Unless someone is messing with the stormcast game - its in humble bundle right now so super cheap and it has an entire photo mode so you could go nuts making photos of models and then blurrying them
Also that axe earlier looks more like something the Ossiarchs would have.
His Master's Voice wrote: So where does warpstone come from in AoS? Does it just coalesce from residual chaos energies? Is there some not-Morrslieb hurtling through the realms' skies, sprinkling rat coke along the way?
It seems as though it can manifest in any area with enough Chaos corruption, but despite all the lore I've read the only explicity mention of a source I've encountered has been the Skaven capital of Blight City which is supposedly built on a bedrock of Warpstone. Even if that was only partially true that is a *lot* of warpstone in the hands of those most skilled at its use.
His Master's Voice wrote: So where does warpstone come from in AoS? Does it just coalesce from residual chaos energies? Is there some not-Morrslieb hurtling through the realms' skies, sprinkling rat coke along the way?
It seems as though it can manifest in any area with enough Chaos corruption, but despite all the lore I've read the only explicity mention of a source I've encountered has been the Skaven capital of Blight City which is supposedly built on a bedrock of Warpstone. Even if that was only partially true that is a *lot* of warpstone in the hands of those most skilled at its use.
Isn't it just the natural Realmstone of the various realms being corrupted by Chaos? So yes able to manifest anywhere and more so in areas of high Chaos infestation
but anyway more leaks the Liberator Thunderstrike from Realm of Ruin design. It seem they going to refresh the first edition box with the Paladin, Liberator and Prosecutors then i guess layer it with new Ruination SE
Matrindur wrote: Some rule infos from the person posting the potato leaks:
DELETE MELEE WEAPONS RANGE?
EVERYTHING USR!!!
both of these would be pretty significant. i like how 10th edition has used special rules, but i don't think it should go further than that (fantasy, for example). also the melee range would be pretty big because i think that's a pretty significant aspect of aos that sets it apart from 40k etc
everything USR means nothing in context of GW as it just means that previous rules that are similar get the same name while new rules are still on their own
no melee range any more would be big and basically changes how the game is played
kodos wrote: everything USR means nothing in context of GW as it just means that previous rules that are similar get the same name while new rules are still on their own
no melee range any more would be big and basically changes how the game is played
It might just become a USR, simply being removed from the stat line.
kodos wrote: everything USR means nothing in context of GW as it just means that previous rules that are similar get the same name while new rules are still on their own
no melee range any more would be big and basically changes how the game is played
It might just become a USR, simply being removed from the stat line.
Yeah, it could be something like - Reach: melee weapon with this USR has close combat range of 2'', or something similar.
lord_blackfang wrote: Or they could finally stop being stupid and just say everyone in an engaged unit fights.
How can a mini 5 inches away fight in the same unit?
I don't play anymore, just paint.... but people arguing FOR range in melee seem to remove any abstraction from the game.
People don't have bases in real life, they only exist to stick a miniature to. In a wild melee between 10-20 man units, IMHO, there's no reason they couldn't all fight.
Unlike say, Rank and Flank where meatwalls just crash into each other. There, I can at least see the dudes in the back ranks not being able to reach. Although they could eventually wrap around.
AoS is inherently more skirmish-like so "reach" is kind of silly to me.
CMLR wrote: AoS 4E is setting the bases for pseudo rank and file, I'm calling it!
The emphasis on 'small format' in the yapping says something else.
But they worked out that they can just write one version of the command group and put it in the base rules.
But expect sweeping changes and all the army books are going in the bin.
This also means that the battletomes from the current edition will not be compatible with the new rules, and that every faction will receive a new battletome over the next few years.
Bummer, but I’m at peace with that.
On top of all that, there are modular rules, plenty more opportunities for reactivity in your opponent’s turn via an updated system of command points and abilities, and a ton of tweaks and refinements – not least to the double turn, which has been fine-tuned into a knife-edge decision with a clever twist to scoring.
Intriguing…
At the same time, the Great Horned Rat has struck a deal with Archaon himself, and ascended to his rightful place as a full fifth member of the Chaos pantheon – somewhat to the chagrin of the erstwhile four.
At the same time, the Great Horned Rat has struck a deal with Archaon himself, and ascended to his rightful place as a full fifth member of the Chaos pantheon – somewhat to the chagrin of the erstwhile four.
Awesome!
On the one hand, the horned rat as a proper chaos god has been a long time coming.
But other the other paw, that seems a bit beyond Archaon to do that deal/ make that decision.
On the other, other claw. The 'Sigmar lied' bit unsurprisingly turned out to be a load of nothing. We already knew Reforging wasn't good for the ol' noggin. But its also presented as entirely necessary to have ridiculous heroes for world shaking moments like the one that just happened. She's even OK with it, so... whatever.
Abraxia looks great. Will pick her up when she splits from her launch box.
So it was the ruination chamber, thought as much. Annoyed at the indexing, but it's gw, I'm surprised it took this long. Good reveals overall.
Or you know, it could still be its own thing and you can stop with trying to push the "it's fantasy but on round bases" you've been spamming the last couple of pages.
Or you know, it could still be its own thing and you can stop with trying to push the "it's fantasy but on round bases" you've been spamming the last couple of pages.
Will AoS 4.0 become fantasy setting 40K or Fantasy on round bases?
AoS was non-grimdark Fantasy version of the grimdark space fantasy 40k from the beginning
and both are fantasy on round bases
for the rules, always has been the case that the game systems are inspired by each other, so stuff that WHFB used in one Edition and seen as good was used in 40k later and vice versa and this also continued with AoS.
So nothing special here and already happened with 2nd and 3rd Edition
by now it was just that the AoS designers did a better job than the 40k team with the rules
Kinda disappointed the whole "Sigmar lied" thing turns out to just be some Stormcast who are salty that they're not proper immortals. Was hoping for something a bit more substantial.
lord_blackfang wrote: Or they could finally stop being stupid and just say everyone in an engaged unit fights.
So models 12" away from enemy fights?
That would be big change removing weaknesses of congo lines. It would remove importance of positioning as hitting enemy weak side wouldn't matter.
Expecting more of 40k style or at most everybody within 3"(the engagement range) fights. Still weakens strategy of hitting weakest side but less than all fight.
So Sigmar lied was the thing we new from the beginning - sigmarines loosing their identity, and turning into automatons? At least the video was fun to watch.
Shadow Walker wrote: So Sigmar lied was the thing we new from the beginning - sigmarines loosing their identity, and turning into automatons? At least the video was fun to watch.
I assumed that they had no personality from the day they got released. Just assumed that they are space marined with even less charisma, than primaris. This plot twist is lame, hahah. I mean… who cares? It’s a weak drama plot point/turn of events in a fantasy setting that will lead nowhere. It would’ve been better, if they just recycled the thunder warrior arc for them.
New Ossiarchs are utterly fantastic and exactly what I was hoping to see from GW with them. I really hope they follow up the Warcry set with a few more units of core models that follow along this design ethos. I think its a fantastic counterpart to the really out-there creations like the trebuchet. On one side you've Ossiarchs almost trying to be living creatures and on the other you've fully machine like living constructs. I think its fantastic duality and really hope both sides get more explored by GW
aku-chan wrote: Kinda disappointed the whole "Sigmar lied" thing turns out to just be some Stormcast who are salty that they're not proper immortals. Was hoping for something a bit more substantial.
I think this is a case of where we the audience know more than the characters.
AoS launch and 1.0 were very much when Stormcast were unstoppable juggernauts smashing everything and basically unstoppable. 2.0 saw a shift as things get more broken down into the doldrums of a long drawn out campaign. Chaos pushes back; other allies splinter off and backstab and the Stormcast are being reforged over and over. As an audience we saw the reforging cracks and learned of the issues; whilst in world the Stormcast were more going through that learning experience. It looks like this new edition is going to feature a lot more stories where the Stormcast are really getting to grips with the grim reality that they are going to lose their identity and be left little more than almost golem war machines of Sigmar. I think this sets in stone some really interesting story elements because we could start to see Stormcast doing more of the grim-dark things. When your Stormcast allies turn on you because one person in the village is born with an extra finger etc.....
Can't blame Sigmar for her own incompetency and keep dying. I thought that was teaser for some kind of renegade stormcast but nah. Even the unit look boring just more bulky dude.
Also that half shave hairstyle should be banned on female models because it's overused, even the Sylvaneth are using it. jeesuz.
Chopstick wrote: Can't blame Sigmar for her own incompetency and keep dying. I thought that was teaser for some kind of renegade stormcast but nah. Even the unit look boring just more bulky dude.
Also that half shave hairstyle should be banned on female models because it's overused, even the Sylvaneth are using it. jeesuz.
I think we won't see it at the start, but It might be a growing story theme through this edition that there are Stormcast going different. I won't say rogue as technically they'd be doing Sigmar's will - but perhaps more robotical. More singular in their focus; less compassionate etc...
Nope. That’s on the design team. Golden statue appearance (displayed in mass) with the “stormcasts eternals” in the name and immortality in the saturday cartoon lore doesn’t exactly shout: “warrior individuals rich with personality, feelings and self identity”.
so first edition we got the statues without personality (and bodies) as the faceless army of Sigmar, as even the good guys cannot be "good"
but people wanted their good guys to be actually good guys with souls and characters so we got the faces and stories but because the good guys cannot be good we are back to "dying too often makes them a faceless statue"
because we need 2 grimdark fantasy universes, one in space and one in magic realms
Nope. That’s on the design team. Golden statue appearance (displayed in mass) with the “stormcasts eternals” in the name and immortality in the saturday cartoon lore doesn’t exactly shout: “warrior individuals rich with personality, feelings and self identity”.
I mean its also on you if you've not read a single bit of AoS lore.
Also there are plenty of bits of art where they've taken their helmets off and animations.
Nope. That’s on the design team. Golden statue appearance (displayed in mass) with the “stormcasts eternals” in the name and immortality in the saturday cartoon lore doesn’t exactly shout: “warrior individuals rich with personality, feelings and self identity”.
I mean its also on you if you've not read a single bit of AoS lore.
Also there are plenty of bits of art where they've taken their helmets off and animations.
It's not even just the lore or art, there's plenty of models that are helmet-less or even have bare arms.
Nope. That’s on the design team. Golden statue appearance (displayed in mass) with the “stormcasts eternals” in the name and immortality in the saturday cartoon lore doesn’t exactly shout: “warrior individuals rich with personality, feelings and self identity”.
I mean its also on you if you've not read a single bit of AoS lore.
Also there are plenty of bits of art where they've taken their helmets off and animations.
It's not even just the lore or art, there's plenty of models that are helmet-less or even have bare arms.
That was well past release which was his point.
At launch no bare helmets, no bare arms. Animations in 2015? Was there one?
It took years for faces to be revealed in aos2. And original chambers(liberators, judicators and so on) were all helmeted.
If they were always to be non-statue could have had more hints in fluff or art. But that came with 2nd ed.
So yes he assumed wrong but unless you had ability to see 3 years in future it was valid assumption. Gw didn't do anything to suggest otherwise.
Nope. That’s on the design team. Golden statue appearance (displayed in mass) with the “stormcasts eternals” in the name and immortality in the saturday cartoon lore doesn’t exactly shout: “warrior individuals rich with personality, feelings and self identity”.
I mean its also on you if you've not read a single bit of AoS lore.
Also there are plenty of bits of art where they've taken their helmets off and animations.
It's not even just the lore or art, there's plenty of models that are helmet-less or even have bare arms.
That was well past release which was his point.
At launch no bare helmets, no bare arms. Animations in 2015? Was there one?
It took years for faces to be revealed in aos2. And original chambers(liberators, judicators and so on) were all helmeted.
If they were always to be non-statue could have had more hints in fluff or art. But that came with 2nd ed.
So yes he assumed wrong but unless you had ability to see 3 years in future it was valid assumption. Gw didn't do anything to suggest otherwise.
The Vanguard hunters and the first underworlds warband both came with bare heads. They released during first edition. I'm pretty sure Stormcast took their helmets off in the very first AoS novel too.
I dont think GW knew what it wanted with Stormcast at first (if they were hollow, etc.). The first skin we saw was the horn blower and it was his lower jaw. Even then, GW hyped that reveal up
Then I believe there was some exclusive character that came out without a helmet. Some guy with a sword called a knight exscelcior or something, followed by the first Underworlds team
After that, unhelmeted models have been very common for years. Forgeworld evsn released heads at one point
The issue with the reveal isn't that the lie is well known, its that the implication is that there would be consequences for it and the trailer just kind of shrugs them off as the cost of doing business.
yeah i suppose there might be consequences once we get into the edition itself, but if you're trying to sell the edition, you might want to lead with that
This seems like the common problem with so much of the AoS lore. They don't want to commit to anything to leave everything there as a sandbox setting. But without committing to actions and consequences, the sandbox feels pretty hollow.
If they were always to be non-statue could have had more hints in fluff or art.
The fluff was always emphasizing on how this faceless statues were actually reforged soldiers who in previous lives were all heroes of some sort, specially in novels and BTs (battletomes) and they don't really die, but rather get reforged again should they fall in combat.
Heck, they weren't completely faceless; if you saw some early art, you could see their eyes through the shade their own helmets projected. Human eyes, no lightning or magic effects.
LunarSol wrote: The issue with the reveal isn't that the lie is well known, its that the implication is that there would be consequences for it and the trailer just kind of shrugs them off as the cost of doing business.
Yeah, I feel that the sort of folk Sigmar picks to be Stormcast are exactly the kind of people that would just shrug then carry on fighting and dying.
Stormcast: "Sigmar lied to us...but like...who cares man? We get these sweet shiny hammers to bash bad guys with! The dude can do no wrong!"
Skaven: "All that effort to make Eye of the Beholder dungeons underneath their cities, for them to play Mazes & Monsters, and they didn't even bother to check'em out! Well, really! Nothing for it gang, we're going to have to go up there!"
StudentOfEtherium wrote: yeah i suppose there might be consequences once we get into the edition itself, but if you're trying to sell the edition, you might want to lead with that
They have been. Trying to find a cure for the reforging flaw has been Astreia Soulbright's story arc since 2nd ed. It's been a whole thing in the Dawnbringer books.
Again, it's not GW's fault you're not actually reading the fluff.
CMLR wrote: Little thing: I noticed the art so far has Hollowed Knights (Silver Sigmarines), not Hammers of Sigmar (Golden Sigmarines).
Legitimately wondering why.
Probably to stand out better against the Green heavy colors of the Skaven? Green and gold blend, silver and green contrast.
They put Blue vs Green, Blue vs Copper and Green, and Blue vs Purple and White for three subsequent 40K editions. I doubt colour theory alone is the reason (if they shift from Ultras in 11E colour me surprised).
NinthMusketeer wrote: Afaik Hallowed Knights are the more popular subfaction, it could be GW shifting focus to follow that.
This I lean more into, I've seen in many places "gold is dumb" (they like Custodes), so maybe they'll try with silver now.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: yeah i suppose there might be consequences once we get into the edition itself, but if you're trying to sell the edition, you might want to lead with that
They have been. Trying to find a cure for the reforging flaw has been Astreia Soulbright's story arc since 2nd ed. It's been a whole thing in the Dawnbringer books.
Again, it's not GW's fault you're not actually reading the fluff.
FWIW, my only contact with AoS Lore is pretty much the first few seasons of Underworlds and nothing else and even I know that Sigmar has been trying to fix reforging essentially forever.
I really enjoy the various "Ages" concept. My hope is that GW doesn't go full Privateer Press mode and have the sku bloat for the factions. I see it happening for Storm Cast Eternals. Every edition change will add 2-3 new units, including a new character. I'm converting my Slaves to Darkness to Old World as 90% of the models were originally from Fantasy.
I'll pick up the rule book / GHB if the GHB has the new rule book in it as I've got Maggotkin, Hedonites, Beasts of Chaos, Kruleboyz, and Ogor Mawtribes. I'm invested in AOS
Anyway, we knew it was going to be Skaven, but I was hoping we were getting a Bull as Chaos God #5!!!
:|
Ha! Sorry, I couldn't resist!
I've of two minds about Chaos Dwarfs in AOS - on the one, I would love to see what they come up with using up to date plastic tech, but on the other I'm worried about what they come up with using up to date plastic tech!
At least I'll have the classic Old World stuff to fall back on...
The armour they made for third edition was the first ones that looked good in my opinion, but basicly every other faction is more interresting as far as Im concerned.
Fayric wrote: Are the stormcast very popular these days?
The armour they made for third edition was the first ones that looked good in my opinion, but basicly every other faction is more interresting as far as Im concerned.
They've gotten the most support by a country mile, so of course they are.
LunarSol wrote: The issue with the reveal isn't that the lie is well known, its that the implication is that there would be consequences for it and the trailer just kind of shrugs them off as the cost of doing business.
Yeah, I feel that the sort of folk Sigmar picks to be Stormcast are exactly the kind of people that would just shrug then carry on fighting and dying.
Or people who would go 'Sigmar didn't lie, it's my fault for jobbing and dying to a single rat/grot/crab/whatever that made me go through repeated reforgings and this is my punishment'. Where does all this nihility comes from anyway? Religious people would blame themselves a hundred times (especially for something that was basically their fault) before casting shade at their god, especially in medieval times where said shade would end up with a punch (or worse) to the face. Even when said god is not real, never mind actually existing and benevolent one. And some of them would welcome loss of memories at that, seeing it's mostly martyrs who get picked to be stormcast and martyrdom is virtually never any pleasing experience.
This whole 'Sigmar lied' thing sounds like atheism (and strawman teen m'lady version ignorant religious people like to imagine at that), not something realistic character in setting would say, unless extremely cynical and bitter, and in that case, a good writer would first establish why they have such warped worldview first instead of shattering verisimilitude and then calling it a day. Especially when alternative (being sent to be tortured forever by Chaos or being pathetic plaything of capital D*ck death god) sounds sooo appealing in comparison to even most jaded, cynical and grimdark interpretation of Sigmar and that's is already going way past the stretching point.
I am also really sick of WFB/AOS/40K writers having zero clue about armour and treating it like toilet paper. It would be one thing if it was losing to magical/power weapons, but in this video, special stormcast armor is trivially penetrated by arrows and sticks through THICKEST PART OF THE PLATE! What's the point of wearing it then? Go without so it doesn't limit your moves and visibility. In reality, these hits would be directed at joints and gaps, but these seem to be armored with some magical plotanium as I can't recall a single GW animation/comic/book/art where someone is hit there, no, it's always heavy armor that gets hacked apart even if all enemy has is a rusty butter knife and elite heavy infantry jobbing to chaff barely outnumbering them instead of pushing back 10x their number as they did in RL
It does sound like these "heroes" aren't exact the heroes that Sigmar and we thought they were, they're more akin to the Chaos worshipper who pursuit eternal life, glory and self gratification (from fighting evil) rather than selflessly fighting evil for the greater cause.
...Maybe Sigmar heresy is coming. But then that'd mean new Spiky stormcast models and Stormcast vs Stormcast boxset, which would suck. eew.
I am also really sick of WFB/AOS/40K writers having zero clue about armour and treating it like toilet paper. It would be one thing if it was losing to magical/power weapons, but in this video, special stormcast armor is trivially penetrated by arrows and sticks through THICKEST PART OF THE PLATE! What's the point of wearing it then? Go without so it doesn't limit your moves and visibility. In reality, these hits would be directed at joints and gaps, but these seem to be armored with some magical plotanium as I can't recall a single GW animation/comic/book/art where someone is hit there, no, it's always heavy armor that gets hacked apart even if all enemy has is a rusty butter knife and elite heavy infantry jobbing to chaff barely outnumbering them instead of pushing back 10x their number as they did in RL
It is typical to most writers, just look at various fantasy tv shows/movies. In majority armour is just for the fancy look offering no protection unless plot armour enters the stage.
Chopstick wrote: It does sound like these "heroes" aren't exact the heroes that Sigmar and we thought they were, they're more akin to the Chaos worshipper who pursuit eternal life, glory and self gratification (from fighting evil) rather than selflessly fighting evil for the greater cause.
...Maybe Sigmar heresy is coming. But then that'd mean new Spiky stormcast models and Stormcast vs Stormcast boxset, which would suck. eew.
I can't speak to every instance of the fluff, but what I recall of earlier editions is that overwhelmingly future Sigmarines got yoinked from their last stands, handed a sword and promised they get to murderize the dudes that murderized them for the rest of eternity. I never got the impression that Sigmarines were meant to be selfless heroes but rather an army of vengeful fanatics.
Even if the fake Sigmar Lied drama turns out not to be as silly and meaningless as it seems now, I don't think GW has any interest in spiky Sigmarines. AoS isn't 40k, and on the fantasy side GW has always had Chaos Warriors to fulfill the heavily armored super warrior role. When it comes down to it Sigmarines already are the (in this case non-spiky) mirror of the super warriors. Spiky Sigmarines don't add a whole lot Chaos Warriors don't already do.
It would be cool to have Stormhosts that have been reforged so many times that if Sigmar isn't careful in their deployment, they can end up clashing with other Stormhosts.
Basically a lore excuse for players to have Stormcast vs Stormcast battles, as at the moment it seems to be gladitorial matches at best?
SamusDrake wrote: It would be cool to have Stormhosts that have been reforged so many times that if Sigmar isn't careful in their deployment, they can end up clashing with other Stormhosts.
Basically a lore excuse for players to have Stormcast vs Stormcast battles, as at the moment it seems to be gladitorial matches at best?
Not just other Stormhosts, we've already had one or two tales of where Stormcast turned on humans and other allies because of corruption risks.
Basically each time they are reforged they lose more of their humanity and past and they are more driven toward one goal - destroying Chaos above all else.
So each time they become colder, more distant, less empathic and more fanatical.
This means they might well turn and destroy a whole village because one baby is born with 6 fingers on one hand since mutation is a mark of Chaos. Whilst a Stormcast with no/fewer reforgings might only kill the child or would look into it and work out that its just a natural occurrence and not a mark of Chaos.
This means we could see them clash with the humans and other races that they were once sworn to protect. That grandchildren of people once saved by stormcast and seeing them as angels from Sigmar; are now seeing them closer to demons. That some Cities might strike out on their own or seek aid from other sources or even try and hide Chaos that they find within their own walls to avoid the hammer of the Stormcast simply destroying the whole city (or a good portion of the population).
I think its a whole line of storytelling that is a bit tricky because on the one hand it favours stories that focus on mortals with names that we follow to see the changes and feel the impact; but at the same time it kind of needs 100s of years to play out to see that change as well.
There is always trickery and manipulation to break solid alliances and pitch battle against battle brothers.
Not only tzeench and guys like the changeling, but I can think of lots of powerful beings that could be brought in as a behind the scenes manipulator of events for the narrativ if need be.
Scottywan82 wrote: This seems like the common problem with so much of the AoS lore. They don't want to commit to anything to leave everything there as a sandbox setting. But without committing to actions and consequences, the sandbox feels pretty hollow.
It could work if they get an army list and kit out of it. Stormcast of the Damned or some such, with darker rules to differentiate them from normal Stormcast.
Honestly I think the trick is to not have Stormcast fall to Chaos. Falling to Chaos is too easy to make them "evil and dangerous".
The thing is each time they are reforged they are less likely to fall to Chaos because all that's being left in them is a mechanical desire to destroy chaos.
Instead they are becoming more like a fusion of Ossiarchs and Daughters of Khaine. Less human and more inhuman and thus more of a risk to allies to call on for aid.
Do you call for aid from the Stormcast or even let them see any hint of Chaos in your population or do you reach out to other allies for aid when those allies might even be from groups that don't woreship sigmar, because they at least might not destroy your whole city; whilst the nearest Stormcast group almost certainly would because a few of the kids are born a little different or there's a cult in the city and you just need the cult removing not half the population.
Falling to Chaos is just too bland; having Stormcast who are fanatical; who are on the "same side" but a huge risk is way more interesting. Even for the Stormcast themselves you could see them argue or even fight each other. A newer Stormhost defending a settlement against their brothers because they realise that destroying the whole settlement isn't the right course of action. Whilst on the other side you've stormcast who can only think to destroy the whole settlement because the taint of Chaos is there to be seen and it must be purged least the infection spreads.
How can Sigmar now deal with two of his hosts fighting each other; or order within the hosts falling down because of major conflict. Especially when Sigmar has given up his maul and, whilst he's a god still, he's moved himself back from the front lines.
Gw have been pretty open that Order does not equal good which is why you've forces like the Daughters of Khaine who are almost more blood thirsty and blood magic driven than Vampires.
But yes having the Stormcast themselves fall from grace and become as fanatical as blood-crazed elves - now that's a nasty twist for many in the Realms looking to fight off Chaos whilst also just survive themselves. It also creates loads of inroads for factions like Nagash to sink his claws in. For a City of Sigmar to reach out to the Ossiarchs for help (and offer them their bones) over asking for the Stormcast. Even if it might mean that the Ossiarchs reap more and more each time until the city has to start chopping legs off the living to keep up the delivery of enough bones for the tithe.
We already have this with the knights Excelsior.
In the Malign Portents short story. "To Truly Excel" they butcher a whole town they were supposed to save because they might be tainted by Nurgle.
The White Reaper is a particularly unpleasant character who has appeared in many stories. The stormkeep in Excelsis is a dungeon who prisoners are tortured for information.
They've also clashed with the Hallowed Knights over their differing methods.
Nagash has already just outright stolen Stormcast souls and turned them into undead minions.
I have a hazy memory of one BL novel in which one poor soul was bounced about two or three times.
As Chikout says, not all SCE are noble warrior heroes. That’s long established.
They have the opportunity for character with their memories (even first forged SCE don’t always have them), the personality degradation and dealing with either the folks they new in mortal life or coming back centuries after everyone they knew is dead.
SCE were already a sort of mirror image of Chaos Warriors. Both imbued with power by their god, but whereas Chaos warriors chose to seek more more and eternal war…Stormcast just get it thrust upon them.
I think most will accept it, but Sigmar isn’t being a goodey two-shoes by doing that to them.
Knight Excelsior is the extremist one while still fighting for the cause. While the new one "i'd like to speak to the manager" complain sound like they were fighting for themselves. Big oopsie from Sigmar for even having these people. The irony is that these guys losing their awful attitude through reforged is probably the best outcome.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: There's an idea in several fantasy books that Order is not good, Order can be oppressive, stifling and fanatical.
In 40k the Tyranids and Necrons are the ultimate 'Order' armies.
So a Stormcast army that behaves more like the 40k Inquisition would be good twist.
The D&D alignments Lawful Evil and Lawful Good can still both be very "orderly". But they're very different from each other.
But then again, what exactly does "Order" mean in Age of Sigmar? It basically means, "Opposing Chaos and Destruction, and not Death." Even a group that's fairly unregimented but still opposes Chaos and Destruction can fall into the Order classification because the game's faction system doesn't have anywhere else to put them.
Eumerin wrote: But then again, what exactly does "Order" mean in Age of Sigmar? It basically means, "Opposing Chaos and Destruction, and not Death." Even a group that's fairly unregimented but still opposes Chaos and Destruction can fall into the Order classification because the game's faction system doesn't have anywhere else to put them.
What do any of the factions mean? Chaos and Destruction are pretty similar.
Order is pretty much anyone you can reliably make a bargain with, and reasonably expect them to keep to it. They may also come to your aid out of shared interest without negotiation or request
Nagash is Nagash. One can make an entirely Good Faith bargain with his minions and Mortarchs. And said minion or Mortarch may do so in genuine good faith for the time being. But Nagash can and will exert his absolute control as and when he feels it necessary.
Destruction? Yeah no. Not so much. You could try to channel their rampages away from you and into your enemy. But for the most part they’re just intent on having a fight or a feast. Sometimes both.
Eumerin wrote: But then again, what exactly does "Order" mean in Age of Sigmar? It basically means, "Opposing Chaos and Destruction, and not Death." Even a group that's fairly unregimented but still opposes Chaos and Destruction can fall into the Order classification because the game's faction system doesn't have anywhere else to put them.
What do any of the factions mean? Chaos and Destruction are pretty similar.
Khorne worshippers and beastmen are pretty destructive though, ain't they? And Nagash demands an eternal, unchanging order under his rule. The four names are just so similar, not as distinct as they could have been.
Personally, I'd have gone with Law to oppose Chaos, rather than Order. That's what Solkan stood for!
Khorne worshippers and beastmen are pretty destructive though, ain't they? And Nagash demands an eternal, unchanging order under his rule. The four names are just so similar, not as distinct as they could have been.
Personally, I'd have gone with Law to oppose Chaos, rather than Order. That's what Solkan stood for!
Khorne is just as capable of reigning it in as any of the other powers. But they want to dominate just as much as the other powers.
Chaos - represents those factions who worship the Chaos Gods (if they know it or not). Remember Great Horned Rat is a Chaos God now so even the skaven are fully chaos followers now (though interestingly their souls don't go into the Warp but into their own Afterlife in the Realm of Death - one of the few that Nagash hasn't managed to conquer)
Destruction represents those more primal forces and factions. They are often very warlike, tribal and won't build huge cities or civilizations as we'd understand them. They can form very large settlements, but there's always that tribal undertone and that warlike element to their races at large.
You could argue that the greatest element is that they are often nomadic and not sedentary civilisations.
Note individuals within these races can freely live, trade, ally and work with Order and Death factions.
Death - factions who are ultimately all bound to Nagash. Even if they don't want to be - eg the majority of Vampires. Interestingly even the Flesheaters are in here and they are "technically" not controlled by Nagash - though he can kind of twist them to point them in the right direction, but he can't use his will upon them the same as he can others.
At the other end of the scale you've the Ossiarchs who are built to his designs and whilst they have free will, they are built for his intentions so even whilst free they do as he would want when he's not imposing his will upon them.
Order - every faction that establishes a generally sedentary lifestyle. Builds cities, manages the land, establishes civilizations. Even the Everqueen does all those things even though her peoples might be some of the more nomadic for certain groups.
Importantly these factions also ally directly with Sigmar in his fight against chaos.
Destruction and Death both fight against Chaos as well, but neither one bows or allies long term with the Stormcast and Sigmar. They can and will do so freely in instances, but as a whole faction and at the very top "GOD" end, they don't.
I don't like the idea of doing it based on if you could make a deal with them. There are Orruks you can make very reliable deals with; there are Daughters of Khaine who will backstab you for their own gain at the drop of a hat.
Is there a name/subtype for that orc style as opposed to the really bulky gorilla WHFB style?
edit: Is the orc subtype/subfaction "Kruleboy"? I remember seeing a release with that style (don't know if it was an army box or a faction set for one of the smaller skirmish games) a while back.
edit 2: Found it. Looks like it was both with a box release in that style for Warcry under Kruleboyz and similar gangly orruks for AOS under orruk warclans.
I'd only chase the Knight-Arcanum if they were wearing a helmet, which any Stormcast should have on at all times. Thankfully I have two models of the female version, so I'm not too bothered...
"streamlined army building" I'm honestly not sure how you can streamline it much more its already really simple!
The command point system, eh - I've been getting back into 40K recently and so far command points is one of my least favourite mechanics to learn in the game. They are powerful and they do impact the game, but they also feel annoying to learn because they are another layer of information that doesn't pop up on the unit cards/unit pages.
The app lists them all (and you can't "star/favourite" them to list the few that you decide you want to use pregame that work with the army you've got) so you've got ones that work for your army and those that don't. In addition If you use bools and physical cards then they aren't on the cards and they are in different places in two reference books (codex and core rules).
They just feel cumbersome and like they'd be a lot easier parcelled out as abilities to units to enable during the game.
Overread wrote: "streamlined army building" I'm honestly not sure how you can streamline it much more its already really simple!
The command point system, eh - I've been getting back into 40K recently and so far command points is one of my least favourite mechanics to learn in the game. They are powerful and they do impact the game, but they also feel annoying to learn because they are another layer of information that doesn't pop up on the unit cards/unit pages.
The app lists them all (and you can't "star/favourite" them to list the few that you decide you want to use pregame that work with the army you've got) so you've got ones that work for your army and those that don't. In addition If you use bools and physical cards then they aren't on the cards and they are in different places in two reference books (codex and core rules).
They just feel cumbersome and like they'd be a lot easier parcelled out as abilities to units to enable during the game.
It's much cut back now compared to what was on offer a year ago at least.
Overread wrote: "streamlined army building" I'm honestly not sure how you can streamline it much more its already really simple!
The command point system, eh - I've been getting back into 40K recently and so far command points is one of my least favourite mechanics to learn in the game. They are powerful and they do impact the game, but they also feel annoying to learn because they are another layer of information that doesn't pop up on the unit cards/unit pages.
The app lists them all (and you can't "star/favourite" them to list the few that you decide you want to use pregame that work with the army you've got) so you've got ones that work for your army and those that don't. In addition If you use bools and physical cards then they aren't on the cards and they are in different places in two reference books (codex and core rules).
They just feel cumbersome and like they'd be a lot easier parcelled out as abilities to units to enable during the game.
It's much cut back now compared to what was on offer a year ago at least.
Oh very true they've cut back a lot, though part of me worries that its just so they will expand it with campaign books and so forth
I think you will find if you ask players what major mechanic could be changed to improve AOS it would be the double turn, or the amount of paperwork required to play a game (what all the terrain special rules are, scenario points tracking, the each turn sub missions you have to pick).
I'm getting back to WTOW and to just turn up and try and destroy your enemy is so refreshing, and actually looks like there is some semblance of organisation in a fight.
So far its looking like a hard reset for the sake of it and nothing to be excited about apart from "we've done something about the double turn."
Quite happy to drag out 3rd edition for a while longer, but these days Modipheus and Osprey have been getting my custom as GW don't seem to want much to do with solo-coop gaming beyond Warhammer Quest, and the support for that has been crap. Its a shame because their efforts for 2nd edition AOS - during the lockdown - were promising.
That all said, I'm a Stormcast groupie and we'll be getting our toys first! 3rd edition's offerings are going to be difficult to top, but we'll see...
SamusDrake wrote: So far its looking like a hard reset for the sake of it and nothing to be excited about apart from "we've done something about the double turn."
Quite happy to drag out 3rd edition for a while longer, but these days Modipheus and Osprey have been getting my custom as GW don't seem to want much to do with solo-coop gaming beyond Warhammer Quest, and the support for that has been crap. Its a shame because their efforts for 2nd edition AOS - during the lockdown - were promising.
That all said, I'm a Stormcast groupie and we'll be getting our toys first! 3rd edition's offerings are going to be difficult to top, but we'll see...
The biggest complaint I've seen about AoS 3 is that games take too long. They're trying to make shorter games with Spearhead but the core 2000 point game needs to be sped up as well. I don't think a couple of tweaks will fix that. If a hard reset can make a game that is playable in two hours, the change will be worth it. This is something that the old world has done very well.
same problem as 40k has, if you have single model mechanics, adding more models will make the game take longer
you cannot use the same rules for 10 models and 100 models and expect that to take just twice as long to play
and if Spearhead follows the path the 40k version does, than it would be the best way to play the game but no one using it because it will be ignored after release by GW and those who make money with GW games
I see they still want to keep the double turn. I wonder, is Aos...
GW wrote:But for now, here’s a bite-sized summary of what to expect from the best fantasy miniatures game in the world.
Yes, there it is! AoS is still the best fantasy game in the world. I was worried there for a second. But is it also the best version of the game it's ever been?
GW wrote:Sigmar might have lied, but we’re not – the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar is coming soon, and it’s the best set of rules yet created for the game.
Geifer wrote: I see they still want to keep the double turn. I wonder, is Aos...
GW wrote:But for now, here’s a bite-sized summary of what to expect from the best fantasy miniatures game in the world.
Yes, there it is! AoS is still the best fantasy game in the world. I was worried there for a second. But is it also the best version of the game it's ever been?
GW wrote:Sigmar might have lied, but we’re not – the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar is coming soon, and it’s the best set of rules yet created for the game.
It is! I'm so glad nothing's changed.
I mean, what do you expect them to say? "We heard (some of) you like this game and edition, I guess? So here's another crack at it, no promises if it'll make you happy."?
Geifer wrote: I see they still want to keep the double turn. I wonder, is Aos...
GW wrote:But for now, here’s a bite-sized summary of what to expect from the best fantasy miniatures game in the world.
Yes, there it is! AoS is still the best fantasy game in the world. I was worried there for a second. But is it also the best version of the game it's ever been?
GW wrote:Sigmar might have lied, but we’re not – the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar is coming soon, and it’s the best set of rules yet created for the game.
It is! I'm so glad nothing's changed.
I mean, what do you expect them to say? "We heard (some of) you like this game and edition, I guess? So here's another crack at it, no promises if it'll make you happy."?
I'm confused. I thought I implied that the Warhammer Community article matched my expectations one hundred percent. I guess I wasn't as clear about it as I thought?
Dudeface wrote: I mean, what do you expect them to say? "We heard (some of) you like this game and edition, I guess? So here's another crack at it, no promises if it'll make you happy."?
after what I have seen recently on reddit regarding Warhammer Community, some people really treat those as posts from the community telling the others the truth and not just a marketing site
so if WC says it is a success, done because of popular demand, or the best thing ever, than this is not GW marketing doing marketing but the Warhammer Community telling us the real thing
PS: and no I don't think Geifer made a serious post here
Chikout wrote: The biggest complaint I've seen about AoS 3 is that games take too long. They're trying to make shorter games with Spearhead but the core 2000 point game needs to be sped up as well. I don't think a couple of tweaks will fix that. If a hard reset can make a game that is playable in two hours, the change will be worth it. This is something that the old world has done very well.
Was it any better during the "only four pages of rules!" days of the debut of AoS? I've never played so I'm genuinely asking as an outside observer who find it odd that they went from what they were (incorrectly) claiming as a minimalist ruleset to something that they feel needs to be debloated with the newest edition in less than a decade.
I think the whole "games take too long" could be reduced considerably with 2 things
1) Better writing and organising of the rules themselves. GW rules just end up with way too much page flipping, not helped by them not always having logical structure to the rules and not always having indexs or enough in-rules references to pages to find stuff and so forth.
2) More involvement for both players. Alternate army activations end up with one person twiddling their fingers only able to make reactionary steps. GW seems to want to fix this with more random things you can throw out like stratagems and so forth, but honestly those things don't so much involve both players as they do disrupt the gameflow. The double turn in AoS actually makes this worse because potentially one person has to wait for TWO hole turns to actually do something in the game that isn't a reaction.
If information is easily accessed and logical, thus cutting down on hunting time; and if game flow is such that both players are part of the game with less downtime then the total amount of time game takes can be the same, but you won't get the same impression of it taking too long. When you're stuck with nothing to do or you are flipping pages in 3 or 4 or 5 books to find one line of reference to check a rule - then you REALLY do feel the game taking too long
I think you will find if you ask players what major mechanic could be changed to improve AOS it would be the double turn, or the amount of paperwork required to play a game (what all the terrain special rules are, scenario points tracking, the each turn sub missions you have to pick).
I'm getting back to WTOW and to just turn up and try and destroy your enemy is so refreshing, and actually looks like there is some semblance of organisation in a fight.
AoS is somehow too simple and too complicated at the same time. There's a million things you need to remember but its such a resolution based game that it doesn't feel like you're making many choices. Armies kind of slam together then spend the game resolving attacks with whatever they engaged with. I get the value of the double turn, but the big flaw with it is that unless you can charge the opponent in their deployment zone, it really punishes going first by letting the second player set engagements and then quite likely go again immediately for what's an awful feel. If it didn't happen until turn 3 at the earliest it would be an interesting comeback mechanic, but honestly given the resolution based nature of combat its also not a deal breaker, it just leaves you feeling like you didn't have a chance to control your army.
It's a fun little game, but I don't really enjoy 3rd edition at all. In some ways I like what they were going for over 2nd, but I also prefer if the game is going to be simple keeping it straightforward. I feel like 10th found a happy middle between 8th and 9th and I'm hoping to see something similar with 4th.
I think you will find if you ask players what major mechanic could be changed to improve AOS it would be the double turn, or the amount of paperwork required to play a game (what all the terrain special rules are, scenario points tracking, the each turn sub missions you have to pick).
I'm getting back to WTOW and to just turn up and try and destroy your enemy is so refreshing, and actually looks like there is some semblance of organisation in a fight.
AoS is somehow too simple and too complicated at the same time. There's a million things you need to remember but its such a resolution based game that it doesn't feel like you're making many choices. Armies kind of slam together then spend the game resolving attacks with whatever they engaged with. I get the value of the double turn, but the big flaw with it is that unless you can charge the opponent in their deployment zone, it really punishes going first by letting the second player set engagements and then quite likely go again immediately for what's an awful feel. If it didn't happen until turn 3 at the earliest it would be an interesting comeback mechanic, but honestly given the resolution based nature of combat its also not a deal breaker, it just leaves you feeling like you didn't have a chance to control your army.
It's a fun little game, but I don't really enjoy 3rd edition at all. In some ways I like what they were going for over 2nd, but I also prefer if the game is going to be simple keeping it straightforward. I feel like 10th found a happy middle between 8th and 9th and I'm hoping to see something similar with 4th.
With respect, I am glad you are not one of the designers.
AoS 3 was in great shape, unlike 40k...and I hate what they did with 10th...so nervous about this
GW: we listen and replaced IGoUGo (my-turn-your-turn) with random turns
Community: this is not what we wanted, we want IGoUGo removed
GW: because of popular request IGoUGo (my turn-your turn) sequence will not return for next Edition but we added Endless Spells to make random turns more engaging and balanced
Community: but we want IGoUGo removed
GW: we hear you and AoS will get a complete rewrite to make an exciting new game and despite some people want to have my-turn-your-turn structure back we will keep IGoUGo away because this is not popular in modern games but this time we will balance it with "scoring"
My takeaway from that post is that they should have made the game alternating activation with an initiative roll for who activates next so you could still have a double turn (or double activation as the case may be) without angering everyone who doesn't play AoS and is stuck on their preconceived notions of what a double turn means.
chaos0xomega wrote: My takeaway from that post is that they should have made the game alternating activation with an initiative roll for who activates next so you could still have a double turn (or double activation as the case may be) without angering everyone who doesn't play AoS and is stuck on their preconceived notions of what a double turn means.
That certainly would justify dumping codexes as going to AA would require whole game to be redesigned from the ground up.
It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"
A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.
Gimgamgoo wrote: It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"
A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.
Honestly, its not a bad strategy if each edition is on a 4 or 5 year cycle. Games need a major shakeup about once a decade. It's the 3 year cycle that makes it feel like everything is thrown out just as they're figuring out how it works.
Gimgamgoo wrote: It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"
A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.
Honestly, its not a bad strategy if each edition is on a 4 or 5 year cycle. Games need a major shakeup about once a decade. It's the 3 year cycle that makes it feel like everything is thrown out just as they're figuring out how it works.
That and the fact that GW are not the best writers when they do rules in the first place. Those 3 years often see things expanded on in expansion books and by 3 years honestly most of us would just like a new combined single book that collects all the messy stuff together into one place.
Honestly right now I think we are stuck with GW's 3 year cycle until something like One Page Rules makes some BIG inroads into the market enough for GW to wake up. Much like how it took Warmachine 2.0 doing really well for GW to wake up then (granted GW got a reprieve then because PP then rushed out their own 3rd edition and messed it up with a bunch of other things).
GW has found something that generates money; until it stops generating money for them its going to be hard to get them to change course. That or a few big names at the company moving on and a management attitude change toward rules.
Gimgamgoo wrote: It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"
A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.
Honestly, its not a bad strategy if each edition is on a 4 or 5 year cycle. Games need a major shakeup about once a decade. It's the 3 year cycle that makes it feel like everything is thrown out just as they're figuring out how it works.
That and the fact that GW are not the best writers when they do rules in the first place. Those 3 years often see things expanded on in expansion books and by 3 years honestly most of us would just like a new combined single book that collects all the messy stuff together into one place.
Honestly right now I think we are stuck with GW's 3 year cycle until something like One Page Rules makes some BIG inroads into the market enough for GW to wake up. Much like how it took Warmachine 2.0 doing really well for GW to wake up then (granted GW got a reprieve then because PP then rushed out their own 3rd edition and messed it up with a bunch of other things).
GW has found something that generates money; until it stops generating money for them its going to be hard to get them to change course. That or a few big names at the company moving on and a management attitude change toward rules.
I agree with this, though I'll also admit I'd rather play anything GW has put out since 8th than anything they'd put out prior. Granted, I'd also prefer to play a dozen games not made by GW, but sometimes you've gotta play with the crowd.
lord_blackfang wrote: OPR is not in any way a threat to GW, if anything it drives more GW sales since it just provides better rules for GW models.
Yes it drives sales of GW models. However if everyone is using OPR they'll stop buying GW rules expansions. They might only get the codex for their favoured army instead of all the armies they collect if they do at all since they aren't using them to play with any more. That was my point, it won't hurt GW's model sales, it will just impact their rules material sales and its not until those are hit that GW will start to make actual changes to how they do their rules.
Of course the fact that rules updates go hand in hand with model releases (esp for new editions) its a pattern that might well have a muted impact for some time before GW feels it; so long as OPR still drives GW model sales.
lord_blackfang wrote: OPR is not in any way a threat to GW, if anything it drives more GW sales since it just provides better rules for GW models.
Yes it drives sales of GW models. However if everyone is using OPR they'll stop buying GW rules expansions. They might only get the codex for their favoured army instead of all the armies they collect if they do at all since they aren't using them to play with any more. That was my point, it won't hurt GW's model sales, it will just impact their rules material sales and its not until those are hit that GW will start to make actual changes to how they do their rules.
not like people who play are buying rules expansions anyway and I doubt a lot of people would play the game if they had to buy the rules
This won't really change much, the same as playing GW games with 3D prints does not really hurt them
Overread wrote: Much like how it took Warmachine 2.0 doing really well for GW to wake up then (granted GW got a reprieve then because PP then rushed out their own 3rd edition and messed it up with a bunch of other things).
doubt that WM or X-Wing had anything to do with GW waking up, but simply crashing their new best game into a rock made them realise that they need to change
and unless GW crashed another game, they are going to continue with what works for them, not matter if people like it or not, or more people would play if different
just as above, as long as people buy, everything is alright. does not matter that not the same people buy models who are buying rules or people never play with the rules at all, as long as they sell out no need to change something
Overread wrote: Some stuff sounds like its just change for the sake of change like wounds going ot health.
The 3 inch instead of 1 inch close combat makes me wonder if this means we'll see larger unit blocks returning to this edition.
I imagine the increase in range and end of battleshock is there to give whole units things to do other than the guys on the edge just being used as wound tokens once a combat was lost.
Overread wrote: Some stuff sounds like its just change for the sake of change like wounds going ot health.
The 3 inch instead of 1 inch close combat makes me wonder if this means we'll see larger unit blocks returning to this edition.
I imagine the increase in range and end of battleshock is there to give whole units things to do other than the guys on the edge just being used as wound tokens once a combat was lost.
Another consideration is that it might be part of them speeding the game up. Why take 2 or 3 turns to kill something by grinding a unit into another unit when you can do all the damage in 1 turn.
So if they stick with things like the reinforcement system there could be even more bias for having more smaller units because having big units might give a lot of killing power, but would also mean one hit and you've lost a lot of your army and board control.
Honestly it feels like there's enough changing that learning about the changes piecemeal is going to result in people judging things without considering the big picture. It feels to me like the kind of edition where I'm better off waiting until I can play the final product.
Shadow Walker wrote: Is Health really more intuitive than Wounds? What is the point of such changes other than to invalid old books?
If you're familiar with GW games, wounds is a long standing term and doesn't need changing. If I think back to any other games, be they digital or physical, I can't really think of one that doesn't use health or hit points. It's a bit uncharacteristic for GW to adopt standard terms, especially if they have their own that have as long a tradition as wounds. However I could see their growth in the last years and focus on recruitment of new customers lead to the idea that they apply more standard terminology to make it as easy as possible to get into the game. AoS and 40k both have the stated goal of being beginner friendly, after all, regardless of the cost. I could see this change being a part of that fixation.
The old battletomes are going to be invalidated anyway. That's part of GW's sales strategy. So my guess is that this change actually appeals to someone on the design team for a real reason rather than being part of the package that necessitates invalidation of old books. Of course the design team thinks the double turn is a good idea, so that doesn't mean much.
LunarSol wrote: Honestly it feels like there's enough changing that learning about the changes piecemeal is going to result in people judging things without considering the big picture. It feels to me like the kind of edition where I'm better off waiting until I can play the final product.
There's always the danger of that and GW historically being stingy with what they preview doesn't help. But then a lot of people here were pretty positive about the Old World rules previews. As far as I'm concerned, how the AoS previews are received depends a lot more on what they suggest of the game's quality.
And not to be negative, considering the way people have voiced their concerns that 4th ed is a rewrite for the sake of selling a new round of battletomes from day one, the theme seems to be set regardless.
I looked at Reddit and saw AOS people having legitimate trouble with the distinction between "to wound", "wounds", and "wounds remaining". Must be hard.
Shadow Walker wrote: Is Health really more intuitive than Wounds? What is the point of such changes other than to invalid old books?
'Losing health' is more intuituvely something bad than 'losing wounds'. After all, if one 'lost a wound' in real life, they'd be getting better, not worse. After all, in Warhammer wounds are inflicted on models, but those inflicted wounds are then subtracted from their wound total. Gaining wounds reduces them? That does not make obvious sense to a new player. All of us long-term grognards are fine with the disconnect, but the theoretical new player will grok health easier than a wound stat.
RaptorusRex wrote: I looked at Reddit and saw AOS people having legitimate trouble with the distinction between "to wound", "wounds", and "wounds remaining". Must be hard.
To be replaced with the more intuitive, "to health", "to de-health", "health points", "healths", and "healths points"
(silliness without malice - don't currently play AoS but if 4th Ed is any good I'll give it a go!)
Warhammer Community wrote:Every current Battletome will be retired when the new edition drops
Hahahahaha
I read this as "We made a few minor word changes to force everyone to buy an entire set of new books, including those battletomes that have just been released in last few weeks"
Warhammer Community wrote:You’ll be able to buy physical Faction Packs from the outset<snip> And of course, these Indexes will be replaced by new-look Battletomes....
Faction packs outdated almost immediately more than likely
This is why I'm so glad I'm happy enough to stick with early versions of all their games including AoS. They make great minis but this is just GAK for the sake of being gak. No game needs to be changed this much the sake of a new edition.
Gimgamgoo wrote: It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"
A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.
*Codices. Yet again, GW themselves say "Indexes" instead of "Indices" so frick me I guess.
Warhammer Community wrote:Every current Battletome will be retired when the new edition drops
Hahahahaha
I read this as "We made a few minor word changes to force everyone to buy an entire set of new books, including those battletomes that have just been released in last few weeks"
Possibly the worst/hottest take I've seen since the official announcement, whether its here, on X* and various other FB pages and forums. Impressive!
There's about 4-5 paragraphs before the "Battletome retired" sentence starts that details why the battletomes are getting put out to pasture and its clearly not "a few minor word changes".
*(Formerly known as Twitter) as the journo's love to put to inflate their word count.
RaptorusRex wrote: I looked at Reddit and saw AOS people having legitimate trouble with the distinction between "to wound", "wounds", and "wounds remaining". Must be hard.
Reddit has never struck me as having the sharpest crayons on the tree.
But if GW is moving Age of Sigmar away from having 'wounds', it makes me wonder what other terminology changes are coming. It kinda sounds like their 4 'main' games will all feel very different from each other, which would be good. AoS is currently 40k but with a fantasy setting.
I can see them wanting AoS and Old World ot sound, feel and play very differently to separate the products as much as possible. Because the bleedover for the two is nuts.
At least one bonus is potentially if one fails and the other rules they can just squash them together.
The only pain will be rebasing to rounds/squares for the one that loses
Gimgamgoo wrote: It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"
A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.
*Codices. Yet again, GW themselves say "Indexes" instead of "Indices" so frick me I guess.
Lol, as a school teacher I would write Codices and Indices, but while typing the above, I altered it to Codexes to stop the cult of GW 'correcting' me.
Heck, I even write Dwarves and hate seeing it as Dwarfs.
Which is why, with all their talk of more interaction, more thought needed for the double turn, that they may be pulling from the Middle-Earth rules concerning it.
Crimson wrote: Still not removing the double turns? Pass.
That's because the double turn is an excellent game mechanic!
Which is why other GW games also use it.
...wait...
Iirc, MESBG uses double turn as well, no? Haven't played it often, but from what I recall, it's a bit more tame that it is in AoS?
Much more tame, and there are ways for the other player to mitigate it, such as with Heroic Actions. MESBG is GW's best ruleset and it's not close.
Not being overly familiar with AOS, I'd wager why it's worse there because in LotR, each player does movement, then shooting, then melee happens. And melee is done off opposed rolls, so doesn't overly favour the side with priority.
Crimson wrote: Still not removing the double turns? Pass.
That's because the double turn is an excellent game mechanic!
Which is why other GW games also use it.
...wait...
Iirc, MESBG uses double turn as well, no? Haven't played it often, but from what I recall, it's a bit more tame that it is in AoS?
Both players act fully in each phase, but yes the same player can go first multiple turns in a row. As someone else said, you can also mitigate that with Heroics, and both sides fight in combat (and shoot/magic).
MESBG has double phases, not double turns
same as some games have double or multiple activation
main problem is that a turn already takes too long and has too much impact on the game without the other player being able to react (and not just roll some dice to see what happens) and the double turn makes this just worse
if AoS would switch to alternating phases like MESBG it would not be a problem
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cyphertheory wrote: I am not sure if I should be surprised about how little excitement and interest a new edition of AoS is generating.
well, those who played AoS and/or collected the models more or less liked it for the game it is and it was the better game compared to 40k
of course now telling people that instead of the updates people felt should happen the game the game is replaced with something new and given GWs track record that the first version of a new game takes some years and/or the 2nd iteration to work out (with exception from the old days were design work was done differently) I doubt that a lot of people are going to be very happy
like have a number of tokens equal the number of turns per player put in a bag and players pick them blind, so if you are lucky you can have all of your 5 turns in a row.....
Because we love the doubleturn we've decided that all players automatically get a double turn each turn! This means twice as many turns per player. Just roll for who goes first and that player takes their regular turn and then their double turn; then it passes to their opponent and they get their regular and double.
This way everyone gets a double turn and the random element of the doubleturn is removed! No other wargame uses the Doubleturn Standard!
Honestly it still baffles me that people defend the doubleturn as a mechanic. As noted above if it was just a double activation or such on alternating unit activation it wouldn't be so bad;
Honestly it still baffles me that people defend the doubleturn as a mechanic. As noted above if it was just a double activation or such on alternating unit activation it wouldn't be so bad;
I vaguely understand its intentions a purposes. None of them work, but I can see what they're attempting to accomplish.
Honestly it still baffles me that people defend the doubleturn as a mechanic. As noted above if it was just a double activation or such on alternating unit activation it wouldn't be so bad;
I vaguely understand its intentions a purposes. None of them work, but I can see what they're attempting to accomplish.
Yeah one I often hear is "ahh but it makes it so the win/loss isn't defined by the list you took or who the better player is, there's a chance the weaker can win by getting the double turn."
Which isn't a fair statement because the double turn in no way links to player ability, army potential, game state or anything. If it linked into the game, eg if a player has 50% less models (in points) than their opponent at the start of a new turn they can roll for a double turn. Then that would indeed feel like it was trying to address a player being on a weaker footing getting a chance at winning the game or at least providing more challenge.
If your point value is 50% less than your opponents at the start of a turn, roll a D6. In a score of 3+ you get to take a double turn"
If it were like that then yes I could see justification for it. I wouldn't want that as a mechanic because it would require way too much math-tracking during the game to be fun and could even break when GW starts doing things like in 40K where you aren't playing for units individually any more.
I don't think people are engaging with the reason the priority role exists. In a standard old Warhammer game, the turn order is predictable.
I know that if I have a wizard with an 18 inch range spell and you have a melee unit with a movie of 4, I can safely move up one turn, and I'll still be alive the next turn to cast the spell.
With the priority roll this is much less certain. I have the aware that If I go first round then lose the priority, my wizard is vulnerable to that unit. So on my turn I have to think about the risk reward or I have to move the unit behind a screen to protect it incase the other player takes the double.
The people who love the priority roll, mostly do so because they enjoy processing this kind of tactical problem. It's not really to do with the ability to come back or the ability to stomp another player, it's the engagement with a grand risk reward mechanism. To me this is the appeal of the priority roll.
The downside is the downtime issue and the potential to win big due to a single roll.
The challenge is to keep the tactical challenge and the unpredictability while minimising the issues. I'm sure the are other ways to do this that don't involve the priority roll.
They rather say the quiet part out loud in that article.
Say, for example, we find out during the course of a season of Matched Play that the economy of Command points isn’t quite right for competitive play. We don’t need to issue an errata online; instead, we could have a new General’s Handbook with a new Command Module that is both thematically resonant and helps evolve the internal balance. If we want to bring that Advanced Rule module back in the future, we can.”
'If command points are a problem, we could just fix it in an update, but instead we will sell you a new book.'
No mention of the fact that an update could take a couple weeks at most, but a new book will take months, by which time the meta will adjust to the problem.
I also note that they're doing Spearhead the same way 40k messed up combat patrols. Instead of teaching you the game, spearhead will have its own unique cards that teaches a slightly different game. Sticking to the core rules would've at least been functional for a teaching tool.
this seems... alright for new players? i think it matters for new players and won't really be relevant for established players (aka any of us). would have to see how it's written out in practice, but this seems entirely harmless
You know I'd like this IF they did rules in a ring binder design where you can pop the pages in and out. So you could build your modular rulebook.
Because right now it just sounds like what we had before, only this time GW is going to swap much larger chunks of "core" rules for new chunks in expansion books. So you could well end up with "Matched play" needing multiple books. In fact it almost seems like its a mandatory part of the design.
At which point it almost feels like GW wants spearhead to be THE way you play and the way that defines the game going forward rather than Matched Play. So make MP " more complex and adaptable" but also insanely more difficult to practically run.
Honestly my gut feeling is that a lot of this is just changing the packaging and not the content.My worry is that in changing the packaging they are going to make it worse to engage with after 3 years.
There's elements in there that could really work well nad be a very good idea - heck modular bolt-on rules is how OPR adds its more advanced rules. However theirs are all in one publicatoin and neatly laid out. I don't need 3 or 4 expansion books (at £30 each) and to flip between all those books to run a game.
I'd like to give GW the benefit of the doubt but they are GW and their rules writing and information flow and organising are NOT their strong points.
Hm, so different levels of rules. Cool, will make it a bit easier with teaching new players to different levels.
yeah, just like now, but with fancy numbers instead of boring names
Voss wrote: They rather say the quiet part out loud in that article.
Say, for example, we find out during the course of a season of Matched Play that the economy of Command points isn’t quite right for competitive play. We don’t need to issue an errata online; instead, we could have a new General’s Handbook with a new Command Module that is both thematically resonant and helps evolve the internal balance. If we want to bring that Advanced Rule module back in the future, we can.”
'If command points are a problem, we could just fix it in an update, but instead we will sell you a new book.'
No mention of the fact that an update could take a couple weeks at most, but a new book will take months, by which time the meta will adjust to the problem.
if command points are a problem they remove them instead of trying to fix them, and replace them with something else and if this is a problem they also don't bother fixing it but remove it and replace it with something else
LunarSol wrote: I think its funny the rules are modular but all but one page is what most people consider "core".
Well yes, but you can swap out bits and pieces of that 'core', which is what makes it modular. So alternate magic rules, list-building and so on. Not sure it's as revolutionary as GW thinks it is, but they'll probably turn it on 40k as well if it proves well-received.
Voss wrote: I also note that they're doing Spearhead the same way 40k messed up combat patrols. Instead of teaching you the game, spearhead will have its own unique cards that teaches a slightly different game. Sticking to the core rules would've at least been functional for a teaching tool.
Combat Patrol was a solved problem as far back as it's introduction as 40K in 40 Minutes in 4th edition.
Lord Damocles wrote: I also note that they're doing Spearhead the same way 40k messed up combat patrols. Instead of teaching you the game, spearhead will have its own unique cards that teaches a slightly different game. Sticking to the core rules would've at least been functional for a teaching tool.
The problem is if you try and keep it the same as the main game then it hits its own issues of not scaling right. You have too few models to make some elements work right with some armies.
I think having it as its own distinct game is actually a better thing. It's not trying to be a tutorial game for the main game; its trying to be a "buy one box get playing" game format. Spearhead is actually superior in the sense that it gives you several models so you've a diverse group whilst all those models translate into full armies easily.
The downside is it costs more than 1 box of regular infantry.
However the core focus is not to get people into AoS or 40K; but to get them into gaming within the GW ecosystem.
Having it as its own game also means its more likely established people will pick it up to play too. It's not a tutorial; its not a non-serious throw away thing; its totally its own thing and format and you can grow from it into the other games or stick with it.
This makes it really attractive to people on hard budgets who just can't get up to a full army affordably; or who can't justify the time and money sink; or who just burn out. Heck one of (not the only) the contributing factors in Fantasy Old World not growing before it was killed was that you had to reach 1.5-2K points for most of the game and armies to "work properly". That was a huge barrier to many people who burned out just building stuff.
spearhead lets you jump right into the action; if you're new and don't care about mould lines you can even jump in within 1 afternoon. Throw the models together and get them on the table.
Lord Damocles wrote: I also note that they're doing Spearhead the same way 40k messed up combat patrols. Instead of teaching you the game, spearhead will have its own unique cards that teaches a slightly different game. Sticking to the core rules would've at least been functional for a teaching tool.
The problem is if you try and keep it the same as the main game then it hits its own issues of not scaling right. You have too few models to make some elements work right with some armies.
I think having it as its own distinct game is actually a better thing. It's not trying to be a tutorial game for the main game; its trying to be a "buy one box get playing" game format. Spearhead is actually superior in the sense that it gives you several models so you've a diverse group whilst all those models translate into full armies easily.
The downside is it costs more than 1 box of regular infantry.
However the core focus is not to get people into AoS or 40K; but to get them into gaming within the GW ecosystem.
Having it as its own game also means its more likely established people will pick it up to play too. It's not a tutorial; its not a non-serious throw away thing; its totally its own thing and format and you can grow from it into the other games or stick with it.
This makes it really attractive to people on hard budgets who just can't get up to a full army affordably; or who can't justify the time and money sink; or who just burn out. Heck one of (not the only) the contributing factors in Fantasy Old World not growing before it was killed was that you had to reach 1.5-2K points for most of the game and armies to "work properly". That was a huge barrier to many people who burned out just building stuff.
spearhead lets you jump right into the action; if you're new and don't care about mould lines you can even jump in within 1 afternoon. Throw the models together and get them on the table.
To expand on its value for more establish players: This system also lets you get a game of AoS done in less than 2 hours including setup.
The time commitment to a 1500 or 2000 point AoS game isn't just the 2.5+ hours it takes to play them, it's the 1+ hour of building a list, getting everything out of storage, double checking you have the right models, setting up the table, etc, etc. If the game can take 90 minutes and the setup is a half hour or less, I might be able to convince my roomates to dust off their old AoS stuff.
Lord Damocles wrote: I also note that they're doing Spearhead the same way 40k messed up combat patrols. Instead of teaching you the game, spearhead will have its own unique cards that teaches a slightly different game. Sticking to the core rules would've at least been functional for a teaching tool.
The problem is if you try and keep it the same as the main game then it hits its own issues of not scaling right. You have too few models to make some elements work right with some armies.
I think having it as its own distinct game is actually a better thing. It's not trying to be a tutorial game for the main game; its trying to be a "buy one box get playing" game format. Spearhead is actually superior in the sense that it gives you several models so you've a diverse group whilst all those models translate into full armies easily.
The downside is it costs more than 1 box of regular infantry.
However the core focus is not to get people into AoS or 40K; but to get them into gaming within the GW ecosystem.
Having it as its own game also means its more likely established people will pick it up to play too. It's not a tutorial; its not a non-serious throw away thing; its totally its own thing and format and you can grow from it into the other games or stick with it.
This makes it really attractive to people on hard budgets who just can't get up to a full army affordably; or who can't justify the time and money sink; or who just burn out. Heck one of (not the only) the contributing factors in Fantasy Old World not growing before it was killed was that you had to reach 1.5-2K points for most of the game and armies to "work properly". That was a huge barrier to many people who burned out just building stuff.
spearhead lets you jump right into the action; if you're new and don't care about mould lines you can even jump in within 1 afternoon. Throw the models together and get them on the table.
You're presenting a weird argument. None of that involves having units that work differently (unique cards!) than they do in the real game.
If it isn't 'scaling right' then GW has chosen the wrong models for the boxed sets.
I get having a small format games and introductory games. But making it arbitrarily different (and with 'fixed' lists and unique abilities) is gibberish.
Lord Damocles wrote: I also note that they're doing Spearhead the same way 40k messed up combat patrols. Instead of teaching you the game, spearhead will have its own unique cards that teaches a slightly different game. Sticking to the core rules would've at least been functional for a teaching tool.
The problem is if you try and keep it the same as the main game then it hits its own issues of not scaling right. You have too few models to make some elements work right with some armies.
I think having it as its own distinct game is actually a better thing. It's not trying to be a tutorial game for the main game; its trying to be a "buy one box get playing" game format. Spearhead is actually superior in the sense that it gives you several models so you've a diverse group whilst all those models translate into full armies easily.
The downside is it costs more than 1 box of regular infantry.
However the core focus is not to get people into AoS or 40K; but to get them into gaming within the GW ecosystem.
Having it as its own game also means its more likely established people will pick it up to play too. It's not a tutorial; its not a non-serious throw away thing; its totally its own thing and format and you can grow from it into the other games or stick with it.
This makes it really attractive to people on hard budgets who just can't get up to a full army affordably; or who can't justify the time and money sink; or who just burn out. Heck one of (not the only) the contributing factors in Fantasy Old World not growing before it was killed was that you had to reach 1.5-2K points for most of the game and armies to "work properly". That was a huge barrier to many people who burned out just building stuff.
spearhead lets you jump right into the action; if you're new and don't care about mould lines you can even jump in within 1 afternoon. Throw the models together and get them on the table.
You're presenting a weird argument. None of that involves having units that work differently (unique cards!) than they do in the real game.
If it isn't 'scaling right' then GW has chosen the wrong models for the boxed sets.
I get having a small format games and introductory games. But making it arbitrarily different (and with 'fixed' lists and unique abilities) is gibberish.
Not really, some units are just not going to scale perfectly without changing their stats and some rules mechanics just don't work the same if you've 5 models as opposed to 20 in a unit. Old World and other rank and file games show this quite well with mechanics that - well they work at low points but they often aren't as engaging or fun and they feel wrong/wonky to play when you've formation rules and such but only a tiny number of models in each unit.
Plus it also creates a stigma within the group; established players have no reason to step down to the lower point game unless its a tutorial game. Otherwise they are going to stick to the main game at the higher point values because they've got the models already. They don't need coaxing to build another 500points of models or such.
Instead having a separate game with its own rules that works at a smaller skirmish level works far better at being its own thing. It just has to introduce new people to playing tabletop games, building models, painting them and rolling dice. Once you breach that a new rules system is a LOT easier to get them into. Esp if they've got one or two spearheads from a faction and a few cool models and now they've got an army ready for that 1K game or that 2K game without realising it.
This isn't really anything new. Underworlds, Warcry, Killteam, have all been doing this job already for a while and I'd argue better than when Killteam was just a watered down corner of the main rules. As its own thing it gets attention. GW markets it and talks about it; there's products on the shelf for people to be tempted into; there's "oh yeah just get this box put them together and you can start playing" marketing for the store staff and gamers to get newbies into.
So the "Command Models" module sounds like attached heroes is coming to AoS, similar to what they did with 40k. Will be interesting to see what that looks like, unless that's just encompassing standard "Musicians, Standards, and Leaders".
Groat wrote: So the "Command Models" module sounds like attached heroes is coming to AoS, similar to what they did with 40k. Will be interesting to see what that looks like, unless that's just encompassing standard "Musicians, Standards, and Leaders".
Honestly I'd utterly love if they go back to the old style of 1 command stand per unit. It always looks so wrong to me that AoS basically has 1 leader, but then 1 per X for banners and musicians - esp for cavalry units.
In hindsight GW had the right idea during 8th edition, where it was Kill Team for a team of soliders, 40K for small-to-medium battles, and Apocalypse for large battles.
I like that everyone fights on a 3" bubble, lowkey 1" melee hand weapons fething sucked, now hopefully with the return of USR hand wepons will have in some cases special effects.
I kinda dread they bring back Fantasy Ethereal and NH becomes incredibly difficult to deal with but GW has a clean record of not breaking their own games, right?
RaptorusRex wrote: Do you guys seriously know anyone who plays Kiddy Pool 40k?
If you mean Combat Patrol, it's quite popular in my city, and the last WD has pretty decent multiplayer rules, as well as a Rogue Trader Combat Patrol (which I could already field and therefore might paint up).
To get back on topic though, have they announced yet whether new AoS will have free rules and Indexes online?
I'm too poor to invest in another GW game, but I do have an existing Daemons of Slaanesh army already, and with free rules and an Index, I'd try it out.
the core will be free, as usual but that won't take you very far
nothing about the indices yet but can be either, though I guess they will be free
if you are able to use you existing army without buying anything to make it playable, also a 50:50 chance depending on how fancy the changes for the armies are
To get back on topic though, have they announced yet whether new AoS will have free rules and Indexes online?
I'm too poor to invest in another GW game, but I do have an existing Daemons of Slaanesh army already, and with free rules and an Index, I'd try it out.
Same as 40K indices - free pdfs - until your faction gets a battletome.
So today they are showing what change to double turn. If rumour true I might go from generally aiming to decline double(at least until turn 3 or 4) to aim to force double to opponent. No battle tactic pretty bad handicap.
"Now, in matched play battlepacks, when you choose to take a double turn, you give up your opportunity to pick a battle tactic for the turn.* It’s still an incredibly powerful option – but the decision is now far from a foregone conclusion."
“I often ask competitive players, playtesters, and influencers the same questions,” says Matt. “What they’d add to the game, what they’d change about it, and what they’d remove from it. By far, the number one answer to the last question is this: ‘not the double turn!’
ok, let the intern write articles were they pretend to talk to others is boring most of the time, but pretending the not existing 2nd person talked to other people and got the answer the marketing team wanted for the rules is kind of entertaining
If enough people ask GW to remove IGoUGo from 40k, I guess they will add the double turn as the perfect solution for this problem
“I think the priority roll and the potential for a double turn can create really cool and dynamic outcomes where you can’t predict the flow of a game”, explains Matt, the Lead Games Developer for Warhammer Age of Sigmar. “You can’t count out each players’ moves as simply as a straightforward you-go-then-I-go. It’s a wonderful possibility space.”
I just realised - modular rules + that quote = random turn sequencing!
Imagine you get your turn and boom you don't get the roll for your movement, your army is stuck static, but you might get a double roll on magic or close combat!
Not only that but what about changing up the order too - sort your turn the way you want! Be creative! What if you want to shoot first and then move!?
I just realised - modular rules + that quote = random turn sequencing!
Imagine you get your turn and boom you don't get the roll for your movement, your army is stuck static, but you might get a double roll on magic or close combat!
Not only that but what about changing up the order too - sort your turn the way you want! Be creative! What if you want to shoot first and then move!?
I prefer the old tabard over the mail skirt; however the new shield looks more interesting than the old - even if the old is a very decent shield shape for them.
That said I can see people not being "excited" over the new design. It's very much a subtle refinement. Boon because it means they'll fit in easily on the table, but at the same time might not have that "Ohh must have" feeling that many times you get with an updated sculpt. Esp since the originals are hardly that old.
That's probably going to be the biggest variation! It might well make them more interesting for some, despite my point earlier about them being a refinement.
Looks about what I would expect. Though I'm just finally getting through painting my 1st Edition starter set so I'm going to stick with my old blocky guys.
Looks awesome.
I have tried painting the old guys in many different styles and always come to the conclusion I dont like them at all.
To me the thunderstrike looks more refined, like its more a crafted armour somehow.
However I cant say its more realistic to have that skin tight armour that would imply a really scrawny guy inside.
Hot take: I don't like the redesing. Nose is dumb, shoulders are tiny, shield doesn't match and the tabard was way more cool. Those guys are now just Handsome Squidward Vindictors.
James12345 wrote: Fine but very uninspired. Just a new weapon option on the existing kit. Why not revamp the hunter or wizard chambers?
Limited opinion because I've always disliked the Stormcast aesthetic, but it does feel like an all-around better miniature.
They're presumably a few waves behind, but I hope they reconsider fully armouring the Vanguard Chamber this time around. They missed a trick by being so obsessed with making them Space Marines that they forgot Space Marine Scouts aren't in head-to-toe power armour. Something more along the lines of the Custodes Venatari or the jetbikers would have been ideal in my opinion. Would help put more ground between Vanguard-Hunters and Vigilors, but the latter still being fully armoured scouts seems to suggest that my hope is all but confirmed as pointless
Fwiw, I have this friend, Warhammercurious but still widely unknowlable about AoS, but avid WoW player, and showed him the comparison of Liberators. I asked who he likes better, he said (translation):
Fresh wrote:The silver one, I like more the desing of his helmet and it looks like an armour desing more agile for combat then the other one
Considering this is a soft reboot to AoS, might as well ask to newbies or current or former AoS-naysaysers what they think. They might be aiming for a new audience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok, I asked him to compare the Vindicator and new Liberator, he liked the lance, the 🗿 head and the gold colour better now, so maybe they shouldn't really went away from Hammers of Sigmar?
In that case I hope they I hope Salamanders or Space Wolves are the poster boys for 40K's next three editions.
CMLR wrote: Hot take: I don't like the redesing. Nose is dumb, shoulders are tiny, shield doesn't match and the tabard was way more cool. Those guys are now just Handsome Squidward Vindictors.
James12345 wrote: Fine but very uninspired. Just a new weapon option on the existing kit. Why not revamp the hunter or wizard chambers?
No different weapons at all.
I think he meant it's just a different weapon for the spear guys from the last starter.
I agree overall, it's a better proportioned figure but the design is worse, the face especially.
cole1114 wrote: If we're seeing redesigns of 2015 stuff now, there's a lot more interesting things they could apply this to.
I reckon year of release has nothing to do with it. Sigmarines just happened to be among the last model ranges before the discovery of human anatomy, and as the face of AoSGW evidently wants to maintain a certain standard for the poster boys. Consider the shift in sculpting of big beasties like the Cities manticore and the latest dragons. GW has moved away from its traditional monster imagery and more into realism and, let's call it mass market appeal to wow people. This is something that exists in other ranges now, along with models with better proportions than GW made in 2015. Sigmarines have to compete with that.
Age of Sigmar has generally kept the stormcast in every starter box and the army is already BIG and diverse.
Honestly if they are going to keep them in the starter without question then redesign is the best option instead of either bloating the army even more or going the other path of making specific subfactions of the same design. Which honestly I think only works for Space Marines as a fluke and also isn't healthy for the game design space either.
Honestly I don't think there's problems with the sculpts as they are now; esp when you compare them to armies like Fyreslayers who have very little choice or Beastmen who clearly need some fresher designs and such. But in the end if Stormcast MUST be in the box then redesign is vastly better than army bloating.
this is... pretty significant, but just at first blush, i think i'm here for it. it's a big change up, but i think it's an interesting direction for AOS army building to go. not as freeform as 40k10th, and instead is more like a lateral shift from what we had before
it's very different, and maybe that turns out to be bad once it actually exists, but i'm looking forward to trying armies like this once the indexes start dropping
"Every unit within a regiment deploys together as a single drop. You can reinforce most non-Unique units with more than one model, and while there is no longer any limit on the number of units you can reinforce, you may no longer double-reinforce units."
So this sounds like infantry will be capped at 2 boxes per full unit instead of a potential 3 last edition and the one before.
So 20 or so models per full unit max for infantry and 10 for cavalry unless there's any other special rules taking place. Though I AM glad to see reinforcement limits being gone
Also the regiments thematic elements sound a little loose to me. I suspect beyond the drop nature, we don't see a huge army change because of it since in the past that kind of choice was done by buffs, boons and so forth.
I wonder if that choice and design came about from someone playing TW Three Kingdoms because its basically the same army building mechanic they used.
thinking about this more, i think the most interesting part of this is that units will be restricted to certain characters— it's not a major shift, since i assume the characters will correlate to units you want to take with them anyway, but it's still a restriction, and restrictions like that can have ripple effects
also, how does this affect battalions? the two seem incompatible, so i wouldn't be surprised to see these replace it completely
also also i wanna hear more about auxiliaries and how those work because i think that's going to end up being pretty important. are specific units auxillary-only? can any unit be taken as an auxillary?
StudentOfEtherium wrote: thinking about this more, i think the most interesting part of this is that units will be restricted to certain characters— it's not a major shift, since i assume the characters will correlate to units you want to take with them anyway, but it's still a restriction, and restrictions like that can have ripple effects
And for us collectors/narrative players, it could be a very nice way to put together really thematic forces in 'bite-size' chunks. Kind of like a themed Spearhead/Combat Patrol, or the way I used to look at some of the more specialised Battalions.
i think this is also going to do wonders for the more bloated armies like stormcast or STD. having a thing that says, you want to take these units with these characters is going to help a lot with stormcast in particular, where they just have so many options, and many that struggle to stand out from each other
Tim the Biovore wrote: Limited opinion because I've always disliked the Stormcast aesthetic, but it does feel like an all-around better miniature.
They're presumably a few waves behind, but I hope they reconsider fully armouring the Vanguard Chamber this time around. They missed a trick by being so obsessed with making them Space Marines that they forgot Space Marine Scouts aren't in head-to-toe power armour. Something more along the lines of the Custodes Venatari or the jetbikers would have been ideal in my opinion. Would help put more ground between Vanguard-Hunters and Vigilors, but the latter still being fully armoured scouts seems to suggest that my hope is all but confirmed as pointless
I think this look is a step forward for creating more separation between the armor types, though.
It might also be a little easier for newbs to paint. Which is a consideration for minis going in starter sets.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: this is... pretty significant, but just at first blush, i think i'm here for it. it's a big change up, but i think it's an interesting direction for AOS army building to go. not as freeform as 40k10th, and instead is more like a lateral shift from what we had before
it's very different, and maybe that turns out to be bad once it actually exists, but i'm looking forward to trying armies like this once the indexes start dropping
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i think this is also going to do wonders for the more bloated armies like stormcast or STD. having a thing that says, you want to take these units with these characters is going to help a lot with stormcast in particular, where they just have so many options, and many that struggle to stand out from each other
the more i think about this, the better it gets
True and it might be a softer way to break up armies in a thematic way like Stormcast or Skaven without creating them as fully separate whole armies. Because then you have a whole lot of other stuff you have to make as well.
Granted we have hd that before too with sub-armies within factions so perhaps those are going away to be replaced with the generals system.
Warhammer Age of Sigmar
No sword option, but from a rules perspective they have had the same profile for a while now, so it's just all hammers now!
In game a unit of liberators will take either 2 hammers, or a hammer and shield, one in 5 will be able to take a grandhammer.
Each of the models pictured can take either two hammers, or a hammer and shield. The one build here as a Champion can be built as a "regular" liberator with a slightly different pose too. We may well take a closer look at the kit as their release approches.
I currently don't play Sigmar, I always wanted to try to jump in (I have thousand sons/daemons for 40k so basically have a Sigmar army) but a lot of the rules turned me off. This new edition has really peaked my interest and I think I am going to give it a try with Tzeentch forces so I don't have to buy to get in then expand from there (I think the steam punk dwarfs are really cool looking)
Warhammer Age of Sigmar
No sword option, but from a rules perspective they have had the same profile for a while now, so it's just all hammers now!
In game a unit of liberators will take either 2 hammers, or a hammer and shield, one in 5 will be able to take a grandhammer.
Each of the models pictured can take either two hammers, or a hammer and shield. The one build here as a Champion can be built as a "regular" liberator with a slightly different pose too. We may well take a closer look at the kit as their release approches.
I'm a bit sad that some units can't do 2 reinforcements to go to 30 infantry/15 cavalry (on average); but losing the reinforcement limit in itself is a big positive in my view.
I got why they did it, but on top of everything else it felt really over-done so dialling it back is a boon in my view.
We wait to see if any units or armies get special rules that let them double reinforce (which is something I hoped we'd have seen in 3rd edition but we didn't)
I wish they had kept the tabbard thing from the old Liberators and kept closer to the original helmet style, now they're "just" Vindicators with different weapons. Still an improvement though!
Those hammers are so stupid big. Makes them look like kids toys. Comic hammers kind of worked on the older ones because everything was so chunky, but they just look awful on the newer slimmer Stormcast.
New helmets are a definite downgrade. The rivets make it look too brutish compared to the rest of their armor.
Gallahad wrote: Those hammers are so stupid big. Makes them look like kids toys. Comic hammers kind of worked on the older ones because everything was so chunky, but they just look awful on the newer slimmer Stormcast.
New helmets are a definite downgrade. The rivets make it look too brutish compared to the rest of their armor.
Yeah I have to agree. The old design was much more balanced with the oversized hammers. Also the smaller shields make them look even less bulky.
Greathammer is good though, and bare head is good too.
stahly wrote: I wish they had kept the tabbard thing from the old Liberators and kept closer to the original helmet style, now they're "just" Vindicators with different weapons. Still an improvement though!
Exactly my thoughts. I'm not calling them an improvement, they are now a sidegrade.
Gallahad wrote: Those hammers are so stupid big. Makes them look like kids toys. Comic hammers kind of worked on the older ones because everything was so chunky, but they just look awful on the newer slimmer Stormcast.
New helmets are a definite downgrade. The rivets make it look too brutish compared to the rest of their armor.
I'm with you on the hammers. It makes me wish they still had the sword option just to go with something a little different aesthetically.
I just keep thinking about my mate's old, old High Elf army from the WHFB days. Level 4 Champion riding a Dragon that was a Level 4 mage, and 4 more dragons. That was it. Tournament legal and super beardy.
It seems that this may become something of a thing again.
I do like the idea of a Skaven Warlord on a Hamster Ball of Doom and another 8-15 of them wandering around the battlefield causing all sorts of chaos.
In regards to new army building, it looks like they copied their homework from MESBG which is fun.
Command points are a scarce resource in this edition. There isn’t a single warscroll or faction ability in the game that gives you additional points”.
Yet. While this is great to hear, I have little faith that they will stick to this rule.
On top of your regiments, you’ll also be picking your subfaction. These are now called battle formations, which have been refocused around the fighting style of an army rather than their specific background. This invites players to mix and match a battle formation with their favourite colour scheme and any unique heroes they like.
I may be misreading this, but does this mean that the Hammers of Sigmar near monopoly on Special Characters is over? My Knights Excelsior can take a Bastian Carthalos and benefit from his abilities? I guess we won’t know until we see his new warscroll. Really opens up the possibilities for new conversions/paint schemes.
Haven’t been this pumped for AoS in months. Ready to dive right into this new addition. Though, there is a part of me anxious about stuff (mainly BoC in my case) getting purged. If they are going to do it, a reboot like this is the time.
Likely works like 40k. So only knight excelsior specific would be special characters which you can't mix(or maybe you can). Eithei way no special rule by being knight excelsior
its not quite a lift & drop from MESBG, there a hero can bring a variable number of followers (zero in some cases, upto about 18 normally, a few are higher)
and there is no limit of how many warbands you can bring either.
plus models are brought as individual followers so no "reinforcement" mechanic, indeed models act as individuals with some ways to support each other
had a look at this and went "meah", seems GW have gone with "whats the least effort to write"
nels1031 wrote: I may be misreading this, but does this mean that the Hammers of Sigmar near monopoly on Special Characters is over? My Knights Excelsior can take a Bastian Carthalos and benefit from his abilities? I guess we won’t know until we see his new warscroll. Really opens up the possibilities for new conversions/paint schemes.
Sounds a lot like the way they're handling Space Marines.
What's the point of wearing it then? Go without so it doesn't limit your moves and visibility. In reality, these hits would be directed at joints and gaps, but these seem to be armored with some magical plotanium as I can't recall a single 
3rd edition's offerings are going to be difficult to top, but we'll see...
