games were not all factions get their updates during the initial release and the changes are big enough so that there is a high chance the army list you painted need to be re-done
so there are those that start playing on first day and only play one system, and there are those that now need half a year to get a another list painted or their current one updated, are interrupted with a new book, need again time for the update etc.
3 years are a long time while you are a kid but as an adult not so much
ERJAK wrote: Ah yes, the wonderful KoW tactic of leaving for 30 minutes to do laundry and it literally doesn't matter.
and the difference to AoS is that standing there for 1 hour because the opponent got a double turn to roll saves is really exciting and adds tactical depth
Sure if you decide to skip doing your stuff on opponents turn
same for KoW, if you think there is nothing do to during the opponents turn you can walk away but this has nothing to do with tactics and I hope you never play 40k, as there is even more time for the opponent to do nothing than in KoW & AoS combined (and if you really feel that you need to roll dice on the opponents turn so you have a reason to stay, you can roll the nerve tests for your own units)
GW have implemented Queue It on the online store this morning currently a 34 minute wait - probably testing it before next week so 10AM will probably be to late to join the queue.
Funny thing, it's to go to the website, not even for buying anything... so I went to check the prices in euros of the Ghosts (just to verify how much ot of whack they are) and got told that I had to wait 31 minutes to do so...
hahah, nope. I guess the GW page can go feth itself.
It makes perfect sense, the queue system should mean that it streamlines traffic to the site itself and thus means you don't get the site crashing due to overload which happened during Indomitus.
It also means that, in theory, the site should work smoother and whilst you have to wait, its just the same as if you were pressing f5 and fighting everyone to get stock. It's just now you're in a formal line.
God, they just can't do anything right when it comes to IT infrastructure, can they? There's a reason shops set up separate landing pages for Very Big Releases That Need Queues and not just slap it on the whole store, shoelaces and pickle juice and all.
Overread wrote: It makes perfect sense, the queue system should mean that it streamlines traffic to the site itself and thus means you don't get the site crashing due to overload which happened during Indomitus.
It also means that, in theory, the site should work smoother and whilst you have to wait, its just the same as if you were pressing f5 and fighting everyone to get stock. It's just now you're in a formal line.
It would... for the high traffic items. Not for the whole fething page. That is stupid as all feth.
ERJAK wrote: Ah yes, the wonderful KoW tactic of leaving for 30 minutes to do laundry and it literally doesn't matter.
and the difference to AoS is that standing there for 1 hour because the opponent got a double turn to roll saves is really exciting and adds tactical depth
Sure if you decide to skip doing your stuff on opponents turn. Lose almost half the damage output often that way but xhatever
NinthMusketeer wrote: Oh I've seen plenty of editions come and go, I just look back to where AoS (and the world) was at 3 years ago verses now and have a hard time reconciling that as a 'short period'.
Also to answer your question; a long time.
See thats the point, 3years in real world lockdown is an eternity, 3years in a tabletop game with so many factions and army books that take large portions of time/dedication to flesh out is errr nothing.
This is not about the "game" per say or the guy that already spent the money in a couple armies and cant finish them up before new edition kicks in... This new edition and all this biz model is about making you buy minis and updated books and nothing else.
If GW could have editions with the life span of a year and make all redundant next edition they would.
Like who played AoS during covid? Yet here we are, only opening again and Shazam, the game no one could play has a new edition. Did we need it?
Im pretty sure everyone on board here knows this. Thats why "waiting for next edition cause this edition sucks" is a breeze... Actually skipping editions is fun these days and opens doors to other systems and games etc ( I think thats why smaller speciallist games have been spammed so much to keep people who skip the big 2 games busy.)
A) people did play. I started aos february 2020 and been playing more aos than 40k in usual year
B) by the time covid hit aos3 was pretty much done. Gw could of course delay...which means no aos releases for what year? Which means no sales for a year. If gw paused 40k releases in same way gw would have no real sales for a year. Can gw even survive year with no real income?
Well stores closed by government, not legal to gather in a different household, events cancelled was the reality/ normality for many countries... You could always play alone I guess
Oh yes GW is doing great but that does not mean we are great and in need for the 3rd, since many did not have the chance to play. In fact what data did the game designers analyse to come up with these changes? The same data they did for previous, studio & marketing data XD
So yep, its not about better rules, or the guy building the armies, its about selling those new shiny minis and keeping the hype train going.
Should they pause the train? Change train lines? Not if they are turning so many profits... doesn't mean I need to take it though.
I kind of think the influx of profits is atypical client behaviour because why would you buy a game you cant play? I wonder if the real meaty clients are the painters and hobbyist rather than gamers.
Overread wrote: It makes perfect sense, the queue system should mean that it streamlines traffic to the site itself and thus means you don't get the site crashing due to overload which happened during Indomitus.
It also means that, in theory, the site should work smoother and whilst you have to wait, its just the same as if you were pressing f5 and fighting everyone to get stock. It's just now you're in a formal line.
So after seeing it in action for the first time, this here grumpy old man has questions about this newfangled thingy you youngster are in awe about ->
DaveC wrote: GW have implemented Queue It on the online store this morning currently a 34 minute wait - probably testing it before next week so 10AM will probably be to late to join the queue.
When do you get on there to line up? Does the queuing system start at 10 BST, and everyone already on the website is good for ten minutes? Does everybody get kicked once they load a new page and requeued, so some get on right away while others have to wait if there were too many people browsing the website at the same time? If the system kicks in before 10, what if you're too early, your ten minute window expires just before pre-orders go up, you get placed at the back of the queue and miss out?
Given the issue will always be stock and not the specific system handling purchases it ultimately doesn't matter. but I have a hard time seeing any benefit of this system over letting people F5 it out.
Overread wrote: It makes perfect sense, the queue system should mean that it streamlines traffic to the site itself and thus means you don't get the site crashing due to overload which happened during Indomitus.
It also means that, in theory, the site should work smoother and whilst you have to wait, its just the same as if you were pressing f5 and fighting everyone to get stock. It's just now you're in a formal line.
So after seeing it in action for the first time, this here grumpy old man has questions about this newfangled thingy you youngster are in awe about ->
DaveC wrote: GW have implemented Queue It on the online store this morning currently a 34 minute wait - probably testing it before next week so 10AM will probably be to late to join the queue.
When do you get on there to line up? Does the queuing system start at 10 BST, and everyone already on the website is good for ten minutes? Does everybody get kicked once they load a new page and requeued, so some get on right away while others have to wait if there were too many people browsing the website at the same time? If the system kicks in before 10, what if you're too early, your ten minute window expires just before pre-orders go up, you get placed at the back of the queue and miss out?
Given the issue will always be stock and not the specific system handling purchases it ultimately doesn't matter. but I have a hard time seeing any benefit of this system over letting people F5 it out.
Anyone on the page before 10 gets put in the queue randomly, and then joining after that you get put in the queue in the order of arrival.
Overread wrote: It makes perfect sense, the queue system should mean that it streamlines traffic to the site itself and thus means you don't get the site crashing due to overload which happened during Indomitus.
It also means that, in theory, the site should work smoother and whilst you have to wait, its just the same as if you were pressing f5 and fighting everyone to get stock. It's just now you're in a formal line.
It would make more sense to make enough product so the entire customer base wouldn't be FOMO panic buying on the literal first second a preorder opens.
NinthMusketeer: I take your point about the pace of change of the game. I guess I'm not really in the market for a game like that. I don't get to play regularly enough that such a constant rate of change would be satisfying to me. And I'm not interested in tracking rules changes at that pace. I'm too busy with other stuff these days.
Wait, GW is making you queue up to access the website just to buy their new AOS starter? I'm convinced that GW has a secret wish to be a boutique model maker as they are inherently uncomfortable with market dominance and have a hard time contemplating their works of art being painted or purchased by lowly plebs.
I hope they get what they wish for! This pleb won't be buying.
The queue system allows the site to function during exceptionally high traffic periods. I suppose it doubles up as a mild anti bot solution.
Getting angry about it almost as bizarre as accusing GW of elitism, because they don't want their customers to look at a DDoSed site for a couple hours as everyone hits F5 over and over again.
Overread wrote: It makes perfect sense, the queue system should mean that it streamlines traffic to the site itself and thus means you don't get the site crashing due to overload which happened during Indomitus.
It also means that, in theory, the site should work smoother and whilst you have to wait, its just the same as if you were pressing f5 and fighting everyone to get stock. It's just now you're in a formal line.
It would make more sense to make enough product so the entire customer base wouldn't be FOMO panic buying on the literal first second a preorder opens.
True and GW's shift to limited starter sets is a curious change from their past operations.
I'm guessing part of it is that in the past a lot of starter sets were 1 big mould of models. Which meant the costs for it were lower as it was just one casting (or two etc...). However it also meant that they wound up with a lot of models all jumbled up on a single sprue which they can't later split down to individual model sales after the starter set is ended.
These short term starters appear to be more focused on having multiple sprues, which likely increases their costs and back end packing aspects and production; but at the same time means they can be spit into smaller sets and individual sets later.
So part of this might just be that GW doesn't want multiple moulds in the production cycle for a long term discount product. So instead they make it a short term discount product and then use parts of it to make smaller starter sets
His Master's Voice wrote: The queue system allows the site to function during exceptionally high traffic periods. I suppose it doubles up as a mild anti bot solution.
Getting angry about it almost as bizarre as accusing GW of elitism, because they don't want their customers to look at a DDoSed site for a couple hours as everyone hits F5 over and over again.
Again, the idea of queue access isn't new. Other companies that release limited products do it all the time.
They put it only on the page of the limited product, or make a separate page for that product. GW just..slapped the thing on the whole website, so people who want to buy 2 pots of paint are forced to wait alongside the scalpers and FOMOboys.
His Master's Voice wrote: The queue system allows the site to function during exceptionally high traffic periods. I suppose it doubles up as a mild anti bot solution.
Getting angry about it almost as bizarre as accusing GW of elitism, because they don't want their customers to look at a DDoSed site for a couple hours as everyone hits F5 over and over again.
Again, the idea of queue access isn't new. Other companies that release limited products do it all the time.
They put it only on the page of the limited product, or make a separate page for that product. GW just..slapped the thing on the whole website, so people who want to buy 2 pots of paint are forced to wait alongside the scalpers and FOMOboys.
It's likely a limit of the store system GW uses and honestly its not a huge problem really. The pre-order window is just one day and chances are it will only be present for part of that day. The majority of customers accessing the store on the preorder day at the preorder time will be people after a preorder.
Liberator vs Vindictor image (from Reddit), The new proportions are definitely better I'm not sure they needed to get taller but then you wouldn't need a new army . This is a single mini with a scenic base for in store painting demos.
Arbitrator wrote: Literally Primaris Sigmarines after only five years lmao.
But no though? The scale isn't bigger--it's a pose & base difference. And even IF the scale was bigger they would not be a -literal- analogue to Primaris because the fluff is different and they are just specialized units within the larger army not an army of themselves.
It's SCE getting further development of their equipment & reforging process. The analogue would be if Primaris were a new mark of armour and more effective gene seed preservation.
Arbitrator wrote: Literally Primaris Sigmarines after only five years lmao.
But no though? The scale isn't bigger--it's a pose & base difference. And even IF the scale was bigger they would not be a -literal- analogue to Primaris because the fluff is different and they are just specialized units within the larger army not an army of themselves.
It's SCE getting further development of their equipment & reforging process. The analogue would be if Primaris were a new mark of armour and more effective gene seed preservation.
So what you're saying is we won't see a quiet sidelining of the old range?
Interesting but not conclusive in my opinion. I'd definitely want to wait until we have a comparison picture of an old and new Sigmarine with comparable poses.
That said, let's not forget what GW has to work with. The current (male) Sigmarines are... wide. Which broadly only leaves two options to get to the new and improved look. They either retain their bulk but get stretched out so as not to look chubby anymore, or they keep their height to be in line with the old models but look lanky next to them.
There's not a whole lot else that can be done and of the two options I know which one GW will go with every time, so I won't be surprised if the new Sigmarines are in fact taller.
12'' is rather short, but having it on a fighting wizard is decent value (Nagash is always going to be a special case), although, I don't think the game needs so much removal. They did put 'Rally' but that's rather bad trade resource for resource.
Arbitrator wrote: Literally Primaris Sigmarines after only five years lmao.
But no though? The scale isn't bigger--it's a pose & base difference. And even IF the scale was bigger they would not be a -literal- analogue to Primaris because the fluff is different and they are just specialized units within the larger army not an army of themselves.
It's SCE getting further development of their equipment & reforging process. The analogue would be if Primaris were a new mark of armour and more effective gene seed preservation.
So what you're saying is we won't see a quiet sidelining of the old range?
Correct; I am reasonably sure we will no doubt get newcast on all the promotional material like Sacrosanct before them, but similarly they will just slot in next to the old stuff.
Arbitrator wrote: Literally Primaris Sigmarines after only five years lmao.
But no though? The scale isn't bigger--it's a pose & base difference. And even IF the scale was bigger they would not be a -literal- analogue to Primaris because the fluff is different and they are just specialized units within the larger army not an army of themselves.
It's SCE getting further development of their equipment & reforging process. The analogue would be if Primaris were a new mark of armour and more effective gene seed preservation.
So what you're saying is we won't see a quiet sidelining of the old range?
But the old range was allready sidelined?
I mean. All the "new" stormcast stuff has been new chambers with each one having their own unique aesthetic like the scouts ones and the sacrosant ones. There hasn't been a old-cast release outside special characters since aos 1.0
I mean. All the "new" stormcast stuff has been new chambers with each one having their own unique aesthetic like the scouts ones and the sacrosant ones. There hasn't been a old-cast release outside special characters since aos 1.0
We’ve taken a look at the rules that make Monsters and Heroes more, erm, monstrous and heroic in the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar and when the Dominion launch set is coming out. Now, it’s time to learn how you can interrupt your opponent and use certain abilities in THEIR turn.
Solid wording on Redeploy. A handy tool that you may need to think about. The wording on it prevents niche cases like Longstrike Vanguard raptors or Freeguild Handgunners with their overwatch-like abilities, as well as Unleash Hell.
One thing I wonder. Does deepstriking and stuff like that count as a Normal Move?
Thadin wrote: Solid wording on Redeploy. A handy tool that you may need to think about. The wording on it prevents niche cases like Longstrike Vanguard raptors or Freeguild Handgunners with their overwatch-like abilities, as well as Unleash Hell.
One thing I wonder. Does deepstriking and stuff like that count as a Normal Move?
Of course, so they can use Unleash Hell. I plan to make people suffer when they charge in to my Clan Rat screens, with Stormfiends 3.5 inches behind them.
Thadin wrote: Solid wording on Redeploy. A handy tool that you may need to think about. The wording on it prevents niche cases like Longstrike Vanguard raptors or Freeguild Handgunners with their overwatch-like abilities, as well as Unleash Hell.
One thing I wonder. Does deepstriking and stuff like that count as a Normal Move?
Handy tool? Basically ensures any 1 unit won't get better than 50-50 odds of charging. You need 2 units both that can deal with unit alone to have better than 50-50 odds of charging.
Couple with unleash hell...well hopefully people aren't hoping shooting style reduced. Only 2/3 scenarios having all objectives centerline is good news for melee so far.
I am incredulous that people can look at that photo of the old vs new stormcast and explain away the scale creep as 9 degree bent knees... why not just admit they are bigger? Minis are bigger now, so what?
Love the new charge reactions as well. These sort of things just show that slash and burn on WHFB was a poor choice compared to what a tweak would’ve been. Between this and all the Old World characters coming back it just shows that all the pleas that AoS is finding its feet is really just saying its found WHFB’s slippers and is putting them on.
Luke82 wrote: I am incredulous that people can look at that photo of the old vs new stormcast and explain away the scale creep as 9 degree bent knees... why not just admit they are bigger?
You did notice the tactical rubble he's standing on that's boosting his height as well?
Luke82 wrote: I am incredulous that people can look at that photo of the old vs new stormcast and explain away the scale creep as 9 degree bent knees... why not just admit they are bigger? Minis are bigger now, so what?
I’m incredulous that there are people who have yet to realise that when you bend your knees, your head gets nearer the ground.
NAVARRO wrote: Minimum, max sizes can kiss my mushroom pads... so when are we going back to square bases?
Come to Kings of War, we have tactics
Ah yes, the wonderful KoW tactic of leaving for 30 minutes to do laundry and it literally doesn't matter.
Compared to the wonderful tactic of having to be there to roll saves and doubling the length of a match while having zero actual agency like GW had for 90% of its existance.
This comment is going to age well.
Anyways, I like the new reactions. They are strong, but limited by CP (another other limitations inherent to command abilities, if rumors are to be believed). However I note the shooting one vastly favors units with MW shooting who do not care about the hit roll. Lumineth come to mind, as do Skaven.
I can see Ossiarchs getting a big new update semi-soon if it meant pushing out new models for them. Aka like what Slaanesh recently had. They are certainly in a good position for getting a big model line addition and people wanting a new battletome to go with that.
I think the near future holds alot of destruction and new-cast stuff with a sprinkling of chaos (I'm hopeful slaanesh will see the same kind uf support Nurgle has gotten over the past several years, but I won't be surprised if they move onto Khorne quickly. I reckon a lot will.depend on GWs plans for 40k.in regards to Fulgrim and Angron.
His Master's Voice wrote: The queue system allows the site to function during exceptionally high traffic periods. I suppose it doubles up as a mild anti bot solution.
Getting angry about it almost as bizarre as accusing GW of elitism, because they don't want their customers to look at a DDoSed site for a couple hours as everyone hits F5 over and over again.
Again, the idea of queue access isn't new. Other companies that release limited products do it all the time. They put it only on the page of the limited product, or make a separate page for that product. GW just..slapped the thing on the whole website, so people who want to buy 2 pots of paint are forced to wait alongside the scalpers and FOMOboys.
Then you get multi-billion dollar companies like Hasbro that doesn't do it at all when their convention exclusives go online and goes out of stock in the middle of people hitting the "Checkout" button because they also have no way for the system to reserve cart held items.
There's no universal for this sort of thing and companies vastly larger than GW can't figure it out either.
His Master's Voice wrote: The queue system allows the site to function during exceptionally high traffic periods. I suppose it doubles up as a mild anti bot solution.
Getting angry about it almost as bizarre as accusing GW of elitism, because they don't want their customers to look at a DDoSed site for a couple hours as everyone hits F5 over and over again.
Again, the idea of queue access isn't new. Other companies that release limited products do it all the time.
They put it only on the page of the limited product, or make a separate page for that product. GW just..slapped the thing on the whole website, so people who want to buy 2 pots of paint are forced to wait alongside the scalpers and FOMOboys.
Then you get multi-billion dollar companies like Hasbro that doesn't do it at all when their convention exclusives go online and goes out of stock in the middle of people hitting the "Checkout" button because they also have no way for the system to reserve cart held items.
There's no universal for this sort of thing and companies vastly larger than GW can't figure it out either.
WOTC figured it out for their Secret Lair Drops, I'm not sure why that's not implemented across the broader Hasbro stuff.
NAVARRO wrote: Minimum, max sizes can kiss my mushroom pads... so when are we going back to square bases?
Come to Kings of War, we have tactics
Ah yes, the wonderful KoW tactic of leaving for 30 minutes to do laundry and it literally doesn't matter.
Compared to the wonderful tactic of having to be there to roll saves and doubling the length of a match while having zero actual agency like GW had for 90% of its existance.
This comment is going to age well.
Anyways, I like the new reactions. They are strong, but limited by CP (another other limitations inherent to command abilities, if rumors are to be believed). However I note the shooting one vastly favors units with MW shooting who do not care about the hit roll. Lumineth come to mind, as do Skaven.
The reactions wouldn't be necessary if they simply switched to AA. 3.0 looks like the band-aid rule edition.
NAVARRO wrote: Minimum, max sizes can kiss my mushroom pads... so when are we going back to square bases?
Come to Kings of War, we have tactics
Ah yes, the wonderful KoW tactic of leaving for 30 minutes to do laundry and it literally doesn't matter.
Compared to the wonderful tactic of having to be there to roll saves and doubling the length of a match while having zero actual agency like GW had for 90% of its existance.
This comment is going to age well.
Anyways, I like the new reactions. They are strong, but limited by CP (another other limitations inherent to command abilities, if rumors are to be believed). However I note the shooting one vastly favors units with MW shooting who do not care about the hit roll. Lumineth come to mind, as do Skaven.
The reactions wouldn't be necessary if they simply switched to AA. 3.0 looks like the band-aid rule edition.
No. AA is not a magic bullet that fixes everything, it just comes with a different set of issues. But I am willing to be convinced; show me the simple ruleset that converts AoS to AA effectively.
Luke82 wrote: I am incredulous that people can look at that photo of the old vs new stormcast and explain away the scale creep as 9 degree bent knees... why not just admit they are bigger? Minis are bigger now, so what?
I’m incredulous that there are people who have yet to realise that when you bend your knees, your head gets nearer the ground.
I noe reeding iz hard, but I never said that this wasnt the case, I just pointed out that I cant believe some people are trying to explain away the clearly embiggened, full head height difference as being down to a slight bend in the old one’s knees (or the thin layer of gravel under one foot of the new one for that matter).
Some folks just dont want to admit that GW make scale changes, I have no idea why.
NAVARRO wrote: Minimum, max sizes can kiss my mushroom pads... so when are we going back to square bases?
Come to Kings of War, we have tactics
Ah yes, the wonderful KoW tactic of leaving for 30 minutes to do laundry and it literally doesn't matter.
Compared to the wonderful tactic of having to be there to roll saves and doubling the length of a match while having zero actual agency like GW had for 90% of its existance.
This comment is going to age well.
Anyways, I like the new reactions. They are strong, but limited by CP (another other limitations inherent to command abilities, if rumors are to be believed). However I note the shooting one vastly favors units with MW shooting who do not care about the hit roll. Lumineth come to mind, as do Skaven.
I'm sorry did I not use past tense correctly? I'm not a native speaker.
Luke82 wrote: I am incredulous that people can look at that photo of the old vs new stormcast and explain away the scale creep as 9 degree bent knees... why not just admit they are bigger? Minis are bigger now, so what?
I’m incredulous that there are people who have yet to realise that when you bend your knees, your head gets nearer the ground.
I noe reeding iz hard, but I never said that this wasnt the case, I just pointed out that I cant believe some people are trying to explain away the clearly embiggened, full head height difference as being down to a slight bend in the old one’s knees (or the thin layer of gravel under one foot of the new one for that matter).
Some folks just don't want to admit that GW make scale changes, I have no idea why.
I legitimately look at it and do not see a scale increase. We'll have miniatures in-hand soon enough and can do manual comparisons to settle the matter.
I think its clearly gone up in size slightly compared to the old one, not a criticism which i can understand people defending against, just seems clear its bigger... if you cut its head off it would be the same size!
Kilkrazy wrote: Guys, let's discuss the scale politely, okay?
If this was for me, i am sorry if what i wrote came across as rude, was intended to be daft teasing not rude, not always easy to convey in text!
Hm, looking specially at the head I can see it--it looks like his head is higher up on a same-sized body. Looking at it from that perspective I can see it being a case of the armor being smaller while the body underneath is bigger. Now I am particularly excited to do some comparisons myself.
So I'm the geek who measured the two minis. The distance from the belt buckle to the top of the head on both minis is exactly the same. The size of the heads hands and feet are all exactly the same. The difference is all in the thighs. The metal skirt (I'm not the kind of geek who knows the official names for these things) of the new figure stops well above the top of the knee roll. The leather skirt of the liberator (which is exactly the same length as the metal one) comes down well below the knee roll. It really is just the pose that is different and the fact that the spear adds to the impression of hight.
Edit- I added my own pic. As you can see there's a fair bit of height difference even between liberators.
Chikout wrote: So I'm the geek who measured the two minis. The distance from the belt buckle to the top of the head on both minis is exactly the same. The size of the heads hands and feet are all exactly the same. The difference is all in the thighs. The metal skirt (I'm not the kind of geek who knows the official names for these things) of the new figure stops well above the top of the knee roll. The leather skirt of the liberator (which is exactly the same length as the metal one) comes down well below the knee roll. It really is just the pose that is different and the fact that the spear adds to the impression of hight.
It looks like the forearms, waist, and shins are narrower; can you confirm with your tools?
Those changes would definitely help give the impression of greater height.
The collar guard not going up to the ears would also help.
Some folks just dont want to admit that GW make scale changes, I have no idea why.
Had the same argument about this old GW vampire and the new vampire. Had someone tell me it was because I hadn't pressed the new vampire onto his base fully.
With regards to the AoS Marine, the new one looks slightly bigger taking the knee bend of the other into account. What annoys me more than the scale creep is the base size creep. It's getting close with some of the larger models, that I feel we're just pushing dinner plate size diaoramas at each other before rolling dice.
Some folks just dont want to admit that GW make scale changes, I have no idea why.
Had the same argument about this old GW vampire and the new vampire. Had someone tell me it was because I hadn't pressed the new vampire onto his base fully.
With regards to the AoS Marine, the new one looks slightly bigger taking the knee bend of the other into account. What annoys me more than the scale creep is the base size creep. It's getting close with some of the larger models, that I feel we're just pushing dinner plate size diaoramas at each other before rolling dice.
That's taking it to another level. There's no denying that scale creep is happening. Those vampires are particularly huge. I just think in this case, the new Stormcast are designed to be more slender and upright rather than broad and bulky. This particular case is more of a design shift than a scale shift.
I'm sad the new stormcasts are still so big- I was hoping they would actually be trimmed down and a bit shorter, but it saves me any money I might have been spending on them.
(Though I still might pick up a box for conversion possibilities. them being so tall opens up some fun avenues for making the custodes more in-line with the *visions of heresy artwork.)
Carlovonsexron wrote: I think the near future holds alot of destruction and new-cast stuff with a sprinkling of chaos (I'm hopeful slaanesh will see the same kind uf support Nurgle has gotten over the past several years, but I won't be surprised if they move onto Khorne quickly. I reckon a lot will.depend on GWs plans for 40k.in regards to Fulgrim and Angron.
I just hope they reveal more warcry stuff soon.
Doesn't Slaanesh have like 3 times the number of kits nurgle have and twice the number of battletomes now? Or are you asking for less support?
I think the only thing GW needs to do for the Demon armies is add more demons. Most of the AoS updates have thus far focused on leaders and mortal followers whilst updating some of the old demon sculpts to modern designs. I think they are now poised to add some actual demons into the forces. Some new monsters, not just big ones but medium and smaller ones too.
Its amazing to think that after 30 years Slaanesh still only has the fiend, deamonettes and seekers. I'd love to see a flying beast, or a serpent, or a huge hulking thing or such.
Carlovonsexron wrote: I'm sad the new stormcasts are still so big- I was hoping they would actually be trimmed down and a bit shorter, but it saves me any money I might have been spending on them.
(Though I still might pick up a box for conversion possibilities. them being so tall opens up some fun avenues for making the custodes more in-line with the *visions of heresy artwork.)
I don't think shorter Sigmarines were ever going to happen. Not sure where that idea comes from anyway. Our best bet is something stylistically similar for Cities of Sigmar. Sigmarines were introduced as big demigod hero dudes, and that's not going to change.
Carlovonsexron wrote: I think the near future holds alot of destruction and new-cast stuff with a sprinkling of chaos (I'm hopeful slaanesh will see the same kind uf support Nurgle has gotten over the past several years, but I won't be surprised if they move onto Khorne quickly. I reckon a lot will.depend on GWs plans for 40k.in regards to Fulgrim and Angron.
I just hope they reveal more warcry stuff soon.
Doesn't Slaanesh have like 3 times the number of kits nurgle have and twice the number of battletomes now? Or are you asking for less support?
Might just be a question of perception. The focus on Nurgle in 40k and AoS certainly felt like it lasted forever. By contrast Slaanesh got a quick daemon release, and a long ass wait for a quick mortal release accompanied by a lot of complaints when the existence of that release was in doubt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: I think the only thing GW needs to do for the Demon armies is add more demons. Most of the AoS updates have thus far focused on leaders and mortal followers whilst updating some of the old demon sculpts to modern designs. I think they are now poised to add some actual demons into the forces. Some new monsters, not just big ones but medium and smaller ones too.
Its amazing to think that after 30 years Slaanesh still only has the fiend, deamonettes and seekers. I'd love to see a flying beast, or a serpent, or a huge hulking thing or such.
Or all of it combined: the amazing flying schlong monster!
Overread wrote: I think the only thing GW needs to do for the Demon armies is add more demons. Most of the AoS updates have thus far focused on leaders and mortal followers whilst updating some of the old demon sculpts to modern designs. I think they are now poised to add some actual demons into the forces. Some new monsters, not just big ones but medium and smaller ones too.
Its amazing to think that after 30 years Slaanesh still only has the fiend, deamonettes and seekers. I'd love to see a flying beast, or a serpent, or a huge hulking thing or such.
Keep the mortal train going as far as I'm concerned! Chaos mortals are by far the most versatile minis GW makes, both for in setting conversions (keeping them chaos or shift thing them over to order) but are typically the best minis to use in other games. Be those games other war games or things like RPG's.
Sasori wrote: OBR article isn't really helpful. They are either going to need a brand new book or a major FAQ to get them to work with 3rd.
For what? Cp thing? That was already cp separate and frankly just cp+1. Only thing missing was reroll charges. Beside that they were just better and you had more.
At least now they won't be just superior cp and more of them. You have more but there's more stuff you can"t use them for. Still have several benefits they have over cp as well and gained new ones as well
Sasori wrote: OBR article isn't really helpful. They are either going to need a brand new book or a major FAQ to get them to work with 3rd.
For what? Cp thing? That was already cp separate and frankly just cp+1. Only thing missing was reroll charges. Beside that they were just better and you had more.
At least now they won't be just superior cp and more of them. You have more but there's more stuff you can"t use them for. Still have several benefits they have over cp as well and gained new ones as well
Relentless Discipline is completely divulged from CP, so I don't think that's what he was referring to.
I think Slaanesh is done for a while, at least until a new battletome comes some years in the future. Specially with the Dexcessa/Synessa release (effectively "Daemon Princes of Slaanesh").
But I stil theorize about 40k daemon releases expanding the Daemonettes (there are some redesigned Daemonettes depicted in art wielding weird weapons and spiky armor). Specially the finecast herald (depicted as a 4 arms Daemonette with a staff in the art).
There are some things we know can be future releases. Exalted Seekers (Daemonettes in the new seeker as a way to slowly remove old seekers and Hellstriders from the game) Chariots pulled by the Exalted Seekers. The comeback of the Lord on Boobsnake (Sigvald did the same of turning into a generic chaos lord until he finally came back resculpted) to fix the lack of a mounted mortal lord in the whole army.
The two heroes are the most probable (Viceleader and Booblord) and they would fit duel boxes well.
Have to say after 2 big updates I was surprised GW kept the finecast Herald for Slaanesh. I'd have thought they've have pulled it and if not replaced it just removed it.
Then again perhaps they are sitting on a mountain of stock that they are waiting to shift (whilst customers are waiting for a new version and not buying them?).
I'd certainly welcome deamonettes riding the new sized seekers
Darn those are tempting. I mean I'm still not after the set (I only want the rule book much as I love the designs of both forces), but darn shiny coins!
Ohoho looks quite interesting! I am particularly invested in PtG because of my Road to Renown project so looking to how I can accommodate the new edition has me both excited and anxious. They were very tantalizing with those details, certain factors needed to fill in the blanks are not included which makes me all the more hungry for additional reveals. Probably the point.
His Master's Voice wrote: The queue system allows the site to function during exceptionally high traffic periods. I suppose it doubles up as a mild anti bot solution.
Getting angry about it almost as bizarre as accusing GW of elitism, because they don't want their customers to look at a DDoSed site for a couple hours as everyone hits F5 over and over again.
Except it is a ridiculous system and I'm not surprised people are angry.
Firstly, the end result is the same for the end user. Stuck in a queue or banjaxed website both have the same result- user can't get into the store and buy anything. Expect sitting in a queue is psychologically a more positive customer experience than seeing a broken webpage, even though the result is identical. Using Queue also pushes the blame on the customer base. A broken web page is GWs fault. Sitting in a long queue people just seems like the product/hobby is popular or being filled with Bots. It shifts blame from GW when all they have done is put a band aid over the real issue- their preorder system is archaic and releasing pre-orders on Saturday when head office is all but shut is ridiculous. Their webstore isn't fit for purpose.
Secondly queue is massively exploitable as it use cookies to log the time a user joins the queue and not by GW account/IP address etc. According to one post in the black library group on facebook, a user joins the store queue prior to 10am and their position in the queue is randomised. Then from 10am onwards, they join the back of the queue in order. I couldn't confirm the randomisation part, as by the time I'd gone back to the page the pre order rush was over with and the store was back to normal. But random positions or not, Queue is still exploitable and all GW have done is encourage more traffic to the site meaning longer wait times.
Queue gives the user a unique ID at the bottom of the page. Only, each Queue ID is only unique to each browser. You can join the queue twice for each browser you have installed- Once in your normal browser and once in a private browsing window. If you have three browsers installed you now have 6 spots you can 'reserve' in the queue. Opening the store in multiple browsers is how most basic scalpers grab so much stock. But now you have 'regular' folk also opening multiple sessions.
If the Queue is randomised, by joining multiple times you increase your chance of getting an early position. If the queue is using the back of the line system, its still exploitable as it was stated that if you spend more than 10 mins in the store once you are in you will be returned to the queue. So, opening up multiple spots means that if you spend too long and one session is booted out, your next window should be the next in line to access the store. Your items will still be in your cart meaning you can continue where you left off.
There are a couple of other tricks that people use to make this even more efficient, but I'm not sharing them here.
No fancy tools or software needed. No VPN. No Bots or scripts. GW have hyped this set massively, told everyone in the stream to buy it quick before it sells out and then invited the biggest amount of traffic they have ever seen to their webpage that can't handle the regular weekly traffic.
On a personal level, I'm done. My group are still play 1st Ed anyway. I was looking forward to this set, I'd have brought into a lot more of the new orcs had I gotten it but I'm not fighting to get into the store to buy a game. Its a hobby, not a chore. I'm certainly not going to buy the set piecemeal in two weeks time at the huge increase in price. If people think sitting in a virtual queue for an hour and given a 10 min 'RUSH BUY IT QUICK' is an acceptable alternative to 'WEBSTORE BROKE' then fine. But its not for me, I've better things to do this weekend.
Warhammer Age of Sigmar Core Book A new edition launch box wouldn’t be complete without a mighty tome full of rules, background lore, and spectacular art. The 360-page hardback Warhammer Age of Sigmar Core Book is a thing of beauty. It includes all of the information you need to get started in the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar, complete with a monstrous background section that brings you right up to speed with all the latest developments in the aftermath of the Broken Realms saga.
The Core Book also includes rules for fighting open play battles, and a section dedicated to the detailed Path to Glory system that lets you grow your forces across progressive narrative campaigns. For competitive play, there’s a matched play Battlepack comprising a set of balanced battleplans.
Including pictures of all warscrolls, high-res sprue pictures, and scale comparisons for old and new Stormcast Eternals, and Kruleboyz, Hobgobs and older Orruk models.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Must say, i am quite tired of everything GW makes always being the bestest, greatest-est ever-est thing EVER by now.
Well that's just marketing. The new iPhone is the best ever; the new Graphics card is the bestever, the new car - heck even a new formula for a food product is the best ever. It's just marketing.
Indeed. I’d love an example of a new product that was marketed as “well it’s kinda the same as the last one” or “not as good as what it’s replacing” because i cannot think of a single example.
I can think of lots of products that were actually inferior, but they certainly weren’t sold as if that were the case :-p
As someone who habitually skipped over PtG stuff in battletomes, and was kind of annoyed with it tbh, I’m very much intrigued by this new system. Our boy Bottle didgood.
Warscroll battalions confirmed dead in matched play
Also in bit of a surprise objective control area unchanged. And in a change you determine objective control after deployment so he who goes first no need to leave anybody to objective.
It will be interesting to see how closely new scenery releases will match 40k release. In 40k, we had
-Board pack released alongside Indomitus
-Command Edition featuring board (with printed deplyment zones ) and Vertigus scenery
-scenery from Command Edition bundled with board pack as Command Edition expansion
-Battlezone Vertigus with boards, Command Edition scenery and a terrain piece unique to this set
I'm happy that I skipped the board pack because Command Edition expansion was a better deal. Had I known better, I would have waited month and a half for Battlezone: Vertigus though. Release schedule was brilliant from GW point of view as they didn't reveal the better bundles until the previous had been on sale for a while.
unsurprisingly my online supplier has been warned that this is limited and he may not get all he wants so to get his pre-orders in as soon as he can
so if your planning to get it from an FLGS/Online supplier get your expression of interest/holding deposit in ASAP, to maximise the chance they can actually get it for you
I watched the Goobertown Hobbies "Unboxings are stupid" unboxing video.
At the end he said to expect a bunch of other unboxings on the embargo day, maybe some in-depth reviews, and somehow Ash will have a battle report with painted minis from the box.
Lo and behold, Ash has painted minis and a battle report. Guy must be the fastest painter in the world.
Binabik15 wrote: My LGS had a preorder list before the preorder with GW went up for Indomitus, I send them an email today if they're doing the same for Dominon.
Likewise. My FLGS has been having people place their orders for new releases with him on the Wednesday before they go on pre-order.
I already have two AoS armies, so the Dominion box doesn't appeal to me (besides the collectors rulebook), but I am definitely ordering the Generals Handbook, Rulebook, and maybe a couple sheets of the gaming boards this weekend.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: unsurprisingly my online supplier has been warned that this is limited and he may not get all he wants so to get his pre-orders in as soon as he can
so if your planning to get it from an FLGS/Online supplier get your expression of interest/holding deposit in ASAP, to maximise the chance they can actually get it for you
Well gw confirmed that long time ago. As such sorted it out long time ago.
I put my Dominion order in with the flgs two weeks ago. I always tells the locals to put in preorders for stuff they know they want the minute they know it’s a thing that exists.
I have the First and Second edition Starter Box set so I should get this one...but technically its not a Starter Set. The Starter set should come out later like it did for 40k.
Ghaz wrote: It's not a download. Fill out the short form and they'll email you the rules.
Yeah, what's with that?
Either it's done because it's a big document (76mb) or as a way for them to gauge interest in Dominion. It's most likely because of something else I haven't thought of...
Ghaz wrote: It's not a download. Fill out the short form and they'll email you the rules.
Yeah, what's with that?
The survey is basically "First name, language, country and email" because basically its a sign up to their newsletter. That part is optional, but the system is designed to get your email signed up to GW's newsletter so that they can send marketing to you like "here buy shiny models".
So for most on Dakka its either pointless (we already hound the WC page more than once a day) or we are already signed up from previous pushes.
Its an interesting ruleset. Only part way through, but the writing style is a little tedious.
I'm sure the code of conduct will get some flak, but I'm mostly amused that technically speaking, according to the battlefield rules (section 2.0), only AoS brand terrain counts as terrain. Everything else (including 40k trees or ruins) is open ground.
Biggest complaint is this really needs a mobile friendly version. The doc is a memory hog.
As the WarCom site is currently giving me 503 error, I think it was in an attempt to not crash the server having every man and his dog downloading the rules at once. Seems they forgot that every man and his dog would go on to fill out the form instead.....
I've managed to get through the rules, can't seem to find anything detailing exactly what Commander and Sub-Commander mean exactly, anyone else noticed it and I've just missed it?
warl0rdb0b wrote: I've managed to get through the rules, can't seem to find anything detailing exactly what Commander and Sub-Commander mean exactly, anyone else noticed it and I've just missed it?
Commander: Leader
Sub-commander:Leader with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10
warl0rdb0b wrote: I've managed to get through the rules, can't seem to find anything detailing exactly what Commander and Sub-Commander mean exactly, anyone else noticed it and I've just missed it?
Page 33, where they're explaining the Unit Icons. They're sub-types of the 'Leader' battlefield role.
Ah, I thought I was missing a bit more detail somewhere. I guess it just stops you from using the battalions if you've spammed monster rider Heroes, not a bad move to help keep the balance there.
One thing I did notice,is they have really trimmed back the command point generation this edition, you're really going to have to think hard on what to use and when. Really sensible decision all round.
warl0rdb0b wrote: Ah, I thought I was missing a bit more detail somewhere. I guess it just stops you from using the battalions if you've spammed monster rider Heroes, not a bad move to help keep the balance there.
In some armies players would rather take the least expensive heroes because the heroes in that army are a bit lackluster. This gives you a fluffy balance.
lord_blackfang wrote: 76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.
(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")
No but seriously. You're complaining about the FULL AoS rules for free. Really??
Seriously, I should your computer overtaxed where you just can’t fit 76MB onto it? They have it in multiple languages and free to download. I haven’t read it yet, but downloaded and printed it out for later. Plus full page Artwork that I’ll print and laminate for the wall.
GW may be terrible with some stuff (Pricing), but this is free .
Voss wrote: I'm sure the code of conduct will get some flak, but I'm mostly amused that technically speaking, according to the battlefield rules (section 2.0), only AoS brand terrain counts as terrain. Everything else (including 40k trees or ruins) is open ground.
Am I reading this right as to mean 3rd ed doesn't have real terrain rules and just specific rules for specific GW models?
Picked up the core rules download, pretty cool to have the actual rules for free rather than the truncated version we got for 40k. I'm definitely liking what I am seeing and the new Path for Glory sounds really fun after watching a few reviews.
I'm kind of tempted to expand my Warcry set up with another ravaged lands set to have a table for small AoS games. I have probably 1000 points of Slaves to Darkness just hanging out. Not sure if I will go in on it though, as my LGS generally plays 2k and I have no real interest in playing that large of a game.
lord_blackfang wrote: 76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.
(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")
This is the weirdest complaint ever. Not also sure how incompetence plays any part in this these are high detail pages that seem intended for user printing.
I am personally super happy that I am getting a high res copy of the rules.
I wonder how Bonereapers are going to interact with the new Battalions? As it is, they gain no benefit at all from fully half of them, as they cannot use command points or abilities. Though they are quite hero heavy army, so could certainly benefit from including the other ones for extra enhancements and the one drop.
Voss wrote: I'm sure the code of conduct will get some flak, but I'm mostly amused that technically speaking, according to the battlefield rules (section 2.0), only AoS brand terrain counts as terrain. Everything else (including 40k trees or ruins) is open ground.
Am I reading this right as to mean 3rd ed doesn't have real terrain rules and just specific rules for specific GW models?
Nope. Haven't gotten that far yet. Just that the 'setting up the battlefield' section, states that terrain on the battlefield is represented by terrain from AoS range. Then it says 'These are terrain features, the rest of the battlefield is open ground.'
Also see 17.0 and 28.2.3, which I haven't gotten to yet. The upshot is, old editions used to be vague about terrain because they didn't know what dyi or other terrain players would be using. This edition is only concerned with AoS brand products. Though the battlefield can be a table or even the floor, no reference to mats or whatever yet. Though the 'battle packs' will dictate the size of the battlefield.
lord_blackfang wrote: 76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.
(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")
ALL of that is their high quality images.
Spoiler:
Where's the incompetency? I guess they could've made it black & white and all text?
I have here Gamma Wolves, a 113 page full color print quality pdf with art and full page backgrounds that's 12 megs but okay, GW is never expected to meet the same standards as some dude writing a game in his basement.
lord_blackfang wrote: 76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.
(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")
ALL of that is their high quality images.
Spoiler:
Where's the incompetency? I guess they could've made it black & white and all text?
I have here Gamma Wolves, a 113 page full color print quality pdf with art and full page backgrounds that's 12 megs but okay, GW is never expected to meet the same standards as some dude writing a game in his basement.
It must be terrible the taxes you pay on MB usage where you live. I have seen the actual Gamma Wolves book and the artwork does not compete
lord_blackfang wrote: 76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.
(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")
ALL of that is their high quality images.
Spoiler:
Where's the incompetency? I guess they could've made it black & white and all text?
I have here Gamma Wolves, a 113 page full color print quality pdf with art and full page backgrounds that's 12 megs but okay, GW is never expected to meet the same standards as some dude writing a game in his basement.
What are you even arguing here? That GW is somehow purposefully inflating file sizes of images?
lord_blackfang wrote: 76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.
(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")
ALL of that is their high quality images.
Spoiler:
Where's the incompetency? I guess they could've made it black & white and all text?
I have here Gamma Wolves, a 113 page full color print quality pdf with art and full page backgrounds that's 12 megs but okay, GW is never expected to meet the same standards as some dude writing a game in his basement.
You get the rules for free and still complain about "incompetence", have you ever considered playing something else because that is next level hyperbole or trolling.
Rihgu wrote: What are you even arguing here? That GW is somehow purposefully inflating file sizes of images?
That maybe 1200dpi is unnecessary in a pdf. A couple of posts up the filesize was used as an excuse for the pdf to not be a direct download so if that's correct, maybe I'm arguing that the slovenliness of their layout guy is causing hassle to literally everyone wanting the pdf.
It's big because these are high quality scans - heck they are higher quality than many digital comics! I've just blown the front cover up to 300% and it still looks darn good.
I'll be able to go over the rules once I'm off work. But so far I'm really happy I bought the Blasted Hallowheart boxed set last year. Seems I have a perfect sized game mat ready to go.
Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.
Frankly, what needs to happen is "Matched Play" gets defined as "Organized, Tournament Play".
Because that's what it's really talking about anyways.
Let the rest of us actually have fun and the tryhards can stay in "Matched Play".
Yeah, you if we can divide it up kn to 'good at the game' mayched play and 'people who whine about tryhards' matched play, that would probably be best.
Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.
Frankly, what needs to happen is "Matched Play" gets defined as "Organized, Tournament Play".
Because that's what it's really talking about anyways.
Let the rest of us actually have fun and the tryhards can stay in "Matched Play".
Pretty much is isnt it (bar the tryhards bit), seems the default for pickups.
Play wise though I am most excited for the new campaign system, sounds like great fun with a like minded group and reminds me of the campaigns of old.
Play wise though I am most excited for the new campaign system, sounds like great fun with a like minded group and reminds me of the campaigns of old.
I honestly am surprised by the new AoS narrative play, indeed they feel like improved Crusade mode from 40k. And I totally dig the "conquer territories and build your stronghold" mechanism.
Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.
Frankly, what needs to happen is "Matched Play" gets defined as "Organized, Tournament Play".
Because that's what it's really talking about anyways.
Let the rest of us actually have fun and the tryhards can stay in "Matched Play".
Pretty much is isnt it (bar the tryhards bit), seems the default for pickups.
To be fair, it being the "default for pickups" is linked to the nonsensical trash that still gets perpetuated to this day that things like Open Play automatically mean hundreds of Nagashes or Archaons or that Power isn't a "real" balancing system, etc. GW's games have been the only spot where I've seen the "hottakes" from places like 4chan, FLG, or BoLS circulate in the communities in the real world.
One of the few reasons I would like to see GW open up an "official forum" again or start having an easily searchable reference for people via Warhammer Community is that it would be nice to see people get exposed to actual info before memetastic goons get to them.
Play wise though I am most excited for the new campaign system, sounds like great fun with a like minded group and reminds me of the campaigns of old.
I'm torn on Path to Glory personally. I like the concept but I'm concerned about the "territories" bit.
Hopefully the book versions of things will expand it further.
ingtaer wrote: Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?
Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.
Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.
In the same boat with my Fyreslayers. Losing Lords of the Lodge is a blow, but I'm not despairing until I see all options.
Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.
Do we think this could be the classic GW trick. Where warscroll battalions aren't allowed in matched play, but that new AOS 3.0 battle tomes will have scrollwar battalions in them that can be used in matched play? Similar to vigilus detachments in 9th edition 40k being obsoleted to be replaced with armies of reknown and supplements.
ingtaer wrote: Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?
Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.
Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.
In the same boat with my Fyreslayers. Losing Lords of the Lodge is a blow, but I'm not despairing until I see all options.
Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.
Do we think this could be the classic GW trick. Where warscroll battalions aren't allowed in matched play, but that new AOS 3.0 battle tomes will have scrollwar battalions in them that can be used in matched play? Similar to vigilus detachments in 9th edition 40k being obsoleted to be replaced with armies of reknown and supplements.
No. Warscroll Battalions will be relegated to Narrative Play and I would find it unlikely to see new Core Battalions in the battletomes (although it is possible). And you do know that 40K has had supplements as far back as 3rd edition?
Anyways, having read the new rules they do look like an improvement. The new layout is certainly nice. I can see some rough edges where the FAQ will be needed for clarification, but my biggest criticism (other than random initiative) is in balance of certain core options which is relatively superficial. While I do not like the cap on hit/wound penalties I can also see that they have taken it into account in other areas of the rules rather than just slapping it on as a band-aid, which helps a lot. A lot of things getting terms that really needed them, like wards, and standardized mechanics do a great job of 'cleaning up' the ruleset and making it more practical to use. I am quite happy with the rules update overall.
Anyways, having read the new rules they do look like an improvement. The new layout is certainly nice. I can see some rough edges where the FAQ will be needed for clarification, but my biggest criticism (other than random initiative) is in balance of certain core options which is relatively superficial. While I do not like the cap on hit/wound penalties I can also see that they have taken it into account in other areas of the rules rather than just slapping it on as a band-aid, which helps a lot. A lot of things getting terms that really needed them, like wards, and standardized mechanics do a great job of 'cleaning up' the ruleset and making it more practical to use. I am quite happy with the rules update overall.
I wonder if those "rough edges" will be in a "rare rules" section like 40k did for 9th.
Kanluwen wrote: Frankly, what needs to happen is "Matched Play" gets defined as "Organized, Tournament Play".
Because that's what it's really talking about anyways.
Let the rest of us actually have fun and the tryhards can stay in "Matched Play".
Matched Play is how most people play the game. Just because you don't like tournaments and have a massive axe to grind with them doesn't mean that the main method of playing the game should be renamed.
Billicus wrote: The code of conduct page is incredibly patronizing
Considering that there are people on this site don't see it as unsporting to not remind their opponent when they forgot something, it probably should be more patronizing.
GrosseSax wrote: Anybody got the skinny on the Mawtribes content from White Dwarf?
I only had a chance to give it a quick look over earlier but it just seemed to be stats for a named Tyrant and a named kraken-eater mega gargant. Couldn’t see any point values for either so just intended to be used with the provided narrative scenarios. The scenario involving the kraken-eater character required 4 kraken-eaters (character + 3 others) so an expensive scenario to run.
There is also a rule section on how to make your own Ogre or Kraken-Eater Mega Tyrant heroes which appears to be the rules they used to make the two names characters.
The weird thing about the bit about unpainted or proxy models is - ok, so what if they say no? It's not like you're asking permission to use unpainted miniatures or proxies but you have a painted set of real miniatures sitting there to use in case they say no.
So it really just comes down to "don't force someone to play with you who doesn't want to play with you" which is like - um, ok?
My issue with that page is the "ask permission to use unpainted models".
And proxies.
Also, it's being polite to ask your opponent if it doesn't bother him if you do so. Most of the time, when you ask politely, your opponent will allow it.
No reason to be afraid, it's just a code. It's not mandatory...well, maybe unless you go in an official GW tournament.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The weird thing about the bit about unpainted or proxy models is - ok, so what if they say no?
Well you keep chatting with your opponent and find a solution together. It's called "communication".
Besides, the code isn't a mandatory rule itself. It's just a code. The spirit of the game, if you will.
It would be especially silly in a tournament setting to show up to a game and then have to ask your opponent for permission to use your unpainted models, with the consequence for them saying "no" being that they automatically win because you have no army left.
yukishiro1 wrote: It would be especially silly in a tournament setting to show up to a game and then have to ask your opponent for permission to use your unpainted models, with the consequence for them saying "no" being that they automatically win because you have no army left.
Most major/large tournaments (ergo the kind where its not just the regular local club members) mandate that models be painted already under their own rules. So you'd already have forfeited the tournament before you'd get to the table.
Well, obviously. Thus illustrating why a "leave it up to your opponent when you get to the game store whether they agree to play you" seems like an odd thing to put in a code of conduct. Isn't that inherently obvious that you can't force someone to play against you if they don't want to?
It seems to basically just amount to a finger-waggling at people who aren't doing the hobby the way GW wants them to.
I say this as someone who scrupulously paints every model and would never play with unpainted stuff, BTW - and who doesn't particularly like to play unpainted armies. But that's something I can handle on my own, I don't need GW to stick it into a code of conduct. I think it was a bad thing to include in what is otherwise an unobjectionable document, all it does is upset people, much like the 10VP thing in 40k.
Sarouan wrote: No reason to be afraid, it's just a code.
Who said anything about being afraid?
You lot have got a real knack for jumping to conclusions...
Well, you talk about having an issue with it, even though it's just a code and you don't have to follow part or all of it if you don't want to. I assume you are somewhat afraid of it being hypothetically used against you. Even though it may never happen.
Besides, if it's just one line...I think it's a bit of an overreaction to complain about it.
Most tournaments do indeed have rules about painted models / armies, anyway. And if they want to use the code...they will clearly announce it in their rules, like the other rules tournaments always show for its participants before they apply for it.
JohnnyHell wrote: And HBMC having an issue with one page that says “be kind”… well…
And it's Johnny from the top rope, coming in to jump to conclusions.
My issue with that page is the "ask permission to use unpainted models".
Would you prefer the 40K rules for unpainted models in the 'Chapter Approved - Grand Tournament 2020 Mission Pack'?
When you play a Grand Tournament game, there are 10 victory points available if every model in your army is painted to a Battle Ready standard. Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base.
I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Ghaz wrote: Would you prefer the 40K rules for unpainted models in the 'Chapter Approved - Grand Tournament 2020 Mission Pack'?
When you play a Grand Tournament game, there are 10 victory points available if every model in your army is painted to a Battle Ready standard. Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Not blaming luck is another weird thing to put in there. I mean yes, on the one hand, it's tiresome to come across the guy who tries to say every time he doesn't roflstomp you it's only because he's rolling badly. But blaming bad luck is a classic way people defuse tense situations. Including it seems like a case of defensiveness on the part of the developers - "no, it's your own fault you lost, not ours!"
"Never blame the dice" is useful as a rule of thumb for improving one's own play, but I really don't think it belongs in a code of conduct designed to produce pleasant games - if anything, telling people they can't let off steam by blaming the dice gods seems likely to increase the odds of unpleasantness, not decrease them.
What happens if the Warlord is in BTB and decides to use this ability and then rolls a total of "2"?
With wording of "must finish the move more than 3" from enemy units", does this mean if you can't end up more than 3" away nothing happens and you don't move at all?
What happens if the Warlord is in BTB and decides to use this ability and then rolls a total of "2"?
With wording of "must finish the move more than 3" from enemy units", does this mean if you can't end up more than 3" away nothing happens and you don't move at all?
Exactly. It would also apply if there are lots of enemy units nearby such that even if you got two 6s (12 inches movement), you'd still never be able to move outside of being 3 inches from enemy models.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Or you can not overextending and stop blaming the double turn when your alpha strike list dies due to bad positioning on the double turn?
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Or you can not overextending and stop blaming the double turn when your alpha strike list dies due to bad positioning on the double turn?
I love that this argument happens in every AoS thread. I guess it's intuitive that each time somebody brings up this refuted point that they must not have seen any of the other threads on the subject.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Or you can not overextending and stop blaming the double turn when your alpha strike list dies due to bad positioning on the double turn?
I love that this argument happens in every AoS thread. I guess it's intuitive that each time somebody brings up this refuted point that they must not have seen any of the other threads on the subject.
Unfortunately, with a flaw as crippling as this around it's neck, there's not really any way around it being brought up over and over other than to actually solve it.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Or you can not overextending and stop blaming the double turn when your alpha strike list dies due to bad positioning on the double turn?
I love that this argument happens in every AoS thread. I guess it's intuitive that each time somebody brings up this refuted point that they must not have seen any of the other threads on the subject.
I mean with an argument that shallow (largely made by people who don't actually play AoS but hate the double turn) does it need a textbook to be refuted?
I mean, it sure would be nice if anybody said anything more than "you got caught overextended" to argue for the double turn. I guess the other common "argument" is "without it, you'd just compare lists and know the winner!"
Both of which are far more shallow than like, the fact that a truly good player knows that the best play is to ignore the double turn because to play around the double turn would put them at a disadvantage. If you're truly positioned to make a double turn ineffective against you... they just let you take priority... and then you scramble to make up lost ground... and oh wow, you're in the same position you just tried to avoid! lmao
Rihgu wrote: I mean, it sure would be nice if anybody said anything more than "you got caught overextended" to argue for the double turn. I guess the other common "argument" is "without it, you'd just compare lists and know the winner!"
Both of which are far more shallow than like, the fact that a truly good player knows that the best play is to ignore the double turn because to play around the double turn would put them at a disadvantage. If you're truly positioned to make a double turn ineffective against you... they just let you take priority... and then you scramble to make up lost ground... and oh wow, you're in the same position you just tried to avoid! lmao
No no, you see:
Git gud.
That'll cancel the impact of an entire army acting unopposed at double speed, right?
Sincerely, if there's more argument to it than that, I've yet to hear it. Bonus points for ignoring that it also feels gakky to win because you got to go second and third in a match and your opponent had an uphill struggle from there.
Rihgu wrote: I mean, it sure would be nice if anybody said anything more than "you got caught overextended" to argue for the double turn. I guess the other common "argument" is "without it, you'd just compare lists and know the winner!"
Both of which are far more shallow than like, the fact that a truly good player knows that the best play is to ignore the double turn because to play around the double turn would put them at a disadvantage. If you're truly positioned to make a double turn ineffective against you... they just let you take priority... and then you scramble to make up lost ground... and oh wow, you're in the same position you just tried to avoid! lmao
Ah yes, because every army has the same movement characteristics, same abilities to outflank or teleport or summon abilities. The long and short of it is you play to your strengths, try to capitalize on their weaknesses and play the mission (which is usually objective base, not killing based).
But go on and act like a shallow argument about it being a "flaw" should be given more than a shallow answer. Maybe you come up with a better argument and then people will come up with a better answer.
Seriously, "I don't like this" is not an argument, it's opinion. Calling it a "flaw" with no specifics doesn't give anything for people to argue specifics against so we're only going to take a shallow defense against a shallow (and opinion based) argument. No reason wasted getting dug in on defense against someone not committing to the "attack".
It works more or less ok in a game that's built around alternating combat activations.
It's kinda junk when ranged damage is becoming a bigger and bigger part of the game. The win rate for a ranged army that goes second and then gets the double is like upwards of 80%, and that's really not very healthy.
And the thing that makes it junkiest of all is the lower drop player being guaranteed choice of whether to go first or second. That's a big part of what creates the problem honestly, without that people would have to actually plan for all scenarios instead of just setting up to abuse a double turn if they get it.
Rihgu wrote: I mean, it sure would be nice if anybody said anything more than "you got caught overextended" to argue for the double turn. I guess the other common "argument" is "without it, you'd just compare lists and know the winner!"
Both of which are far more shallow than like, the fact that a truly good player knows that the best play is to ignore the double turn because to play around the double turn would put them at a disadvantage. If you're truly positioned to make a double turn ineffective against you... they just let you take priority... and then you scramble to make up lost ground... and oh wow, you're in the same position you just tried to avoid! lmao
Ah yes, because every army has the same movement characteristics, same abilities to outflank or teleport or summon abilities. The long and short of it is you play to your strengths, try to capitalize on their weaknesses and play the mission (which is usually objective base, not killing based).
But go on and act like a shallow argument about it being a "flaw" should be given more than a shallow answer. Maybe you come up with a better argument and then people will come up with a better answer.
Seriously, "I don't like this" is not an argument, it's opinion. Calling it a "flaw" with no specifics doesn't give anything for people to argue specifics against so we're only going to take a shallow defense against a shallow (and opinion based) argument. No reason wasted getting dug in on defense against someone not committing to the "attack".
No offense but... This feels like major projection? You've had six years to get used to people pointing out something so blindingly obvious it's been criticized since the 4-page pamphlet came out. It really doesn't take a lot to point out that, when operating an entire army in one go with the opposing side taking casualties without being able to retaliate, action economy favours the player with initiative, and therefore far more favours the guy with doubled action economy. And no, "playing to the mission" doesn't fix that, because the double turn recipient also gets two turns to act on the mission and losing resources hampers your ability to maintain the board control necessary to focus on missions.
Something being obvious and easy to explain doesn't make it shallow. You can't really ward away a core criticism by going "No, it's good and people just say it's bad a lot which makes them saying that shallow and petty!"
Let's be entirely clear here, we're not just saying you haven't managed to mount a defence, we're saying the closest thing to a defence in six years is "git gud", and frankly: Even if I were to feel bad about beating a dead horse, this is the third edition in a row with the same fundamentally broken mechanic. I don't blame the original four page pamphlet for it because that was ultimately Kirby's last dying-breath attempt to sink the company through raw incompetence before his replacement, but goddamn: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
ingtaer wrote: Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?
Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.
Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.
In the same boat with my Fyreslayers. Losing Lords of the Lodge is a blow, but I'm not despairing until I see all options.
Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.
Do we think this could be the classic GW trick. Where warscroll battalions aren't allowed in matched play, but that new AOS 3.0 battle tomes will have scrollwar battalions in them that can be used in matched play? Similar to vigilus detachments in 9th edition 40k being obsoleted to be replaced with armies of reknown and supplements.
No. Warscroll Battalions will be relegated to Narrative Play and I would find it unlikely to see new Core Battalions in the battletomes (although it is possible). And you do know that 40K has had supplements as far back as 3rd edition?
Yes but his point is something similar to banned came in 9e. So while battalions might be out some new way to get free bonuses could appear.
Rihgu wrote: I mean, it sure would be nice if anybody said anything more than "you got caught overextended" to argue for the double turn. I guess the other common "argument" is "without it, you'd just compare lists and know the winner!"
Both of which are far more shallow than like, the fact that a truly good player knows that the best play is to ignore the double turn because to play around the double turn would put them at a disadvantage. If you're truly positioned to make a double turn ineffective against you... they just let you take priority... and then you scramble to make up lost ground... and oh wow, you're in the same position you just tried to avoid! lmao
Ah yes, because every army has the same movement characteristics, same abilities to outflank or teleport or summon abilities. The long and short of it is you play to your strengths, try to capitalize on their weaknesses and play the mission (which is usually objective base, not killing based).
But go on and act like a shallow argument about it being a "flaw" should be given more than a shallow answer. Maybe you come up with a better argument and then people will come up with a better answer.
Seriously, "I don't like this" is not an argument, it's opinion. Calling it a "flaw" with no specifics doesn't give anything for people to argue specifics against so we're only going to take a shallow defense against a shallow (and opinion based) argument. No reason wasted getting dug in on defense against someone not committing to the "attack".
No offense but... This feels like major projection? You've had six years to get used to people pointing out something so blindingly obvious it's been criticized since the 4-page pamphlet came out. It really doesn't take a lot to point out that, when operating an entire army in one go with the opposing side taking casualties without being able to retaliate, action economy favours the player with initiative, and therefore far more favours the guy with doubled action economy. And no, "playing to the mission" doesn't fix that, because the double turn recipient also gets two turns to act on the mission and losing resources hampers your ability to maintain the board control necessary to focus on missions.
Something being obvious and easy to explain doesn't make it shallow. You can't really ward away a core criticism by going "No, it's good and people just say it's bad a lot which makes them saying that shallow and petty!"
Let's be entirely clear here, we're not just saying you haven't managed to mount a defence, we're saying the closest thing to a defence in six years is "git gud", and frankly: Even if I were to feel bad about beating a dead horse, this is the third edition in a row with the same fundamentally broken mechanic. I don't blame the original four page pamphlet for it because that was ultimately Kirby's last dying-breath attempt to sink the company through raw incompetence before his replacement, but goddamn: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
Honestly I only really hear this complaints from people who don't play AoS or outside of major AoS communities. But go on pretending most of the AoS community hates the double turn. Either way I'm not going to keep feeding your need for attention because you clearly don't have an argument based on any objective facts, just an opinion and nothing will fix that.
ingtaer wrote: Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?
Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.
Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.
In the same boat with my Fyreslayers. Losing Lords of the Lodge is a blow, but I'm not despairing until I see all options.
Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.
Do we think this could be the classic GW trick. Where warscroll battalions aren't allowed in matched play, but that new AOS 3.0 battle tomes will have scrollwar battalions in them that can be used in matched play? Similar to vigilus detachments in 9th edition 40k being obsoleted to be replaced with armies of reknown and supplements.
No. Warscroll Battalions will be relegated to Narrative Play and I would find it unlikely to see new Core Battalions in the battletomes (although it is possible). And you do know that 40K has had supplements as far back as 3rd edition?
Yes but his point is something similar to banned came in 9e. So while battalions might be out some new way to get free bonuses could appear.
Gw being gw even likeiy.
Core Battalions are the way to get free bonuses. It's just now everyone has the same exact bonuses to choose from.
I have slowly realized that the 'you can compensate for the double by being skilled' is coming from people who lose after getting it. It is an excuse, saying that 'oh my opponent pulled out a super top notch strategy' and externalizing the cause. The reality is that they get the double then screw up so hard they aren't able to win.
An actual skilled player with an early double will not leave the opponent room to come back from it, bar luck (that generally involves them getting a double themselves) or context-driven imbalance. In the end it is the opposite of what they say; if you lose to a double that means little. If you lose after getting it more often than not it is on you. You weren't skilled enough to guarantee victory using the double.
I know I am being a bit hostile here, but I am real sick of people responding to legitimate criticism with comments that amount to 'you suck (and I don't)'.
changemod wrote: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
but by now this is the outstanding feature of AoS it is the one rule no other skirmish game will ever have and some people play AoS specially because there are double turns
changemod wrote: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
but by now this is the outstanding feature of AoS it is the one rule no other skirmish game will ever have and some people play AoS specially because there are double turns
And where would they go if AoS dropped it? All evidence points to a notable number of players avoiding AoS because of random initiative, those are lost customers. The minority of players who actually like double turns don't have anywhere else to go, while the majority of players simply tolerate it because it is there. For once I wish the accountants would have MORE influence on a specific rule, because that one is losing GW sales.
Well, as most players who don't like AoS are found playing 40k, it is not really lost sales
those that play GW games because "the models are looking better than those from *insert random company*" are playing anyway no matter the rules
Being the number 2 in miniature sales in the US, behind 40k, it is hard to argue that there are many players left who don't play AoS because of double turn and don't play any other GW game as well so they lose on sales (and with most stuff selling out on release hard to tell if more sales are a thing anyway)
People are not going to play Kings of War or Conquest because there are double turns in AoS, as well as those people playing KoW/Conquest would not get into AoS if double turn is removed
If people play the game now, there is no reason to remove it because those that like it may leave while the others play the game anyway
Keeping double turn does not harm for now while removing it might do (and makes AoS a genereic Skirmish among many others again)
Yeah, it always amuses me to hear people say "good players don't lose to a double turn." Of course they do. Everyone loses to a double turn against an army that can exploit it. The ~80%+ win rate ranged-focused armies have when they get the first double turn is not because all but 20% of the players they are playing are bad, it's because the game doesn't give you the tools (or didn't in 2.0, anyway) to do anything significant enough to avoid the overwhelming advantage it creates. There are little things you can do around the margins, but nothing that can begin to alter the massive spike in win rate a player gets from getting the first double turn with a ranged army. If you're facing a ranged focus army and they get the first double turn, statistically you will only win about 1 in 5 of those games against someone of vaguely equal skill.
changemod wrote: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
but by now this is the outstanding feature of AoS it is the one rule no other skirmish game will ever have and some people play AoS specially because there are double turns
And where would they go if AoS dropped it? All evidence points to a notable number of players avoiding AoS because of random initiative, those are lost customers. The minority of players who actually like double turns don't have anywhere else to go, while the majority of players simply tolerate it because it is there. For once I wish the accountants would have MORE influence on a specific rule, because that one is losing GW sales.
If double turns would be removed game results would be known right after seeing lists. you know who goes first, then it's easy to see how game pans out.
Well would make quick games. Exchange lists, see result, game over. You can pay 100's of games in a day!
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Or you can not overextending and stop blaming the double turn when your alpha strike list dies due to bad positioning on the double turn?
I love that this argument happens in every AoS thread. I guess it's intuitive that each time somebody brings up this refuted point that they must not have seen any of the other threads on the subject.
Unfortunately, with a flaw as crippling as this around it's neck, there's not really any way around it being brought up over and over other than to actually solve it.
If it cripples you, you're a bad player. Not a victim.
Literally have NEVER had the DT cause me any issues. Positioning! AoS players need to learn it! This game isn't the easy-peasy 40K child rules, you're in Big Boy town when you come to an AoS table.
changemod wrote: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
but by now this is the outstanding feature of AoS it is the one rule no other skirmish game will ever have and some people play AoS specially because there are double turns
And where would they go if AoS dropped it? All evidence points to a notable number of players avoiding AoS because of random initiative, those are lost customers. The minority of players who actually like double turns don't have anywhere else to go, while the majority of players simply tolerate it because it is there. For once I wish the accountants would have MORE influence on a specific rule, because that one is losing GW sales.
If double turns would be removed game results would be known right after seeing lists. you know who goes first, then it's easy to see how game pans out.
Well would make quick games. Exchange lists, see result, game over. You can pay 100's of games in a day!
wow, even I would not have called AoS that bad
Automatically Appended Next Post: but interesting,
one says the outcome is determined by a random dice roll only
the other claims it is much more tactical than the other big GW game
while I would say AoS is better than 40k, with 3rd it depends on the GHB/Errata and the net books if it stays that way
NinthMusketeer wrote: I have slowly realized that the 'you can compensate for the double by being skilled' is coming from people who lose after getting it.
This is the best explanation I've ever read on the topic
New rules, I can see the games going like 25% longer and with the constant commands, reactions and fiddly tracking of once per game abilities (one of these 3 units can do this command once per game for free, one of those other four units can do a different one, etc)
Even if it was a case of "git gud" (and generally it isn't, there's a reason shooting is so powerful in AoS) that the feature is so controversial within the fandom and by enlarge seen as something that's tolerated rather than enjoyed by what I assume is the majority of people, says a lot. For a game that was deliberately designed from the ground up as Baby's First Wargame it's just such a weird rule to include because as many people will tell you, it just doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game.
Although I do wonder what defence of Double Turn will be used now that "just screen bro" has been dramatically nullified by the new cohesion rules. I fully expect the narrative to shift to, "dude 1 extra CP is just as powerful as another round of shooting!"
tneva82 wrote: If double turns would be removed game results would be known right after seeing lists. you know who goes first, then it's easy to see how game pans out.
This is a game written by GW, that's already the case in AoS.
Eldarsif wrote: Can people wanting to circle jerk(with/against) about the double turn move it into its own thread?
Wouldn't that be nice? But no, realistically you shouldn't expect them to because AoS is weighed down by such a fundamental issue that you can't discuss the game without occasionally finding cause to address double turn. Now with the added bonus of having a game designer on record saying they really wanted to keep in double turn, with that particular emphasis.
So, have fun talking about AoS the next three years and better luck next edition?
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
''Feature, not a bug.'' ''Working as intended.''
Exactly what Miyazaki says about his Dark Souls 3 bugs lol
Humm I wonder when they eventually release the Stormcast as individual kits if theres an option to ditch the plastic spears, that make the model a pain to store or handle, for swords instead, I would be in for that.
Depending on prices I will be only getting the shield boys and yndrasta on eBay.
. This is a single mini with a scenic base for in store painting demos.
) and Vertigus scenery
.
