So AOS 2.0 in June. Rumors were right. What was revealed that I saw:
Command Points like in 40k. - my excitement level: should be about 8 out of 10. If its implemented like 40k its a 3 out of 10 because CPs in 40k are easy to farm and follows the all reward no risk mantra of current game development.
More strategic double turn. Assuming this means you spend command points in some fashion to dictate double turn happening. My excitement level on this: 2 out of 10 because you'll build a certain way to farm CPs to make use of this which pigeon holes army construction just as it does in 40k.
Artillery. Excitement level 7 out of 10. A proper battlefield role getting more of a role than it currently does is to me a good thing, plus my chaos dwarves will hopefully get some more use out of their current lackluster army.
Stormcast mage chamber. Excitement level: 1 out of 10. I'm sick to death of stormcast releases.
New Nighthaunt Battletome: excitement level: 8 out of 10. Good to see more death getting fleshed out. Great new models. New Mortarch of Grief.
What I'm reading is not impacted are the gamey gamey rules like the lack of cover and terrain rules and getting to continue to shoot lord bob in the mouth because his thumb is visible through two forests and crossing five enemy model bases with no penalty because everyone is Legolas Level 30.
The immersion breaking rules are here to stay because gamey gamey is fun, and traditional wargaming tropes are not fun. Disappointed by this. I really really wish GW would throw us guys that love traditional wargaming a bone or two. Especially when in the community site they say their goal is to make AOS "THE" Fantasy Wargame.
Caveat: no one has seen all of the rules yet so any of this could change or there are things we don't know yet that could lessen the annoyance for me over the gamey gamey rules continuing to be a thing.
Personally im not looking foward to CP because its been abused as hell in 40k, so guessing not much will change.
its my hope that GW will finally pull their had outta their arse and make a consistence and cohesive universe thats not painfully cringe to try and read into. Again can have the best game play mechanics in the world, but if the lore and universe and just not appealing, the game is not appealing to me either.
Night haunt are gonna be good though, death needs more love.
CPs are great mechanic in theory. It is just that some armies in 40K can farm them way too easily, which breaks the system. The whole point of them is that they're a limited resource which you must use wisely.
CPs in 40k are easy to farm also because you can get a ton by doing easy mode building soup lists and detachment style lists that have no drawback.
I like the concept of CP. CP can be used to enforce balance and non extreme builds. The way GW does it you get your extreme one dimensional power build AND a shed load of CPs to go with it.
auticus wrote: CPs in 40k are easy to farm also because you can get a ton by doing easy mode building soup lists and detachment style lists that have no drawback.
I like the concept of CP. CP can be used to enforce balance and non extreme builds. The way GW does it you get your extreme one dimensional power build AND a shed load of CPs to go with it.
You're missing that those soup lists are taking as much advantage as possible over the relics/traits that give you back CPs on d6 rolls.
That's why people take Grand Strategist Guard Warlords, Kurov's Aquila, and stuff like that.
If it's something like a set number for both players, varying only by the size of the game, then that should be workable and fair. Something like, 3 for vanguard, 6 for battlehost and 9 for warhost as an example, assuming that matched play still works like that.
auticus wrote: CPs in 40k are easy to farm also because you can get a ton by doing easy mode building soup lists and detachment style lists that have no drawback.
I like the concept of CP. CP can be used to enforce balance and non extreme builds. The way GW does it you get your extreme one dimensional power build AND a shed load of CPs to go with it.
Really its the fact there is no cap on them, and there are multiple ways to roll to see if you get it back. Guliman, guard strat, and guard relic, lets you roll 2 dice for your own CP, and 1 for your oponants. It would not be bad if EVERYONE got that level of BS.
I think Command Points will be different unless they do a complete revamp of the entire system. Currently Matched Play is very restrictive in AoS so I doubt we'll see endless detachment Command batteries a la 40k. Also, I wonder if the Malign Portents and the "Prophecy" system is an early indicator of how it will work. The benefit is that they at least have over a year of experience with what worked with CP in 40k and hopefully implement some of that knowledge into AoS.
Second time I've actually been excited for a Stormcast release(first time was with Neave Blacktalon), but I am a sucker for more women models. Also just beautiful models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: If it's something like a set number for both players, varying only by the size of the game, then that should be workable and fair. Something like, 3 for vanguard, 6 for battlehost and 9 for warhost as an example, assuming that matched play still works like that.
If they go for the Malign Portent route it will be base: 1d6 + 3 per phase. Then you get 1 point for each hero, wizard, and priest in your party(Malign Portent also had one point for Harbingers, but I doubt that will be included if they go this route).
Honestly I'm not looking forward to whatever rules made the crossover from 40k. Maybe they'll get it right this time, maybe they won't. Last thing I want is even greater benefits for picking an army with a battle tome over the one that doesn't have it or won't get any support in a foreseeable future.
My biggest concern is that they're going to 'remove' the ability to snipe characters like in 40k. It would make the biggest benefit for Idoneth cease to be relevant.
The idea of removing shooting out of combat is just...ugh as well. Shooting units are, IMO, already kind of pathetic aside from a few standouts. Anyone trying to say that Dark Riders, Scourge Privateers, or Shadow Warriors are great is full of it.
Kanluwen wrote: My biggest concern is that they're going to 'remove' the ability to snipe characters like in 40k.
It would make the biggest benefit for Idoneth cease to be relevant.
The idea of removing shooting out of combat is just...ugh as well. Shooting units are, IMO, already kind of pathetic aside from a few standouts. Anyone trying to say that Dark Riders, Scourge Privateers, or Shadow Warriors are great is full of it.
Both would be good changes. Ability to snipe characters with impunity is stupid, enemy can just remove characters which are not crazy tanky. Melee being able to shut down the shooting at least a little bit is good for tactical depth, as it makes manoeuvring more important. If these changes lead to some units being too weak or too good, then that can be resolved via adjusting the rules or point costs of those units.
Anyone trying to say that Dark Riders, Scourge Privateers, or Shadow Warriors are great is full of it.
I doubt they are taking non-battletome factions into account.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Both would be good changes. Ability to snipe characters with impunity is stupid, enemy can just remove characters which are not crazy tanky. Melee being able to shut down the shooting at least a little bit is good for tactical dept, as it makes manoeuvring more important. If these changes lead to some units being too weak or too good, then that can be resolved via adjusting the rules or point costs of those units.
Eldarsif wrote: Super excited about this release.
If they go for the Malign Portent route it will be base: 1d6 + 3 per phase. Then you get 1 point for each hero, wizard, and priest in your party(Malign Portent also had one point for Harbingers, but I doubt that will be included if they go this route).
I like that. How much do the stratagems cost in points? Are they 1/2 and 3 like 40k?
The best thing about that system is that you'll be rewarded for taking weaker characters who might never otherwise see the light of day (Navigator? I'm looking at you).
I'm cautiously optimistic. I like the idea of CP (and the version they had in Malign Portents wasn't bad), but agree it could go sideways really quick. I know I'm probably in a minority, but I'm glad the initiative roll per turn isn't gone, though it sounds like there's some ways to modify that now. Which could be either good or bad.
Interesting that they seem to have added no shooting out of combat (didn't see anything yet on shooting into it), that was one of few areas I didn't like too much in AOS. I don't mind the "character sniping" too much, but do wish they'd include some rules for terrain and cover that weren't just so half assed.
I just hope they don't screw it up. AoS is in a solid place right now, and there's a lot of baggage they could bring over from 40k that would not go over so well.
Eldarsif wrote: Super excited about this release.
If they go for the Malign Portent route it will be base: 1d6 + 3 per phase. Then you get 1 point for each hero, wizard, and priest in your party(Malign Portent also had one point for Harbingers, but I doubt that will be included if they go this route).
I like that. How much do the stratagems cost in points? Are they 1/2 and 3 like 40k?
The best thing about that system is that you'll be rewarded for taking weaker characters who might never otherwise see the light of day (Navigator? I'm looking at you).
The Malign Portent abilities cost from 1 to 5 points depending on their description. 1 point abilities are not common in the Malign Portent book. About 1 such ability per faction.
There are two ways to generate portents. Narrative and matched play. Narrative was described, matched play gives you fixed value of them in regards to the points being used.
Fafnir wrote: I just hope they don't screw it up. AoS is in a solid place right now, and there's a lot of baggage they could bring over from 40k that would not go over so well.
ehhhhhhh, solid is a strong word, i would say its in more of a saquid like state, not quite a solid, not quite a liquid.
Fafnir wrote: I just hope they don't screw it up. AoS is in a solid place right now, and there's a lot of baggage they could bring over from 40k that would not go over so well.
ehhhhhhh, solid is a strong word, i would say its in more of a saquid like state, not quite a solid, not quite a liquid.
Okay, I'll put it like this then:
There's more 40k could take from AoS than AoS should take from 40k.
My hope is that AoS 'command points' are a set number no matter the size of your army. You get, say, 6, no matter what faction, allegiance, or whatever you choose.
That, in my mind, would be an ideal start.
But otherwise, I'm excited. Different changes to command abilities, no shooting out of combat, new rules for magic and the like, as well as rules for combat on the different realms sounds like a lot of fun!
Fafnir wrote: I just hope they don't screw it up. AoS is in a solid place right now, and there's a lot of baggage they could bring over from 40k that would not go over so well.
So much this. I would hate for the AoS community to look anything like what I see in 40k. That place is nurgles own pit. I am a purely narrative guy with my group so a lot of things may not be relevant to us, but I am not overly impressed with 40k at all.
Command Points like in 40k. - my excitement level: should be about 8 out of 10. If its implemented like 40k its a 3 out of 10 because CPs in 40k are easy to farm and follows the all reward no risk mantra of current game development.
More strategic double turn. 2 out of 10
Artillery. 5 out of 10 here.
Stormcast mage chamber. 10 out of 10. I concur with " I'm sick to death of stormcast releases." but am also looking towards the rpg coming out and these will be wanted by some of my players
New Nighthaunt Battletome: : 10 out of 10.
The immersion breaking rules hurt my feelbads in many ways too, but I have dr strangelove view of them, as for the community site they say their goal is to make AOS "THE" Fantasy Wargame. that ship long sailed in a lot of places.
The Malign Portent abilities cost from 1 to 5 points depending on their description. 1 point abilities are not common in the Malign Portent book. About 1 such ability per faction.
Cool. I should have got that book.
Also, is it +1 point per wizard/priest or a flat point for having each type period?
Again, I like CPs, but they need to be careful with how they implement them.
I'm sort of excited about this news as I've been itching to play aos for some time. Hopefully they will clear up some of the confusion about making legacy armies, I'm still not entirely sure if my high elves are even legal.
Ehh, I just dipped my toes very casually back into AoS only to see this. 100% not excited about 40k Esque CP porting over. It seemed like such a good idea in that game as well at first, but with every release it just seems like an unholy mess, screws with army building, and slows down the game.
auticus wrote: So AOS 2.0 in June. Rumors were right. What was revealed that I saw:
Command Points like in 40k. - my excitement level: should be about 8 out of 10. If its implemented like 40k its a 3 out of 10 because CPs in 40k are easy to farm and follows the all reward no risk mantra of current game development.
More strategic double turn. Assuming this means you spend command points in some fashion to dictate double turn happening. My excitement level on this: 2 out of 10 because you'll build a certain way to farm CPs to make use of this which pigeon holes army construction just as it does in 40k.
Artillery. Excitement level 7 out of 10. A proper battlefield role getting more of a role than it currently does is to me a good thing, plus my chaos dwarves will hopefully get some more use out of their current lackluster army.
Stormcast mage chamber. Excitement level: 1 out of 10. I'm sick to death of stormcast releases.
New Nighthaunt Battletome: excitement level: 8 out of 10. Good to see more death getting fleshed out. Great new models. New Mortarch of Grief.
What I'm reading is not impacted are the gamey gamey rules like the lack of cover and terrain rules and getting to continue to shoot lord bob in the mouth because his thumb is visible through two forests and crossing five enemy model bases with no penalty because everyone is Legolas Level 30.
The immersion breaking rules are here to stay because gamey gamey is fun, and traditional wargaming tropes are not fun. Disappointed by this. I really really wish GW would throw us guys that love traditional wargaming a bone or two. Especially when in the community site they say their goal is to make AOS "THE" Fantasy Wargame.
Caveat: no one has seen all of the rules yet so any of this could change or there are things we don't know yet that could lessen the annoyance for me over the gamey gamey rules continuing to be a thing.
Are you not excited for no shooting out of combat?
dosiere wrote: Ehh, I just dipped my toes very casually back into AoS only to see this. 100% not excited about 40k Esque CP porting over. It seemed like such a good idea in that game as well at first, but with every release it just seems like an unholy mess, screws with army building, and slows down the game.
Oh well, I hope they do more good than harm here.
An occasional reroll for key plays wouldn't be awful, but the broader spectrum of stratagems tends to be wildly hit-or-miss in 40k. AoS also does a good enough job differentiating its factions with its faction traits and abilities already, stratagems aren't needed to fill that gap like they do in 40k. In fact, many faction traits, like Nurgle's wheel-of-fortune, function much like a more organic and cohesive version of stratagems anyway.
dosiere wrote: Ehh, I just dipped my toes very casually back into AoS only to see this. 100% not excited about 40k Esque CP porting over. It seemed like such a good idea in that game as well at first, but with every release it just seems like an unholy mess, screws with army building, and slows down the game.
Oh well, I hope they do more good than harm here.
An occasional reroll for key plays wouldn't be awful, but the broader spectrum of stratagems tends to be wildly hit-or-miss in 40k. AoS also does a good enough job differentiating its factions with its faction traits and abilities already, stratagems aren't needed to fill that gap like they do in 40k. In fact, many faction traits, like Nurgle's wheel-of-fortune, function much like a more organic and cohesive version of stratagems anyway.
Yeah. What I don't want to see is allegiance strategems on TOP of the allegiance stuff we already have. What we have now is perfect; more would be too much. But generic strategems for everyone is something I could get behind even if I'm kinda meh on the idea overall.
The Malign Portent abilities cost from 1 to 5 points depending on their description. 1 point abilities are not common in the Malign Portent book. About 1 such ability per faction.
Cool. I should have got that book.
Also, is it +1 point per wizard/priest or a flat point for having each type period?
Again, I like CPs, but they need to be careful with how they implement them.
No, +1 PP for each Wizard/Priest. I wouldn't be surprised if GW wants to push the Herohammer aspect of the game considering how many heroes there are in certain factions.
As an example of Malign Portents Prophecy Abilities:
1 PP: Reroll Unbinding, Make one extra unbinding, or something to do with unbinding.
2 pp: One model rerolls a saving throw.
3 pp: Get FnP for Mortal Wounds for the rest of the phase as long as unit is within interpreter(hero in this case) or reroll saves for a unit.
4 pp: Add 1 to roll on a table(MP specific) or pick a unit and roll for each model. 6+ is a Mortal Wound
5 pp: Add 1 to hit rolls for a unit
In Malign Portents you can only use each sign once per turn and often the targeted unit must be close enough to the hero who is an interpreter.
Kanluwen wrote: My biggest concern is that they're going to 'remove' the ability to snipe characters like in 40k.
It would make the biggest benefit for Idoneth cease to be relevant.
The idea of removing shooting out of combat is just...ugh as well. Shooting units are, IMO, already kind of pathetic aside from a few standouts. Anyone trying to say that Dark Riders, Scourge Privateers, or Shadow Warriors are great is full of it.
Those rules are one reason I'd never play RAWAOS and what is keeping my community from playing the game. The non immersion board gamey mechanics like shooting out of combat. Some shooting units may be subpar due to their bad point costs but the current list of busted units right now all have strong missile attacks or strong ranged mortal wound output for the most part.
Sniping characters from across the table behind two rows of forests and through five or six enemy models because Lord Bob's thumb is visible also needs to go IMO. Things like that are unintuitive.
Just removing shooting into combats is a good first step in that direction because at least you can try to lock down missile units now instead of watching the entire enemy army target Lord Bob, which is an absurd mechanic that would never make it into a narrative or cinematic moment except for a cartoon blooper reel.
If they truly want to make AOS "THE" fantasy wargame, they need to make it a wargame. In wargames you don't have entire armies targeting a dude on foot hidden behind rows of his own guys and walls because true line of sight lets you pick out the horn on his helmet from across the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you not excited for no shooting out of combat?
When I posted this the only info I had other than what I posted was that the developers said they didn't want to monkey too much with the core mechanics because "that wasn't fun and traditional wargaming tropes have proven to be not fun", so i took that to mean shooting was not being affected.
Hearing no shooting into combat will be a thing has me on the positive side of the fence currently.
What the hell game are you playing where people are having entire armies of missile troops with range across the board?
Christ, even with an all Waywatcher army at the launch of AoS I still couldn't pull off things like what you're talking about provided people weren't just throwing Lord Bob out in the open.
Kanluwen wrote: What the hell game are you playing where people are having entire armies of missile troops with range across the board?
Christ, even with an all Waywatcher army at the launch of AoS I still couldn't pull off things like what you're talking about provided people weren't just throwing Lord Bob out in the open.
I have seen such forces of freeguild and dispossessed. not common, but does happen.
Happens plenty enough against tzeentch loaded down with skyfires, sylvaneth loaded down with hunters, free guild gunners, khadron overlords, and lizardmen dinosaur artillery.
The name of RAWAOS has always been to kill the enemy heroes in turn 1 or 2 with missile fire. (which is why running 7 wound or less heroes is a giant gamble and people opt for the big wound heroes) Been a staple of the game since 2015 unless you're using house rules to stop it by adding a look out sir or cover rules.
Regardless if its entire armies technically or every missile element in the opposing army targeting the hero through all of those obstacles, its absurd.
All he said was 'no shooting out of combat' which could mean a lot of things. Shooting into combat could still be fine, as well as shooting while in combat but only on what you are in combat with. At any rate being able to stop a unit shooting freely by tieing it up in melee would be a sufficient nerf to character sniping IMO.
Davor wrote:Just coming back. I am happy the roll for priority or is it initiative every turn is staying.
I just hope it doesn't become Age of 40K in the mortal realms.
Fafnir wrote:I just hope they don't screw it up. AoS is in a solid place right now, and there's a lot of baggage they could bring over from 40k that would not go over so well.
The feeling I'm getting is that they are trying to "align" AOS and 40K. AOS' massive swing in design style was a push to see how far they could push 40K as well, and the immediate backlash, no matter how much it seems to have died down since the GH, made the shift in 40K less prominent. Now I think both systems are going to get baby to toddler pushes towards a unified middle. Just my outsider opinion, and logging it so it can be declared right or wrong later.
A little bit of overreacting going on here. So far we only know 3 important details. 1- you can't shoot out of combat any more. A good change 2- all heroes will get to use command abilities. 3- the double turn will stay but will change somehow.
There are certain things we can infer with a good amount of confidence.
Sniping heroes will not go away. The books since Nurgle have all been written with AoS 2 in mind. I imagine that is why there was such a long gap after Ko.
If sniping goes away it makes the Deepkin special rule pointless so it will stay.
I think the command dice and all heroes getting to use their command ability is linked. I think we will use command points for these and we will not get stratagems. I have a feeling that command pints will be fixed and not strongly tied to Composition. The battleline, Behemoth, hero system works well enough to encourage interesting composition and mitigate the worst spam.
It will be interesting to see how magic is dealt with. It looks like it has been one of the major focuses of the new edition.
The models revealed so far are absolutely fantastic. I was a not fan of Stormcast initially but each subsequent release has been better and has given them more of their own identity.
The nighthaunt army is amazing and looks like it will have between 15 and 20 warscrolls, so it will be a substantial army. We are also getting a new female Mortarch which is great.
Unifying the recent lore into a new core book is something that many new starters have been asking for. The lore has improved considerably since the game first appeared so I am definitely going to buy it.
I am very excited about the new edition and I am very happy that it is not messing with things enough to invalidate all the battletomes I have already bought.
I will be interested to see how the command ability thing will work since there are a large number of utterly ridiculous cheese combos that could be done if it were simply 'all heroes can use their command abilities'.
Man and I haven't even picked up the last General's Handbook yet! Well we shall see what they do. I just hope they properly price shooting units if they can be locked out of shooting due to combat.
As for magic...ehhhh. I kinda like the way magic works now as it helps but isn't crazy. I imagine they are just adding a new phase after the Hero phase for magic which would be fine as I generally don't run magic much anyway.
Well after some conversations with people that were there, shooting OUT of combat is gone, but you can still shoot INTO combat with no penalty and no worries about hitting your own guys.
Sniping heroes through multiple forests and over multiple models to hit the chaos lord's horn on his helmet is still equally absurd.
So that brings me back to where I was. If they are serious about making AOS "THE" fantasy *WARGAME* then they need to actually bring those wargaming tropes back and make the battle feel like a battle and not some dice rolling exercise targeting enemy model's horns on their head.
Every opinion is entirely subjective. Thats why they are opinions.
From a numbers standpoint, stating they want to be THE Fantasy Wargame would indicate that they want it to be the #1 on the market wargame. And these unintuitive rules are always cited by large groups of people that won't touch it for those reasons. So I think that they do need to throw a bone to the other half of the potential gaming pool by making their game a little more intuitive if they want to really be "#1" or "THE" game.
There's a lot of problems that stem from the original design of super easy to pick up and play with no official rules, though I don't believe the character targeting is one of them. Bolt Thrower level of ranged weapons in units that also have good range or speed are the real problem.
The double turn and shooting while engaged into other units are fairly bigger culprits of core rules issues.
Not sure why everyone being able to use command abilities is being implemented, since it limited some synergy and also forced you to be mindful when picking a general. Archaeon has fairly mediocre stats to make up for the fact he unlocks synergy; Settra was just broken beyond belief.
So I used to play WHFB but quit when AoS hit and a least initially the possibility to play a strategic game based on movement was replaced by creative list writing and tricks such as having multiple chaos lords being able to Summon units of any size.
Since then a lot seems have happened including the generals handbook that brings order into matched play. On a side note I have also tried getting into 40k but again that game seems to be about listwriting, doing a decent setup, going first and then proceed with target prioritization and rolling lots of dice. Most of the games I have played are usually determined before the first shot is fired or the first charge performed.
What is the status for AoS today? Can someone motivate me to do a comeback inte the mortal realms?
Looking forward for this new edition, command points system is intresting. And if I can play with the recent books/models, that would safe a lot of money.
auticus wrote: Well after some conversations with people that were there, shooting OUT of combat is gone, but you can still shoot INTO combat with no penalty and no worries about hitting your own guys.
Sniping heroes through multiple forests and over multiple models to hit the chaos lord's horn on his helmet is still equally absurd.
So that brings me back to where I was. If they are serious about making AOS "THE" fantasy *WARGAME* then they need to actually bring those wargaming tropes back and make the battle feel like a battle and not some dice rolling exercise targeting enemy model's horns on their head.
I'm as aware of the balance/rules issues as you are and I don't mean to discredit those concerns at all, but let's at channel a little Bottle here and look on the positive end. Not shooting out of combat is much better than the current setup. It means they are willing to address core parts of the rules, so there's hope that they will get around to line of sight/cover problems eventually. Also TBF characters are rarely shot at just from having a tiny piece visible; it's usually much more than that.
And before someone says 'theyll fix other things too!' yes, I know, but they will inevitably mess some things up and it remains to be seen how those balance out
auticus wrote: Well after some conversations with people that were there, shooting OUT of combat is gone, but you can still shoot INTO combat with no penalty and no worries about hitting your own guys.
Sniping heroes through multiple forests and over multiple models to hit the chaos lord's horn on his helmet is still equally absurd.
So that brings me back to where I was. If they are serious about making AOS "THE" fantasy *WARGAME* then they need to actually bring those wargaming tropes back and make the battle feel like a battle and not some dice rolling exercise targeting enemy model's horns on their head.
Seems silly that I can't shoot out of combat but I can shoot into it.
pm713 wrote: Seems silly that I can't shoot out of combat but I can shoot into it.
Unless you're Legolas, it makes sense that you can't shoot out of combat as you'll be readying your melee weapon. Personally I don't like shooting into combat without a chance of hitting your own troops.
pm713 wrote: Seems silly that I can't shoot out of combat but I can shoot into it.
Unless you're Legolas, it makes sense that you can't shoot out of combat as you'll be readying your melee weapon. Personally I don't like shooting into combat without a chance of hitting your own troops.
It was silly when AoS launched years ago and it's still silly now, nothing changed on that front.
pm713 wrote: Seems silly that I can't shoot out of combat but I can shoot into it.
Unless you're Legolas, it makes sense that you can't shoot out of combat as you'll be readying your melee weapon. Personally I don't like shooting into combat without a chance of hitting your own troops.
I'm wondering if there's a bit of crossed wires and the statement should have read that you can still shoot while in combat. Because right now, that's a saving grace for some missile troops.
IT's actually in the core rules. Technically, you are supposed to roll for every bit of terrain to know an additional effect on them (like taking D3 mortal wounds to get +1 to hit for a turn)...
It's one of the most skipped basic rules in AoS however. Lots of third party dice makers already make them, I guess GW wants in on the action too.
auticus wrote: Well after some conversations with people that were there, shooting OUT of combat is gone, but you can still shoot INTO combat with no penalty and no worries about hitting your own guys.
Sniping heroes through multiple forests and over multiple models to hit the chaos lord's horn on his helmet is still equally absurd.
So that brings me back to where I was. If they are serious about making AOS "THE" fantasy *WARGAME* then they need to actually bring those wargaming tropes back and make the battle feel like a battle and not some dice rolling exercise targeting enemy model's horns on their head.
I'm as aware of the balance/rules issues as you are and I don't mean to discredit those concerns at all, but let's at channel a little Bottle here and look on the positive end. Not shooting out of combat is much better than the current setup. It means they are willing to address core parts of the rules, so there's hope that they will get around to line of sight/cover problems eventually. Also TBF characters are rarely shot at just from having a tiny piece visible; it's usually much more than that.
And before someone says 'theyll fix other things too!' yes, I know, but they will inevitably mess some things up and it remains to be seen how those balance out
Reviewing my past dozen or so battle reports, all of my characters that were killed in the shooting phase or maimed in the shooting phase are behind two full units and other terrain features. So at least in my world, my characters are for the most part hidden except an arm or a boot or a horn sticking up getting targeted (or the stupid model has the sword raised in the air which looks cool but lets everyone target him)
This isn't counting obvious things like my greater demons. I would expect those to be easier to pick out and that really isn't very jarring to me. My priests, sorcerers, and other champions though...
Anymore NONE of my new models have their arms in the air and any model that comes with some cool scenic piece of terrain that raises their elevation gets nixed immediately because it just lets my opponents target them easier. Which is hot-garbage IMO because cinematic and looking cool SHOULD be the #1 thing driving our modeling and ultimately our games.
pm713 wrote: Seems silly that I can't shoot out of combat but I can shoot into it.
Unless you're Legolas, it makes sense that you can't shoot out of combat as you'll be readying your melee weapon. Personally I don't like shooting into combat without a chance of hitting your own troops.
I'm wondering if there's a bit of crossed wires and the statement should have read that you can still shoot while in combat. Because right now, that's a saving grace for some missile troops.
Its possible, but multiple sources are citing it from the interview they had at warhammer fest, so unless the gwdev misspoke, thats what was communicated.
For my money I don't mind units that have short ranged missile weapons like throwing axes or javelins or whatever firing into their own combat, but things like skyfires and hunters and cannons and other artillery pieces doing so is very jarring.
Kind of siezed on the least important part of my post there...
At any rate I choose to look forward to the upcoming release. Sometimes I wonder if the reason GW doesn't balance things out as well as they could is simply because so many people will inevitably find a way to be unhappy with the game regardless. It would be very de-motivating for me at least.
I was super excited during 6th edition. Super excited for part of 7th and super excited for part of 8th until the playerbase wrecked it and the concept of "meta" solidified.
Ultimately... I play for narrative and immersion. GW has said several times that they are gunning for a narrative experience and a "cinematic" experience; that was something they HARPED on at warhammer fest. CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE.
That means the games should play out like you'd expect in a movie or one of their novels. (correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I just have cinematic experience and my expectations in two different places then they should be, which is possible)
That is what hooked me into them in the first place because they've been saying that for twenty plus years that is what they want out of their system.
So if they continue to keep rules that are anti-cinematic, they are defying their own goal and there will be a ton of disappointment from people who are here because they expect the game to play out like a movie or book and it should feel like an actual battle.
The house rules that I use are actually quite small these days and allow me to enjoy the game and be perfectly happy with it. They aren't major changes that add pages of complexity. They are simply:
* if you shoot into a combat you can hit your own guys and randomize who gets hit
* if you shoot through terrain features or cross enemy models to hit your target you get a -1 penalty to hit cumulative up to -3 (similar to LOTR which uses a similar mechanic only its a 4+ each terrain feature or enemy model you cross to hit)
Just two things. I keep the double turn, we keep the min/maxing stuff ... just those two things. The problem is that our culture HATES house rules even if they agree with them. As an event organizer if I use house rules, I take a dump truck full of profanity laced tirades in my inbox or second hand down at the store, which raises the drama level over a game because a house rule is in place for my event.
So if what you are saying is I'd be pissy and whiney no matter what they did, you'd be wrong. AOS is about 80% in a place that I could fully enjoy and do RAW. If they'd fully get rid of the silly unintuitive rules.
Just those two things would make me fully fine with no houserules. Additionally I'd be ECSTATIC if they brought back maneuver and made terrain more than a decoration (and if they had some kind of mechanism where shooting across terrain penalized you, that would be a step toward that)
There is currently an echo chamber with TGA and twitter thats all positive 100% of the time. Thats part of the problem.
I want AOS to be "THE" fantasy wargame because I have a huge investment in it. My current city/region had 150ish registered fantasy players in 2014 and 2015. 55 of those were campaign players. Roughly 80 of those were tournament players and the rest were casual at home players that were a part of our group. Today, our AOS group is about 30 players. The 120 other players have either moved to other systems like Kings of War, or are waiting the AOS thing out for a ruleset that appeals to them and what brought them into WHFB in the first place. To be "THE" fantasy wargame, GW needs to address numbers like that. I know anecdotal, but this is an anecdote that a lot of people seem to share.
You say you want to see a cinematic kind of play with AOS but then harp on and make one of your two biggest concerns something that isn’t how combat played out back when you had two lines of warriors crashing into each other.
Generally there was a very distinct separation between one line and the other line. You would stand in line with your comrades, and stab at the other line of shoulder to shoulder standing enemies.
So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. Same logic can apply to Sigmar. How am I supposed to tackle something like Mortarchs, Bloodthirsters, Carnosaurs, Treelords, Terrorheists, etc. when I can’t even reliably shoot at them? Why is throwing a unit that I deem as the least necessary to tie them down for a turn so the rest of my army can focus it down so abhorrent to you?
I think shooting out of combat is also fine for most units - ie squishy foot soldiers- why should my unit of 40 Corsairs all focus on a single Zombie that makes it into combat with them when Nagash is knocking on my door? But I’m in the minority with this one and can see the validity of the argument against it at least.
But the shooting into combat thing I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
I think if you shoot into combat that there should be a penalty of some kind.
You shouldn't be able to blow artillery fire over a swirling melee and only hurt the other guy.
I don't care about shooting into combat existing. I care that in its current ridiculous form that you have no risk in doing it. You hit the same as if the target was in the open and additionally your buddies can never be hit. Even with flame throwers and explosions.
Actual battles involve risk vs reward. GW has moved away from risk vs reward and just do the reward part. Give options and tactics, but assign risks to those options as well. Thats how you have a tactical and deeper game. If everything is all reward, you really have shallow tactics and a shallow game, because the optimum choices basically make themselves available to you without you needing to give it much thought. That has been a problem with 40k since forever.
I think shooting out of combat is also fine for most units
Also equally ridiculous. We're in combat fighting for our lives but we pull our longbows out and start shooting at some other target 50 yards down range.
There are ways to do this where if you use your example and have 20 archers fighting 1 zombie, that you can say any models within 3" of an enemy model cannot shoot. That would also be intuitive and not jarring. Then most of that unit can still fire and its not grotesquely uncinematic. That rule was actually exactly how azyr comp (the comp that my group wrote before ghb points invalidated all of the fan comps) functioned.
There are many concessions that can be given to accomplish these goals.
I agree with those concerns, I really do. I think they are ridiculous. I particularly abhor the double turn (we house rule to push the first initiative roll to round 3). What I take issue with is when GW does something right they should be acknowledged as doing something right in addition to constructive criticism. Also consider that there are other people just as convinced as you are that the rules are fine right now, or have their own changes that they are certain would fix the game. What one can do to move the game forward most effectively is to take the good and the bad rather than one or the other. The TGA circle-jerk is just as bad as relentless negativity.
I'll give GW credit where credit's due. I don't have the new stuff in front of me but the cinematic spell effects seem cool as hell. The night haunts are awesome. The daughters of khaine also awesome. The nurgle book for the most part despite not being able to really hang with the busted stuff is awesome. They have done a great many positive things that I think are awesome (and why they continue to make me give a crap about if they succeed or not)
And yeah I know there are a bunch of people that think the rules are just swell right now, they kneecapped me in TGA when I was posting there and bash me on twitter and in facebook groups as well.
There are a bunch of opinions, and my own opinion is just one of many. But the one objective quasi-fact that we have is that there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of community stories where the AOS scene is dead or nearly dead, and dozens upon dozens upon dozens of stories where the fantasy scene is still quite alive with other games. In 2015... that just wasn't the reality. Fantasy gaming was fairly strong (sales were crap because of a bunch of reasons, but the game was being played everywhere through 2nd hand miniatures and 3rd party manufacturers)
In 2015, WHFB was *the* fantasy game. The others were played but were shadows.
That being the only real quasi-fact that we have to go on says that GW saying they want to return as the fantasy game means that they have to look at why so many people are not interested in AOS.
Some of it is simply salt over the old world dying. A lot of it though is about the rules and how the rules are abhorrent and not intuitive and too simple and don't feel like an actual battle.
The people claiming the rules are just fine have a lot of ground to prove that they can keep the rules as they are in their current state and suddenly become the #1 fantasy wargame again.
AOS I'm sure is making a profit over whfb for a ton of reasons (discussed in other threads) but they are a far cry from dominating the market in the fantasy wargaming department and based on their desired stated intent of wanting to do so again they must look at why so many fantasy players won't touch AOS and will stick with their competitors.
auticus wrote: There are a bunch of opinions, and my own opinion is just one of many. But the one objective quasi-fact that we have is that there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of community stories where the AOS scene is dead or nearly dead, and dozens upon dozens upon dozens of stories where the fantasy scene is still quite alive with other games. In 2015... that just wasn't the reality. Fantasy gaming was fairly strong (sales were crap because of a bunch of reasons, but the game was being played everywhere through 2nd hand miniatures and 3rd party manufacturers)
In 2015, WHFB was *the* fantasy game. The others were played but were shadows.
That being the only real quasi-fact that we have to go on says that GW saying they want to return as the fantasy game means that they have to look at why so many people are not interested in AOS.
Some of it is simply salt over the old world dying. A lot of it though is about the rules and how the rules are abhorrent and not intuitive and too simple and don't feel like an actual battle.
The people claiming the rules are just fine have a lot of ground to prove that they can keep the rules as they are in their current state and suddenly become the #1 fantasy wargame again.
AOS I'm sure is making a profit over whfb for a ton of reasons (discussed in other threads) but they are a far cry from dominating the market in the fantasy wargaming department and based on their desired stated intent of wanting to do so again they must look at why so many fantasy players won't touch AOS and will stick with their competitors.
This is a very good point.
auticus wrote: And yeah I know there are a bunch of people that think the rules are just swell right now, they kneecapped me in TGA when I was posting there and bash me on twitter and in facebook groups as well.
That reminds me, did anyone ever get back to you and apologize for dismissing your concerns over horde unit cheese? Either way, I'm sure in the next GHB they will take the balance issues you raise more seriously not.
lol nope. The goalposts just get shifted to something else or I'm told its not really that bad and the game is just fine and that part of playing these games should be knowing to switch with the meta every year and thats how it should be.
This is my personal view and what I have seen locally.. Fantasy was my favorite game.. because it was different from 40k
I will be the first to admit that WFB was a bloated mess and almost impossible for a new player to get in the game without spending a small fortune, plus painting an obscene amount of miniatures.
There was no small unit beginner game that new players could "dip their toe in the water"
Then End times happened.. about the same time I left my job of two decades to return back to college.. that meant no more extra money..
When AoS was rolled out a gigantic mess and was happy of that because if it was good, It would drive me crazy not being able to be a part of it.
They did some things right and did continue to fix issues.. Of course all the new miniatures looked great..
Even with the new miniature lines coming out, none got me saying "I got to figure out how to get the money to buy that"...
But my favorite army has always been Empire now Free People .. so no longer a strong nation... just a bunch of people... Naming can be everything.. So now your just "people"..
Plus no real codex which is sad because chaos already has something like six already..
Will I give AoS another chance with the new edition.. Yeah.. but that doesn't help the local area that dried up after end times.. There is a few players but nothing like before..
Having a new edition this soon makes me feel that the game didn't do as well as they are reporting...
So now we haven official new Edition?
I would would have said counted each time a new Stormcast Battledome were shown and the release of the Handbook a new Edition.....
So this game can be interesting.
Fluff is ok, not like the old Warhammer, but not more stupid than the stuff we got with 8th edition either
But it all depends on if the rules are making the game more interesting to play.
While Warhammer was always a unique gaming system (Skirmish with R&F elements and RPG like Heroes) AoS is just now a Skirmish upon others (and there are better fantasy Skirmish rules out there were one can use all the GW models if he wants to).
So if AoS 2 becomes a unique system again it may gets more attention
So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .
Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn't game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics. Also, arrows piercing heavy armor enough to kill is a myth. The longbow did not pierce french steel plate armor, no matter what the Brits will tell you.
Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren't even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor. It was only until the advent of firearms that plate / heavy armor became obsolete.
Really, think about it; you're a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don't you think that after the battle you'd want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?
pm713 wrote: Seems silly that I can't shoot out of combat but I can shoot into it.
Unless you're Legolas, it makes sense that you can't shoot out of combat as you'll be readying your melee weapon. Personally I don't like shooting into combat without a chance of hitting your own troops.
If I can shoot into combat without hitting my own unit I can shoot out of it too. Besides in AOS they aren't readying anything just standing around waiting for their turn to punch people.
And yeah I know there are a bunch of people that think the rules are just swell right now, they kneecapped me in TGA when I was posting there and bash me on twitter and in facebook groups as well.
And yeah I know there are a bunch of people that think the rules are just swell right now, they kneecapped me in TGA when I was posting there and bash me on twitter and in facebook groups as well.
So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .
Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn't game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics.
Also, arrows piercing heavy armor enough to kill is a myth. The longbow did not pierce french steel plate armor, no matter what the Brits will tell you.
Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren't even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor.
It was only until the advent of firearms that plate / heavy armor became obsolete.
Really, think about it; you're a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don't you think that after the battle you'd want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?
Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.
So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .
Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn't game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics. Also, arrows piercing heavy armor enough to kill is a myth. The longbow did not pierce french steel plate armor, no matter what the Brits will tell you.
Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren't even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor. It was only until the advent of firearms that plate / heavy armor became obsolete.
Really, think about it; you're a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don't you think that after the battle you'd want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?
Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.
Yeah, that was their primary purpose. Its just that he said that ranged weapons was used to kill heavily armored targets in classical warfare, but that wasn't true until the development of firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: There are quite a lot of shooting units running around with stuff way more powerful than an IRL longbow, just sayin...
Which makes shooting into combat even dumber, as killing your own soldiers would become even likelier. For example, artillery was as dangerous to friendly soldiers as it was to enemy soldiers in WW1 in 2, as if the trajectory is wrong or the targets are too close there was a chance of blowing up friendly soldiers.
auticus wrote: TGA is the "official AOS forums" and is heavily monitored by the gwdev team.
Additionally they have a zero tolerance for negative criticism of the game and you will get banned if you violate that rule.
What, really?
I’m on there myself. I hope they took my criticisms as constructive and not negative.
I don't know how relaxed they got on it but i was banned last year for criticizing the game in the same exact way I post here. (and I don't really ever start many threads on it, I was responding in someone else's post criticizing the game)
Last summer the owner of the forum posted a thread stating no negative threads would be tolerated.
I don't believe it's "official" otherwise there would be a link on GW sites. I think he ment the "Unofficial official forum". I could be wrong of course. Again of course.
auticus wrote: Last summer the owner of the forum posted a thread stating no negative threads would be tolerated.
Not every post and negative critique is going to be moderated, they aren't that extreme but I feel that making enough noise will eventually get someone's attention. YMMV of course. I don't go there as majority of discussions is geared towards competitive play and I did get the feeling that certain views are better left unexpressed.
When I was posting and eventually banned they were pretty militant about it. That was last summer so its almost been a year so if they have softened their stance a bit, I wouldn't be surprised.
Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.
Depends on the time frame we are talking about
Or if the Knight has a 3+ or 1+ armour save
Yep, in fact at poitiers the barded horses were pretty much arrow proof. It was only after they got flanked and started to get shot in their unarmored rear that French cav began to take casualties.
Despite what Hollywood and Anime would tell you, armor is really, really good at stopping attacks. That thing about cutting through plate with a sword is nonsense.
Marmatag wrote: AoS seems like the perfect game to have a set number of CP on each side, depending on the size of the game (500/1000/2000/2500)
I always thought so too. But I think the malign portents system has it’s merits.
I like the idea of four ‘lores’ relating to the Grand Alliances that you roll off against (D6 + your characters). Order’s could be mostly defensive; reroll battleshock, retreat and shoot etc, Destructions could be mostly offensive; reroll charge roll, run and charge in the same turn etc; Death’s could be about hitting the enemy’s morale and raising your own troops etc. And it would be balanced. The four tables balanced against each other, and with everyone using them, everyone knows what to expect.
Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.
Depends on the time frame we are talking about
Or if the Knight has a 3+ or 1+ armour save
Yep, in fact at poitiers the barded horses were pretty much arrow proof. It was only after they got flanked and started to get shot in their unarmored rear that French cav began to take casualties.
Despite what Hollywood and Anime would tell you, armor is really, really good at stopping attacks. That thing about cutting through plate with a sword is nonsense.
I do dislike how useless armor is in many settings; either opponents are so accurate they always hit the weak spots or more commonly it's simple to just cut through entirely. Warhammer has been somewhat reasonable in that aspect at least. On the tabletop not as much but that's a case where game mechanics come into play.
They already exist, either through nurgle's ability that gives basically the whole army a 5+ inv save or through things like rerollable 1s and then stacking those on high save models.
The Nurgle ability is more analogous to how FnP was; it goes on in addition to the regular save (in fact, the rule on nurgle models in 40k is exactly the same rule as the one from AoS) and is rolled individually for each wound caused. The ethereal rule is what works exactly like an invul save, also seen on one of the eel unit variants and has been around on bastiladons since launch. Notably ethereal got a debuff with legions of nagash--it used to be able to benefit from positive modifiers and as such units could get cover and/or mystic shield for a 3+ or 2+ ignoring all rend.
2+ reroll 1s is bad, but high armor saves is something a well-rounded army should be prepared to fight (though not to say there aren't instances of abuse in this category (looking at you fulminators)).
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Yea the treelord ancient with the +1 to save and ignore -1 rend is pretty fun to use
Of all the times I ran that, he died three times: Twice to the gradual whittling away by mobs explicitly designed to counter that build, and once to a miraculous trebuchet roll.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Yea the treelord ancient with the +1 to save and ignore -1 rend is pretty fun to use
Of all the times I ran that, he died three times: Twice to the gradual whittling away by mobs explicitly designed to counter that build, and once to a miraculous trebuchet roll.
I one shotted him with Glotkin's 2d6 damage vomit attack. -2 rend, opponent rolled a 1 for his armor save, and I rolled box cars for the damage roll. Bye bitch!
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Yea the treelord ancient with the +1 to save and ignore -1 rend is pretty fun to use
Of all the times I ran that, he died three times: Twice to the gradual whittling away by mobs explicitly designed to counter that build, and once to a miraculous trebuchet roll.
I one shotted him with Glotkin's 2d6 damage vomit attack. -2 rend, opponent rolled a 1 for his armor save, and I rolled box cars for the damage roll. Bye bitch!
Could he have not rerolled that from his command ability?
And mines died to 6 necropolis knights and some mournghouls
So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .
Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn't game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics.
Also, arrows piercing heavy armor enough to kill is a myth. The longbow did not pierce french steel plate armor, no matter what the Brits will tell you.
Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren't even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor.
It was only until the advent of firearms that plate / heavy armor became obsolete.
Really, think about it; you're a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don't you think that after the battle you'd want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?
Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.
Yeah, that was their primary purpose. Its just that he said that ranged weapons was used to kill heavily armored targets in classical warfare, but that wasn't true until the development of firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: There are quite a lot of shooting units running around with stuff way more powerful than an IRL longbow, just sayin...
Which makes shooting into combat even dumber, as killing your own soldiers would become even likelier. For example, artillery was as dangerous to friendly soldiers as it was to enemy soldiers in WW1 in 2, as if the trajectory is wrong or the targets are too close there was a chance of blowing up friendly soldiers.
I never said shoot the heavy armor from the front. You said that. I said rain them down on top or shoot from the sides. You know. Where the armor isn't (or at least it's lighter). Sure it doesn't work as well in a 5 v 5 fight, but any line fighting involving two or more lines deep of infantry makes sense to me.
Sure you can cherry pick what you'd like from history to defeat the argument, but you didn't address the game mechanic part of it at all.
I'll concede it doesn't work as well for things like Handgunners, cannons, and ballista from the front. But I find it more than fair for a fair number of other things found in the game and in many circumstances. We can trade back and forth about what situations what side does or doesn't work in, but I'm just communicating that to write off the concept entirely is ridiculous.
Even if you attack them from above casualties would be minimal. Heavy armor was that good. There is still no record of archers shooting into a melee where they could hit their own men.
Your claim that from a historical perspective archers would shoot into melee and that was the only way to deal with heavily armored opponents is quite false.
thekingofkings wrote: any indicators that base to base measuring will be a requirement?
I certainly hope so. B2B seems to be the single most common "house rule" used by like every major tourney and most people with a modicum of sense. Though a few unit abilities will need to be tweaked for that (looking at you, Ripperdactyls) but shouldn't be too major.
auticus wrote: CPs in 40k are easy to farm also because you can get a ton by doing easy mode building soup lists and detachment style lists that have no drawback.
I like the concept of CP. CP can be used to enforce balance and non extreme builds. The way GW does it you get your extreme one dimensional power build AND a shed load of CPs to go with it.
Really its the fact there is no cap on them, and there are multiple ways to roll to see if you get it back. Guliman, guard strat, and guard relic, lets you roll 2 dice for your own CP, and 1 for your oponants. It would not be bad if EVERYONE got that level of BS.
Well with the FAQ armies tend to get plenty of them even without allies and for example pure IG went from realm of dimishive returns. Pure guard might not even want the warlord strategem anymore. They already get more than enough especially as guard isn't even particularly CP hungry army. Unlike some other armies they don't have super powerful 2-3 CP strategems you are using all the time nor are they riddled with awesome relics so 1 extra is generally max you want.
So there's basically one issue. Guard battallion as ally for CP hungry army.
The only issue with base to base being REQUIRED will simply be that won't support squares and will be forcing people to rebase (another contentious and hot topic)
Maybe auticus, but really even measuring from square bases is both possible and still less fiddly than measuring from the models. I still have all my dudes and dudettes on square bases and the games go just fine. Frankly I forgot that measuring from models is still a thing, square or round bases, I havent seen anyone actually use that rule since about 2 months after AoS came out.
I use squares for my legacy guys because I refuse to rebase my massive collection. My new stuff I put on the circles that come with the kits. Some people get very cranky because somehow that is a massive advantage. But thats derailing the topic.
I don't see an issue with squares and circles since I've done this in 40k as well since 3rd ed 40k (square based demons in my chaos army) and mostly its been fine.
At the risk of starting a fight, does AoS use mortal wounds too much or is it right? I feel like they’re slightly overused, but then again, I’m usually up against Stormcast so I might just have a skewered view of things.
auticus wrote: I use squares for my legacy guys because I refuse to rebase my massive collection. My new stuff I put on the circles that come with the kits. Some people get very cranky because somehow that is a massive advantage. But thats derailing the topic.
I don't see an issue with squares and circles since I've done this in 40k as well since 3rd ed 40k (square based demons in my chaos army) and mostly its been fine.
Im with you are the square bases, I dont know why GW switched, but just do waht my friend does, If you have a massive army of squares, just carry a sack of round bases and tack, pop them onto it if someone is making a fuss, the only time it ever really becomes a problem with with skaven, problem solved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: At the risk of starting a fight, does AoS use mortal wounds too much or is it right? I feel like they’re slightly overused, but then again, I’m usually up against Stormcast so I might just have a skewered view of things.
Not really, i thought the same thing, especially when looking at how 40k mortal wounds work. But then also remember, wounds bleed over in AoS. AoS games go faster then a 40k game, so it all comes out in the wash really. Unless you are playing the storm fiend list, then its just broken.
Future War Cultist wrote: At the risk of starting a fight, does AoS use mortal wounds too much or is it right? I feel like they’re slightly overused, but then again, I’m usually up against Stormcast so I might just have a skewered view of things.
Way too much. Mortal Wounds are an interesting concept and used sparingly could be great, but in AOS the main cornerstone of play is load up on as many mortal wounds as you can get and spam them. Stormcast can deal a heinous amount easily so are definitely an offender. It is one reason why they and tzeentch sit atop the power rankings and if you're opponent wants to bust the game will likely be running those.
In campaign events I put a limit on mortal wound output to at least keep the games interesting. Otherwise if a casual brings a list that doesn't have much mortal wound output and they face a list that dumps 20+ on them a turn, often they are done with AOS. Now in a tournament environment... thats a different story.
auticus wrote: I use squares for my legacy guys because I refuse to rebase my massive collection. My new stuff I put on the circles that come with the kits. Some people get very cranky because somehow that is a massive advantage. But thats derailing the topic.
I don't see an issue with squares and circles since I've done this in 40k as well since 3rd ed 40k (square based demons in my chaos army) and mostly its been fine.
Im with you are the square bases, I dont know why GW switched, but just do waht my friend does, If you have a massive army of squares, just carry a sack of round bases and tack, pop them onto it if someone is making a fuss, the only time it ever really becomes a problem with with skaven, problem solved.
The cynic in me suspects its to cut costs. They don't have to spend money maintaining the moulds for square bases anymore. Its cheaper to just use the existing round base moulds and use those to make bases for everything.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Yea the treelord ancient with the +1 to save and ignore -1 rend is pretty fun to use
Of all the times I ran that, he died three times: Twice to the gradual whittling away by mobs explicitly designed to counter that build, and once to a miraculous trebuchet roll.
I one shotted him with Glotkin's 2d6 damage vomit attack. -2 rend, opponent rolled a 1 for his armor save, and I rolled box cars for the damage roll. Bye bitch!
Could he have not rerolled that from his command ability?
And mines died to 6 necropolis knights and some mournghouls
On second thought I think it was Dirthu who I one shotted. Stupid branch bois all look alike.
Anyone wonder if they will take a stab at uniformly fix summoning with some sort of summoning resource? Like a universal summoning currency used in game to summon unless you have another mechanic (nurgle for example)? Heard rumors of this from someone at warhammer fest. And they wont cost reinforcement points.. just your summoning points or whatever.
Honestly if they tried forcing round bases I'll be ignoring that and sticking with the ones I have. But if anyone wants to force me to use round ones then I'll happily swap my army over right after that person buys those bases.
auticus wrote: I use squares for my legacy guys because I refuse to rebase my massive collection. My new stuff I put on the circles that come with the kits. Some people get very cranky because somehow that is a massive advantage. But thats derailing the topic.
I don't see an issue with squares and circles since I've done this in 40k as well since 3rd ed 40k (square based demons in my chaos army) and mostly its been fine.
Im with you are the square bases, I dont know why GW switched, but just do waht my friend does, If you have a massive army of squares, just carry a sack of round bases and tack, pop them onto it if someone is making a fuss, the only time it ever really becomes a problem with with skaven, problem solved.
The cynic in me suspects its to cut costs. They don't have to spend money maintaining the moulds for square bases anymore. Its cheaper to just use the existing round base moulds and use those to make bases for everything.
This truly is probably why, but when ever someone complains about how rounds are so much better, i just show them stuff like this.
Because no matter how hard you try, nothing in AoS will ever look as comfy as a block of chaos warriors.
pm713 wrote: Honestly if they tried forcing round bases I'll be ignoring that and sticking with the ones I have. But if anyone wants to force me to use round ones then I'll happily swap my army over right after that person buys those bases.
Thats exactly what I say. I'll be glad to switch to rounds once that person buys and rebases my army for me
auticus wrote: I use squares for my legacy guys because I refuse to rebase my massive collection. My new stuff I put on the circles that come with the kits. Some people get very cranky because somehow that is a massive advantage. But thats derailing the topic.
I don't see an issue with squares and circles since I've done this in 40k as well since 3rd ed 40k (square based demons in my chaos army) and mostly its been fine.
Im with you are the square bases, I dont know why GW switched, but just do waht my friend does, If you have a massive army of squares, just carry a sack of round bases and tack, pop them onto it if someone is making a fuss, the only time it ever really becomes a problem with with skaven, problem solved.
The cynic in me suspects its to cut costs. They don't have to spend money maintaining the moulds for square bases anymore. Its cheaper to just use the existing round base moulds and use those to make bases for everything.
This truly is probably why, but when ever someone complains about how rounds are so much better, i just show them stuff like this.
Because no matter how hard you try, nothing in AoS will ever look as comfy as a block of chaos warriors.
I know right? I just love seeing blocks of close formation units. The fact they dropped it in AoS is the main reason why I never really got into it. I mean, sure, the models are nice...but what about those blocks tho?
pm713 wrote: I still move my units around in blocks. It looks so much better than the weird horde thing most units have otherwise.
Im looking at getting skrimish trays to put my round guys in because i move them around more that way since they always stay clumped, and i run my 40 warriors in a huge 2 rank line so.
In the game I wrote, you can do close formations like a shield wall to gain defensive bonus, or choose loose formation (skirmish) to gain bonus movement.
auticus wrote: In the game I wrote, you can do close formations like a shield wall to gain defensive bonus, or choose loose formation (skirmish) to gain bonus movement.
I like options.
That's neat. Might I suggest a -1 to hit loose formation units with ranged weapons? Historically speaking that's how they avoided getting hit. Well, that or tetsudo / shield walls / plate armor.
A lot of games have done that as well (old whfb for example). The reason I chose the route I did is because if you have two formations that both give a defensive bonus, there's not as much a reason to take one over the other.
I always hated the blocks of troops. They're utter pain to make rank properly, as someone's weapon is always getting in the way. You cannot convert the models freely as you need to constantly keep in mind how they fir in the unit, and most of the models are not properly visible anyway. Skirmish formations are way more fun to model and paint.
As for the bases, I think round bases look better, and measuring from the base is obviously the way to go, but I really don't mind if someone is using squares. I really don't care about the absolute minuscule differences in measurements this might cause.
auticus wrote: A lot of games have done that as well (old whfb for example). The reason I chose the route I did is because if you have two formations that both give a defensive bonus, there's not as much a reason to take one over the other.
I'd argue that having multiple defensive options is perfectly acceptable, providing they are meant to be used against different attacks. For example, a hit modifier wouldn't be that effective against a high RoF, but weak, series of attacks, but would be effective against a single, powerful strike, like from a cannon. A shieldwall wouldn't do much against a cannonball, but it would nearly negate any damage against storm of arrows.
Because no matter how hard you try, nothing in AoS will ever look as comfy as a block of chaos warriors.
As an extremely claustrophobic person, that picture legitimately gives me anxiety. I'd be the guy in the middle looking up, gasping for air. I do like moving my Warriors in blocks, though. I just space them out a little more than that.
It is a bit close, yes. I always maintained that the bases needed to be a bit larger. A bigger base would have fixed a lot of the problems concerning ranking up.
1. Models had to be modeled in such a way that their parts didn't overlap their base, lest they not fit next to each other. This was egregious in some models, in particular the Vargheists. They have these big awesome wings that are all scrunched together so they can rank up.
2. The style encouraged purchase of larger and larger squads of models. In order to finish one squad, you often needed several boxes of the same model just to fill out two or three ranks. With that one squad done, you then needed three or four more of that same unit to fill out your army. The expense and the samey-ness, made it a bore and a chore to build and paint.
With the round bases, you've got a lot more room for models to spread out pose-wise and detail-wise, and with the new level of play with Age of Sigmar, you no longer need 200 of the same model (and 100 of other models) to play a game. Unless you just really like goblins or skeletons or something.
Those are problems with ranks not the base. You can still spread out on square bases and honestly I greatly prefer the ranks to details. The details only matter when you pick up the model and look at it. Ranks look cool from any distance.
The bloated unit size was an 8th ed thing. When I played 7th just having blocks of 20 was perfectly fine. And as I said, the problem with ranking up was that GW wanted to put dynamic models on small bases where everything would just spill over and slap the model next to it. If they had used larger bases that problem would have been mitigated.
Or they could do what they did with LOTR and what Para Bellum is doing with Conquest, and have slotted movement trays where you could rank up round based models. I'm pretty sure LOTR had that anyway. Never played it, just something I noticed at some point. There was no real reason to completely remove close order formations.
Having to buy multiple boxes has nothing to do with the style of game and everything to do with GW's greed. There was a time where they had 20 models in a box, enough to made 4-5 ranks and that was usually enough. Then they got greedy and started to put models in boxes of 10 at the same price, even though they are the same model.
auticus wrote: Close order formations should definitely be a thing. Would add a layer of depth.
This, I definitely think shield units should get a bonus to save like a +1 to save on the turn you where charged. Bonuses for firing while ranked and file for ranged like I'd you volly fire into a unit of 10 or more you get +1 to hit or +1 to wound because all the shots are grouped up.
dosiere wrote: Maybe auticus, but really even measuring from square bases is both possible and still less fiddly than measuring from the models. I still have all my dudes and dudettes on square bases and the games go just fine. Frankly I forgot that measuring from models is still a thing, square or round bases, I havent seen anyone actually use that rule since about 2 months after AoS came out.
We pretty much are always model to model.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: At the risk of starting a fight, does AoS use mortal wounds too much or is it right? I feel like they’re slightly overused, but then again, I’m usually up against Stormcast so I might just have a skewered view of things.
I dont like mortal wounds on general principle and would rather they simply not be in the game at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The bloated unit size was an 8th ed thing. When I played 7th just having blocks of 20 was perfectly fine. And as I said, the problem with ranking up was that GW wanted to put dynamic models on small bases where everything would just spill over and slap the model next to it. If they had used larger bases that problem would have been mitigated.
Or they could do what they did with LOTR and what Para Bellum is doing with Conquest, and have slotted movement trays where you could rank up round based models.
I'm pretty sure LOTR had that anyway. Never played it, just something I noticed at some point.
There was no real reason to completely remove close order formations.
Having to buy multiple boxes has nothing to do with the style of game and everything to do with GW's greed. There was a time where they had 20 models in a box, enough to made 4-5 ranks and that was usually enough. Then they got greedy and started to put models in boxes of 10 at the same price, even though they are the same model.
WotR did that (it was the mass formation game for lotr)
Does not seem like the double turn is changing too much, just now the person who went first last time gets to pick in the event of ties, so it slightly lowers the chance.
Not sure that will help the people who despise the double turn because it is so polarizing but GW seems to want to keep manipulating and preparing for the double turn as a pinnacle of "skill" in AOS.
Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.
The double turn is hands down one of, if not the, worst Mechanic in the game. Almost all games are decided if you get the double turn.
The better thing that GW should have done is just get rid of the double turn between turn 1 and turn 2. Have it be you don't roll for turns until the start of turn three.
auticus wrote:Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.
I am not picking on you Auticus,, I have much respect for you but just want to address the double turn and not saying you are wrong or I am correct. The way it will be in June is exactly how it is in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. I never herd ONCE a complaint about the double turn in that game. No one complained about it that I know of. Reading on the forums nobody made it a strategy. I am not sure why some people make a big deal out of it. (I know you never made a big deal out of it Auticus, but others have).
So if so many people are having fun with the LotR system, it really can't be that bad. Also what I hope GW introduces is Heroic Intervention. This way even if it's not your turn, your Hero can make it and or troops move or attack out of turn just like in LotR. I really hope AoS becomes more like LotR. ?This way shooting into combat if you miss your target, you hit your units. (evil only but hope this changes to everyone in AoS.)
auticus wrote:Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.
I am not picking on you Auticus,, I have much respect for you but just want to address the double turn and not saying you are wrong or I am correct. The way it will be in June is exactly how it is in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. I never herd ONCE a complaint about the double turn in that game. No one complained about it that I know of. Reading on the forums nobody made it a strategy. I am not sure why some people make a big deal out of it. (I know you never made a big deal out of it Auticus, but others have).
But to be fair, Hobbit and AoS are not the same. When you go up against an army that can shoot you with 21d3 +3d6 auto hitting mortal wounds, getting a double turn is pretty much a garunteed win at that point.
Backspacehacker wrote: The double turn is hands down one of, if not the, worst Mechanic in the game. Almost all games are decided if you get the double turn.
The better thing that GW should have done is just get rid of the double turn between turn 1 and turn 2. Have it be you don't roll for turns until the start of turn three.
I'd go with this really complex idea: You roll off at the start. The winner goes first. Then the other person. That's how every round goes.
auticus wrote:Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.
I am not picking on you Auticus,, I have much respect for you but just want to address the double turn and not saying you are wrong or I am correct. The way it will be in June is exactly how it is in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. I never herd ONCE a complaint about the double turn in that game. No one complained about it that I know of. Reading on the forums nobody made it a strategy. I am not sure why some people make a big deal out of it. (I know you never made a big deal out of it Auticus, but others have).
But to be fair, Hobbit and AoS are not the same. When you go up against an army that can shoot you with 21d3 +3d6 auto hitting mortal wounds, getting a double turn is pretty much a garunteed win at that point.
True. I guess it would change the game too much to make it more fair. That said, When it's the first turn and your opponent is shooting you with 21d3 +3d6 and you know you can do nothing about it is even less fun. At least knowing you might get the double turn makes the game more exciting. I am getting my butt kicked right now, but maybe I can wether through it and get the double turn.
Hmmm.... I think we are derailing the thread. I will make a new thread and we can have this great conversation.
People not treating Double Turns as some kind of unintended rules consequence.
It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.
That doesn't mean you have to like it of course - just accept that it works precisely as intended.
There is nothing that is tactically genius about having an army that can null deploy, opt to go second if they win the roll, or if they go first just don't put anything on the table, then when they get to go, pop up 3.1" away and hit you will 21d3+3d6 auto hitting g auto wounding mortal wounds and then roll a single dice to be abek to do it again before you can even do anything at all.
That's not tactic that's just double turn bs. Or sitting there and eletting your opponant move I to range, shoot them, get double turn and do it again. It can't be mastered unless you can determine the roll
auticus wrote:Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.
I am not picking on you Auticus,, I have much respect for you but just want to address the double turn and not saying you are wrong or I am correct. The way it will be in June is exactly how it is in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. I never herd ONCE a complaint about the double turn in that game. No one complained about it that I know of. Reading on the forums nobody made it a strategy. I am not sure why some people make a big deal out of it. (I know you never made a big deal out of it Auticus, but others have).
So if so many people are having fun with the LotR system, it really can't be that bad. Also what I hope GW introduces is Heroic Intervention. This way even if it's not your turn, your Hero can make it and or troops move or attack out of turn just like in LotR. I really hope AoS becomes more like LotR. ?This way shooting into combat if you miss your target, you hit your units. (evil only but hope this changes to everyone in AoS.)
With respect, there's a big difference in LOTR and AOS. In LOTR you don't get an entire turn before your opponent. You move. Then your opponent moves. Then you shoot. Then your opponent shoots. Then you do melee and who has priority picks the combats that take place.
In AOS you move. You shoot. You do combat. THen you double turn and you move, you shoot, you do combat, and your opponent sat there the entire time taking it in the face for upward of an hour. Thats the big deal with the double turn and compared with Middle Earth why you don't hear complaints over there.
Also - the amount of damage you do in Middle Earth is fractional compared to some of the insane damage you do in AOS. So you are doing insane damage. Twice in a row. While your opponent stands there with his pants around his ankles reaching for a bottle of lube that is just out of grasp. Not very fun.
I play Middle Earth, am going to Adepticon next year playing Middle Earth, and love that system. If AOS would adapt away from a pure IGOUGO I would be ecstatic. That would make things like this double turn not as much of a groin kick, and brings the game more interactive instead of potentially I watch you kick my teeth in for over an hour before I can respond.
EDIT: and I see others have made that comment as well, sorry was just responding to the first paragraph.
Additionally
It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.
Thats just it. For me there is no tactical challenge to master. The tactic you are mastering is I hope I roll higher. I've asked many times for articles or videos on where the tactics and skill are in regards to double turn and very few people can really give one. I get that its different, and because its different its not old school wargaming, so to a lot of people thats the plus... but I don't see the tactical depth in double turn.
Now if they have changed it so that you have more deterministic ways of determining double turn so that its a tool that is not entirely up to the whims of Bicycle and Chessex dice, I'm all ears aand will come to it with an open mind.
It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.
Thats just it. For me there is no tactical challenge to master. The tactic you are mastering is I hope I roll higher. I've asked many times for articles or videos on where the tactics and skill are in regards to double turn and very few people can really give one. I get that its different, and because its different its not old school wargaming, so to a lot of people thats the plus... but I don't see the tactical depth in double turn.
Now if they have changed it so that you have more deterministic ways of determining double turn so that its a tool that is not entirely up to the whims of Bicycle and Chessex dice, I'm all ears aand will come to it with an open mind.
The tactic you're mastering is placing your army in such a way as to mitigate the effects of a double turn while maximizing your chance of holding the objectives.
EnTyme wrote: Sounds like your issue is with Skryre Fyre, not the double turn, Backspace. The issue isn't the double turn, it's that the list is broken as hell.
They are just the worst offenders of it, but tzeentzch are just as bad, double turn spells can be just as brutal.
Or empire gunline with double turn of shooting that can easily pump out over 100 shots of 2+/2+ -1 1 damage per shooting phase on top of spells and artillery. And as I have said before the issue is really only between turn 1 and 2. If you did not start rolling for double turn until after turn 2, there would be no problem
EnTyme wrote: Sounds like your issue is with Skryre Fyre, not the double turn, Backspace. The issue isn't the double turn, it's that the list is broken as hell.
It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.
Thats just it. For me there is no tactical challenge to master. The tactic you are mastering is I hope I roll higher. I've asked many times for articles or videos on where the tactics and skill are in regards to double turn and very few people can really give one. I get that its different, and because its different its not old school wargaming, so to a lot of people thats the plus... but I don't see the tactical depth in double turn.
Now if they have changed it so that you have more deterministic ways of determining double turn so that its a tool that is not entirely up to the whims of Bicycle and Chessex dice, I'm all ears aand will come to it with an open mind.
The tactic you're mastering is placing your army in such a way as to mitigate the effects of a double turn while maximizing your chance of holding the objectives.
Against heavy shooty armies it doesn't matter where you position your guys if you are in range (and if we're talking objectives, those will largely be in areas of the table also in range of enemy shooting). Combined with true line of sight and no penalties to firing through terrain, you are just going to get rocked with ranged attacks twice. Against a fun balanced list, probably not that bad, and probably wouldn't be that big of an issue, but in my neck of the woods you don't get to face those lists, you face the ones that push out a bunch of ranged mortal wounds and ranged high rend shots enmasse.
I'll put out the call again. Someone make an article with diagrams or a video that highlights the deep tactical mastery of the double turn and I'll give it an open view. Between working azyr comp and the over 100 games logged there and the last two years of campaign play, I haven't seen it explained properly or convincingly once and maybe I'm just stupid and need to "git gud" but I don't see it. I see how to abuse it with my tzeentch army and happily roflpwn people with it because they can't hide from my ranged attacks and ranged mortal wounds very well on a double turn but I've yet to see how one actually goes about mitigating it properly other than it goes off at a time where nothing is in range, as it is entirely random.
So what both of you are telling me is that the issue isn't the double turn, it's that the double turn exacerbates other issue in the game. That I fully agree with. Stormfiends should have never been battleline. You shouldn't be able to place units in your opponent's deployment zone on turn one by any means. The terrain rules need depth. Hopefully some of that will be fixed this edition or at some point in the future (though I'm not necessarily counting on it).
If those other issues were fixed, then yeah the double turn would be less a smash to the face and as such wouldn't leave as much of a toxic taste on my tongue.
Everything you just mentioned are things I've been harping on (as you know lol) forever.
auticus wrote:Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.
I am not picking on you Auticus,, I have much respect for you but just want to address the double turn and not saying you are wrong or I am correct. The way it will be in June is exactly how it is in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. I never herd ONCE a complaint about the double turn in that game. No one complained about it that I know of. Reading on the forums nobody made it a strategy. I am not sure why some people make a big deal out of it. (I know you never made a big deal out of it Auticus, but others have).
So if so many people are having fun with the LotR system, it really can't be that bad. Also what I hope GW introduces is Heroic Intervention. This way even if it's not your turn, your Hero can make it and or troops move or attack out of turn just like in LotR. I really hope AoS becomes more like LotR. ?This way shooting into combat if you miss your target, you hit your units. (evil only but hope this changes to everyone in AoS.)
With respect, there's a big difference in LOTR and AOS. In LOTR you don't get an entire turn before your opponent. You move. Then your opponent moves. Then you shoot. Then your opponent shoots. Then you do melee and who has priority picks the combats that take place.
In AOS you move. You shoot. You do combat. THen you double turn and you move, you shoot, you do combat, and your opponent sat there the entire time taking it in the face for upward of an hour. Thats the big deal with the double turn and compared with Middle Earth why you don't hear complaints over there.
Also - the amount of damage you do in Middle Earth is fractional compared to some of the insane damage you do in AOS. So you are doing insane damage. Twice in a row. While your opponent stands there with his pants around his ankles reaching for a bottle of lube that is just out of grasp. Not very fun.
I play Middle Earth, am going to Adepticon next year playing Middle Earth, and love that system. If AOS would adapt away from a pure IGOUGO I would be ecstatic. That would make things like this double turn not as much of a groin kick, and brings the game more interactive instead of potentially I watch you kick my teeth in for over an hour before I can respond.
EDIT: and I see others have made that comment as well, sorry was just responding to the first paragraph.
Additionally
It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.
Thats just it. For me there is no tactical challenge to master. The tactic you are mastering is I hope I roll higher. I've asked many times for articles or videos on where the tactics and skill are in regards to double turn and very few people can really give one. I get that its different, and because its different its not old school wargaming, so to a lot of people thats the plus... but I don't see the tactical depth in double turn.
Now if they have changed it so that you have more deterministic ways of determining double turn so that its a tool that is not entirely up to the whims of Bicycle and Chessex dice, I'm all ears aand will come to it with an open mind.
Ah yes, I see where I have made my mistake now. Been ages since I played LotR I have forgotten that besides the double turn, it's still and IGOUGO system. I fully understand why now people don't like it and fully agree with you.
The shooting meta of AoS only exists because of double turn. Decidedly meh on the change, it's a little better than before but does nothing to resolve that I nearly auto-win with a round 1-2 double. Fortunately I only deal with that at tourneys when it comes to matched play, because everyone at my flgs prefers to simply alternate in casual games. So much more tactical.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The shooting meta of AoS only exists because of double turn. Decidedly meh on the change, it's a little better than before but does nothing to resolve that I nearly auto-win with a round 1-2 double. Fortunately I only deal with that at tourneys when it comes to matched play, because everyone at my flgs prefers to simply alternate in casual games. So much more tactical.
No, the shooting meta exists because there's no way to prevent a unit from shooting into/out of combat, and there are no penalties to firing through/over terrain.
Units are pointed appropriately to make up for that. I've played a lot of game with rolled initiative and with alternating turns; the ranged advantage in rolled initiative games is pretty clear. Once turns are just alternating that meta entirely evaporates.
My problem with Double Turn is not that is tactical or it isnt.
Is just boring. One of the most boring thigs I have ever experienced in a wargame. With how long warhammer turns are, to wait sitting here for two full turns of your opponent. Or worse, to gain you the double turn and feel like you are playing alone, killing models of your opponent while he does literally nothing.
I know many people will like the "tactical challenge" of planning for that, the "thrill" and emotion when you are rolling, and the "rewarding" experience when the luck favours you and you spend 50 minutes killing enemy models.
But I just hate it. Is like, 80% of the reason I stopped playing AoS and play LOTR and 40k now. Is like League of Legends vs Heroes of the Storm. In League of Legends ,it is emphatized for the "damage dealer" of the team to become so OP and gain so much advantage that he literally kills all enemy heroes in 2-3 hits, and he can 1vs5 the full enemy team if hes feeded. Many people love that, the "rewarding" experience of felling so powerfull for playing "well". I have seen thats very toxic. In Heroes of the Storm, another MOBA, thats literally imposible. Theres no point where one hero can kill in literally 2-3 hits another one, and its impossible for a hero to do 1vs5 or similar unless hes really really good and the others are really really bad. Its a game where you win with your team.
For me the double turn of AoS is like being feeded in LOL. A toxic experience that is enjoyed by the kind of players that to be honest I don't enjoy playing agaisnt. The ones that like to destroy his opponent without retaliation just because they have "won" that right for doing... something "right" before.
I remember lamenting to my brother before AOS started that the rule in 7th Ed. that allowed a unit to fight a second melee in the same player turn if moves and order of combat facilitated it was the pinnacle of turn breaking garbage. I can easily picture the writer of AOS listening to that and saying "Hold my beer..." There isn't an instance where I see jacking turn sequence is a good thing. The sooner they come to their senses and abolish it, the better.
auticus wrote: It has a very rabid fan following that get very angry when you mention removing it.
You mean like the "very rabid fan following" that existed and pissed and moaned about being unable to play without points, putting up nonsense like triple Nagash or triple Archaon as examples of what every game would be like?
The double turn is definitely the worst part of AoS. I used to consider it important as a mechanism for giving slower armies an opportunity to catch up to more mobile, ranged capable armies. But now armies are being designed with more fulfilled mobility and pressure options in mind, this isn't really an issue anymore. It doesn't present tactical or strategic options so much as it punishes good setups, and does more to reward bad decisions than encourage good ones. If anything, considerations for the double turn push for more passive playstyles.
The double turn. I’m in two minds about it. On the one hand, it can be devastating at times, and if you’re already doing poorly then it’s just extra salt in the wound. But it can also help you bonce back, and it seems to be very popular too. My personal preference is to stick to the old fashioned your turn my turn system though. It’s simple and fair.
I have used double turns and had them used against me. I see their use, but I think I prefer alternating turns.
personally... I'd prefer alternating units, and then warlords or characters could opt to move a unit or so with them, which could help do more damage, but then means you have one activation less this turn.
Galas wrote: My problem with Double Turn is not that is tactical or it isnt.
Is just boring. One of the most boring thigs I have ever experienced in a wargame. With how long warhammer turns are, to wait sitting here for two full turns of your opponent. Or worse, to gain you the double turn and feel like you are playing alone, killing models of your opponent while he does literally nothing.
This is exactly the reason why I don't like double turns, and one of the reasons why I'm reluctant to get into AoS. Having to wait for my opponent to move his entire army again and delete my army before I get to do something does not sound fun. That crap is in Carnage (Multiplayer 40k) and its terrible there. If it were an alternate activation style of game and not UGOIGO then that would be fine, as I know that I would get to do something soon, but having double turns in UGOIGO is just wrong.
The fact that its random isn't great either, as you can never really plan for it. Its basically Russian roulette.
Yeah, League has problems. I blame riot's incompetence as developers and their insistence on making everything flashy for E Sports. They remind me a lot of GW, funnily enough.
ritualnet wrote: I have used double turns and had them used against me. I see their use, but I think I prefer alternating turns.
personally... I'd prefer alternating units, and then warlords or characters could opt to move a unit or so with them, which could help do more damage, but then means you have one activation less this turn.
I mean, once you get into combat this is exactly how it works. You alternate activations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: The double turn. I’m in two minds about it. On the one hand, it can be devastating at times, and if you’re already doing poorly then it’s just extra salt in the wound. But it can also help you bounce back, and it seems to be very popular too. My personal preference is to stick to the old fashioned your turn my turn system though. It’s simple and fair.
And I think that's where a lot of the hate for it comes from. People don't like being unable to 'fight back'. The hate my Wanderers got at the launch of AoS was ridiculously disproportionate to what they got in 8th, where they were just laughed at and I was told to "get over it" when I couldn't do anything to certain armies without just netlisting things.
Shoe's on the other foot and all of a sudden, I'm a powergamer.
I do like the double turn, it helps simulate the fickle fortunes of battle and can throw a spanner into the best laid plans forcing you to react on the fly. I wouldn't mind if it disappeared though.
I can see it being boring in bigger battles, but both players are heavily involved in the melee phase of the game and if they introduce interrupt stratagems then that will get even better.
The double turn does highlight my gripe with AoS i.e. too much shooting and magic and not enough blocks of infantry slogging away in the battle line.
auticus wrote: Without derailing the topic any longer on double turn (Davor created a thread for that subject) - shooting into combat appears to also be staying.
We haven't really had what "shooting into combat will be staying" means specifically clarified. It might be that no matter what, you can shoot into combats with no penalties--or it might be that your missile troops who get locked into combat can still shoot while they're in the combat.
The cinematic spells seem interesting and I did like the objective counters they put out.
I really want them to hurry up and discuss the Magic system, because I have some big questions about that and how it interacts with turn priority. Right now, I'm getting the distinct impression that the "remains in play" spells are going to require some form of 'upkeep' to persist and that getting double turns will degrade the performance of them.
That could be. I'm expecting something based on 8th editions remains in play mechanics. They even released that little box of art templates representing the various spells that spun around the table.
My *concern* is rooted in one of the core evils of 8th: ridiculous magic made it so if you weren't min/maxing wizards you might as well go home.
Of course without seeing the spells we won't know. But if thats the case then armies like khorne that don't have wizards are going to be in a bad way.
auticus wrote: That could be. I'm expecting something based on 8th editions remains in play mechanics. They even released that little box of art templates representing the various spells that spun around the table.
My *concern* is rooted in one of the core evils of 8th: ridiculous magic made it so if you weren't min/maxing wizards you might as well go home.
I wouldn't be too concerned if the spells have a set duration of turns(it would make Sands of Infinity a bit more of an autotake for Idoneth though) or can be unbound at any point during their lifespan.
Of course without seeing the spells we won't know. But if thats the case then armies like khorne that don't have wizards are going to be in a bad way.
Yeah...of any army, I'm least worried about Khorne. Slaughterpriests can unbind and Bloodsecrators have an 18" forced reroll on successful casting rolls.
Yeah, at last in AoS playing Khorne really feels like being the worshipers of a God that really, really hates magic. Thats one of the things I most like about AoS. They have very very cool rooles and variety, and most factions really feel like how they should feel. Just look at the Daugthers Khaine and how the Avatar of Khaine works, or the Nurgle Cicle of Decay, Tzeentch dice of fate, all of those unique mechanics aren't present in other GW games. 40k is much more uniform (And for that I like it too).
But then you have some basic core rules that are very... "why?". The balance changes (Even if I of course acknowledge they are bad) aren't as important for me because I don't play in a competitive scene so we don't have those problems.
On the positive side, I like how it looks and it definitely has a cool factor.
On the negative side, in a game that already faps heavily over spamming mortal wounds, adding even more mortal wounds to your list building continues to narrow down what you'll see on the table.
Kanluwen wrote: This was in the Ironjawz Faction Focus today, and it goes with this:
They're called "Endless Spells" and they said we'll see more "soon..."
That is badass. Kinda sounds like a physical version of the 40K Vortex of Doom.
On the positive side, I like how it looks and it definitely has a cool factor.
On the negative side, in a game that already faps heavily over spamming mortal wounds, adding even more mortal wounds to your list building continues to narrow down what you'll see on the table.
Ehhhh...we don't know how spells are going to change. I'm seriously thinking that Arcane Bolt and a few others are going to be changed into just 'normal' wounds rather than Mortal Wounds.
I'm going on my assumption that the game remains largely how it is today with the #1 priority being spam as many ranged mortal wounds as you can.
I also remember one of the main bad design elements of 8th edition that people hated other than steadfast having no caps and people creating massive blobs of infantry. That being the mandatory level 4 wizards everywhere blowing up armies with their spells.
I really don't want to go back to that. So my cynicism is rooted in something GW has already done.
I don't have as much of a frame of reference here as everyone else, but i'll lend my 2c because this is a discussion forum, and why not.
I haven't played a lot of AoS. I've found the games that don't have a double turn to be pretty fun and interesting. I have found that games involving a double turn are pointless and over immediately as it happens.
Melee combat is built on alternating activations, but shooting, hero powers, casting, command abilities, aren't. Naturally the lists that win when they get a double turn will go heavily in this area... Because you can shoot twice without being shot back, or if you have access to mortal wounds just spam them like crazy twice in a row.
To me it seems like bad design to keep the double turn in there. I would very much prefer every phase was alternating activation, then there really isn't a need to worry about going second or first. It's a minor advantage, at best.
I have run events that used both the LOTR activation phase, as well as a pure alt activation phase.
Both times I did that, I had about 50% of my players very happy with it.
The other 50% went on facebook tirades about why houserules are horrible and how you should just play the game with no houserules because the game was designed around double turns and being able to spam their mortal wounds twice in a row was a feature that they built around, and they were screwed over by not being able to do it.
If you want to get a real gauge on mostly very happy AOS players and how they'll react to removing double turn, go post the suggestion on TGA and see what kind of reactions you receive.
Make sure you wear a hazmat suit first though. And goggles. Always wear goggles.
auticus wrote: I have run events that used both the LOTR activation phase, as well as a pure alt activation phase.
Both times I did that, I had about 50% of my players very happy with it.
The other 50% went on facebook tirades about why houserules are horrible and how you should just play the game with no houserules because the game was designed around double turns and being able to spam their mortal wounds twice in a row was a feature that they built around, and they were screwed over by not being able to do it.
If you want to get a real gauge on mostly very happy AOS players and how they'll react to removing double turn, go post the suggestion on TGA and see what kind of reactions you receive.
Make sure you wear a hazmat suit first though. And goggles. Always wear goggles.
I'm going to be honest:
Anytime you bring house rules into things, unless you get enough forewarning it's going to be an issue.
It's especially going to be a Big Deal when you're specifically doing it to hurt one kind of thing(mortal wound "spamming") but damage everything else.
Oh there is plenty of forewarning lol. Nothing is sprung on anyone at the last second.
First off if I'm doing a tournament event there are no houserules.
But if I'm doing a campaign and I don't want to see those tournament builds squashing casual players, you betcha there will be some rules in place to tone down the most volatile of offenders.
The problem is that the competitive players go into it months in advance knowing that there will be alternate rules, knowing what those alternate rules are, and then get mad anyway.
What they should do is just not play in a casual campaign if they are going to get upset about having their tournament lists clipped and just stick to tournament style games where they can do whatever they want based on whatever popular tournament rules are going at the time.
That goes back into there is a time and a place for everything. A casual campaign focused on telling a narrative where guys that don't want to tournament game or chase the meta can go to play a public event is not the place to show up with your stormcast that have a 2+ rerollable save and the ability to dish out 45 mortal wounds a turn. Thats for adepticon or LVO or events leading up to that.
I've also always used campaigns to test out new ideas. My fondest wish would be for people not interested in rules changes and just want to competitive game with RAW to stick to events that do that and not try to rip up events that they don't like by going to them anyway and then getting super angry.
Because I have roughly $15,000 invested in gw's fantasy universe, not counting twenty years of painting and hobbying sitting in my hobby room.
Coupled with there is no fantasy game on the market today that I'd just start over with and equally no game on the market that has any players to play with other than Kings of War, which all of my area players that play that are pretty much all solid tourney-only players and I don't enjoy that playstyle anymore.
As such, I adapt the rules that I hate into rules that don't bother me as much and there are enough people in my area that also either won't play AOSraw or like my changes enough to play narratively that I can go that route and enjoy my investment.
A list capable of dealing 45 mortal wounds a turn will annihilate me.
I haven't fully built up 2000 points yet, but I can tell you right now, I won't be able to overcome that. If I get double-turned by someone dealing even 30 mortal wounds a turn, I'm toast. I didn't even know it was possible to get that many. I'm looking at my list and i can reliably deal like 10-15 mortal wounds a turn assuming full strength, and it's primarily tied to magic.
Marmatag wrote: A list capable of dealing 45 mortal wounds a turn will annihilate me.
I haven't fully built up 2000 points yet, but I can tell you right now, I won't be able to overcome that. If I get double-turned by someone dealing even 30 mortal wounds a turn, I'm toast. I didn't even know it was possible to get that many. I'm looking at my list and i can reliably deal like 10-15 mortal wounds a turn assuming full strength, and it's primarily tied to magic.
Is this actually possible and realistically how many lists would you see like this? This just seems like 40k's typical problems to me: overcompetitive players with netlists. My solution was always not to play them and just play with like minded people: strong lists but playing for fun.
Marmatag wrote: A list capable of dealing 45 mortal wounds a turn will annihilate me.
I haven't fully built up 2000 points yet, but I can tell you right now, I won't be able to overcome that. If I get double-turned by someone dealing even 30 mortal wounds a turn, I'm toast. I didn't even know it was possible to get that many. I'm looking at my list and i can reliably deal like 10-15 mortal wounds a turn assuming full strength, and it's primarily tied to magic.
Is this actually possible and realistically how many lists would you see like this? This just seems like 40k's typical problems to me: overcompetitive players with netlists. My solution was always not to play them and just play with like minded people: strong lists but playing for fun.
Honestly i'm making a point of not really looking for cheese with AoS. It feels like a game that would be super easy to break if you put in a little thought and did some research. This is a new approach for me. I picked the models i like, and built an army from there. I did ask for feedback and some guidance, but made it clear that i'm not seeking competitive play.
If that means i get squashed by a list that double turns me for 90 mortal wounds, so be it. With nothing riding on the outcome, hopefully people will realize it's not fun to curb stomp meh dudes
It was actually possible because the dude that showed up to my event at the GW store showed me his list and showed that it could actually get upwards of 54 mortal wounds if he rolled everything perfect.
He was quite annoyed when I told him to make a new list because that was his tournament list and he didn't like events that changed the rules since that was the list he played all the time.
A list of 45 mortal wounds, 30 mortal wounds, hell 20 mortal wounds a turn against a casual list will nearly always win barring absurd luck.
One reason why people like double turn so much is that in theory a casual list thatt gets double turn against a powerlist will at least feel like they are in the game. Ironically if they get double turned by that they are erased, but they feel they are erased anyway so this gives them a shot to at least stay in the game, so they like it.
Mind you I've been publicly shredded for simply running either forgeworld scenarios (40k I ran all of the FW campaigns and we did Tamurkhan for fantasy) or for running a warhammer world scenario verbatim, because they are not fair and screwed someone over.
So its not just houserules that get you shredded, its running anything that deviates from the core tournament scenarios.
When I run a casual campaign now I have been using my version of command points which give you bonuses and let you summon, etc. You get those for running battleline units, keeping your ranged attacks below a threshold, keeping your mortal wound output below a certain threshold, and not having 2+ rerollable saves.
The end result has, for years, been mostly a good time for casual lists - which is my goal (I leave tournament events for the people that love tournaments). I do my best to minimize house rules these days.
But I do not enjoy playing the same tourney scenarios over and over so will freely use other scenarios or come up with my own that are designed for a more balanced approach to do well, and armies built on extremes do not do well (which incites a lot of the very powerful negative responses, because people buy their armies solely to win events and extreme builds are common knowledge what you should build)
Marmatag wrote: A list capable of dealing 45 mortal wounds a turn will annihilate me.
I haven't fully built up 2000 points yet, but I can tell you right now, I won't be able to overcome that. If I get double-turned by someone dealing even 30 mortal wounds a turn, I'm toast. I didn't even know it was possible to get that many. I'm looking at my list and i can reliably deal like 10-15 mortal wounds a turn assuming full strength, and it's primarily tied to magic.
Is this actually possible and realistically how many lists would you see like this? This just seems like 40k's typical problems to me: overcompetitive players with netlists. My solution was always not to play them and just play with like minded people: strong lists but playing for fun.
Not many lists will do quite that many, but 25+ in a turn is plenty devestating and that's far more common. Any tournament Tzeentch list is going to throw out at least that much. But it is totally possible for an army to throw out 45 mortals at turn, my tournament list has an averate output of 30 in just the shooting phase.
Kanluwen wrote: This was in the Ironjawz Faction Focus today, and it goes with this:
They're called "Endless Spells" and they said we'll see more "soon..."
For the Orks... why isn't this a giant green foot? I mean, seriously. My Ironjawz Shaman is like the worst in the game, but every once in a while, I make that sweet, sweet cast of 10 and the Foot of Gork comes out to stomp my enemies. About 90% of the time though, my Shaman does nothing but mortal wounds to my own 'Boyz before getting sniped by random enemy model with a shooting attack. The Ironjawz Shaman really is bad.
Otherwise, I'm looking forward to AOS 2.0, but I'm not really sure what was so broken about AOS that they needed a new version. Yeah, there are some gross armies out there (50+ mortal wounds? Really? Why?). But all in all, I've found it to be pretty fun. Maybe I'm doing it wrong I guess?
Nah, you’re not doing it wrong. It seems like it’s more a version 1.1 really. Frankly it seems like they could re write the free online rules and introduce it all in the next GHB. It sounds more like the transition from WFB or 40k 6h to 7th editions than any kind of serious changes at the ground level.
As a non-AoS player that frequents this forum, I am becoming more and more interested in jumping into this game. However, all this negativity has me turned off, and since I have like 4 friends that are going to jump in if we all do, I feel like I have a lot of pressure to ensure I get this decision right lol
Is it really as hopeless and endlessly miserable as everyone is making it out, or am I only seeing one side here? AoS 2.0 is the best time for us to jump in I feel, and what I've seen looks amazing. The roaming spells sounds wonderfully brilliant, the models are by far the best of GW in any of their games, and the world seems rich with story. There must really, really be a major issue with the rules if you guys don't enjoy this at all...
You're basically just seeing the whining about Double Turns if I'm going to be honest.
When someone builds their list to be super optimized netlisting garbage and they consistently get double turns? It's super frustrating to play against. Luckily, you can counter this by not just playing Matched Play and using the various book missions(army books actually include several missions, themed around the army itself) to really shake things up.
1) when I'm trying to play casual campaigns and my opponent wants to run tournament level and
2) the non immersive non intuitiveness of some of the rules (primarily the ability to shoot into combats and not ever hurt my own side plus the ability for all ranged weapons to be wielded by legolas and the ability to snipe whatever I want so long as I can see part of the horn on his helmet from 300 feet out)
Issue 1 I deal with by being strict on who I play with because if we aren't the same mindset we aren't going to have fun and Issue 2 I deal with with a couple houserules.
AoS is a fine and fun game, better than 8th 40kIMO just because of how bland the latter has gotten. Almost all of the whining here stems from the cancerous growth that is top level tournament/WAAC play that exists on exploiting and breaking the mechanics of the game (which, unlike what this thread may have you believe, is more the exception than the rule) so as long as you actively avoid that, you'll be fine.
Is AoS THE fantasy wargame? No. Will it ever be (and is it really what the devs intended, or was it just community team dribble)? Most likely not. Is it a needlessly miserable experience that you should avoid at all costs, like this thread is making it out to be? Definitely not.
I think I’ve been too negative, and if that is putting off prospective players from taking up the game then I apologise. Please don’t be put off by that. AoS really is, in my opinion, the best of the two big systems Gw do. It really is. Nice simple rules, a new and growing setting and the sweetest models GW do.
Also, absolutely nothing wrong with Mortal Wounds. They’re a decent mechanic. I think they just went slightly overboard with how many are dished out. Slightly.
Future War Cultist wrote: I think I’ve been too negative, and if that is putting off prospective players from taking up the game then I apologise. Please don’t be put off by that. AoS really is, in my opinion, the best of the two big systems Gw do. It really is. Nice simple rules, a new and growing setting and the sweetest models GW do.
Unfortunately for some of us looking at getting in with the new edition but who don't already play 40k, that's not really saying much
Lemondish wrote: As a non-AoS player that frequents this forum, I am becoming more and more interested in jumping into this game. However, all this negativity has me turned off, and since I have like 4 friends that are going to jump in if we all do, I feel like I have a lot of pressure to ensure I get this decision right lol
Is it really as hopeless and endlessly miserable as everyone is making it out, or am I only seeing one side here? AoS 2.0 is the best time for us to jump in I feel, and what I've seen looks amazing. The roaming spells sounds wonderfully brilliant, the models are by far the best of GW in any of their games, and the world seems rich with story. There must really, really be a major issue with the rules if you guys don't enjoy this at all...
Honestly, if it's mainly going to be you and your buddies, then it's a fantastic game to jump into and enjoy. Like others have said, it isn't without its issues (no game is), and the majority of those issues are really exacerbated by WAAC tournament players who, by their very nature, tend to find loopholes and exploit the holy hell out of them. I dumped GW games back at 40k 3rd edition and even though kinda watching a little since then, didn't even want to try AOS when it first dropped either. The release of the Generals Handbook in response to a lot of the community made me give it a go, and honestly it's been some of the more fun gaming I've done in a while. If you're not stuck in with uber competitive tourney players, it is a fun game. But then, I think any game can be made unfun with the addition of a WAACer. More than anything, I think a few of us here complain about the limited scope of some of these fixes and the issues because we like the core of the game, and see how it could be a LOT better with just a few tweaks.
Kanluwen wrote: This was in the Ironjawz Faction Focus today, and it goes with this:
They're called "Endless Spells" and they said we'll see more "soon..."
For the Orks... why isn't this a giant green foot? I mean, seriously. My Ironjawz Shaman is like the worst in the game, but every once in a while, I make that sweet, sweet cast of 10 and the Foot of Gork comes out to stomp my enemies. About 90% of the time though, my Shaman does nothing but mortal wounds to my own 'Boyz before getting sniped by random enemy model with a shooting attack. The Ironjawz Shaman really is bad.
Otherwise, I'm looking forward to AOS 2.0, but I'm not really sure what was so broken about AOS that they needed a new version. Yeah, there are some gross armies out there (50+ mortal wounds? Really? Why?). But all in all, I've found it to be pretty fun. Maybe I'm doing it wrong I guess?
Like Kan mentioned I think it's supposed to be realm of beasts based rather than ork based. At any rate, the Ironjawz shaman is more or less fine, it's just that he is often played poorly (trying to foot of gork is literally the worst way to use him). BTW unless there was an FAQ somewhere he deals the mortal wounds to the closest Ork unit, which will always be himself.
Lemondish wrote:As a non-AoS player that frequents this forum, I am becoming more and more interested in jumping into this game. However, all this negativity has me turned off, and since I have like 4 friends that are going to jump in if we all do, I feel like I have a lot of pressure to ensure I get this decision right lol
Is it really as hopeless and endlessly miserable as everyone is making it out, or am I only seeing one side here? AoS 2.0 is the best time for us to jump in I feel, and what I've seen looks amazing. The roaming spells sounds wonderfully brilliant, the models are by far the best of GW in any of their games, and the world seems rich with story. There must really, really be a major issue with the rules if you guys don't enjoy this at all...
How are you and your friends with house rules? What doesn't work, house rule. What you think is fun, add it in. AoS can be an awesome game when you put in house rules. Thing is, trtying to find like minded people to play with. If you guys can't agree then I say either don't start, or start small with the free rules. Then go on from their.
Looks like command points are just like in 40k. Tied to batallion spamming.
Definitely not a fan of the gwdevs pushing even more into the listbuilding min/max realm. For baby sigmar's sake, there are a lot of tactical ways to give command points such as introducing a mechanism that rewards you for accomplishing objectives and rewards more battleline heavy armies over their min/max counterparts than just saying "ok if you want to max the command points, please min/max your batallions even more like we do in 40k!"
Looks like command points are just like in 40k. Tied to batallion spamming.
Definitely not a fan of the gwdevs pushing even more into the listbuilding min/max realm. For baby sigmar's sake, there are a lot of tactical ways to give command points such as introducing a mechanism that rewards you for accomplishing objectives and rewards more battleline heavy armies over their min/max counterparts than just saying "ok if you want to max the command points, please min/max your batallions even more like we do in 40k!"
I'm not yet into AoS, but I'm hugely into 40k and that is not at all what I got out of that. Looks more like 7th edition 40k formations instead of the freeform 8th edition detachments. What am I missing here?
I think Battalion spamming isn't as big a problem as goofy detachment wrangling is n 40k (though not real sure, I don't play much 40k), and seems a lot easier to get a lot more CP by doing broken list building in 40k than this feels at first glance. I mean, what's the max battalions you can really get at the usual 2000 points? The main difference seems to be that 40k it's a set pool at start and doesn't refresh, whereas AOS seems to be a refresh every turn and with carry-over. I do like the use of auto-max for runs or charges, though, that certainly feels like a valid reason to hold back a CP or two just in case, and would cut down the "DAMMIT SNAKE EYES" feelings.
Hm. It may be that you won't get the refresh every turn, looking at the wording they've previewed more closely:
Command points represent the tactical cohesion of your forces – you’ll receive one to add to your pool every turn, and you’ll get an additional point at the beginning of the game per warscroll battalion you’ve used.
So you might only get the battalion bonus once at the start of the game. I really hope that's the case, because yeah, I can see how battalion spam by the WAACers could get really annoying if they'd refresh their command points by 3+ every turn.
My own personal speculation based on 40k and past GWdev design decisions is that this is a farmable asset that stacks from turn to turn. And you will be foolish to not be farming it yourself unless you like one-sided games.
auticus wrote: You get command points for your batallions, same as in 40k where you get command pointts for farming detachments.
Command Points are spent on powerful in game abilities so you want as many as you can get, thus encouraging farming batallions.
Batallions already give you a bunch of benefits. Now they will give you powerful command point benefits.
Additionally, armies that have access to shed loads of batallions (stormcast) are spoiled for choice.
Armies that don'tt have a lot of batallions, or crappy batallions, are going to be left out to dry.
Armies that have access to CHEAP batallions are going to get to farm all the live long day. Like IG do now in 40k.
This all puts even more weight on the list building phase of the game, making it even more important.
All valid points, but again my wonder comes down to "what actually happens in practice?" Theory is one thing (cheap battalion spam for lots of CPs), but the theoretical and practical max are different things. I do not disagree in any way, though, that factions with cheap and useful battalions are definitely going to have no reason not to take them, whereas factions with expensive and lackluster battalions will be left out a little. I don't have the wider knowledge of every factions' point costs and battalions, so I don't know what the practical numbers are.
It is a GWism though to have a high emphasis on list building and always has been. Many of us don't like that but there are plenty of folks who do, and that's (unfortunately) the way GW (and, honestly, a lot of other games) are headed.
I learned a few years ago when I did Azyr Comp that the vast majority of people LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE their list building and having it win tthe game before the game starts, so yes I agree.
This is another one of those things that I'll never see eye-to-eye with the majority of players.
There is a reason why I don't like or play warmachine, and it really sticks in my craw that AOS is now what I'd consider a warmachine-lite with a lot of its mechanics and setups.
The what happens in practice is fair enough - but we see it happening right now in 40k for me to draw the conclusion that AOS players will try to emulate that same behavior.
Uh. Might as well combine AoS with 40K. If I wanted 40K, I would play 40K. I do like 40, but I liked Age of Sigmar because it was different. Now both games being the same, it will not feel like I am playing a different system then.
Go FULL Warmahordes. Might as well combine both systems to be interchangeable now. Yeah yeah I know, plasma greater than gun pellets but still. If Privateer Press can do it, GW can do it as well. At least with PP I am playing one game system. With GW, now it's two game systems that are almost the same and not different enough when you want something different.
At least if you are going to copy one of your gaming systems, copy the best system you ever made. Make Age of Sigmar more into Lord of the Rings, not 40K. Then people can have block combat with War of the Ring.
Tin foil hat on now. It just hit me, that GW is going after the 40K crowd instead of just new people who could be into 40K as well. This is just lazy writing and lazy work. Minimum work to get minimum people into the game. More smoke and mirrors and GW hasn't changed at all. More into selling models than having a great gaming system.
GW please make a great Fantasy game, not Space Marines in a supposed fantasy setting.
Tin foil hat off. Like others, too invested to just drop it, and since nobody else is really playing anything but GW, seems I am stuck for the mean time. Here is hoping putting on some salt and ketchup will make it more flavourable and palatable.
Still looks like fun, but always thinking "what could have been".
They are also targeting people who love their competitors (warmachine). A lot of these mechanics are straight up comparable to how warmachine both looks and feels. It feels very obvious to me that GW's new crop of young game developers all came up on games like Warmahordes and love that style of game play.
@auticus, yup, I don't think we're actually too far apart in thoughts here. I've mentioned before I don't do a lot of tourney type play, so my own experience of course has some impact, and I have no doubts yours does as well.
40kCP spam is definitely something I've heard a lot about, though, and this could shake out pretty similarly. Just how bad that winds up being is, for now, something that remains to be seen and may depend a lot on other changes we haven't seen yet.
Changes in a system are always a mixed bag. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes. In a lot of ways, I'm kinda happy to at least see GW doing something for a change that at least feels like they're trying. Doesn't mean they're the greatest at it, and they definitely take more input from the tourney groups (casual players tend to not be as vocal either in person and especially on the intarwebz), so it's one of those "vocal minority" kinda situations I think.
There is a reason why I don't like or play warmachine, and it really sticks in my craw that AOS is now what I'd consider a warmachine-lite with a lot of its mechanics and setups.
In what way is AoS mechanically like Warmachine? I'm not seeing it.
There is a reason why I don't like or play warmachine, and it really sticks in my craw that AOS is now what I'd consider a warmachine-lite with a lot of its mechanics and setups.
In what way is AoS mechanically like Warmachine? I'm not seeing it.
It's not so much the mechanics, I think, as it is the CCG-like synergies and combos. WM/H is/was really big on pulling of crazy abilities through specific sequence of actions and combinations of special abilities, and I do see a lot of that in AOS now, too. Heck, I can even see a fairly easy comparison between the Focus/Fury mechanic and CPs now.
Changes in a system are always a mixed bag. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes. In a lot of ways, I'm kinda happy to at least see GW doing something for a change that at least feels like they're trying.
Not saying you are wrong, just had a chuckle with this comment. A lot of people have said Age of Sigmar was a lazy set written in a few hours. 4 pages of rules. I don't see GW trying to fix anything here. Again it seems GW of old, doing very little and hoping to bring in big influx of cash. To me it seems GW is not taking this very seriously. While the writers are hyping this up really good on Warhammer Community (great job there) I am not really seeing anything here that GW is trying. More like throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
If GW was really trying Age of Sigmar would be it's own game not Fantasy 40K.
That said, it still looks like fun. Time will tell if more is broken than fixed. It will take a few days/weeks before the broken combinations are found.
There is a reason why I don't like or play warmachine, and it really sticks in my craw that AOS is now what I'd consider a warmachine-lite with a lot of its mechanics and setups.
In what way is AoS mechanically like Warmachine? I'm not seeing it.
It plays very much like warmachine. Loose units. Super synergies akin to magic the gathering. Popping off command abilities (with the new rules even more so now since you spend command points to do so, similar to warmachine where you pop off your daily). Movement / maneuver not as important since you have high forgiveness in movement values plus the ability to move whatever direction you want.
Its vastly closer to warmachine and that style of play than it is to any game where movement and maneuver are primary keynotes like what whfb used to be.
Changes in a system are always a mixed bag. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes. In a lot of ways, I'm kinda happy to at least see GW doing something for a change that at least feels like they're trying.
Not saying you are wrong, just had a chuckle with this comment. A lot of people have said Age of Sigmar was a lazy set written in a few hours. 4 pages of rules. I don't see GW trying to fix anything here. Again it seems GW of old, doing very little and hoping to bring in big influx of cash. To me it seems GW is not taking this very seriously. While the writers are hyping this up really good on Warhammer Community (great job there) I am not really seeing anything here that GW is trying. More like throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
If GW was really trying Age of Sigmar would be it's own game not Fantasy 40K.
That said, it still looks like fun. Time will tell if more is broken than fixed. It will take a few days/weeks before the broken combinations are found.
Having followed a few of the gw game devs on twitter, I think they take it very seriously. I just think that they are for the most part (with a few exceptions) very young, very green, and very influenced by games like warmachine and it shows in the rules they are producing now.
Valander wrote: It's not so much the mechanics, I think, as it is the CCG-like synergies and combos. WM/H is/was really big on pulling of crazy abilities through specific sequence of actions and combinations of special abilities, and I do see a lot of that in AOS now, too. Heck, I can even see a fairly easy comparison between the Focus/Fury mechanic and CPs now.
I'm still not seeing it. Here, basically, you have what you have always had. Your general can use one command ability per turn. You get one CP, can spend one CP. If you use that as the baseline for this change, not a whole lot actually has changed, truth be told.
What's changed is that you can save the CP between turns, get extra from battalions, and can use non-general command abilities on your heroes. It looks like some of the new command abilities don't need to be done in the hero phase now too.
- Can save CPs between turns - this means you can get an advantage later by forgoing one now. You could potentially stock up for 4 turns so that on the 5th you can do 5 command abilities, but then you'll have gone through 4 turns at a distinct disadvantage to your opponent who has been using them - especially since they are directly tied to specific hero models and the models that are near them. Can you say for certain that in turn 5 your Lord Celestant is still alive and within 9" of STORMCAST models that can benefit from adding 1 to their hit rolls?
- Get extra CPs from battalions - Without seeing how this plays out in practice, I can't say whether this is a good or bad thing. My guess is that the point cost for battalions will go up to compensate for the extra advantage it gives you. How much is a CP worth? Dunno. It's also possible that battalion abilities will be linked to CPs, meaning that your have less reason to stockpile. I'll reserve judgment until I have more details and experience.
- Use non-general command abilities - Generally speaking, this would be the same as choosing one ability or another, but not both (at the rate of 1 CP per turn). It's more like choosing which command ability to use on each turn. With stockpiling, it gets slightly more complicated. Looking through the Stormcast Battletome, I count a total of 4 command abilities, so unless they end up adding a bunch of non-unit specific command abilities in future battletomes, I don't think it will get that bad. Even then, as long as the command abilities are tied to specific models, your opponent will have a way to stop you from using them.
I have a lot of faith in GW. If nothing else, than because of the new Beta Rules they put out for Shadespire. Obviously, they're trying to be better about balance, even if it's directed at the competitive scene.
Plus I've lived through 3 editions of 40k (tail of 5th, 6th, 7th, and beginning of 8th) that nothing could really surprise me anymore. 6th edition TauDar and 7th edition Summoning shenanigans made sure of that.
Looks like command points are just like in 40k. Tied to batallion spamming.
Definitely not a fan of the gwdevs pushing even more into the listbuilding min/max realm. For baby sigmar's sake, there are a lot of tactical ways to give command points such as introducing a mechanism that rewards you for accomplishing objectives and rewards more battleline heavy armies over their min/max counterparts than just saying "ok if you want to max the command points, please min/max your batallions even more like we do in 40k!"
Until there's an overhaul of battalions, you never would realistically see them being maxed out.
Not sure why you're griping about "rewarding battleline heavy armies" when those armies are the ones likely to have spammable battalions.
- Get extra CPs from battalions - Without seeing how this plays out in practice, I can't say whether this is a good or bad thing. My guess is that the point cost for battalions will go up to compensate for the extra advantage it gives you. How much is a CP worth? Dunno. It's also possible that battalion abilities will be linked to CPs, meaning that your have less reason to stockpile. I'll reserve judgment until I have more details and experience.
They bumped the WB prices up last year, citing that it was because of playtesting going on about the game in general. I'm thinking this is why.
Realistically, the Battalion abilities tend towards being 'passive' stuff so I can't imagine a world where them being CP related is anything but feedback from people who want to keep broken units broken.
- Use non-general command abilities - Generally speaking, this would be the same as choosing one ability or another, but not both (at the rate of 1 CP per turn). It's more like choosing which command ability to use on each turn. With stockpiling, it gets slightly more complicated. Looking through the Stormcast Battletome, I count a total of 4 command abilities, so unless they end up adding a bunch of non-unit specific command abilities in future battletomes, I don't think it will get that bad. Even then, as long as the command abilities are tied to specific models, your opponent will have a way to stop you from using them.
I think it's important to remember that there are quite a few Heroes out there that have no Command Abilities currently, or very specialized ones. Akhelian Kings, for example, can only grant their bonus during High Tide.
I think it's fair enough to say to we really don't know that much about the new edition to make reliable claims. We're speculating, and I'm totally fine with that. Bear in mind, though, that we don't know the game will be a disaster, or spectacular, until we get our hands on it, or when we get text on how the rules function and how units may change.
Darsath wrote: I think it's fair enough to say to we really don't know that much about the new edition to make reliable claims. We're speculating, and I'm totally fine with that. Bear in mind, though, that we don't know the game will be a disaster, or spectacular, until we get our hands on it, or when we get text on how the rules function and how units may change.
But what is Dakka Dakka for, if not for crying about the end of days and the massive salt distributions? I remember when 6th was the end of 40K, and then 7th, and then 8th, but nothing rivals the great outcry that was the End Times of WFHB/birth of AoS. The best was the guy who torched his army on Youtube.
Darsath wrote: I think it's fair enough to say to we really don't know that much about the new edition to make reliable claims. We're speculating, and I'm totally fine with that. Bear in mind, though, that we don't know the game will be a disaster, or spectacular, until we get our hands on it, or when we get text on how the rules function and how units may change.
But what is Dakka Dakka for, if not for crying about the end of days and the massive salt distributions? I remember when 6th was the end of 40K, and then 7th, and then 8th, but nothing rivals the great outcry that was the End Times of WFHB/birth of AoS. The best was the guy who torched his army on Youtube.
I think you mis-read what I was saying. I didn't say the game was going to be good, nor that we shouldn't be doing what we're doing. We should merely keep an open mind that rules can work differently than we think they will, or work differently that we think in context of everything else around it. Again though, it could also be a dumpster fire.
Its a discussion forum. All they give us are tidbits until they drop the whole thing on us eventually. All we can do is discuss what we know and in the context of what we know.
auticus wrote: Its a discussion forum. All they give us are tidbits until they drop the whole thing on us eventually. All we can do is discuss what we know and in the context of what we know.
Yeah that's fair. It's also good to know what everyone's hopes and concerns are around the launch of a new edition. For me, I'm hoping they don't try and squat any armies out of the setting like they did with my Tomb Kings.
auticus wrote: Its a discussion forum. All they give us are tidbits until they drop the whole thing on us eventually. All we can do is discuss what we know and in the context of what we know.
Like your most recent post:
Definitely not a fan of the gwdevs pushing even more into the listbuilding min/max realm. For baby sigmar's sake, there are a lot of tactical ways to give command points such as introducing a mechanism that rewards you for accomplishing objectives and rewards more battleline heavy armies over their min/max counterparts than just saying "ok if you want to max the command points, please min/max your batallions even more like we do in 40k!"
Yes, it is a discussion forum, but there's also sky falling. Based on GW's past history FAQs and Erratas, yeah, I think there will still be strong lists and crazy combos, but I don't think it will be the end all min/max things you're claiming it is.
Darsath wrote: I think it's fair enough to say to we really don't know that much about the new edition to make reliable claims. We're speculating, and I'm totally fine with that. Bear in mind, though, that we don't know the game will be a disaster, or spectacular, until we get our hands on it, or when we get text on how the rules function and how units may change.
But what is Dakka Dakka for, if not for crying about the end of days and the massive salt distributions? I remember when 6th was the end of 40K, and then 7th, and then 8th, but nothing rivals the great outcry that was the End Times of WFHB/birth of AoS. The best was the guy who torched his army on Youtube.
I think you mis-read what I was saying. I didn't say the game was going to be good, nor that we shouldn't be doing what we're doing. We should merely keep an open mind that rules can work differently than we think they will, or work differently that we think in context of everything else around it. Again though, it could also be a dumpster fire.
Nah, that wasn't really directed at you, just that people making wild speculations and criticisms is nothing new.
Thats hardly "the sky is falling". Thats me expressing my opinion on the direction that the game is headed based on the tidbits released combined with what I had hoped was a better alternative.
Additionally if I had a nickel for every dakka poster that has jumped on me and claimed what I thought was going to happen was nowhere near what was going to happen, and it turned out that way anyway... I'd be a wealthy man lol.
From the standpoint of trying to promote casual campaign play, this direction is the opposite of what I'm trying to accomplish. All this does is make me have to houserule campaigns to curb the CP spamming, just like we have to do with 40k (which in the 40k forums I also had this same discussion and was told it wouldn't be that bad, and here we are today with it being that bad)
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck.
Your mileage may vary on whatt you feel is the boundary for acceptable min/maxing as well as your own goals for your community.
Everytime my community loses another casual player because they get tired of having to deal with the power listing imbalances, it hurts us a lot because its a hard community tto build up in the first place.
If you're trying to promote "casual campaign play" then actively promote casual campaign play.
Do things like having people write a 10k list, Heroes and Units/Monsters having to be named and Wounds tracked from game to game. The list that people take for each game is valid for that day and that day only, with those units being unable to participate in the next campaign event. Have a map setup. Do things to actually create a fricking campaign.
Your complaints are consistently that people are doing netlists or things to make it "unfun" for casual players when realistically you're just doing Open Play--but with points!
In 40k you get CPs by dint of making a battleforged list. You literally have 3 out the gate and then you get an additional 1-12 for using a detachment. Aos you get 0 for playing matched and then an additional 0 for bringing the minimum leaders and battleline. Instead, you need to spend 100-200 points to get 1 and then gain 1 per turn, which is often getting spent on the same command ability you were using all the time anyways.
In 40k, theres no penalty for spamming battalions since chaf rules the day there anyway. Imperials and chaos can get 5 cp for like 180. These are usually spent en masse for combos, constant rerolls, deepstriking, etc. In aos you pay points for a battalion, which also forces you to take certain models as a further tax in some cases. And you get 1 cp as a result.
Kanluwen wrote: If you're trying to promote "casual campaign play" then actively promote casual campaign play.
Do things like having people write a 10k list, Heroes and Units/Monsters having to be named and Wounds tracked from game to game. The list that people take for each game is valid for that day and that day only, with those units being unable to participate in the next campaign event. Have a map setup. Do things to actually create a fricking campaign.
Your complaints are consistently that people are doing netlists or things to make it "unfun" for casual players when realistically you're just doing Open Play--but with points!
But that would assume that you know how our campaigns have worked before (all of which have done the things you have said)
Casual play is a lot of things. What its not is taking a tournament list. Really thats all there is to it in that context. If you hear casual play and you show up with your adepticon list, thats not casual play.
So I do actively promote casual play by announcing well ahead of time that its a casual game and don't bring your power list to the event. It is always ignored by a few people who feel that there should only ever be one way to play - by whatever means the rules allow.
auticus wrote: Thats hardly "the sky is falling". Thats me expressing my opinion on the direction that the game is headed based on the tidbits released combined with what I had hoped was a better alternative.
Additionally if I had a nickel for every dakka poster that has jumped on me and claimed what I thought was going to happen was nowhere near what was going to happen, and it turned out that way anyway... I'd be a wealthy man lol.
Then go buy a lottery ticket? If I had a nickel for the amount of times I heard "This is going to kill off the community!" I could buy out GW.
From the standpoint of trying to promote casual campaign play, this direction is the opposite of what I'm trying to accomplish. All this does is make me have to houserule campaigns to curb the CP spamming, just like we have to do with 40k (which in the 40k forums I also had this same discussion and was told it wouldn't be that bad, and here we are today with it being that bad)
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck.
Your mileage may vary on whatt you feel is the boundary for acceptable min/maxing as well as your own goals for your community.
Everytime my community loses another casual player because they get tired of having to deal with the power listing imbalances, it hurts us a lot because its a hard community tto build up in the first place.
Then it sounds like you need a new game. You've already admonished GW is trying to get the competitive player's money (a thing they've been doing since 6th edition 40k), so why stay? Does it suck? Sure, but I also feel like A) GW does enough for their casual players with things like custom missions, Narrative Play, Open play, and all the splat style books 40k had. If you wanted to play casually or make a story, you could. But the competitive players should get what they want too.
And I still really don't see how this is new or unfair. This is just GW moving the competitive goal posts to get people to sell their old armies and buy the new hotness and I think that's well within their right to do so.
In regards to your community, it should stay relatively unaffected, as it sounds like you house rule a ton of gak anyways.
In aos you pay points for a battalion, which also forces you to take certain models as a further tax in some cases. And you get 1 cp as a result.
part in bold, "in some cases", is the key. Some battalions certainly aren't worth taking, others you're stupid to not take them.
Thats really a large crux of the issue tying CP to battalions. Armies that don't ahve those "you're dumb not to take it" battallions are at a sizeable disadvantage. Armies that already have battalions they are dumb not to take will be getting even more benefits now.
Why tie CP to battalions in the firstt place?
If I had a nickel for the amount of times I heard "This is going to kill off the community!" I could buy out GW.
Except I never said this will kill off the community.
You're now taking the conversation into personal territory and making it nasty so we'll conclude here. I'm not interested in an internet chest-beating exercise.
So I do actively promote casual play by announcing well ahead of time that its a casual game and don't bring your power list to the event. It is always ignored by a few people who feel that there should only ever be one way to play - by whatever means the rules allow.
Welcome to every game that has ever been created, forever. D&D has this exact same problem, and it's an RPG.
In aos you pay points for a battalion, which also forces you to take certain models as a further tax in some cases. And you get 1 cp as a result.
part in bold, "in some cases", is the key. Some battalions certainly aren't worth taking, others you're stupid to not take them.
Thats really a large crux of the issue tying CP to battalions. Armies that don't ahve those "you're dumb not to take it" battallions are at a sizeable disadvantage. Armies that already have battalions they are dumb not to take will be getting even more benefits now.
Why tie CP to battalions in the firstt place?
I was talking about how CP in 40k are very different from CP in AoS for all of those that seem to think that "we 40k now".
Depends what we're talking about in terms of "sizable disadvantage". Top tier tournaments? Normal play?
As an example, Sylvaneth have a bunch of battalions, and usually take a minimum of two; they'd have a "sizable advantage". Except they have one command ability outside of allariel's once per game one. The generic ones are situationally useful, but not in the sense of Settra letting every tomb king hero do their thing type of advantage
The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.
Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly moaning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.
USNCenturion wrote: The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.
Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly morning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.
Okay. Take AOS, cut all support, leave it for years and then see how well it performs. WHFB was killed off due to atrocious management.
USNCenturion wrote: The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.
Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly morning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.
WHFB didn't sell because GW priced gouged the hell out of it and designed the rules to favor large units. Imagine if you had to pay 20 bucks for a single AOS mini when you needed at least 10 for a functional unit that's not completely useless. Now cut all support. That's what happened to WHFB.
Changes in a system are always a mixed bag. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes. In a lot of ways, I'm kinda happy to at least see GW doing something for a change that at least feels like they're trying.
Not saying you are wrong, just had a chuckle with this comment. A lot of people have said Age of Sigmar was a lazy set written in a few hours. 4 pages of rules. I don't see GW trying to fix anything here. Again it seems GW of old, doing very little and hoping to bring in big influx of cash. To me it seems GW is not taking this very seriously. While the writers are hyping this up really good on Warhammer Community (great job there) I am not really seeing anything here that GW is trying. More like throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
If GW was really trying Age of Sigmar would be it's own game not Fantasy 40K.
That said, it still looks like fun. Time will tell if more is broken than fixed. It will take a few days/weeks before the broken combinations are found.
Having followed a few of the gw game devs on twitter, I think they take it very seriously. I just think that they are for the most part (with a few exceptions) very young, very green, and very influenced by games like warmachine and it shows in the rules they are producing now.
Oh I am not blaming the writers at all. After all they are doing what their bosses are telling them to do. I am sure if the reigns were off and they were unschackled they can make out an awesome game system for Fantasy. So when I said, GW I ment the comapny and no writers at all. I believe GW needs Fantasy to be different from 40K.
Sqorgar wrote:
Davor wrote:If GW was really trying Age of Sigmar would be it's own game not Fantasy 40K.
Technically, AoS pioneered this system, so it is more like 40k is a Scifi AoS.
Fantasy Battles inspired 40K. Thing is, Age of Sigmar went to round bases. Went to more skirmish game than a regiment game. Space Marines added into AoS when they were not there in Fantasy. I could be wrong so please correct me there. AoS just seemed more 40K than Fantasy. While yes 40K 8th edition seems more like AoS than 40K 7th edition, AoS is becoming more 40K when the "depth" is being added in. That is why I see AoS becoming more 40K and what was AoS is becoming less and less AoS and more like 40K 8th edition.
USNCenturion wrote: The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.
Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly morning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.
WHFB didn't sell because GW priced gouged the hell out of it and designed the rules to favor large units.
Imagine if you had to pay 20 bucks for a single AOS mini when you needed at least 10 for a functional unit that's not completely useless. Now cut all support. That's what happened to WHFB.
There's a lot of factors to it but I'd agree and disagree on certain points. I'd say WHFB ended because:
-WHFB just wasn't selling. Partially due to price gouging, partially due to rules complexity, and partially due to there were other rank and file games doing what WHFB did but better.
-They also wanted to be able to trademark more stuff. See Aelves, Orruks, etc.
-It just wasn't exciting and was hard to revamp after 25 years.
-Hard getting in new blood and getting existing players with tons of models to buy new stuff.
So yeah, you could argue GW did it to themselves, but in the end if it isn't selling, it was time for something new. I for one am happy for it. I liked WHFB's setting and models but hated the game in itself. I like the way AoS is now heading and the models selling at the shop would agree. WHFB used to be about half of 40k and was a bunch of dusty old stuff. Now it's half of 40k in shiny new plastic and selling as well as 40k is.
Well I'm going off the assumption that one command ability = one command point, maybe the general gets to use his for free once per round. And I like the change overall. Battalions give an extra one per game on top of the one per round so are beneficial but not hugely swingy (like the artifact they give now) and the additional command abilities/change to inspiring presence I like, they seem more tactical than before. It isn't how I'd do it but I think the change is an improvement.
USNCenturion wrote: The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.
Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly morning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.
WHFB didn't sell because GW priced gouged the hell out of it and designed the rules to favor large units.
Imagine if you had to pay 20 bucks for a single AOS mini when you needed at least 10 for a functional unit that's not completely useless. Now cut all support. That's what happened to WHFB.
There's a lot of factors to it but I'd agree and disagree on certain points. I'd say WHFB ended because:
-WHFB just wasn't selling. Partially due to price gouging, partially due to rules complexity, and partially due to there were other rank and file games doing what WHFB did but better.
-They also wanted to be able to trademark more stuff. See Aelves, Orruks, etc.
-It just wasn't exciting and was hard to revamp after 25 years.
-Hard getting in new blood and getting existing players with tons of models to buy new stuff.
So yeah, you could argue GW did it to themselves, but in the end if it isn't selling, it was time for something new. I for one am happy for it. I liked WHFB's setting and models but hated the game in itself. I like the way AoS is now heading and the models selling at the shop would agree. WHFB used to be about half of 40k and was a bunch of dusty old stuff. Now it's half of 40k in shiny new plastic and selling as well as 40k is.
Trademarking is hardly a factor in sells. As you said, there are other fantasy systems, and they didn't need to use made up lawyer IP friendly names.
I'd argue that the fact that the game was unchanged at its core for 25 years is a sign that the system is solid, and it would seem that it only started to decline when GW decided to push for bigger units from smaller kits.
Getting in new blood and getting existing players to buy new stuff is a direct consequence of GW's pricing practices and disregard for their own system.
USNCenturion wrote: The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.
Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly morning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.
WHFB didn't sell because GW priced gouged the hell out of it and designed the rules to favor large units.
Imagine if you had to pay 20 bucks for a single AOS mini when you needed at least 10 for a functional unit that's not completely useless. Now cut all support. That's what happened to WHFB.
There's a lot of factors to it but I'd agree and disagree on certain points. I'd say WHFB ended because:
-WHFB just wasn't selling. Partially due to price gouging, partially due to rules complexity, and partially due to there were other rank and file games doing what WHFB did but better.
-They also wanted to be able to trademark more stuff. See Aelves, Orruks, etc.
-It just wasn't exciting and was hard to revamp after 25 years.
-Hard getting in new blood and getting existing players with tons of models to buy new stuff.
So yeah, you could argue GW did it to themselves, but in the end if it isn't selling, it was time for something new. I for one am happy for it. I liked WHFB's setting and models but hated the game in itself. I like the way AoS is now heading and the models selling at the shop would agree. WHFB used to be about half of 40k and was a bunch of dusty old stuff. Now it's half of 40k in shiny new plastic and selling as well as 40k is.
Trademarking is hardly a factor in sells. As you said, there are other fantasy systems, and they didn't need to use made up lawyer IP friendly names.
Trademarking isn't a factor in selling but it is a factor in ending WHFB. Look at Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum. GW obviously wants to trademark and keep their IPs.
I'd argue that the fact that the game was unchanged at its core for 25 years is a sign that the system is solid, and it would seem that it only started to decline when GW decided to push for bigger units from smaller kits.
A solid system gets old after awhile. Axis and Allies is one of the few unchanged games I know of that's been around forever. How hot is that selling?
Getting in new blood and getting existing players to buy new stuff is a direct consequence of GW's pricing practices and disregard for their own system.
Debatable. It is definitely partly due to their pricing, but cheap models will never fix a complex and difficult ruleset. Yeah, WHFB was a solid ruleset, but it was complex and not very new player friendly. Plus it had some goofy rules (can't make the charge because you're slightly outside your arc / there's a single model with his toe in your charge arc).
Knight wrote: Don't you pay for battalions in AoS? I play a mixed order army so I never got the chance to see what they offer.
You do. The issue eith battalions has aleays been certain ones being under/over costed rather than any inherent flaw to the way they work. At any rate you can run the battalions from any of the order armies/battletomes in a mixed order army; by RAW you cannot but I don't know of a single tournament or event that has enforced that. It is also only one of many RAW things that are ignored by default, RAI is kind of needed to make AoS work to a certain extent.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well I'm going off the assumption that one command ability = one command point, maybe the general gets to use his for free once per round. And I like the change overall. Battalions give an extra one per game on top of the one per round so are beneficial but not hugely swingy (like the artifact they give now) and the additional command abilities/change to inspiring presence I like, they seem more tactical than before. It isn't how I'd do it but I think the change is an improvement.
Going off Idoneth(supposedly it was designed with AoS2.0 as its basis) as an example, I'm getting the feeling that yeah--the general will get to use theirs for free, but future books are going to be much more restrictive as to what the general's freebie ability is(if they have one at all!).
Look at the Akhelian King/Volturnos for example.
It requires:
1) Unit to be fully within range
2) A secondary caveat(in this case--High Tide)
3) It applies specifically to one type of value(Melee weapon attack values)
It's cool and all, but man that's a bit much if I'm going to have to pay a CP for it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well I'm going off the assumption that one command ability = one command point, maybe the general gets to use his for free once per round. And I like the change overall. Battalions give an extra one per game on top of the one per round so are beneficial but not hugely swingy (like the artifact they give now) and the additional command abilities/change to inspiring presence I like, they seem more tactical than before. It isn't how I'd do it but I think the change is an improvement.
Going off Idoneth(supposedly it was designed with AoS2.0 as its basis) as an example, I'm getting the feeling that yeah--the general will get to use theirs for free, but future books are going to be much more restrictive as to what the general's freebie ability is(if they have one at all!).
Look at the Akhelian King/Volturnos for example.
It requires:
1) Unit to be fully within range
2) A secondary caveat(in this case--High Tide)
3) It applies specifically to one type of value(Melee weapon attack values)
It's cool and all, but man that's a bit much if I'm going to have to pay a CP for it.
This. I see the future GHB for the year having LOTS of adjustments and caveats to command abilities, on top of other rules. Let's be honest, even Volturnos' ability, while broad at 18" and affecting 3 units, is VERY situational. Many games are decided by turn 3, and you might not even have 3 units wholly in 18" that are also in close combat (or going into close combat) for this to go off. There are lots of other command abilities or similar abilities that give buffs for just having one model daisy-chained within range of your general, and it affects that unit all game long.
We'll see how this pans out, but I think we can definitely look at the Daughters of Khaine and Deepkin books as inspiration for what we may see in the future. We'll definitely know what's up once the Nighthaunt and new Stormcast stuff comes out too.
I like this CP system. It remains to be seen of course, but it's looking pretty balanced so far. You'll only be able to fit so many battalions into your list so you can't go crazy on the spam. I would assume that the general gets to use his ability for free?
Future War Cultist wrote: I like this CP system. It remains to be seen of course, but it's looking pretty balanced so far. You'll only be able to fit so many battalions into your list so you can't go crazy on the spam. I would assume that the general gets to use his ability for free?
My biggest issue is the factions with little or no battalion support. It might have the feeling that 40k has with Index vs Codex.
Future War Cultist wrote: I like this CP system. It remains to be seen of course, but it's looking pretty balanced so far. You'll only be able to fit so many battalions into your list so you can't go crazy on the spam. I would assume that the general gets to use his ability for free?
My biggest issue is the factions with little or no battalion support. It might have the feeling that 40k has with Index vs Codex.
My biggest issue is the factions with battalions that are just downright unfeasible or overly clunky for certain points values/game sizes.
So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.
After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.
I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.
Lemondish wrote: So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.
After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.
I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.
Ummm... its a few very vocal people complaining about some very corner case situations that come up in tournaments. Not a tournament player? Then I guarantee you won't come up against 90% of the gank lists that people have problems with. Double turns only suck when you are faced with a list that throws out 50 Mortal Wounds a turn. And if you are seeing that in casual play, you need to thump someone.
People like to complain, and it's human nature to critique and complain. For every complainer that actually logs into Dakka and complains about AOS, there are at least twice as many people that are perfectly content with the game and have fun.
I am one of the people that is pretty happy with the way AOS is. I play in tournaments infrequently, maybe 4 to 1 (4 regular games to one tournament game), and I have fun. Yes, it can be frustrating at times, but it's not nearly as bad as a few people on here make it sound. The game scales beautifully across all points ranges, and funny enough, all my games always take about 90 minutes. 500 points or 3,000 points- they all take about 90 minutes. I very rarely ever get into a rules dispute or spend a bunch of time with my nose buried in the General's Handbook during a game. The FAQ's and Errata have been fair, consistent and made sense. The "WTF" moments I've had have always involved an older, 8th edition army that was ported over to AOS... very poorly. The new armies? No real issues.
Are there things I'd like to see improved? Absolutely. No game is perfect. But they are minor quibbles that in no way turn me off from AOS.
Bottom line: If you have a good gaming group that isn't WAAC, then you will enjoy AOS. Even going to tournaments can be fun.
Lemondish wrote: So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.
After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.
I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.
With all it's faults of the game, I still like it a lot. I believe some of the complaining, is people want more, but it's still good. It's just "what could have been". As in it could have been so much better.
As for not trying the game, everything is free. It sounds you already have minis. Rules are free. Warscrolls are free. Use your minis as counts as and try a few games. Then add in the "house rules" since it seems you guys will be playing and should be able to make the game you want.
So I wouldn't give up on the game from a few people's opinions. Since it doesn't cost any money at all, I say try a few games before writing it off. After all if you are seeing how a "few" people hate it, how come the "few" people who love it are so into it? Just don't knock it, other wise, you will get this for EVERY game system. I have seen it in Warmahordes, X wing, other Star War games, Going by what you say, you will never find a game for you and your group. Not saying you are wrong but need to try it first when the game is free. Good luck in your choice of game.
Future War Cultist wrote: I like this CP system. It remains to be seen of course, but it's looking pretty balanced so far. You'll only be able to fit so many battalions into your list so you can't go crazy on the spam. I would assume that the general gets to use his ability for free?
My biggest issue is the factions with little or no battalion support. It might have the feeling that 40k has with Index vs Codex.
I don't see it happening. AoS has always had non-battletome armies that do very well. Mixed Order is one of the strongest right now. The thing is that battalions cost a decent chunk of points, battletome benefits require allegiance across the whole army, and only replace the allegiance that the generic faction already had. Imagine if codex armies in 40k had to have at least 1600/2000 points from the same codex to get any of it's benefits, and the remaining points would not get any benefits at all (from the army's main codex or their own).
Lemondish wrote: So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.
After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.
I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.
Wow. I really wouldn't trust dakka on this. This corner of the community strongly tends towards the negative regarding all game systems. They especially hate aos since it is a relatively simple game.
I would strongly recommend going to your local aos group and try a few games. Maybe ask to borrow an army or ask someone to teach you how to play.
If you dont like the game after that then fine.
Coming here to get an accurate sense of what aos is like would be like going into the comments section on the fox news website and asking them what they think of the Democrats.
Trademarking isn't a factor in selling but it is a factor in ending WHFB. Look at Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum. GW obviously wants to trademark and keep their IPs.
This is entirely on GW and not a fault of the game.
A solid system gets old after awhile. Axis and Allies is one of the few unchanged games I know of that's been around forever. How hot is that selling?
Axis and Allies is a self contained boardgame with limited unit and faction selection with no way of expanding your collection outside of buying another self-contained boxgame with slightly different scenarios. It is not a Table Top Wargame like WHFB. But if you want to bring a boardgame that had nigh-constant rules, I see your Axis and Allies and raise you a Monopoly.
Debatable. It is definitely partly due to their pricing, but cheap models will never fix a complex and difficult ruleset. Yeah, WHFB was a solid ruleset, but it was complex and not very new player friendly. Plus it had some goofy rules (can't make the charge because you're slightly outside your arc / there's a single model with his toe in your charge arc).
Considering how players lamented that 8th ed Wh40k dropped vehicle facing and AoS dropped ranking and unit facings, it would seem that they liked complexity in their wargames. Furthermore, Wh40k still has its share of complex book keeping (stratagems, unit buffs) and goofy rules (a tank can shoot every single one of its guns out of a corner of its armor), and that's still selling quite well.
If could get into WHFB's rules as a new player , and if there were some younger folks at my local store that could get into it, then logically the rules weren't a problem. At least, that's how it was in 7th edition. Which had its problems, mind you, but it was playable. I could see the argument that 8th edition was unfriendly towards new players, as that's when GW basically phoned it in and started sabotaging WHFB by making the rules all about random tables, OP spells, huge blocks of infantry, and later big expensive monsters rather than tactics and game mechanics. Which again brings us to price gouging, as in order to effectively play 8th ed you needed to buy big expensive monsters and a large number of infantry kits, which were also expensive for its contents. Even little Timmy's parents would be hesitant in forking over cash for that.
I really dislike more stuff being linked to the battalions, I don't like battalions. It has already pointed out, that different armies have completely different numbers of battalions available to them. Then there is my personal issue, that battalions are like 40K 7th edition formations (which I also hated), they force you to bring very particular combination of specific units. I want to choose what units to take myself, thank you very much! 8th edition 40K detachments are much better, as you can pretty freely fill them with units you like.
Lemondish wrote: So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.
After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.
I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.
If I may offer a different opinion then, my local AoS group is extremely excited for the changes. We already loved the original version, but now every change we've seen so far has been met with nothing but praise. Discussing the recent command point announcement today with them, we were all very pleased with the way it was set up, linking them to battalion warscrolls, as unlike 40K, these all carry a point cost with them, so even if one was to take several in order to maximise command points, they would be paying points for the privilege, as opposed to 40K which hands them out for free. Given as well that the benefit is to allow models to use their command abilities, that's more points that must be spent on models to get the benefits. It's a trade-off system that works beautifully, and we're all keen to try it out.
With regards to negativity, don't discount the ongoing hostility towards AoS that still hangs around in the online community even after 3 years. Some people have a very vested interest in seeing AoS fail. My strong advice is to try it out for yourself (the rules are free anyway) and also to have a chat to your local group.
Lemondish wrote: So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.
After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.
I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.
That is a shame. As others have said, AoS is great. I was hooked on it right off the bat, and it triggered a resurgence in wargaming among me and my friends, and now it's our main game. It's not perfect, but then what is? It's just that there is a sizable chunk of the player base, still sore from the ending of old fantasy and angry at simplified rules, who are actively rooting for it to fail and will help facilitate that at every opportunity with over the top negativity. And here they seem to have gotten to you.
It's your decision, but I say that you're really missing out by avoiding AoS.
Yeah, there are those groups that will tell you that AoS is great and all those who are telling you something different are gates that can not get over killing the old world
Than there are those that say AoS is bad and everyone who say it is not is just a fanboy who buy anything from GW and never played something else.
All in all, AoS is an average Skirmish game and it's main difference to other games are large monster models.
Gameplay wise there are better fantasy Skirmish games out there.
Also some without dedicated models, so you can use GW stuff, but without special rules for the very big stuff
Lemondish wrote: So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.
After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.
I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.
That is a shame. As others have said, AoS is great. I was hooked on it right off the bat, and it triggered a resurgence in wargaming among me and my friends, and now it's our main game. It's not perfect, but then what is? It's just that there is a sizable chunk of the player base, still sore from the ending of old fantasy and angry at simplified rules, who are actively rooting for it to fail and will help facilitate that at every opportunity with over the top negativity. And here they seem to have gotten to you.
It's your decision, but I say that you're really missing out by avoiding AoS.
Amen!
I Think aos is the Best thing that has come out of gw in the 15 years I've been a customer..
Crimson wrote: I really dislike more stuff being linked to the battalions, I don't like battalions. It has already pointed out, that different armies have completely different numbers of battalions available to them. Then there is my personal issue, that battalions are like 40K 7th edition formations (which I also hated), they force you to bring very particular combination of specific units. I want to choose what units to take myself, thank you very much! 8th edition 40K detachments are much better, as you can pretty freely fill them with units you like.
Yeah, formations / battalions are a blatant marketing ploy to get you to buy a specific combination of units to get some special ability out of them.
I hate them.
8th ed 40k detachments have some problems in that it's easy to farm CP with them and get all sorts of buffs from faction traits, especially if you're imperial, but it's still better than formations
I think basing one's opinion of the game without playing it at all is a mistake. Especially since the rules are free.
There are people that love it. There are people that hate it. There are people like me who love part of it and hate other parts of it.
You have to make your own decision based on what you and your group personally are looking to get out of a game. What I am looking to get out of a game is likely totally different from what you want out of a game.
auticus wrote: I think basing one's opinion of the game without playing it at all is a mistake. Especially since the rules are free.
There are people that love it. There are people that hate it. There are people like me who love part of it and hate other parts of it.
You have to make your own decision based on what you and your group personally are looking to get out of a game. What I am looking to get out of a game is likely totally different from what you want out of a game.
To clarify, we have played a few games and enjoyed what we'd seen - but these hobbies are expensive and we like to play competitively. We all agreed that a couple games, despite being enjoyable, would not give us the experience or knowledge of the competitive side of the game nor the insight on how these changes would impact it. That is why I've found this thread very helpful - it's filled to the brim with longtime players that have the experience and insight we lack. You've all provided important analysis of these changes and the current status of the game, and much of the analysis here says a lot of the same message - you're unhappy. The message I'm hearing is that it does not seem worth committing the time and money at this juncture.
It's a pity, but I imagine GW will continue to make changes over time and eventually the game may find an audience of authorities like yourselves whose analysis is much more positive. I'll keep an eye on the scene (my buddies likely will too). Once again, thanks everyone for the honest feedback. Cheers and good gaming!
It sounds to me like you had already decided against playing, and that's fine, but for anyone else reading this thread, it really is a vocal minority lamenting the changes. The vast majority of online discussions I've read about the 2.0 changes have been extremely optimistic.
Crimson wrote:I really dislike more stuff being linked to the battalions, I don't like battalions. It has already pointed out, that different armies have completely different numbers of battalions available to them. Then there is my personal issue, that battalions are like 40K 7th edition formations (which I also hated), they force you to bring very particular combination of specific units. I want to choose what units to take myself, thank you very much! 8th edition 40K detachments are much better, as you can pretty freely fill them with units you like.
You can choose what units you want. This hasn't changed. Unless you are adamant of getting those extra what ever they are called because I can't remember points are called.
Thenord wrote:
Amen!
I Think aos is the Best thing that has come out of gw in the 15 years I've been a customer..
I would say for me that would be Lord of the Rings. Only difference between the two is Age of Sigmar is about more massed die rolling like 40K is. I understand there is a rush rolling 20-50 dice but sometimes more simplier is more elegent.
EnTyme wrote:It sounds to me like you had already decided against playing, and that's fine, but for anyone else reading this thread, it really is a vocal minority lamenting the changes. The vast majority of online discussions I've read about the 2.0 changes have been extremely optimistic.
So true. Also it's only a few weeks before we have actual game play. I know I harp on AoS only because of "what could have been" but I am still here and I am enjoying the game. It's like the new Star Trek movies. While I don't consider them Star Trek they are good sci fi movies to kill a few hours.
Age of Sigmar is a fun game. I find it funny that what people find wrong with the game and have friends don't house rule stuff in. "We shouldn't have to do it" is no excuse. You want fun play what is fun for you. After all GW tells us to house rule things in and out. That is the player base fault, not GW. After all almost every game I see played has a house rule in it somewhere.
EnTyme wrote: It sounds to me like you had already decided against playing, and that's fine, but for anyone else reading this thread, it really is a vocal minority lamenting the changes. The vast majority of online discussions I've read about the 2.0 changes have been extremely optimistic.
Well, if that makes you feel better, then who am I to argue...
EnTyme wrote: It sounds to me like you had already decided against playing, and that's fine, but for anyone else reading this thread, it really is a vocal minority lamenting the changes. The vast majority of online discussions I've read about the 2.0 changes have been extremely optimistic.
Well, if that makes you feel better, then who am I to argue...
I think whats most important is what you and your group want out of a game. Where I am there is only a tiny number of us who play, but we have a good time with it, we all know each other and do things other than gaming as well. Sounds like you have a pretty tight group, you might have a good time with it.
EnTyme wrote: It sounds to me like you had already decided against playing, and that's fine, but for anyone else reading this thread, it really is a vocal minority lamenting the changes. The vast majority of online discussions I've read about the 2.0 changes have been extremely optimistic.
Well, if that makes you feel better, then who am I to argue...
I actualy realy like aos and have 0 resentment over the death of fantasy. I just hate the double turn, is the only thing I strongly dislike about aos. The rest things i dont actively like or love are just annoyances, like shooting out of combat.
I have actuakly convinced 2 friends of mine that really hated sigmar (one called it age of s*itmar) to play it. The s**tmar guy has started a daugthers of khaine army, and as much as he disliked the stormcast, hes in love with the new ones for three reasons :
-Robes
-wizard-warriors
-Female heroes and mixed gendered units.
And I have to agree with him for the same reasons. Stormcas were a meh for me, a 4/10. But this sacrosant Chamber, its a strong 9/10.
Funny thought, if they had set the game prior to the events of WHFB during Sigmar's and made it a prequel of sorts, Age of Sigmar would have a really good name for it. Probably even more than now.
Slaanesh summoning mechanics revealed today. Deviant points based on how many wounds your heroes do but dn't kill and how much damage they themselves take but not get killed by.
I like the new summoning mechanics. Reserve points never went over well because you no longer got free stuff, and that was largely why you summon in the first place, and while this is moving us back into getting free stuff, you at least have to work towards earning it.
I'd prefer to see changes to how drawing the LoS works. However as that is something that GW design team seems unwilling to change, this is hopefully going to provide some protection to the heroes. I do hope there will be a reasonable limit of how many negative penalties you can inflict on a roll.
So in the Maggotkin preview today, they mentioned their battletome was designed with 2.0 in mind... my question is how greatly does the Maggotkin book differ from the Blades of Khorne book, and will it be very noticeable that BoK is an older book and thus obsolete with the new edition??
Can anyone speak to the differences in the 2 books and how one might be made for 2.0 and the other not?
There's no real difference between the two books in terms of contents (all have allegiance abilities, all have battalions, extra artefacts, prayers, spells, ect.). All they mean by that is when they were designing the Maggotkin book, such as with the Contagion Points summoning mechanic, it was with AoS 2.0 in mind.
All Battletomes are going to be useable in the new edition, even the old pre-Sylvaneth ones like Pestilence and Ironjaws.
Valander wrote: Interesting. They added a Look Out, Sir! rule, but I'm not sure what to think about it yet.
Better than nothing, but not sure how much it will really stop character sniping.
Given that you don't have many actual shooting units being the ones doing 'character sniping', but rather you have Mortal Wounds from casters and garbage like that...no, it won't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MalfunctBot wrote: It'll mean that Eidolans of Mathlann are basically always gonna be at -1 unless the Deepkin player is being stupid.
Cape dude infront so they have to be shot first, a unit behind him for -1, a turtle nearby for cover and Mystic Shield to taste. Oh boy.
Or alternatively, they can use the artefact on the Eidolon that makes it so they can't attack/be attacked and just soak up your fire...that can't do anything to it and has to target it because of Forgotten Nightmares.
Enjoy! People whined about a nonexistent problem in many places(character sniping from ranged attacks) and it got addressed, but it does nothing to stop the actual issue of spamming casters and abilities with Mortal Wounds.
No they’re useable. Believe me they’re usable (looks at wrecked Overlords army destroyed by a single mawcrusha).
I think MalfunctBot meant that all existing battletomes will be ok under the new rules. Some of the early ones (Fyreslayers, Ironjawz) didn’t come with the latter trademarks like an alligence ability, artifacts and battalions, so they’re arguably underpowered. Arguably.
Valander wrote: Interesting. They added a Look Out, Sir! rule, but I'm not sure what to think about it yet.
Better than nothing, but not sure how much it will really stop character sniping.
Given that you don't have many actual shooting units being the ones doing 'character sniping', but rather you have Mortal Wounds from casters and garbage like that...no, it won't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MalfunctBot wrote: It'll mean that Eidolans of Mathlann are basically always gonna be at -1 unless the Deepkin player is being stupid.
Cape dude infront so they have to be shot first, a unit behind him for -1, a turtle nearby for cover and Mystic Shield to taste. Oh boy.
Or alternatively, they can use the artefact on the Eidolon that makes it so they can't attack/be attacked and just soak up your fire...that can't do anything to it and has to target it because of Forgotten Nightmares.
Enjoy! People whined about a nonexistent problem in many places(character sniping from ranged attacks) and it got addressed, but it does nothing to stop the actual issue of spamming casters and abilities with Mortal Wounds.
Spell sniping is trivially easy to fix: "A hero cannot be targeted by a spell (other than spells effecting all units within a certain area) unless that hero is the closest visible model". If GW doesn't implement something to this effect, just propose it as a house rule.
Spell sniping shouldn't be changed, for some armies that's all they have (especially with the look out sir addition). Spell sniping isn't a problem--Tzeentch is a problem.
Valander wrote: Interesting. They added a Look Out, Sir! rule, but I'm not sure what to think about it yet.
Better than nothing, but not sure how much it will really stop character sniping.
Given that you don't have many actual shooting units being the ones doing 'character sniping', but rather you have Mortal Wounds from casters and garbage like that...no, it won't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MalfunctBot wrote: It'll mean that Eidolans of Mathlann are basically always gonna be at -1 unless the Deepkin player is being stupid.
Cape dude infront so they have to be shot first, a unit behind him for -1, a turtle nearby for cover and Mystic Shield to taste. Oh boy.
Or alternatively, they can use the artefact on the Eidolon that makes it so they can't attack/be attacked and just soak up your fire...that can't do anything to it and has to target it because of Forgotten Nightmares.
Enjoy! People whined about a nonexistent problem in many places(character sniping from ranged attacks) and it got addressed, but it does nothing to stop the actual issue of spamming casters and abilities with Mortal Wounds.
Spell sniping is trivially easy to fix: "A hero cannot pick targeted by a spell (other than spells effecting all units within a certain area) unless that hero is the closest visible model". If GW doesn't implement something to this effect, just propose it as a house rule.
Stormcast would rejoice as their heroes are now nearly invulnerable.
Spell sniping is trivially easy to fix: "A hero cannot be targeted by a spell (other than spells effecting all units within a certain area) unless that hero is the closest visible model". If GW doesn't implement something to this effect, just propose it as a house rule.
Even easier fix: make it so spells are a ranged attack on the unit's profile, with Mortal Wounds being reserved for actually challenging spells or trigger effects like on 6s.
Welcome to being a ranged unit, kiddos. Have fun seeing what life is like for the Glade Guard!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Spell sniping shouldn't be changed, for some armies that's all they have (especially with the look out sir addition). Spell sniping isn't a problem--Tzeentch is a problem.
Spell sniping is a pox upon this game. Summon up a Vortex and double your casting range while effectively making yourself immune to melee. When do I get to summon up a siege tower for an archer character?
Stormcast would rejoice as their heroes are now nearly invulnerable.
Every army "would rejoice", because heroes tend to get hidden away to throw up their buffs.
Spell sniping is trivially easy to fix: "A hero cannot be targeted by a spell (other than spells effecting all units within a certain area) unless that hero is the closest visible model". If GW doesn't implement something to this effect, just propose it as a house rule.
Even easier fix: make it so spells are a ranged attack on the unit's profile, with Mortal Wounds being reserved for actually challenging spells or trigger effects like on 6s.
Welcome to being a ranged unit, kiddos. Have fun seeing what life is like for the Glade Guard!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Spell sniping shouldn't be changed, for some armies that's all they have (especially with the look out sir addition). Spell sniping isn't a problem--Tzeentch is a problem.
Spell sniping is a pox upon this game. Summon up a Vortex and double your casting range while effectively making yourself immune to melee. When do I get to summon up a siege tower for an archer character?
Stormcast would rejoice as their heroes are now nearly invulnerable.
Every army "would rejoice", because heroes tend to get hidden away to throw up their buffs.
I'll give you the vortex, I should have included that. Tzeentch AND vortex are a problem. But enact the suggestions your making and the game would need a re balance from the ground up to account for it. The point values of characters and spellcasters would swing wildly. Alternatively, address Tzeentch and the vortex then avoid needing to do any of that.
Also Glade Guard are awesome and amazing at character sniping, dunno why you would be having a problem with them.
So you need to bring a block of 20+ models with 6+ saves that hit/wound in CC on 5s, so that when they are above 20 or more models and have no enemy models within 3" they get to hit on 3s and Wound on 4s still?
I'll give you the vortex, I should have included that. Tzeentch AND vortex are a problem. But enact the suggestions your making and the game would need a re balance from the ground up to account for it. The point values of characters and spellcasters would swing wildly. Alternatively, address Tzeentch and the vortex then avoid needing to do any of that.
Alternatively, add a thing for ranged hero hunters to be able to shoot characters with no penalties. If spellcasters can do it, why can't a Waywatcher or a Knight-Venator? It's their whole schtick.
Also Glade Guard are awesome and amazing at character sniping, dunno why you would be having a problem with them.
Because they already hit on a shoddy value, wound on a shoddy value, and have no save worth mentioning or protection against return fire to speak of?
Welcome to being a ranged unit, kiddos. Have fun seeing what life is like for the Glade Guard!
Even only hitting heroes on a 5+, how is a -3 rend once per game not enough to make Glade Guard character killers?
You answered your own question. How many heroes do most armies bring along? How many times do you get to use Arcane Bodkins?
Now compare that to the garbage that wizards can throw out there even before these new endless spells. And see why I've shelved my Wanderers until we get an actual book. Because right now, they've got one trick and that is Arcane Bodkins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dosiere wrote: Anyone else find it odd they’re still releasing a generals handbook this year? I guess for point adjustments to older tomes?
They said that the core mechanics are the only thing changing/being tweaked. They're probably going to be adding Allegiance Abilities, etc to older books to bring them up to snuff.
Edit note: This preview made me grumpy. I'm going to take a break for awhile and go back to working on building my Deepkin. These eels are super sweet models and easy to build(the eels are basically one piece!).
Welcome to being a ranged unit, kiddos. Have fun seeing what life is like for the Glade Guard!
Even only hitting heroes on a 5+, how is a -3 rend once per game not enough to make Glade Guard character killers?
You answered your own question. How many heroes do most armies bring along? How many times do you get to use Arcane Bodkins?
Now compare that to the garbage that wizards can throw out there even before these new endless spells. And see why I've shelved my Wanderers until we get an actual book. Because right now, they've got one trick and that is Arcane Bodkins.
That "one trick" is basically a delete key for any non-monster enemy hero, though. Most lists only have at most three-four heroes that actually matter to the list. Two units of 30 Glade Guard could easily wipe them out or at least cripple them. I'm not saying magic and wizards don't need to be rebalanced, I'm just saying Glade Guard are good at taking out characters. Spell sniping is a problem, but so is ranged sniping. Thing "X" being more broken doesn't mean thing "Y" is balanced.
Welcome to being a ranged unit, kiddos. Have fun seeing what life is like for the Glade Guard!
Even only hitting heroes on a 5+, how is a -3 rend once per game not enough to make Glade Guard character killers?
You answered your own question. How many heroes do most armies bring along? How many times do you get to use Arcane Bodkins?
Now compare that to the garbage that wizards can throw out there even before these new endless spells. And see why I've shelved my Wanderers until we get an actual book. Because right now, they've got one trick and that is Arcane Bodkins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dosiere wrote: Anyone else find it odd they’re still releasing a generals handbook this year? I guess for point adjustments to older tomes?
They said that the core mechanics are the only thing changing/being tweaked. They're probably going to be adding Allegiance Abilities, etc to older books to bring them up to snuff.
Edit note: This preview made me grumpy. I'm going to take a break for awhile and go back to working on building my Deepkin. These eels are super sweet models and easy to build(the eels are basically one piece!).
So your stuff is bad, their stuff is good, and they need a nerf.
Btw, 20 shots at 4+/4+ is an average of 5 wounds, easily able to kill a foot hero in that turn they have rend -3. Arcane bolt won't do that.
Though I would totally get behind heroes ignoring look out sir when making their own shooting attacks, that's a good idea.
NinthMusketeer wrote:So your stuff is bad, their stuff is good, and they need a nerf.
EnTyme wrote: That "one trick" is basically a delete key for any non-monster enemy hero, though. Most lists only have at most three-four heroes that actually matter to the list. Two units of 30 Glade Guard could easily wipe them out or at least cripple them. I'm not saying magic and wizards don't need to be rebalanced, I'm just saying Glade Guard are good at taking out characters. Spell sniping is a problem, but so is ranged sniping. Thing "X" being more broken doesn't mean thing "Y" is balanced.
And "ranged sniping" is being addressed. Remember that we've been told that ranged units cannot fire out of combats. Magic sniping isn't being addressed at all, or at least we haven't seen anything suggesting it has been.
And if you can't
NinthMusketeer wrote: Btw, 20 shots at 4+/4+ is an average of 5 wounds, easily able to kill a foot hero in that turn they have rend -3. Arcane bolt won't do that.
Arcane Bolt can be used multiple times during the course of a match and can be buffed up with a Balewind Vortex to have more range than a Glade Guard's Longbow.
Btw, suggesting that a 20 model block requiring no enemies within 3" of them at 4+/4+ with a "once per game" ability active is an "easily able to kill a foot hero" thing is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
You're not talking about a single Hero giving a buff there. You're talking about quite a bit of caveats and blowing a once per game ability to 'delete' a character--that's a one trick list and it's getting nerfed between the locking of units into combat and the Look Out Sir silliness.
Though I would totally get behind heroes ignoring look out sir when making their own shooting attacks, that's a good idea.
This needs to be handled very specifically though. It can't be just a blanket rule, because then it still makes Wizards get a boost. Look at the Aspect of the Sea for example; it gets to make ranged attacks as well as cast and have CC attacks too. It also benefits some Heroes that get ranged options for whatever reason.
It needs to be specific to units like the Waywatcher, Knight-Venator, and the Ironweld Engineers. Characters that aren't super fighty, aren't super commandy--they're basically just monster/character killers.
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Btw, 20 shots at 4+/4+ is an average of 5 wounds, easily able to kill a foot hero in that turn they have rend -3. Arcane bolt won't do that.
Arcane Bolt can be used multiple times during the course of a match and can be buffed up with a Balewind Vortex to have more range than a Glade Guard's Longbow.
Btw, suggesting that a 20 model block requiring no enemies within 3" of them at 4+/4+ with a "once per game" ability active is an "easily able to kill a foot hero" thing is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
You're not talking about a single Hero giving a buff there. You're talking about quite a bit of caveats and blowing a once per game ability to 'delete' a character--that's a one trick list and it's getting nerfed between the locking of units into combat and the Look Out Sir silliness.
Once per game abilities are meant to be used to do things that turn the tide of a battle like eliminating the enemy's commanders. That's why they're powerful and only usable once per game. And those "caveats"? They're present from the first battle round. There is no way the enemy should be able to get within 3" of your Glade Guard unless you're leaving them completely open. Eternal Guard are also battleline and fairly cheap. If they're too expensive for you, ally in some Dryads. Set up a screen in front of your Glade Guard. Now use your once per battle ability to kill the enemy wizard, and he'll get to cast Arcane Bolt zero times in the battle. Worst case scenario, Wanders' allegiance abilities allow them to fall back from combat and shoot in the same turn. I never like to use the "get good" argument, but if you're having trouble firing from more than 3" away from the enemy as Glade Guard, you aren't using all the tools at your disposal.
Once per game abilities are meant to be used to do things that turn the tide of a battle like eliminating the enemy's commanders.
"Commanders" being plural and "once per game" abilities being once per game.
That's why they're powerful and only usable once per game.
So do you support making spells "once per game"? Command abilities "once per game"?
And those "caveats"? They're present from the first battle round. There is no way the enemy should be able to get within 3" of your Glade Guard unless you're leaving them completely open. Eternal Guard are also battleline and fairly cheap. If they're too expensive for you, ally in some Dryads. Now use your once per battle ability to kill the enemy wizard, and he'll get to cast Arcane Bolt zero times in the battle. Worst case scenario, Wanderers' allegiance abilities allow them to fall back from combat and shoot in the same turn. I never like to use the "get good" argument, but if you're having trouble firing from more than 3" away from the enemy as Glade Guard, you aren't using all the tools at your disposal.
You're also, again, ignoring that we have literally seen that they're doing something to address ranged units but have not seen anything to address the spamming of Wizards.
I have no trouble keeping Glade Guard away from enemies. And for the record, Wild Riders do a much better job of keeping crap off your lines. What I do have trouble with is the idea that Wanderers should be hamstrung with this -1 to hit crap when they're not a force that is realistically being an issue. When we have units like Dark Riders getting harmed by it or Shadow Warriors or a ton of other ranged units that just aren't that great.
Glade Guard are competitive because of the Arcane Bodkins. End of story. It's a crutch for the Wanderers' list and suggesting that someone listbuild around it is asinine given that we know GW isn't afraid to nerf the crap out of specific units. Commissars still are unplayable. I don't want that for Wanderers.
dosiere wrote:Anyone else find it odd they’re still releasing a generals handbook this year? I guess for point adjustments to older tomes?
Some would say GW is just sucking money out of their customers. Others would say GW is a business and needs to do to make money. Me? I would say the point costs should be in the rule book and we don't need to go down the road of having multiple books, but here we are starting a new edition with multiple books now. Not upset or surprised, just find it funny that Age of Sigmar was suppose to be about streamlined and making it easier, but already starting out the gate on being cumbersome because of a minimum of 3 books or two books and a bunch of printed out pages of Warscrolls to start playing a game.
What ever happened to having just one book to start with?
