auticus wrote: My prediction is that due to the cost of buying the box, tournaments will not have this be a part of tournament play, which means that like all GW expansions since the dawn of time, getting people to play these will be difficult.
I really doubt that cost will factor into what tournaments think. If that was the case then FW wouldn't be allowed at so many 40k tournaments.
Honestly the biggest reason I could see for not including these spells is that a lot of people simply aren't familiar with AoS. So if AoS 2.0 gets people in in droves then these spells might be too much for them to take in all at once.
I think it will be heavily influenced by the 'spell meta' as in, how exploitable are the spell rules. If they are relatively well balanced I can see them included while if they create problem builds (along the lines of what the vortex does now) I can see them just dropped outright.
Skimask Mohawk wrote:Malign Sorcery is $120 CAD? It better fething not be core rules at that cost
Where do you get that price at? Is that with taxes included? I thought Malign Sorcery was costed as a starter set which would be $100. $120 would make it more about $135 taxes included then.
I don't think the cost will stop the spells being used at tournaments. If one of the spells turns out to be particularly nasty at what it does, then I can image army's turning up at tournaments with multiple copies of it.
The GW community page confirmed that its priced the same as a starter set, so considering that it comes with a lot of models and also a rule book that's a very fair price. And very acceptable to add a new layer to the game.
I think GW wants to push this update on players and it makes sense as it lets them make more models to sell to players, but now they are spells not just warriors on the tabletop. These might come in the form of bulking up future wizard releases (buy Kaine and his personal arsenal of magical spells including an everlasting fireball and his hovering war-disk) and in the form of magical packs for realms/magic schools/factions/alliances.
Skimask Mohawk wrote:Malign Sorcery is $120 CAD? It better fething not be core rules at that cost
Where do you get that price at? Is that with taxes included? I thought Malign Sorcery was costed as a starter set which would be $100. $120 would make it more about $135 taxes included then.
Yea I employed a bit of hyperbole lol. It's 113 after taxes.
I guess my point is that of they're doing away with the four pages of free rules in favour of the core book, which is going to cost something like 70$ if the 40k rulebook is anything to go by, plus malignant sorcery, plus GHB the total cost for matched play out of the gate is around 190$ before taxes. Just for the rules, on release .
While I have nothing against the spells aside from being sour about having to put the double turn back in the game if I'm going to use them, Id rather just pay 90ish before taxes than almost 200
Skimask Mohawk wrote:Malign Sorcery is $120 CAD? It better fething not be core rules at that cost
Where do you get that price at? Is that with taxes included? I thought Malign Sorcery was costed as a starter set which would be $100. $120 would make it more about $135 taxes included then.
Yea I employed a bit of hyperbole lol. It's 113 after taxes.
I guess my point is that of they're doing away with the four pages of free rules in favour of the core book, which is going to cost something like 70$ if the 40k rulebook is anything to go by, plus malignant sorcery, plus GHB the total cost for matched play out of the gate is around 190$ before taxes. Just for the rules, on release .
Except they're releasing the core rules, again, as a free download. It's gone from 4 to over 10 pages though. You just don't get the fluff and scenarios that are in the big book.
While I have nothing against the spells aside from being sour about having to put the double turn back in the game if I'm going to use them, Id rather just pay 90ish before taxes than almost 200
Then subsidize the cost of Malign Sorcery. Find spells in it you don't want and sell them on.
Skimask Mohawk wrote:Malign Sorcery is $120 CAD? It better fething not be core rules at that cost
Where do you get that price at? Is that with taxes included? I thought Malign Sorcery was costed as a starter set which would be $100. $120 would make it more about $135 taxes included then.
Yea I employed a bit of hyperbole lol. It's 113 after taxes.
I guess my point is that of they're doing away with the four pages of free rules in favour of the core book, which is going to cost something like 70$ if the 40k rulebook is anything to go by, plus malignant sorcery, plus GHB the total cost for matched play out of the gate is around 190$ before taxes. Just for the rules, on release .
Except they're releasing the core rules, again, as a free download. It's gone from 4 to over 10 pages though. You just don't get the fluff and scenarios that are in the big book.
While I have nothing against the spells aside from being sour about having to put the double turn back in the game if I'm going to use them, Id rather just pay 90ish before taxes than almost 200
Then subsidize the cost of Malign Sorcery. Find spells in it you don't want and sell them on.
That's great if true; I remember saying I hoped it was still the case but I must have missed where they said it.
There's definitely a better chance of buying the spells now. Still not pleased about having to reimplement the double turn, but you know.
The way I'm looking at Malign Sorcery:
Malign Portents is $25 by itself.
The spells would easily be $15 each, at least.
That comes out to $205 just for those. I'm considering doing a bit of trading around to ensure I have multiples of some that I plan on using several of (if we can do that).
Kanluwen wrote: I'm considering doing a bit of trading around to ensure I have multiples of some that I plan on using several of (if we can do that).
I really hope we can, if not that's fine but some of them just look great (honestly I think the swinging pendulum scythe is my favourite - I'd love to see two or three of those sweeping over the battlefield!)
The trick will be which ones are OP. Those will be the ones you'll start seeing a bunch of custom made pieces to spam. (assuming you can just cast a bunch of the same one, which if it can break the game I'd assume the answer is yes you can)
Kanluwen wrote: I'm considering doing a bit of trading around to ensure I have multiples of some that I plan on using several of (if we can do that).
I really hope we can, if not that's fine but some of them just look great (honestly I think the swinging pendulum scythe is my favourite - I'd love to see two or three of those sweeping over the battlefield!)
I'm leaning towards several Gravetides for my Mor'phann. Feels thematically acceptable that the skury Death Realm Sea Aelves would summon up skury tides of dooooom.
My Wanderers...I haven't quite decided on a Realm for them to hail from yet. Same with Vanguard(and the mage chap they'll be seconded riding a Gryph-Charger)
Skimask Mohawk wrote:Malign Sorcery is $120 CAD? It better fething not be core rules at that cost
Where do you get that price at? Is that with taxes included? I thought Malign Sorcery was costed as a starter set which would be $100. $120 would make it more about $135 taxes included then.
Yea I employed a bit of hyperbole lol. It's 113 after taxes.
I guess my point is that of they're doing away with the four pages of free rules in favour of the core book, which is going to cost something like 70$ if the 40k rulebook is anything to go by, plus malignant sorcery, plus GHB the total cost for matched play out of the gate is around 190$ before taxes. Just for the rules, on release .
While I have nothing against the spells aside from being sour about having to put the double turn back in the game if I'm going to use them, Id rather just pay 90ish before taxes than almost 200
Gotcha.
I hope the rules are free. I just lost my job, depression kicking in again and seeing all these goodness just a bit upsetting I can't buy any of it. I am hoping this starter set isn't limited time and I will be able to get it by the end of the year.
auticus wrote: The trick will be which ones are OP. Those will be the ones you'll start seeing a bunch of custom made pieces to spam. (assuming you can just cast a bunch of the same one, which if it can break the game I'd assume the answer is yes you can)
Well unless they change the Rules of One, you'll only be able to cast one turn turn. The question is will you be able to cast a second copy of the same Endless Spell while the other is still active?
Maybe, maybe not. At its core, it's still a spell, though. When you summoned a unit in 1.0, you used points for it. Didn't mean you could summon the same unit again without spending points. I guess we won't know for sure until we have the book in our hands, though.
On a side note, I'm still not sure what part of the Endless Spells people are considering to be "optional". You pay points for the spell. You use the spell.
On a side note, I'm still not sure what part of the Endless Spells people are considering to be "optional". You pay points for the spell. You use the spell.
The optional part I assume is that the whole spell expansion in itself is optional. Ergo you can have a 2.0 game without any of those spells on either side; indeed it would b expected to say "lets have a game oh and lets have the spell expansion" to your opponent (unless it gets to a point where its inclusion is the default state for your game area of course).
On a side note, I'm still not sure what part of the Endless Spells people are considering to be "optional". You pay points for the spell. You use the spell.
Much like forgeworld being optional to a lot of people. You pay points for forgeworld models too, but some people won't let you use it in games. Or 40k apocalypse when it was optional. You paid points for super heavies but it was optional.
People see endless spells as equally optional. A lot of people don't want to buy additional rules period, and at the same time don't want their opponent to do so either to have "an advantage". So basically its "play AOS, but no endless spells". If tournaments allow Endless Spells, they won't have much footing to stand on and will go along with it because they'll have to if they want to play in tournaments. If tournaments ban endless spells... it'll be something people fight over in forums for the next several years.
Note that Malign Sorcery contains more than the endless spells. It also contains 84 magical items and the 'Spells of the Realms' that they'll be missing out in if they decide not to use Malign Sorcery in its entirety.
Inside the Malign Sorcery box, you’ll find the full Malign Sorcery supplement – your guide to magic in the Mortal Realms. This book takes a closer look at magical lore in the Age of Sigmar, and the arcane materials that accumulate in each realm, such as Aetherquartz and Cyclestone. There are pages of spectacular new art and background depicting the unbound living magic rampant across each of the realms. You’ll even find painting guides for many of the endless spells, to help you get them ready for your own games.
There’s MORE. Seriously, even without the endless spells this would be a pretty hefty supplement. Skirmish on the Realm’s Edge lets you fight battles with a handful of models in some of the Mortal Realms’ most unstable landscapes as they hunt and bind wild spells for coin and renown. You can even expand your games to Path to Glory, as your warband grows into a fully fledged army gathering new spells to its cause.
For larger games, meanwhile, this book contains no fewer than 84(!) magical items that you’ll be able to use in any game, allowing you to customise your Heroes more than ever before, while the Spells of the Realms add a whole lore’s worth of magic to each of the Mortal Realms, building on the rules already found in the Core Book.
There’s even a set of Pitched Battle profiles, giving you the points you need to use your endless spells in matched play, while two Malign Sorcery battleplans aimed at matched play have a chance of showing up in any of your games where both players bring endless spells.
On a side note, I'm still not sure what part of the Endless Spells people are considering to be "optional". You pay points for the spell. You use the spell.
Much like forgeworld being optional to a lot of people. You pay points for forgeworld models too, but some people won't let you use it in games. Or 40k apocalypse when it was optional. You paid points for super heavies but it was optional.
People see endless spells as equally optional. A lot of people don't want to buy additional rules period, and at the same time don't want their opponent to do so either to have "an advantage". So basically its "play AOS, but no endless spells". If tournaments allow Endless Spells, they won't have much footing to stand on and will go along with it because they'll have to if they want to play in tournaments. If tournaments ban endless spells... it'll be something people fight over in forums for the next several years.
I view that mentality the same way I do people who say "Let's play AoS, but no objectives". You're not playing AoS. You're rolling dice with AoS models on the table. This type of gameplay is why people still claim AoS devolves into a mass of bodies in the middle of the table. It only does that because people strip out the rules that discourage it. I could see people not wanting to use the extra artifacts and things like that, but the Endless Spells are no different to any other unit whose kit you by in my mind. It doesn't give you any more of an "advantage" than fielding a Lord of Khorne. If you have the model and you pay the points, you have access to the warscroll.
It is my hope that this turns out to not be the case and that the spells are used in their entirety.
I just know how the tournament scene drives the casual scene too, so it'll be a wait and see.
Prices have been released.
Magic box is $85
GHB $35
Core book they are saying $60
Box set is $160 but comes with core book.
Reaction locally is a mixed bag. Mixed excitement coupled by the tourney guys only going for the GHB, downloading the free rules, and waiting to see if the magic set will be usable in tournaments before buying them.
Which means if there's no answer by fall (I think NOVA is the next GT) the store campaign is going to have a battle on its hands on whether or not to use those.
EnTyme - I personally feel that when you agree to a game of Warhammer or Sigmar as a pick up game without any other details then you agree to play armies as shown in the codex/battletome along with any offiical GW model releases with a dataslate release; coupled with the core big rule book
Today it would also include the generals handbook and any released FAQ/Errata.
Without any other feedback that's the core of the game; the basic package. Adding forgeworld, magic, cities of death, expansions or anything else is adding to that core game.
It's basically setting limits for what is and isn't allowed and ALSO telling your opponent what they can potentially expect on the table.
So in the case of Sigmar if you and me had a pick up game and all we said was "lets play sigmar" I'd expect the rules, generals handbook, FAQ/Errata and Battletomes for the armies.
I wouldn't expect the magic expansion nor Forgeworld Unique models so I wouldn't plan to encounter them in the least.
It's not a question of balance, but one of expectations and limits. It's also polite because it means, lets say, one person doesn't have access to the magic expansion. By specifying the expansion you are going to use it gives them a chance to say "Oh wait I don't own that can we leave it out please." Rather than having them turn up and you throwing it down into your army and them suddenly feeling like you're playing with an advantage over them; or suddenly you're stuck because you only took that army and you've nothing else to swap in.
I never understand why people get so defensive about wanting to auto-include all extras to the game. Asking to include them is not denying you the chance to use them; its not taking them away. It is simply being a clear communicator to your opponent on the details of the game you are setting up to play. I consider it not just something important but also bare bones basic wargamer manners.
On a side note, I'm still not sure what part of the Endless Spells people are considering to be "optional". You pay points for the spell. You use the spell.
Much like forgeworld being optional to a lot of people. You pay points for forgeworld models too, but some people won't let you use it in games. Or 40k apocalypse when it was optional. You paid points for super heavies but it was optional.
People see endless spells as equally optional. A lot of people don't want to buy additional rules period, and at the same time don't want their opponent to do so either to have "an advantage". So basically its "play AOS, but no endless spells". If tournaments allow Endless Spells, they won't have much footing to stand on and will go along with it because they'll have to if they want to play in tournaments. If tournaments ban endless spells... it'll be something people fight over in forums for the next several years.
I view that mentality the same way I do people who say "Let's play AoS, but no objectives". You're not playing AoS. You're rolling dice with AoS models on the table. This type of gameplay is why people still claim AoS devolves into a mass of bodies in the middle of the table. It only does that because people strip out the rules that discourage it. I could see people not wanting to use the extra artifacts and things like that, but the Endless Spells are no different to any other unit whose kit you by in my mind. It doesn't give you any more of an "advantage" than fielding a Lord of Khorne. If you have the model and you pay the points, you have access to the warscroll.
You're basically saying they are having fun the wrong way. There isn't a wrong or right way to play AoS; it's a game!
A great irony is how many people will bemoan that some take the game too seriously or are too hostile towards a certain play style... While being hostile towards certain play styles themselves.
Seems like the spells, artefacts, and command abilities are in the core rules.
Then is Malign sorcery a copy of this, or is it just endless spells?
Those are tied to the realms; malign sorcery is artifacts and endless spells iirc
Auticus and entyme: you guys seem to be missing the concept of baseline rules for the game (core rules) vs extras (traditionally called supplements/expansions). Not playing apocalypse every game from its release in 4th to its pretty much integration in 7th didn't correlate to "not playing with objectives". Same thing with battle missions, same with storm of magic, same thing with planetstrike, same thing with zone mortalis, same thing with the realm rules in the last generals handbook.
I'm not even saying anything about balance, just that the core mechanics are what you need to have a baseline game of either system, and then there's a bunch of stuff you have the, say it with me, option, to add on top of that. Like currently we know there's a ton of rules for the realms. We also know they said it was optional, meaning I'd probably like to be informed of intent to use those rules if I'm setting up a matched game. We don't know if malign sorcery is part of the rules that need more than a " you want to play 2000 of matched aos?" or not.
I really think you're misunderstanding what Malign Sorcery is. It doesn't sound to me like additional rules so much as an elaboration on the core rules. Again, I think you're overemphasizing the use of the word "expansion". In the Core Rules preview, they refer to the Core Rule book as an expansion on how you play the game. You're thinking of an expansion in terms of how the term is used in a videogame. GW seems to be using it to including anything outside the 10-page rules. This is the direction I am approaching the discussion from. I may be wrong, and Endless Spells aren't in the Core Rulebook, but we've seen previews of how they interact with the double turn, so I'm fairly confident they're just as much a part of the core rules. That's the reason for my comparison. If you ask for a pickup game using the Match Play rules, in my opinion, anything with a Match Play profile is part of those rules, and saying "no Endless Spells" is as arbitrary as saying "no Harbingers". I understand if you don't want to use the Malign Portents rules or the extra artifacts, etc. in Malign Sorcery, but you can pull up the warscroll for a Darkoath Warqueen or a Flaming Skull as easily as I can.
I'm not comparing it to a computer game at all either. The Malign Sorcery is an addition to the core game rules of magic. If it was "core" then those magical rules would be inside the main rule book - same way that your core army at release is in the Battletome all in one go.
Malign is a separate layer of spells and magic that is most certainly designed to work with the core rules (as the example you show reveals) and its very probable and likely that GW expects it to become pretty much the default state for Age of Sigmar to include it. And its very likely that, unless its horrifically balanced, it will probably become the default so that, after a while, most areas it will be the basic type of Age of Sigmar played.
That doesn't mean its not an expansion of the core game rules and mechanics. It just means that its intended to be the most popular default.
That's not trying to take anything away or redefine what the game is. It's purely looking at the Core game being everything withing the Core Rule Book. Malign bolts right onto that and I really honestly do hope it becomes the standard. It's clear GW want it to be which is why they've clearly priced it at a very affordable (for this hobby) entry price. GW want everyone to pick it up and use it; whilst at the same time have made it an expansion. A smart move because if it failed or proved unpopular or was just never taken up then it can be dropped with no harm to the core rules of the game.
And if it proves popular it just gets rolled into the core of the game next edition without any problems.
Again, people keep comparing this to things like Cities of Death and Apocalypse. Those are supplemental rules meant to add layers to the game. Endless Spells have been mentioned as an attempt to discourage players from taking a double turn. This makes them a direct attempt to balance a core mechanic. That is what I don't think people are understanding. This is not "If you like Age of Sigmar, but are looking for ways to change up the game, try this!". This is "If you are playing Age of Sigmar, here is another option for things to add to your army list. They also make the decision of taking a double turn a little less automatic."
I see absolutely no difference in the purpose of Malign Sorcery versus Battletome: Stormcast Eternals except you can add the models and artifacts to any army as opposed to Stormcast Eternals who can only be used by Order armies.
On a side note, I'm still not sure what part of the Endless Spells people are considering to be "optional". You pay points for the spell. You use the spell.
Much like forgeworld being optional to a lot of people. You pay points for forgeworld models too, but some people won't let you use it in games. Or 40k apocalypse when it was optional. You paid points for super heavies but it was optional.
People see endless spells as equally optional. A lot of people don't want to buy additional rules period, and at the same time don't want their opponent to do so either to have "an advantage". So basically its "play AOS, but no endless spells". If tournaments allow Endless Spells, they won't have much footing to stand on and will go along with it because they'll have to if they want to play in tournaments. If tournaments ban endless spells... it'll be something people fight over in forums for the next several years.
I view that mentality the same way I do people who say "Let's play AoS, but no objectives". You're not playing AoS. You're rolling dice with AoS models on the table. This type of gameplay is why people still claim AoS devolves into a mass of bodies in the middle of the table. It only does that because people strip out the rules that discourage it. I could see people not wanting to use the extra artifacts and things like that, but the Endless Spells are no different to any other unit whose kit you by in my mind. It doesn't give you any more of an "advantage" than fielding a Lord of Khorne. If you have the model and you pay the points, you have access to the warscroll.
You're basically saying they are having fun the wrong way. There isn't a wrong or right way to play AoS; it's a game!
A great irony is how many people will bemoan that some take the game too seriously or are too hostile towards a certain play style... While being hostile towards certain play styles themselves.
Or to put it in the most simple terms: if you're going to tell people they're playing things wrong, you are being tfg.
EnTyme wrote: Again, people keep comparing this to things like Cities of Death and Apocalypse. Those are supplemental rules meant to add layers to the game. Endless Spells have been mentioned as an attempt to discourage players from taking a double turn. This makes them a direct attempt to balance a core mechanic. That is what I don't think people are understanding. This is not "If you like Age of Sigmar, but are looking for ways to change up the game, try this!". This is "If you are playing Age of Sigmar, here is another option for things to add to your army list. They also make the decision of taking a double turn a little less automatic."
I see absolutely no difference in the purpose of Malign Sorcery versus Battletome: Stormcast Eternals except you can add the models and artifacts to any army as opposed to Stormcast Eternals who can only be used by Order armies.
Again I say if they were as core as you say why aren't they inside the Big Rule Book? Why have their rules bundled in a totally separate package? Sure a bundle of all the spells in one box is neat, but if they were CORE they'd be in the single main rule book along with the rest of the games core rules.
That they are not and instead are self contained within a totally separate product containing both rules and models suggests to me that it is an expansion.
Again its clear that GW intends and expects the majority of players to use these spells; but they've also made it so that their inclusion is optional not mandatory within the core rules of the game.
*edit* Nevermind. We'll see in two weeks. I just don't get why anyone is talking about restricting rules before we even know what those rules are. It's the very definition of arbitrary.
Yeah, we'll probably start seeing rules leaks later this week. By next weekend, the 10-page core rules will probably be viewable in at least three languages.
The internet celebrities already have their preorder window now and should be getting their rulebook and boxes etc this weekend so you will definitely know by this weekend whats up. (edit: or if they have to wait 2 weeks like the rest of us then they'll get it in the mail by next friday or so)
auticus wrote: The internet celebrities already have their preorder window now and should be getting their rulebook and boxes etc this weekend so you will definitely know by this weekend whats up. (edit: or if they have to wait 2 weeks like the rest of us then they'll get it in the mail by next friday or so)
Reviewers usually don't post their reviews until the product goes on pre-order (if they want to keep getting the product to review). With a two week pre-order I'm not sure what GW's policy is due to how rare a two week pre-order is.
Product goes on pre order for the rest of the unwashed masses this saturday and the celebs will have theirs either this weekend or next, so they should be free to post their comments I would think.
I haven't been paying attention as I use to because of my depression. So I can be totally off here. I am not liking what I am reading. I am not saying anyone is wrong, but all I am seeing right now is what happened in 40K 6th edition.
That is "let's have a game of 40K, but you can't have Unbound, or super heavies or what not" and it will divide the community.
I was hoping AoS2.0 would embrace the community as a whole and not divide it. Sadly GW is trying to appease all parties, but it seems the community itself is going to be the reason why we are so divided. I hope I am wrong but I am not like what I am reading. Not just here on Dakka but on a few forums.
GW is giving us all kinds of tools to use. The tournament crowd however often drives what is used "standard". Whether or not you will care about that will depend on if your primary games are public pick up style games.
For those that play with clubs or their own friends where they don't care about what's "standard" you will have an amazing toolbox to create some fun memories with.
I see the problem being that people have such an issue with how others want to play. If some one else wants to play a different way, big deal. If it means you can't play the way you want because the rest of your community wants to play a different way then, yeah, that sucks. You can adapt, move on, or stay upset about it. You can advocate your way to the community and if you make a good point maybe they'll see something in it. Maybe you need to move on to another game, another community, or make your own. Or you can take what starts as legitimate frustration and drag it out into something that makes you miserable for no benefit to anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghaz wrote: Found the following on /tg/. Hopefully better eyes than mine can make out the details...
Spoiler:
Paraphrasing:
Casting value of 6, wizards with 9+ wounds, are a unit of multiple models, or already on a vortex can't cast it.
Set up within 1" of the caster, more than 3" from enemy models, then put the caster on top.
While it's on the battlefield that caster & vortex are a single model from the caster's army, treated as an enemy model by the opponent.
Wizard on a vortex can cast an extra spell each hero phase (including the phase in which you summoned it) and add 6" to the range. +1 to save rolls for being on vortex (note this is NOT listed as cover, so an effect which grants cover (idoneth) would stack).
Wizard on top can automatically dispel the vortex, but it eats the extra spell "and still counts as the single attempt they can make to dispel an endless spell this hero phase" (quoted this since afaik new info on endless dispels)
If the wizard dies the vortex poofs.
If dispelled and the wizard on top is alive set the wizard up wholly within 6" and more then 3" then remove the vortex, if you can't set him up he dies.
So this means the enemy can charge the vortex and swing at it in melee as if it were the wizard; that makes it pretty risky for a 32mm guy who previously the enemy couldn't get many dudes in melee range of due to base size. Also means melee armies aren't shafted by the thing. It also means that swapping positions with the vortex wizard moves the whole vortex too since they are a single model.
Wear are you seeing that the enemy can target the Vortex in melee as if it were the Wizard? I don't see that in the rules. Looks to me like the best thing to do is surround the Vortex with a decent-sized unit and then have another wizard dispell it. The enemy can't place the Wizard, and so the Wizard dies. Also, it just seems wrong to see a Stormcast riding atop a giant emblem of Chaos.
"The caster and the Balewind Vortex are treated as a single model from the caster's that uses the caster's warscroll...Its is treated as an enemy model by the opposing player's army"
So either it functions like an enemy, using whichever warscroll summoned it up in the first place; allowing the normal interactions between enemy models with profiles.
Yep, before it had explicit rules that prevented you from targeting it in combat. Those explicit rules are no longer there. It is just an enemy model now. One that can be wailed on.
Overread wrote: Again I say if they were as core as you say why aren't they inside the Big Rule Book? Why have their rules bundled in a totally separate package? Sure a bundle of all the spells in one box is neat, but if they were CORE they'd be in the single main rule book along with the rest of the games core rules.
That they are not and instead are self contained within a totally separate product containing both rules and models suggests to me that it is an expansion.
Technically, the 16 page pamphlet is the CORE rulebook, with the Big Rule Book and everything in it (including matched play) is an expansion. I mean, GW has gone out of their way to say that matched play is just one way to play out of many. What is core and what is an expansion when everything is optional?
AoS is a big sandbox and GW gives you lots of suggestions about how to play in it, but they are just suggestions. There's not one right way to sandbox.
Davor wrote: I haven't been paying attention as I use to because of my depression. So I can be totally off here. I am not liking what I am reading. I am not saying anyone is wrong, but all I am seeing right now is what happened in 40K 6th edition.
That is "let's have a game of 40K, but you can't have Unbound, or super heavies or what not" and it will divide the community.
I was hoping AoS2.0 would embrace the community as a whole and not divide it. Sadly GW is trying to appease all parties, but it seems the community itself is going to be the reason why we are so divided. I hope I am wrong but I am not like what I am reading. Not just here on Dakka but on a few forums.
Honestly man i wouldn't worry about it.
Sometimes this place is a negative feedback echo chamber and it gets in the way of enjoying the hobby.
I think we'll probably mostly enjoy the rules in 2.0. This seems like a logical upgrade from 1.0 in a lot of ways.
The core book has the basic rules for the 3 ways to play the same way the 40k core book did for 8th edition. The GHB is going to be Match Play profiles, extra scenarios, allegiance abilities and artifacts for non-battletome armies, probably Path to Glory rules, etc. They want to keep point in the GHB because that is what players are used to, and that is where they plan to keep points changes in the future. People will claim it's a cash grab (and I'm sure the fact you have to pay an extra $35 isn't unintentional), but once you establish a marketing strategy, you generally want to stick to it.
First game using the new rules on GW's Twitch channel tomorrow at 6:00 pm BST/1:00 pm EST.
Meanwhile, Design Insights: The Nighthaunt posted on Warhammer Community. No big shock, but the Cairn Wraith and Tomb Banshee were the inspiration for the new models.
EnTyme wrote: The core book has the basic rules for the 3 ways to play the same way the 40k core book did for 8th edition. The GHB is going to be Match Play profiles, extra scenarios, allegiance abilities and artifacts for non-battletome armies, probably Path to Glory rules, etc. They want to keep point in the GHB because that is what players are used to, and that is where they plan to keep points changes in the future. People will claim it's a cash grab (and I'm sure the fact you have to pay an extra $35 isn't unintentional), but once you establish a marketing strategy, you generally want to stick to it.
This way they can keep updating the GHB every year rather than put out a new core rulebook every year. It's actually a lot cheaper for us players in the long run.
So...Balewind was previously awesome. 100pts to double spell ranges, be untargetable in CC (due to range restrictions)...pracically an auto-include. But limiting the range boost AND making it punchable? Feels like they went TOO far in neutering it (if this is true, I realize the source is semi-dubious). If it costs the same or more, I see it hitting the table 1/10th the amount it currently does. At best.
auticus wrote: The one difference though is you are paying points for these spells allegedly. Would a rule of one apply if you are paying points for them?
You wouldn't really want to spam out endless spells anyway, the most powerful ones (cog, spellportal, balewind) only need 1 to be effective and casting multiple predatories risks having them come back on you at an inopportune moment. You're better off using the buff spells than the damaging spells unless you're planning on using them for area denial.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EnTyme wrote: Yeah, no was is that still a 100 point spell. I'm assuming they lowered the price.
OH balewind! Read this before the previous post and thought it was about purple sun. Yeah, balewind probably a bit cheaper.
timetowaste85 wrote: So...Balewind was previously awesome. 100pts to double spell ranges, be untargetable in CC (due to range restrictions)...pracically an auto-include. But limiting the range boost AND making it punchable? Feels like they went TOO far in neutering it (if this is true, I realize the source is semi-dubious). If it costs the same or more, I see it hitting the table 1/10th the amount it currently does. At best.
I seriously doubt it will still be 100 points. The other Endless spells are more like 20 or 40.
For what is basically a 6” range bonus for casting...if I had an extra 20-40 points that I couldn’t spend on anything and it was that low, I’d use it. Anything more than 40 and it feels like a waste of plastic. I play Tzeentch. I agree the Gaunt Summoner/Vortex combo was ridiculously broken. But 100pts still, 6”+ and cant be in CC OR double range and can be in CC would both be reasonable. Lowering its cost and debuffing it into the dirt is extreme. Leaving it alone and raising it to 150 would also have been acceptable.
The Balewind Vortex was definitely one of the most undercosted warscroll in the game. I thought absolutely nothing of reserving 100pts to cast it. I feel like nerfing it was definitely warranted. I'll still probably take it in a Tzeentch list as long as it's in that 20-40 point range you proposed, but it's not an auto-include anymore.
timetowaste85 wrote: For what is basically a 6” range bonus for casting...if I had an extra 20-40 points that I couldn’t spend on anything and it was that low, I’d use it. Anything more than 40 and it feels like a waste of plastic. I play Tzeentch. I agree the Gaunt Summoner/Vortex combo was ridiculously broken. But 100pts still, 6”+ and cant be in CC OR double range and can be in CC would both be reasonable. Lowering its cost and debuffing it into the dirt is extreme. Leaving it alone and raising it to 150 would also have been acceptable.
No, because the old warscroll was used for cheese or not at all. This one actually has general use potential.
150 point old balewind vortex would still be an auto include because it creates effectively a model that can't be touched unless you have the right build.
Warhammer TV wrote:We're live from 3:00pm (BST) today unboxing Malign Sorcery (and all the endless spells inside) – tune in to check out the sprues, learn about how they were designed and maybe get a sneak peek at the future of magic in the new edition.
Spoiler:
EDIT: Noted on the sneak peek that each new battletome (starting with Nighthaunt) will have a new Endless Spell released with the book. The Nighthaunt Endless Spell is the Mortalis Terminexus (sp) that looks like a large hourglass.
Its not warhammer fantasy no. Warhammer Fantasy and Age of Sigmar are completely different games. Warhammer Fantasy's ruleset is no longer supported.
The only thing that they share in common are some names of characters and the fact that they both fall in the fantasy genre, though the type of fantasy that they are is also very different.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And ugh who deploys first still chooses who goes first...
Behold, in all her glory – Lady Olynder, Mortarch of Grief!
Nagash is a being of exceptional power, but cannot be everywhere at once, and apportions his vast energies between the Mortarchs. Olynder is the most recently chosen of these dark lieutenants, gathering the previously disparate forces of the Nighthaunt into a terrifying spectral legion who fight at the spear tip of Nagash’s latest assault on the Mortal Realms.
In life, Olynder was a plotter and schemer who showed false remorse to improve her standing – now, in death, she is the possessor of a misery so deep and black it projects from her in vast, deadly waves. For most, to face her in battle is to lose hope and accept the inevitability of death – while those few with the will to stand before her are quickly obliterated by her deathly magics, or torn apart by spectral attendants.
We’ll be seeing more of Lady Olynder – and her Nighthaunt armies – soon, with Soul Wars being the tip of the (terrifying, definitely haunted) iceberg…
With the Mortarch of Grief revealed, only one named Nighthaunt hero remains unseen – if you fancy indulging in some wild speculation, let us know your guesses on the Warhammer Age of Sigmar Facebook page…
Want to learn to play Warhammer Age of Sigmar but don't know where to start? In a first for one of our core games, we've made a video series teaching you how to play – featuring a special guest presenter. Check back tomorrow for the full series.
The only thing that they share in common are some names of characters and the fact that they both fall in the fantasy genre, though the type of fantasy that they are is also very different.
Well that and AoS and Fantasy share the same setting.
auticus wrote: Not really no. The WHFB setting was destroyed. The world that was the Old World is a now a lifeless globe that orbits Sigmar's palace.
The very fact that part of Mallus is still around shows you that it's part of the same setting. Some characters survived, and they're living in realms based around the Winds of Magic. It's not a replacement, it's a continuation. Yes there were major changes, but it's still the same setting.
Glane wrote: The very fact that part of Mallus is still around shows you that it's part of the same setting. Some characters survived, and they're living in realms based around the Winds of Magic. It's not a replacement, it's a continuation. Yes there were major changes, but it's still the same setting.
It's a sequel, technically a continuation of the same 'universe', but if you tell a WHFB fan that it's the same setting you're gonna confuse the crap out of people who jump into the game and then start asking where the Empire is..
Using the term 'setting' like how all the modern Marvel movies are in the same 'setting' even when some are off in space it technically is, but using the term 'setting' as in 'the Old World, with the Empire, Brettonia, and Ulthuan, etc' it's not even remotely the same.
Yep at this point I think we'd just be splitting hairs over what "setting" means.
To pretty much every one I have ever had contact with since AOS came out, they are not the same setting. One setting borrows elements from the other here and there but other then that that's it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Annnnd now the person that sets up first getting first turn ONLY happens if you roll a tie to see who goes first.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rules now available for download on ageofsigmar.com
glancing over the rules update found this interesting under battleshock:
SPLIT UNITS
At the end of each turn, you must remove models from any of the units in your army that are split up into two or more groups, until only one group of models from the unit remains in play. The models you remove count as having been slain.
Under Terrain
OBSTACLES
Some terrain features are obstacles that block attacks to targets that lie beyond them. When this is the case, it will be noted on the warscroll for the terrain feature.
When a missile weapon targets an enemy unit that has all of its models within 1" of an obstacle, then the target unit receives the benefit of cover if the attacking model is closer to the obstacle than it is to the target unit.
Under Alliegence Abilities
ALLIES
One out of every four units included in an army can be an allied unit.
Allied units are treated as part of your army, except that they are not included when working out your army’s allegiance, and can therefore be part of a different Grand Alliance or faction. In addition, an allied model cannot be the army’s general, and cannot use or benefit from your army’s allegiance abilities.
The factions that an army can ally with can be found in its battletome, or with its Pitched Battle Profiles in the current edition of the General’s Handbook. For example, a Stormcast Eternal army can have allies from any other Order faction.
They already said this but:
CHOOSE GENERAL
...If your general is slain, pick another model from your army to become your new general.
Sweet. With the obstacle rule I can get rid of the houserule that was -1 to hit if shooting through terrain to the other side and just scenario rule it so forests etc are "obstacles". Accomplishes a similar function and keeps it from being a dreaded "houserule".
That bit about garrisoning terrain. I wonder if, with tweaks, that could replace the current embarking and disembarking rules? See not only would it bring that under the core rules, giving future factions easy access to it, but it would also allow my Overlords to fight from their ships like they’re supposed to. Just a thought.
So the final named character we've yet to see is Reikenor the Grimhailer. There is also the Dreadblade Harrow, Bladegheist Revenants, Chainghasts and Dreadscythe Harridans I don't believe we've seen yet (presumably one of them are the two mounted models we've seen).
EDIT: Until we know otherwise, I'm going to call the Grimghast Reavers/Bladegheist Revenants a multi-kit with this being the build for the Bladegheists...
Decided to take a break and pull up the rules on my phone. Looks like most of it was already revealed in the previews, so no big surprises. The rules do seem to be more tightly written this time around, but I'm sure we'll still have people trying to redefine the word "the" to gain an advantage. :p
One thing to note is that these are the base rules, and the specific Ways to Plays will likely override some of it. I wouldn't be surprised to see each command ability limited to one use per turn in Match Play for example. We'll also probably still be limited to a specific points value of Allies in addition to the 25% of model limitation. I'd be shocked to learn I could bring Archaon as an ally for a 2000 point Slaves to Darkness army.
As a side note, I'll probably be taking my Chaos Gargant a little more often now. Stuff 'em in Me Bag is going to really deter conga lining with that new coherency rule.
I just like the fact that the only way to farm Command Points is to form Battalions which keeps the armies thematic. I also like that you generate them per turn and don't feel obligated to use them(therefore save them up to form a combo later).
Annnnd now the person that sets up first getting first turn ONLY happens if you roll a tie to see who goes first.
Where are you seeing this?
Twitter and the celebs posting pics. This particular one was in german.
Loving that change. It, the scenarios that discourage double-turns, and the "cover" providing obstacles are all excellent improvements that required only a handful of lines to change, but which help immeasurably.
Also, now that the deployments aren't a race for bare minimum of drops, and Battalions almost universally went up 50pts or so, it should make list building far more flexible.
Eldarsif wrote: I just like the fact that the only way to farm Command Points is to form Battalions which keeps the armies thematic. I also like that you generate them per turn and don't feel obligated to use them(therefore save them up to form a combo later).
The conga-line deterrence is quite interesting.
You could also just run your army 100-150pts short.
Annnnd now the person that sets up first getting first turn ONLY happens if you roll a tie to see who goes first.
Where are you seeing this?
Twitter and the celebs posting pics. This particular one was in german.
Loving that change. It, the scenarios that discourage double-turns, and the "cover" providing obstacles are all excellent improvements that required only a handful of lines to change, but which help immeasurably.
Also, now that the deployments aren't a race for bare minimum of drops, and Battalions almost universally went up 50pts or so, it should make list building far more flexible.
Lot of argument about that one, we actually don't know what the rule is supposed to be just yet. Some people are posting the clearer german translation as if that wasn't just a German guy doing the same thing everybody else did when they read the rule in english.
BoLS just posted three new articles, so I'm assuming the NDA is lifted. One of the article showed the Aqshy spells from Malign Sorcery. Imaging a unit of Bloodreavers with proper buff support and Inferno Blades. 6 2-damage attacks per model. Yikes.
Granted the rule in english if you actually follow rules (such as they are) for english is clear. You roll turn 1 with tie break going to the first finished. A no reroll bonus to the smaller army. A simpler version of the 40k one they put in for match play.
auticus wrote: Sweet. With the obstacle rule I can get rid of the houserule that was -1 to hit if shooting through terrain to the other side and just scenario rule it so forests etc are "obstacles". Accomplishes a similar function and keeps it from being a dreaded "houserule".
So you remove one houserule to add another?
The obstacles bit says it will be noted on the warscroll.
Yep. And it can be added to a custom scenario pretty easily enough. Its a houserule so far as custom scenarios are considered "house rules".
Not sure why this needs to be an issue. There are no warscrolls for generic forests. Custom Scenario specific rules for generic terrain that has no warscroll.
auticus wrote: Yep. And it can be added to a custom scenario pretty easily enough. Its a houserule so far as custom scenarios are considered "house rules".
Not sure why this needs to be an issue. There are no warscrolls for generic forests. Custom Scenario specific rules for generic terrain that has no warscroll.
auticus wrote: Yep. And it can be added to a custom scenario pretty easily enough. Its a houserule so far as custom scenarios are considered "house rules".
Not sure why this needs to be an issue. There are no warscrolls for generic forests. Custom Scenario specific rules for generic terrain that has no warscroll.
You know what else is great?
Just letting the fricking rules be.
We'll that's a bit dickish. I see what he's saying. He now gets to point to a physical rule in the rulebook that he's using for his custom scenarios when one of his local belligerents asks why it has that rule. One less fight for him because it's a rule GW actually uses. He's not forcing a made up rule on others anymore. Seems pretty straight forward.
Frontline Gaming is live-streaming the 2.0 rules on Twitch, and they confirmed that the deployment/choose-who-goes-first, rule has NOT changed, unfortunately. :-(
auticus wrote: Yep. And it can be added to a custom scenario pretty easily enough. Its a houserule so far as custom scenarios are considered "house rules".
Not sure why this needs to be an issue. There are no warscrolls for generic forests. Custom Scenario specific rules for generic terrain that has no warscroll.
You know what else is great?
Just letting the fricking rules be.
We'll that's a bit dickish. I see what he's saying. He now gets to point to a physical rule in the rulebook that he's using for his custom scenarios when one of his local belligerents asks why it has that rule. One less fight for him because it's a rule GW actually uses. He's not forcing a made up rule on others anymore. Seems pretty straight forward.
It might be a bit dickish, but to be honest? The game hasn't launched yet. He doesn't know what is or isn't coming. It literally states this:
OBSTACLES Some terrain features are obstacles that block attacks to targets that lie beyond them. When this is the case, it will be noted on the warscroll for that terrain feature. When a missile weapon targets an enemy unit that has all of its models within 1" of an obstacle, then the target unit receives the benefit of cover if the attacking model is closer to the obstacle than it is to the target unit.
The game isn't even officially launched yet and he's already planning on houserules and custom scenarios, which (let's be honest here) are just going to be complained about here that the players don't appreciate it. Should save himself the headache and not bother.
It's also worth mentioning that someone trying to argue that "there are no warscrolls for generic forests" is being a bit silly.
Read the Sylvaneth Wyldwood warscroll. It literally says it's a "terrain feature consisting of two or more Citadel Woods". Not that it's made up of two or more Sylvaneth Woods--it names the kit specifically.
I get that maybe people don't want the Sylvaneth rules in effect--but it is what it is these days.
auticus wrote: Yep. And it can be added to a custom scenario pretty easily enough. Its a houserule so far as custom scenarios are considered "house rules".
Not sure why this needs to be an issue. There are no warscrolls for generic forests. Custom Scenario specific rules for generic terrain that has no warscroll.
You know what else is great?
Just letting the fricking rules be.
How about you worry about your own games and let other people worry about theirs? I've been using that rule for three years now. They didn't add any rules for generic terrain, so I'm going to continue to use mine until they do though I'm modifying mine to be more in line with how they are treating obstacles.
I have never since 1988 run only stock scenarios in any game I play, so creating custom scenarios and playing them is part and parcel to how I've always played, barring tournament prep games which are an entirely different creature. Even the NEO movement creates custom scenarios and they hold regular narrative events globally now and they don't use stock scenarios.
he doesn't know what is or isn't coming.
He has been verified that there are no rules for generic terrain.
which (let's be honest here) are just going to be complained about here that the players don't appreciate it.
I can promise you that scenario won't happen. The handful of people that hate houserules here all have their own league play now and have their own way to play group doing their own thing.
A sylvaneth wood is a sylvaneth wood, not a generic forest.
A sylvaneth wood is not a generic forest. It is a sylvaneth wood.
A generic forest is not a sylvaneth wood. It is a generic forest.
If I have a generic forest on the table it is not a sylvaneth wood. If I have two generic forests side by side, they are still not a sylvaneth wood. They are a generic forest.
There are no warscrolls for generic forest.
A few nice people I know that have all of the material in their hands now have confirmed to me that they didn't do anything with the terrain.
If it comes out that they did add a generic forest that acts as an OBSTACLE then great I don't need the scenario rule. Regardless ... there will be a rule that impacts shooting through forests in the games we do that matches what the design studio ddid for obstacles.
And all of it means exactly zero and has zero impact to you or your playgroup or your games regardless of what direction that I decide to go in. Getting heated over a scenario rule that will never impact you seems rather silly to me.
Now I *did* mention this house rule to Ben Johnson at the studio, and his response was attached... so who knows? Maybe one day it'll be a warscroll. Or maybe it won't. I'll use it regardless.
Endless spells may still be capped at 1 per player, but since we haven't seen rules for that booklet yet, it's really hard to say. I wouldn't be too surprised if they're not capped since they do cost points, so you may only be able to have a number of them that you cast on the board equal to whatever you paid for at any given time.
auticus wrote: Once I found out they cost points it seems unlikely (to me) that they'd cap you at just 1.
it'll probably be one of each spell per turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sidebar, Chronomatic cogs and Umbral spellportal are hilariously superior to the rest on a 1 to 1 basis. Critical massing the predatory spells could compete with them but if you're going to take just one CC and USP are crazy strong. Prismatic pallisade is up there too.
I feel like 2nd Edition is pure sex for armies featuring mega-casters. Morathi and Nagash are going to have field-days with some of the tricks they can pull.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like 2nd Edition is pure sex for armies featuring mega-casters. Morathi and Nagash are going to have field-days with some of the tricks they can pull.
Considering you never saw them on competitive tables really I feel that is very much intended with the new rules.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like 2nd Edition is pure sex for armies featuring mega-casters. Morathi and Nagash are going to have field-days with some of the tricks they can pull.
Considering you never saw them on competitive tables really I feel that is very much intended with the new rules.
What on earth are you talking about? Both Nagash and Morathi have been consistently finishing top 10 since the books dropped. There were 3 morathi lists and 2 nagash lists above the BEST stormcast list at the last GT.
I really am starting to think that the tables you watch aren't actually all that competitive.
I also think its a means to give the game something new that hasn't really been done much with any other fantasy game. That of giving a visual lasting side to spells; making them more than just another attack or a buff or debuff.
Whilst its clear that they are optional in the expansion its clear that GW wants to push them with spells for releases going forward.
I think its really exciting.
And yeah it will be interesting to see how caster heavy lists can do as well as how this fits into the points structure. We might even see GW lowering costs of units eventually; if spells become as much a bought part of armies as models.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like 2nd Edition is pure sex for armies featuring mega-casters. Morathi and Nagash are going to have field-days with some of the tricks they can pull.
Considering you never saw them on competitive tables really I feel that is very much intended with the new rules.
What on earth are you talking about? Both Nagash and Morathi have been consistently finishing top 10 since the books dropped. There were 3 morathi lists and 2 nagash lists above the BEST stormcast list at the last GT.
I really am starting to think that the tables you watch aren't actually all that competitive.
At adepticon there was a single morathi and there were zero nagashes (that I saw). What consistent GT results are you talking about with nagash finishing at the top? Thats news to me. If Adepticon isn't competitive, I'm not sure what would be. As well as the frequency of topics about how nagash is never used, I know I'm not the only one missing whatever it is you're seeing here.
Overread wrote: I also think its a means to give the game something new that hasn't really been done much with any other fantasy game. That of giving a visual lasting side to spells; making them more than just another attack or a buff or debuff.
Whilst its clear that they are optional in the expansion its clear that GW wants to push them with spells for releases going forward.
I think its really exciting.
Pretty sure my Magic expansion box for Warhammer Fantasy Battles 5th edition came with a bunch of cardboard templates for "Remains in Play" spells, some with an arrow to mark its direction of movement.
Warmachine has lasting spell effects out the wazzoo, from summoned walls to stone pillars to smoke clouds.
The sculpts are nice but at the end of the day they're still essentially making you pay for a 3" blast marker and similar "templates".
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like 2nd Edition is pure sex for armies featuring mega-casters. Morathi and Nagash are going to have field-days with some of the tricks they can pull.
Considering you never saw them on competitive tables really I feel that is very much intended with the new rules.
What on earth are you talking about? Both Nagash and Morathi have been consistently finishing top 10 since the books dropped. There were 3 morathi lists and 2 nagash lists above the BEST stormcast list at the last GT.
I really am starting to think that the tables you watch aren't actually all that competitive.
At adepticon there was a single morathi and there were zero nagashes (that I saw). What consistent GT results are you talking about with nagash finishing at the top? Thats news to me. If Adepticon isn't competitive, I'm not sure what would be. As well as the frequency of topics about how nagash is never used, I know I'm not the only one missing whatever it is you're seeing here.
The sculpts are nice but at the end of the day they're still essentially making you pay for a 3" blast marker and similar "templates".
While true, its the same as the argument that most minis games could be represented with marked bases. It's not wrong, just kind of missing the point.
I will say that as someone who really loves Warmachine, I have noticed increasingly how hard it is to feel anything from offensive spells. Spray effects aren't bad, but its pretty rare when you really feel like a spell feels as awesome as it probably should be. If nothing else, I've long wished PP would release models for some of the walls and such so they aren't just rings and tokens on the board.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like 2nd Edition is pure sex for armies featuring mega-casters. Morathi and Nagash are going to have field-days with some of the tricks they can pull.
Considering you never saw them on competitive tables really I feel that is very much intended with the new rules.
What on earth are you talking about? Both Nagash and Morathi have been consistently finishing top 10 since the books dropped. There were 3 morathi lists and 2 nagash lists above the BEST stormcast list at the last GT.
I really am starting to think that the tables you watch aren't actually all that competitive.
At adepticon there was a single morathi and there were zero nagashes (that I saw). What consistent GT results are you talking about with nagash finishing at the top? Thats news to me. If Adepticon isn't competitive, I'm not sure what would be. As well as the frequency of topics about how nagash is never used, I know I'm not the only one missing whatever it is you're seeing here.
there have been a few GTs since adepticon.
Ok. Since March how many GTs have there been and when did Nagash suddenly start popping up in them? I realize "GT" is now a word being used like "pro painted" is to describe any tournament these days, but I'm only aware of two others and I certainly don't recall hearing about nagash being present enmasse.
The sculpts are nice but at the end of the day they're still essentially making you pay for a 3" blast marker and similar "templates".
Aye and in my mind it makes all the difference. It's why we play with models not just a single base with a cardboard cut-out or word on a base. Templates are neat, but for things that last the model just stands out far better than a cardboard cut out.
Look how many people are talking and excited about spells in a totally different way. They aren't just looking at the pre raw stats of the spells, but at how cool and visually appealing they are to play with. Now granted at the competitive end its going to be all about the stats (or at least mostly) but the visual side is now going to be a huge area of appeal.
I love that the spells have models now. I was never a fan of cardboard cut outs or things like that. I like immersion and these definitely work toward that goal.
That being said, if you get the rules somehow nothing stops someone from cutting out cardboard and writing in marker "endless spell" with an arrow pointing the direction its moving.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like 2nd Edition is pure sex for armies featuring mega-casters. Morathi and Nagash are going to have field-days with some of the tricks they can pull.
Considering you never saw them on competitive tables really I feel that is very much intended with the new rules.
What on earth are you talking about? Both Nagash and Morathi have been consistently finishing top 10 since the books dropped. There were 3 morathi lists and 2 nagash lists above the BEST stormcast list at the last GT.
I really am starting to think that the tables you watch aren't actually all that competitive.
At adepticon there was a single morathi and there were zero nagashes (that I saw). What consistent GT results are you talking about with nagash finishing at the top? Thats news to me. If Adepticon isn't competitive, I'm not sure what would be. As well as the frequency of topics about how nagash is never used, I know I'm not the only one missing whatever it is you're seeing here.
there have been a few GTs since adepticon.
Ok. Since March how many GTs have there been and when did Nagash suddenly start popping up in them? I realize "GT" is now a word being used like "pro painted" is to describe any tournament these days, but I'm only aware of two others and I certainly don't recall hearing about nagash being present enmasse.
The london GT. GW ran Heat 3 (I believe it was 3). Nasheville had a GT.
Like, there are a LOT of warhammer events on constantly, many of them very large and 'GT' level.
Ultimately, making Nagash better makes no sense since new summoning makes LoN drastically better, and they got not a single points nerf (Outside, strangely, the black coach. And battalions), nor did non summoning armies get an appreciable points buff.
GW has fethed every non summoning army and double fethed every non summoning non uber magic capable army.
To be clear, I am not contesting that there are GTs that are going on. I was challenged on my statement that Nagash is not seen on high end competitive tables, and further challenged that I'm not really watching or aware of true competitive events because Nagash armies have been regularly placing high at GTs.
I pointed out Adepticon as a GT I was at indicating that that was as competitive as it gets over here; the follow up was that there were several GTs after Adepticon.
When they announced summoning was once again a free spam fest (with a few more restrictions than its first incarnation in 2015 so you won't see it *as* bad as you did in the 1.0 days) and coupled with the endless spells being very powerful, there's no doubt we'll start seeing Nagash more, and probably on high end competitive tables.
But thats AOS 2.0, not today (which was where the challenge was... that he's running amuk there today and I was mistaken to say that you don't see him in successful world-championship calibre lists)
auticus wrote: Once I found out they cost points it seems unlikely (to me) that they'd cap you at just 1.
it'll probably be one of each spell per turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sidebar, Chronomatic cogs and Umbral spellportal are hilariously superior to the rest on a 1 to 1 basis. Critical massing the predatory spells could compete with them but if you're going to take just one CC and USP are crazy strong. Prismatic pallisade is up there too.
The leaked Nighthaunt point list has has three endless spells for the Nighthaunt (Mortalis Terminexus, Shyish Reaper and Vault of Souls) at 60, 40 and 40 points each.
I have to say, seeing the General's Handbook stuff for Idoneth raises some questions for me.
--Why the 20 point boost on Aspect of the Storm? --60 points more for the Leviadon seems reasonable, if I'm going to be honest. Especially if there's an errata allowing for it to benefit from cover. --The points drop on Morrsarr Guard is HUGE. It makes me actually consider them rather than just autotaking Ishlaen. --The points hike on Akhelian Corps is...weird. --Points hike on Namarti Corps is totally reasonable. No sarcasm, it's necessary. --Points drop on Soulscryer is nice. --Points drop on Royal Council is also nice.
I'm flattened by the Seraphon changes. In a way that makes me feel bad playing them;
-Looks like the two most prolific for me battalions stayed the same or dropped (Bloodclaw dropped and Sunclaw looks the same)
-No point bump to slaan or astolith bearers
-Engine of the Gods summons 100-120pts in units if it goes off
-They increased the risk but also the reward of the teleport
-Some minor point drops on non-used units which is nice
I feel like I can easily manage 120-140pts per turn with a single slaan. And I got points back I used to hold back for summoning. Well, guess I'll ride it till GHB 2019
So do we have confirmation on this? Because if true that is... Very disappointing.
At least that's the points from starter box pitched battle profile.
The points from general's handbook 2018 differ from that of the starter box.
While all SCE points from handbook were not leaked yet, some sources report that the evocators cost 200pts for a unit of five.
Its kind of annoying how some people get access to all the rules a couple weeks before everyone else, because we can't all share in the context of the discussions properly.
But... the talk I'm hearing is that the seraphon are expected to move up to top tier now as they got hardly any point increases, but can indeed vomit out free points every turn pretty easily. On top of that they have teleportation abilities that can get them where they need to go without having to suffer through that pesky movement phase.
Chaos armies got some point increases, and they can't summon much save for Tzeentch, which is still not as good as the seraphon. Khorne armies seem to be the biggest losers since they can't summon much at all and got point jacks.
The power crowd seems to in this very preliminary moment be moving toward painting seraphon or stocking up on death because of their summoning abilities.
It seems that per usual there are some obvious winners (which I've even seen complained about this morning that the community can pick out in hours the obvious top tier combos where the design studio spends months playtesting and seems to miss it... or doesn't care about the balance and is happy to shuffle the deck on what sells more this edition) and that points may even be worse representation of balance than they were in ghb 16, with the bell curve getting a spike.
Some of the points changes I cannot comment on at all yet simply because I haven't been able to plug them all into azyr comp to rate their power vs their new points and get a new ranking system on what is way above the power curve for its points and whats not.
From hearing about some playtest games now that happened this week from the celebs that have the new rules and the games they are sharing with their play groups, my initial flailing about in doom and despair about free summoning was not unfounded.
The community however seems to be very very much in favor of free points and as many as you can get. And Listbuilding remains king. Long live the king!
Well tzeentch took a hit (justifiably). Seraphon will be interesting but yeah 480ish points per game is very doable even if the slaan casts a spell from time to time. Seraphon won't be tzeentch/vanguard wing broken but they won't be far off.
I need to see battalion costs for SCE before I make a decision on them but if there isn't good terrain 100pt ballista are terrifying. Death came out smelling like a rose except for fec which without the ability to go over starting size with courtiers (which they could have just increased the points on) means they're staying at the trash competitive level since they also didn't get any unit reductions.
My poor ironjawz continue to get hosed. They dropped the points of the hard boyz but didn't change the horde bonus so there isnt an actual horde bonus. And brutes, who desperately needed a drop didn't get it.
But on the plus side they are not tied to a specific mage which is a big bonus to getting them on the table rather than the enemy sniping off your one good mage in the army.
And it reads that you can recast the same spell any number of times if you lose it from the table, which makes them more than a one-shot wonder if they get disabled or removed or complete before the end of the game.
I like that they can be re-cast if they're dispelled. I'm also glad they're limited to one per army, though. I can't imagine the horror of trying to move across a board covered in Aetheric Pendulums
EnTyme wrote: I like that they can be re-cast if they're dispelled. I'm also glad they're limited to one per army, though. I can't imagine the horror of trying to move across a board covered in Aetheric Pendulums
See that was my dream - if not a whole field of them at least two swinging back and forth creating a nice nasty gauntlet to run through!
Make a scenario based on it? Perhaps two armies have encountered each other where the magic flows strongly and the spells have manifested on their own and they have to try and fight through them.
EnTyme wrote: I like that they can be re-cast if they're dispelled. I'm also glad they're limited to one per army, though. I can't imagine the horror of trying to move across a board covered in Aetheric Pendulums
See that was my dream - if not a whole field of them at least two swinging back and forth creating a nice nasty gauntlet to run through!
I wanted to have a whole line of Suffocating Gravetides moving ahead of my Idoneth...
Why are people saying Tzeentch took a hit, am I missing something. Now we don't have a full picture and this observation is subject to change, but aren't pink horrors going to be nightmarish under the new summoning rules as pink horrors become blue horrors become brimstone horrors.
Venerable Ironclad wrote: Why are people saying Tzeentch took a hit, am I missing something. Now we don't have a full picture and this observation is subject to change, but aren't pink horrors going to be nightmarish under the new summoning rules as pink horrors become blue horrors become brimstone horrors.
They basically did that anyway but they also used to just get added to other units nearby. This was a nightmare to grind thru. Now they have to be summoned as a new unit near a character at the end of the turn from what I'm seeing. No more placing them in combat with another unit when they die. It's a pretty big change and nerf to how they function. They are still hella strong magically but now they also can't just flood the board and pin you in by locking other units in combat with kills from another combat.
auticus wrote: Its kind of annoying how some people get access to all the rules a couple weeks before everyone else, because we can't all share in the context of the discussions properly.
But... the talk I'm hearing is that the seraphon are expected to move up to top tier now as they got hardly any point increases, but can indeed vomit out free points every turn pretty easily. On top of that they have teleportation abilities that can get them where they need to go without having to suffer through that pesky movement phase.
Chaos armies got some point increases, and they can't summon much save for Tzeentch, which is still not as good as the seraphon. Khorne armies seem to be the biggest losers since they can't summon much at all and got point jacks.
The power crowd seems to in this very preliminary moment be moving toward painting seraphon or stocking up on death because of their summoning abilities.
It seems that per usual there are some obvious winners (which I've even seen complained about this morning that the community can pick out in hours the obvious top tier combos where the design studio spends months playtesting and seems to miss it... or doesn't care about the balance and is happy to shuffle the deck on what sells more this edition) and that points may even be worse representation of balance than they were in ghb 16, with the bell curve getting a spike.
Some of the points changes I cannot comment on at all yet simply because I haven't been able to plug them all into azyr comp to rate their power vs their new points and get a new ranking system on what is way above the power curve for its points and whats not.
From hearing about some playtest games now that happened this week from the celebs that have the new rules and the games they are sharing with their play groups, my initial flailing about in doom and despair about free summoning was not unfounded.
The community however seems to be very very much in favor of free points and as many as you can get. And Listbuilding remains king. Long live the king!
This seems a bit pessimistic. While Seraphon will no doubt be strong at tournaments they already were, and the change to teleporting is a big deal because tournament lists are all about eliminating chance as much as possible. A 1/3 chance of teleporting then getting a free move is great but comes with a 1/3 chance of not teleporting and then not moving (or shooting) at all. Were I tournament Seraphon I would prefer the old version, or even just a flat teleport without either of those two chances because it's something that can be counted on and planned for. Also, tbh it matters a LOT if Skinks stay the same or not. If they stay at 200 points for 40 then Seraphon will indeed be looking better for tournaments than they were. As for the point decreases, those units weren't showing up anyways so unless they got overbuffed I don't see it as much of a factor. Point jacks on Khorne looked like they were on Bloodletters, Bloodthirsters, and the Bloodsecrator from what I saw, which is just good balance as those things needed to go up (well 30-man bloodletters anyways, 10 and 20 man just got screwed but that's the nature of horde discount on that unit).
But that said...
which I've even seen complained about this morning that the community can pick out in hours the obvious top tier combos where the design studio spends months playtesting and seems to miss it
I share the frustration on this point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: Death came out smelling like a rose except for fec which without the ability to go over starting size with courtiers (which they could have just increased the points on) means they're staying at the trash competitive level since they also didn't get any unit reductions.
I was concerned they would increase the cost of ghoul kings to compensate for their summoning, which really wasn't needed. I'm not surprised they didn't allow going over starting size since that's tremendously more difficult to balance, just increasing the cost of courtiers would have been bad for FEC overall since it would have made them even more screwed by early sniping (of courtiers or of units that are small for lack of having points to spend on them). But on the topic of shooting look out sir is a huge boost for them since sniping courtiers is an essential strategy to fighting them.
I think FEC should be pretty happy overall as they got brought up to par with the other non-cheese battletomes. At tournaments they won't compete well, but that has always been and still is a good thing because competing well at AoS tournaments inherently means the army is NOT balanced and needs a nerf.
So do we have confirmation on this? Because if true that is... Very disappointing.
At least that's the points from starter box pitched battle profile.
The points from general's handbook 2018 differ from that of the starter box.
While all SCE points from handbook were not leaked yet, some sources report that the evocators cost 200pts for a unit of five.
I hope that isn't true. That would be... just bad. On the upside my particular tourney army has less problems with Stormcast than Tzeentch so I suppose a heavier stormeta would help me out in a way.
I hope that isn't true. That would be... just bad. On the upside my particular tourney army has less problems with Stormcast than Tzeentch so I suppose a heavier stormeta would help me out in a way.
Going to be honest: Paladins cover 3 units. Only one is reliably considered 'good'(Retributors)--at least from what I've read over the years.
I'm fine with a points drop on Protectors and Decimators, if only so they see some damn tabletime.
I hope that isn't true. That would be... just bad. On the upside my particular tourney army has less problems with Stormcast than Tzeentch so I suppose a heavier stormeta would help me out in a way.
Going to be honest:
Paladins cover 3 units. Only one is reliably considered 'good'(Retributors)--at least from what I've read over the years.
I'm fine with a points drop on Protectors and Decimators, if only so they see some damn tabletime.
I'll give you a slight decrease on decimators might be a good move, but having seen protectors on the tabletop quite a lot I think they were fine where they were. The defense against shooting for themselves and units behind them is big, as is 3" melee range. Also note that they are the same kit so if one option is even slightly better theres little purpose to assembling the others. Also also note that retributors are cheaper to get models for on top of that.
At any rate it's not that paladins were super strong and got a points reduction on top of it, its that they were largely good where they were (barring retributors which IMO could use a small increase to 230 pts) and didn't need a change. Though really just making the starsoul maces a separate cost (or 1 per 5) would be a great move--and its the starsoul maces that are a big reason why paladins simply can't be costed very low. Even a decimator unit has two and costing them lower makes them a cheaper package just to get the maces.
Dropping the cost of paladins is a direct kick to the balls of a lot of units of comparable cost that are nowhere near the survivability and damage output.
Since we're all inclusive and stuff now, GW hired a random babe to read the rules off a teleprompter and pretend she's not horrified by this weird manchild hobby.
Since we're all inclusive and stuff now, GW hired a random babe to read the rules off a teleprompter and pretend she's not horrified by this weird manchild hobby.
There's a point where pragmatic practicality overrides stuff like having a male give tutorials for a male-dominated hobby. We all know that a chick will sell the tutorials better than a guy would, and that has nothing to do with GW.
Since we're all inclusive and stuff now, GW hired a random babe to read the rules off a teleprompter and pretend she's not horrified by this weird manchild hobby.
Not exactly a "random babe." She's been doing tabletop gaming videos with Geek and Sundry for quite a while.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'll give you a slight decrease on decimators might be a good move, but having seen protectors on the tabletop quite a lot I think they were fine where they were. The defense against shooting for themselves and units behind them is big, as is 3" melee range. Also note that they are the same kit so if one option is even slightly better theres little purpose to assembling the others. Also also note that retributors are cheaper to get models for on top of that.
And that's the rub. People have Retributors, they're easy to convert, and they're also really good units to boot. Taking a few Starsoul Maces in the unit doesn't hurt their weapons' special ability--it actually improves upon it IMO.
At any rate it's not that paladins were super strong and got a points reduction on top of it, its that they were largely good where they were (barring retributors which IMO could use a small increase to 230 pts) and didn't need a change. Though really just making the starsoul maces a separate cost (or 1 per 5) would be a great move--and its the starsoul maces that are a big reason why paladins simply can't be costed very low. Even a decimator unit has two and costing them lower makes them a cheaper package just to get the maces.
I'm honestly curious as to whether or not the Starsoul Mace is going to get a complete overhaul. I can't think of anything off the top of my head in the recent design iterations that are just "Pick a unit and deal D3 Mortal Wounds to it".
The closest that springs to mind is the Morrsarr Guard's "Biovoltaic Blast" but that's once per game and you have to roll a dice for each Morrsarr Guard. For every 3+ you get, you pick an enemy unit within 3" of the Morrsarr Guard and they take 1 MW--any roll of a 6+ makes the target take D3 MW instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: Dropping the cost of paladins is a direct kick to the balls of a lot of units of comparable cost that are nowhere near the survivability and damage output.
And some Idoneth players would argue that upping the price of the Aspect of the Storm has killed its viability compared to "other units of comparable cost" that get to be summoned for free.
With that said: We haven't seen the Retributors' warscrolls as of AOS2. We know the Stormcast are getting a new book. We don't know what all is happening and the current design trends have moved away from just "Pick a unit, deal MWs".
Thommy H has the right of it, so before you go writing off someone in a video in such a rude way make sure you have some idea what you're talking about.
Since we're all inclusive and stuff now, GW hired a random babe to read the rules off a teleprompter and pretend she's not horrified by this weird manchild hobby.
My only two complaints
1) The random desire of whoever is directing to keep jumping the camera around all the time, its somewhat annoying and hopefully if the videos go into a tiny bit more detail it should go away (esp the whole angle where she's facing the left on the left and there' s a blurry background on the right - terribly composed angle that just feels awkward).
2) As an overview its very effective, but at the end doesn't actually tell us much of anything; esp as it feels odd to jump in half way and miss out the army building stage (and she didn't even really say which Age of Sigmar we are playing unless that is a subtle way for GW to push things toward points).
I thnk the rest of the videos when seen as a set should tell us what depth they are going for; baring in mind that its going to be beginner focused and more aimed at getting people into the shop and game rather than being a detailed strategic video series. Though if it does well enough they might advance to that.
As for the choice of presenter, I have no idea who she is, but that she is a she is no problem for me. I don't even see it as being all "inclusive" nor even why it would need mentioning. She could be anything human and it would be fine. That she's a gamer and has a long history of presenting gaming videos is, honestly, fantastic ontop of her being the presenter
Ghaz wrote: I still wold have preferred Brian Blessed...
I'm glad I'm not the only one.
I too would have liked him to do it and I really hope he does at least one battle report or something with them. Voice, beard, build and all he's just the kind of person who'd fit the bill and make things sound really exciting!
motyak wrote: Thommy H has the right of it, so before you go writing off someone in a video in such a rude way make sure you have some idea what you're talking about.
So I don't keep track of every woman who blesses geekdom by selling her looks to lonely men. Sue me.
The decision to have the rules explained by someone pretty who has to read off a teleprompter instead of by one of the designers who could explain things organically is still bizarre.
Yes. It's very bizarre to hire someone who has a webseries about explaining rules when you need someone to explain your rules. The fact that they found someone to do so who is also attractive and charismatic is disgusting. /s
EnTyme wrote: Yes. It's very bizarre to hire someone who has a webseries about explaining rules when you need someone to explain your rules. The fact that they found someone to do so who is also attractive and charismatic is disgusting. /s
Curious what your stance would be if she wasn't attractive.
motyak wrote: Thommy H has the right of it, so before you go writing off someone in a video in such a rude way make sure you have some idea what you're talking about.
So I don't keep track of every woman who blesses geekdom by selling her looks to lonely men. Sue me.
The decision to have the rules explained by someone pretty who has to read off a teleprompter instead of by one of the designers who could explain things organically is still bizarre.
Its not bizarre at all. Its marketing 101. Which is how beautiful women like that can make a solid living explaining rules of a game that they don't play to a mostly unwashed following of males and it be successful.
Same reason why booth bunnies are at gencon selling swag and game pieces for games they know nothing about but are super successful.
Or why motorcycles spend marketing dollars on bikini clad models sitting on their machines to sell them to men.
I am very very happy with the new starter set. Got to go into my local GW and help build the spells + new box. Got to look at all the new stuff except generals handbook. Oh it's good. I was wary of the easy to build, but it's actually really nice.
I'm gonna be picking up one of them and swapping knight haunt for 2 stormcast. Hahahaha 2 ballistas and lord ordinator? Yes please.
auticus wrote: Or why motorcycles spend marketing dollars on bikini clad models sitting on their machines to sell them to men.
Bikinis are the official attire of motorcycle enthusiasts everywhere. It's one of the reasons I don't ride a motorcycle. I look terrible in a bikini (from the side).
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: I am very very happy with the new starter set. Got to go into my local GW and help build the spells + new box. Got to look at all the new stuff except generals handbook. Oh it's good. I was wary of the easy to build, but it's actually really nice.
I'm gonna be picking up one of them and swapping knight haunt for 2 stormcast. Hahahaha 2 ballistas and lord ordinator? Yes please.
My fingers hurt after assembling the purple sun. It needs a stab warning.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: I am very very happy with the new starter set. Got to go into my local GW and help build the spells + new box. Got to look at all the new stuff except generals handbook. Oh it's good. I was wary of the easy to build, but it's actually really nice.
I'm gonna be picking up one of them and swapping knight haunt for 2 stormcast. Hahahaha 2 ballistas and lord ordinator? Yes please.
My fingers hurt after assembling the purple sun. It needs a stab warning.
During the rather lackluster unboxing, they did mention they thought about adding one.
The presenter of the how to play videos, does exactly that every week for geek and sundry on twitch and youtube. She did a how to play video for Shadespire (not commissioned by GW) which was very popular. I guess GW was impressed and asked her to do aos too.
motyak wrote: Thommy H has the right of it, so before you go writing off someone in a video in such a rude way make sure you have some idea what you're talking about.
To be fair, her delivery is very generic 'I'm a model I am paid to read a script and make vague hand motions but I'd look exactly the same in front of any product I were paid to promote'.
motyak wrote: Thommy H has the right of it, so before you go writing off someone in a video in such a rude way make sure you have some idea what you're talking about.
So I don't keep track of every woman who blesses geekdom by selling her looks to lonely men. Sue me.
The decision to have the rules explained by someone pretty who has to read off a teleprompter instead of by one of the designers who could explain things organically is still bizarre.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: I am very very happy with the new starter set. Got to go into my local GW and help build the spells + new box. Got to look at all the new stuff except generals handbook. Oh it's good. I was wary of the easy to build, but it's actually really nice.
I'm gonna be picking up one of them and swapping knight haunt for 2 stormcast. Hahahaha 2 ballistas and lord ordinator? Yes please.
My fingers hurt after assembling the purple sun. It needs a stab warning.
Assembling spiky models is a right of passage and skill. Also its plastic its no where near the same level of pain and torment as metal spiked models - where you've not only got to hold the bits but hold them tight together whilst the glue starts to cure. Where the pain in the fingers is battled against that fear of "don't let go too soon" otherwise all that pain is for nothing and you have to wait to scrape of the dry glue and start afresh.
So did anyone else notice on that video that the Liberator warscroll was updated? Some wordings were made clearer, but the paired weapons rule was actually changed. It is now two hits on sixes rather than reroll ones to hit.
To be fair, her delivery is very generic 'I'm a model I am paid to read a script and make vague hand motions but I'd look exactly the same in front of any product I were paid to promote'.
Her delivery is enthusiastic and clear and, yes, she's reading a script. Shockingly, all of GW's videos are scripted!
So maybe think about why you don't accuse Duncan of this kind of thing.
Crimson wrote: So did anyone else notice on that video that the Liberator warscroll was updated? Some wordings were made clearer, but the paired weapons rule was actually changed. It is now two hits on sixes rather than reroll ones to hit.
To be fair, her delivery is very generic 'I'm a model I am paid to read a script and make vague hand motions but I'd look exactly the same in front of any product I were paid to promote'.
Her delivery is enthusiastic and clear and, yes, she's reading a script. Shockingly, all of GW's videos are scripted!
So maybe think about why you don't accuse Duncan of this kind of thing.
About the only thing I'd say is that for the ones I watched, her delivery is a little more wooden than I've seen in some of her other videos. The one she did way back on Shadespire, for example, was a lot more animated. Now, I don't know if that was the director or what, but I also wouldn't say it was actively bad or anything. Though some of the camera angle choices were really weird.
Thommy H wrote:That's Becca Scott from Geek and Sundry. She's an actress and comedian. She does tons of 'How to Play' videos for all kinds of games.
I'm not Becca Scott fan, but this is one of her best performances. She has a tendency towards too much obviously fake enthusiasm and there wasn't much of that in these videos. Also, there's often a major mismatch in her colour commentary and the theme of the game she is explaining, but not here.
Solid video series that I've already shared with some curious people.
Overread wrote: Poor Daughters of Khaine don't get a getting started pack!
Don't rub it in. :(
I'm lamenting with you
Esp since for some reason GW didn't use the relaunch to cheapen their basic infantry model even a little - £35 is very high for 10 basic troops! It kind of worked when Witch Elves were an elite choice in a larger army, but now that you might easily field over 100 of them in a single match it leaves them on the very expensive side.
Esp since hte Blood Coven kit appears to have vanished. It has gone from GWUK store and whilst I emailed I got a "if its not there its probably gone but I don't know for sure" reply from asking them. Wayland got some stock of it in the last day or two and that is entirely gone* now too (contact them to see if they know more on if it will restock again).
I'd really love to see them get a proper getting started box for the faction. I guess one issue is that they can't bundle a hero without putting the cauldron in, but they've moved some other fantasy things that were once just as expensive into the getting started so its not out of the question that we might see one.
*I might hve to hold my hand up and claim guilt for helping that situation
Solosam47 wrote: IDK if this has been answered or not but do I need both the core book and GH 2018 for this new editioin? or does the core book have GH18 stuff in it?
To be fair, her delivery is very generic 'I'm a model I am paid to read a script and make vague hand motions but I'd look exactly the same in front of any product I were paid to promote'.
Her delivery is enthusiastic and clear and, yes, she's reading a script. Shockingly, all of GW's videos are scripted!
So maybe think about why you don't accuse Duncan of this kind of thing.
About the only thing I'd say is that for the ones I watched, her delivery is a little more wooden than I've seen in some of her other videos. The one she did way back on Shadespire, for example, was a lot more animated. Now, I don't know if that was the director or what, but I also wouldn't say it was actively bad or anything. Though some of the camera angle choices were really weird.
I think the difference we're seeing is because this is, presumably, a paid gig. GW wrote the script, and most likely produced the vids as well. On Geeks and Sundry she has free reign with her vids, but working for someone else, not so much. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed some horrible camera angles that made it obvious she was reading off of a teleprompter. She does on Geeks and Sundry as well, but they don't make it obvious.
I like Becca for the most part. Some of her vids can get a bit cringy here and there, but some of them are great. I really don't watch her Game the Game vids, because I don't really want to spend an hour plus watching people playing a game.
To be fair, her delivery is very generic 'I'm a model I am paid to read a script and make vague hand motions but I'd look exactly the same in front of any product I were paid to promote'.
Her delivery is enthusiastic and clear and, yes, she's reading a script. Shockingly, all of GW's videos are scripted!
So maybe think about why you don't accuse Duncan of this kind of thing.
I know exactly why I don't accuse Duncan of the same thing, because he looks much more natural on camera. His tone when speaking is much more conversational rather then the exaggerated pitch and inflections.
I have never heard of Geeks and Sundry so I legitimately assumed GW had hired a model to show off their models when I watched the first couple of her videos.
So I got in some demo games with the starter and the malign sorcery today. Some notes:
-The new rules are good. 2nd ed is definitely a step up.
-Do not simply play the Stormcast side vs the Nighthaunt side; the Stormcast will win every time. Do all of the Nighthaunt vs all of the Stormcast but simply drop the Evocators entirely.
-Evocators are immensely OP
-Glaivewraith Stalkers are entirely not worth the points
-Everything else is actually really well balanced. Maybe some 10-20 point changes here and there would be ideal but honestly I'm impressed. The Nighthaunt wizard should probably go up 20 points but I imagine they will FAQ so his wound roll buff doesn't stack, in which case he'll be fine.
-On the topic of malign sorcery, the rules work well and the spells are cool. The artifacts and realm spells are reasonably thematic and honestly just an extra layer of fun. I didn't go over them all in detail but I definitely noticed that while the spells seem relatively tame some of the artifacts will create really nasty combos in certain situations.
-Chronomantic Cogs is auto-take (assuming you have a wizard).
-The idea of summoning a umbral portal, throwing a purple sun through it, then dispelling doesn't work. At the start of your hero phase each wizard can attempt one dispel of an endless spell within 30" of them, they have to beat the base casting value. Each spell can only be subject to one dispel attempt, and a wizard who attempts to do so uses up one of his spells for that turn. Accordingly if you summon the portal you can't dispel it until your next turn, meaning that unless you go second the round after your opponent will turn that purple sun right around and send it back through the portal.
-In matched play you do NOT pick a new general when the old one dies. Allies are still done by points in matched play (same values).
-Allegiances in the core book got cleaned up a bit more and things leveled out relative to each other. Didn't notice anything super strong, though there's a Chaos artifact that gives battleshock immunity in a 6" bubble (Skaven rejoice!).
-It seemed like you can have more than one of the same endless spell as long as you pay for more than one of it, but I'm not sure and would have to recheck that.
-The pendulum only goes in one direction; it can stay still but not go back and forth.
-Endless spells that are moved off the edge of the table auto-dispel.
Having seen evocators on the table now im inclined to agree. Much like the double turn of old, these things can push some damage output and are bargain basement priced.
The main question at the store was how many evocator boxes were coming in...
auticus wrote: Having seen evocators on the table now im inclined to agree. Much like the double turn of old, these things can push some damage output and are bargain basement priced.
The main question at the store was how many evocator boxes were coming in...
As expected. Now we await all the hilarious I never liked the Stormcast minis but these new ones (who coincidently are crazy powerful) look really cool...
NinthMusketeer wrote: -It seemed like you can have more than one of the same endless spell as long as you pay for more than one of it, but I'm not sure and would have to recheck that.
It was noted in this previous post that you cannot take the same endless spell model more than once for your army according to Warhammer Community.
auticus wrote: Having seen evocators on the table now im inclined to agree. Much like the double turn of old, these things can push some damage output and are bargain basement priced.
The main question at the store was how many evocator boxes were coming in...
As expected. Now we await all the hilarious I never liked the Stormcast minis but these new ones (who coincidently are crazy powerful) look really cool...
Yeah, I'm just fielding Sigmarines as a protest
EDIT: Asked a question then found the answer in the free AoS 2.0 core download.
auticus wrote: Having seen evocators on the table now im inclined to agree. Much like the double turn of old, these things can push some damage output and are bargain basement priced.
The main question at the store was how many evocator boxes were coming in...
As expected. Now we await all the hilarious I never liked the Stormcast minis but these new ones (who coincidently are crazy powerful) look really cool...
From what I saw going "no Evocators" fixes things right up. They are the problen unit, the others are fine.
I've heard the scenarios in the 32 page book work great. I haven't seen them myself, but I'm guessing they might not be just pitched battles with all the miniatures lining up and fighting.
To be fair, her delivery is very generic 'I'm a model I am paid to read a script and make vague hand motions but I'd look exactly the same in front of any product I were paid to promote'.
Her delivery is enthusiastic and clear and, yes, she's reading a script. Shockingly, all of GW's videos are scripted!
So maybe think about why you don't accuse Duncan of this kind of thing.
I know exactly why I don't accuse Duncan of the same thing, because he looks much more natural on camera. His tone when speaking is much more conversational rather then the exaggerated pitch and inflections.
I have never heard of Geeks and Sundry so I legitimately assumed GW had hired a model to show off their models when I watched the first couple of her videos.
Duncan is their best right now.
He's a natural and honestly as skilled as a painter he is he's a very good presenter for the camera as well. He's got a likeable face and easy to listen to voice; is clear and doesn't talk down or such and when he's silly you can tell he's having fun "with" the audience.
I'd also say that he's got an additional bonus which is that most of this videos are within subject areas that he knows inside and out. I'm sure he's got a script, but its much easier to make a subject flow when you're also passionate and know exactly about what you are talking about. So its easier for him to flow one line to the next and to cover himself if he makes a mistake or even just pauses for a second too long.
Also he might have a touch more clout at directing his own videos. So it might be that his easy manner is because he's written when he's reading; whilst the newer presenter might be being managed differently due to the different nature of the video. Some of the issues (esp things like the odd camera angles) might well all be the director and nothing to do with her at all.
Even if the tutorial videos are not the best, if they are clear, informative and give people a good flavour for the game they will work. I'd hope she sticks around and even gets into things like battle reports and the like. Having a few more female faces of the hobby can only be a good thing at helping encourage more women into wargaming.
To be fair, her delivery is very generic 'I'm a model I am paid to read a script and make vague hand motions but I'd look exactly the same in front of any product I were paid to promote'.
Her delivery is enthusiastic and clear and, yes, she's reading a script. Shockingly, all of GW's videos are scripted!
So maybe think about why you don't accuse Duncan of this kind of thing.
I know exactly why I don't accuse Duncan of the same thing, because he looks much more natural on camera. His tone when speaking is much more conversational rather then the exaggerated pitch and inflections.
I have never heard of Geeks and Sundry so I legitimately assumed GW had hired a model to show off their models when I watched the first couple of her videos.
Duncan is their best right now.
He's a natural and honestly as skilled as a painter he is he's a very good presenter for the camera as well. He's got a likeable face and easy to listen to voice; is clear and doesn't talk down or such and when he's silly you can tell he's having fun "with" the audience.
I'd also say that he's got an additional bonus which is that most of this videos are within subject areas that he knows inside and out. I'm sure he's got a script, but its much easier to make a subject flow when you're also passionate and know exactly about what you are talking about. So its easier for him to flow one line to the next and to cover himself if he makes a mistake or even just pauses for a second too long.
Also he might have a touch more clout at directing his own videos. So it might be that his easy manner is because he's written when he's reading; whilst the newer presenter might be being managed differently due to the different nature of the video. Some of the issues (esp things like the odd camera angles) might well all be the director and nothing to do with her at all.
Even if the tutorial videos are not the best, if they are clear, informative and give people a good flavour for the game they will work. I'd hope she sticks around and even gets into things like battle reports and the like. Having a few more female faces of the hobby can only be a good thing at helping encourage more women into wargaming.
I had never heard of her - but she seem articulate, bright and engaging which is never a bad thing in a sales pitch, a series of videos with her and Duncan both being enthuastic is a good thing in my view.
Esp since for some reason GW didn't use the relaunch to cheapen their basic infantry model even a little - £35 is very high for 10 basic troops! It kind of worked when Witch Elves were an elite choice in a larger army, but now that you might easily field over 100 of them in a single match it leaves them on the very expensive side.
Esp since hte Blood Coven kit appears to have vanished. It has gone from GWUK store and whilst I emailed I got a "if its not there its probably gone but I don't know for sure" reply from asking them. Wayland got some stock of it in the last day or two and that is entirely gone* now too (contact them to see if they know more on if it will restock again).
I'd really love to see them get a proper getting started box for the faction. I guess one issue is that they can't bundle a hero without putting the cauldron in, but they've moved some other fantasy things that were once just as expensive into the getting started so its not out of the question that we might see one.
*I might hve to hold my hand up and claim guilt for helping that situation
Already have 2 Blood Coven kits and eyeing the third at my FLGS.
You are probably right about their problem including the hero unless they go weird and make the Eldar Avatar a generic one. The problem I feel they are facing is that some time ago it was revealed that they are hamstrung by the fact that they can't lower box prices in general(which is why old units still have ridiculous prices) so I am worried that they can't take what was already considered the blood coven and reduce it by an extra 10 pounds. It would go against their weird pric eruling.
Eldarsif wrote: The problem I feel they are facing is that some time ago it was revealed that they are hamstrung by the fact that they can't lower box prices in general(which is why old units still have ridiculous prices) so I am worried that they can't take what was already considered the blood coven and reduce it by an extra 10 pounds. It would go against their weird pric eruling.
Wait... when was this revealed? And, short of "we like money," is there a supposed reason?
I would guess its either an internal iron cast policy or linked to distribution and how there's stock out there bought under the old price and thus they dont' want to lower price because of having to issue refunds.
Thing is they could just rebox - not cost free, but as an example they could put 20 Witch Elves into a box and reprice that cheaper on a per-model basis. They've already used many of the getting started boxes to do this. I guess the greater issue is how they are pushing out so much all at once there might just not be a gap for the daughters to get a new kit right now.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So I got in some demo games with the starter and the malign sorcery today. Some notes:
-The new rules are good. 2nd ed is definitely a step up.
-Do not simply play the Stormcast side vs the Nighthaunt side; the Stormcast will win every time. Do all of the Nighthaunt vs all of the Stormcast but simply drop the Evocators entirely.
-Evocators are immensely OP
-Glaivewraith Stalkers are entirely not worth the points
-Everything else is actually really well balanced. Maybe some 10-20 point changes here and there would be ideal but honestly I'm impressed. The Nighthaunt wizard should probably go up 20 points but I imagine they will FAQ so his wound roll buff doesn't stack, in which case he'll be fine.
-On the topic of malign sorcery, the rules work well and the spells are cool. The artifacts and realm spells are reasonably thematic and honestly just an extra layer of fun. I didn't go over them all in detail but I definitely noticed that while the spells seem relatively tame some of the artifacts will create really nasty combos in certain situations.
-Chronomantic Cogs is auto-take (assuming you have a wizard).
-The idea of summoning a umbral portal, throwing a purple sun through it, then dispelling doesn't work. At the start of your hero phase each wizard can attempt one dispel of an endless spell within 30" of them, they have to beat the base casting value. Each spell can only be subject to one dispel attempt, and a wizard who attempts to do so uses up one of his spells for that turn. Accordingly if you summon the portal you can't dispel it until your next turn, meaning that unless you go second the round after your opponent will turn that purple sun right around and send it back through the portal.
-In matched play you do NOT pick a new general when the old one dies. Allies are still done by points in matched play (same values).
-Allegiances in the core book got cleaned up a bit more and things leveled out relative to each other. Didn't notice anything super strong, though there's a Chaos artifact that gives battleshock immunity in a 6" bubble (Skaven rejoice!).
-It seemed like you can have more than one of the same endless spell as long as you pay for more than one of it, but I'm not sure and would have to recheck that.
-The pendulum only goes in one direction; it can stay still but not go back and forth.
-Endless spells that are moved off the edge of the table auto-dispel.
I had a demo game yesterday. It went like this:
Scenario: Haunted Sanctuary
Winning Conditions: Table opponent or deal more wounds than him/her
Game Length: 5 turns
Total play time: ca. 1 hour
Buddy: Sigmarines
Me: Nighthaunt (because I am a fan of the Ghostbusters movies and took an instant liking to the ghosts)
Forces: Sigmarines: 4 Crossbowmen, Bolt Thrower and 6 Hammer & Shield guys/gals
Nighthaunt: Leader on Steed, 18 Ghosts and 5 Wraiths
Board Beautiful board with a graveyard theme. In the middle of the board were fences for cover. Otherwise the location was very open and you could draw LOS to almost any point on the battlefield.
Game[u]
1. Turn Initiative: Nighthaunt
Ghosts formed a bubblewrap for the Leader on my left flank. Both sprinted (CP use for the Ghosts: Move: 12´´) to the middle of the board, hiding behind the fences.Wraiths were deployed in the middle of the board and sprinted also to the fences.
Sigmarines stayed put. Crossbowmen were on his right flank, Bolt Thrower in the middle and close combat Sigmarines on his left flank. Bolt Thrower & Crossbowmen opened fire and my ectoplasmic entities suffered only minor casualties.
2. Turn Initiative: Nighthaunt
Ghosts sprinted (CP use for the Ghosts: Move: 12´´) again and were now ca. 6´´ away from the Crossbowmen. Wraiths sprinted behind a short fence on the left flank which was in the Sigmarines´s half of the board.
Ranged attacks of the Sigmarines only caused minor casualties. Six Hammer & Shield guys/gals advanced to the middle of the board and tried to charge the Ghosts but failed to do so (6´´ neeeded but opponent rolled a three.
3. Turn Initiative: Nighthaunt
Ghosts and Leader charged the Crossbowmen. The Leader augmented the close combat attacks of the Ghosts (42 attacks!) and the Crossbowmen were thoroughly slimed (wiped out). The Ghosts consolidated 3´´ inches to the left board edge and away from the Hammer & Board guys/gals. Wraiths spent the turn spooking around the fence.
Bolt Thrower caused only minor casualties on the Ghosts. Hammer & Board guys/gals advanced towards the Ghosts and failed the charge again (5´´ needed and Sigmarines rolled a 3´´).
4. Turn Initiative: Nighthaunt
Everything charged the Hammer and Board guys/gals. The Leader augmented the attacks of the Wraiths and Ghosts. Wraiths attacked first and the Sigmarines suffered only three wounds. Sigmarines attacked the Ghosts and the little spooks took a moderate beating. Ghosts hit back and scored two wounds. Bolt Thrower was within 3´´ of the scuffle and could therefore participate in the brawl. No wounds were scored. Now the Leader attacked and left only two Hammer & Board guys/gals alive.
Bolt Thrower, while in close combat, shot into close combat. Christ, they haven´t changed this stupid rule! Ghosts took moderate casualties from this ranged attack. Hammer & Board guys & gals killed a few Wraiths. Ghosts and Wraths attacked the close combat Sigmarines and did nothing. Bolt Thrower crew banished a few Ghosts back to Nagash. The Leader removed all the remaining close combat specialists from the Sigmarines.
5. Turn Initiative: Sigmarines
The braw lin the Sigmarines half has now been reduced to a minor rugby scrum. The survivors of this engagement were:
Bolt Thrower (two wounds left)
Ghosts (Two spooks left), Wraiths (One spook left) and Leader with all ectoplasmic parts of his ghost form intact.
Discussion:[u]
Well, the spook´s victory was actually a surprise for me. Imo the Sigmarines´s player defeated himself because he failed a relative short charge two times with his clse combat dudes/dudettes. Another thing were his very shoddy Initiative rolls (3x One, 1x Two and 1x Five).
AoS still has some serious flaws in it´s game design. Unfavourable initiative rolls can result into dreaded double turns for a player and there is still not an alternating unit selection sytem like in Necromunda or Freebooter´s Fate. Tactics in this demo game were reduced to choosing with which unit it is wise to attack first. Positioning would be the second tactic involved. There is still no mechanic in the game in which you gain benefits by outmaneuvering your opponent because everything can turn on the spot and engage you. And shooting into close combat while being in close combat is still stupid as f***! I am flabbergasted why nobody in GWHQ realizes this in 2018. The wounding system is still in a vacuum. Wounding a goblin or dragon is the same for all units involved. I wonder why it makes sense to take big gribblies to the battle when hordes of zombies can tear it down with ease.
What about he models? I like the undead models but the Wraith are still a bit strange with their odd skull. People claimed that it was a horse skull. Makes no sense to me at all. The Sigmarines badly suffered in the beginning with their image of being golem automatons. Now they had time to improve their public relations with the mere mortals and some even learned to put away their helmet and show a friendly face to the common human rabble. This was a wise decision. They also included female fighters in their ranks which is another good change. They are still as rare as unicorns and it would have been better to have a ratio of 50:50 between the genders but what do I know?
Bolt Thrower, while in close combat, shot into close combat. Christ, they haven´t changed this stupid rule!
Yeah, they actually have. A ranged unit can only shoot whatever is within 3" of them.
If you'd charged the bolt thrower with the Wraiths or Chainrasp, the leader could have gone around massacring everything else assuming they weren't all stacked up.
Bolt Thrower, while in close combat, shot into close combat. Christ, they haven´t changed this stupid rule!
Yeah, they actually have. A ranged unit can only shoot whatever is within 3" of them.
If you'd charged the bolt thrower with the Wraiths or Chainrasp, the leader could have gone around massacring everything else assuming they weren't all stacked up.
This is still not good enough imo. If the crew is fighting for their life in cc, they shouldn´t be able to calmly reload their artillery piece and shoot at their adversries. It is only a game and therefore some abstractions have to be made. I understand that. But this rule is not a feature but a bug. Other tabletop games get it right. If I would be playing AoS in the future, this would be the first rule that gets deleted.
It is a rule that annoys me too for immersion reasons. The compromise was that at least now they can't calmly reload and turn their blasted machine toward a different target while the crew is being attacked by something in melee and target something 30" down range too so that you can at least lock them up a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One of my players yesterday told me he was watching a warhammer tv battle report and they had the rule where shooting THROUGH the forest had the obstacle rule on it as well... (meaning you get cover bonus if you're on the other side of forests and enemy units are shooting THROUGH it, the houserule that I was talking about my campaigns having for the past several years (only ours was -1 to hit not +1 to save))
I haven't found that anywhere though, but am hoping that is now a thing everywhere.
If they can't reload then surely firing off one shot in close combat is fine? It's a very small ballista so there's no reason they can't take a pot shot with it at close range.
Overread wrote: If they can't reload then surely firing off one shot in close combat is fine? It's a very small ballista so there's no reason they can't take a pot shot with it at close range.
The same rules should apply to all artillery models. No one should be able to claim some sort of bonus because he is operating a ´small ballista´ and not a big trebuchet.
You think of some sort of overwatch mechanic? Sure why not. Activate the unit and put an overwatch marker beside it. Artillery gets charged and can unload on their attackers. What wouldn´t make sense is if you shoot first at a target, get assaulted after that and fire again at the people who just charged you because the crew needs a lot of time to reload their artillery. It is still a medieval type of weapon which can´t fire repeatedly like an autocannon does.
Overread wrote: If they can't reload then surely firing off one shot in close combat is fine? It's a very small ballista so there's no reason they can't take a pot shot with it at close range.
The same rules should apply to all artillery models. No one should be able to claim some sort of bonus because he is operating a ´small ballista´ and not a big trebuchet.
You think of some sort of overwatch mechanic? Sure why not. Activate the unit and put an overwatch marker beside it. Artillery gets charged and can unload on their attackers. What wouldn´t make sense is if you shoot first at a target, get assaulted after that and fire again at the people who just charged you because the crew needs a lot of time to reload their artillery. It is still a medieval type of weapon which can´t fire repeatedly like an autocannon does.
It's firing lightning bolts, not arrows. I think any kind of argument about "reloading time" goes out the window with that being the case.
Overread wrote: If they can't reload then surely firing off one shot in close combat is fine? It's a very small ballista so there's no reason they can't take a pot shot with it at close range.
The same rules should apply to all artillery models. No one should be able to claim some sort of bonus because he is operating a ´small ballista´ and not a big trebuchet.
You think of some sort of overwatch mechanic? Sure why not. Activate the unit and put an overwatch marker beside it. Artillery gets charged and can unload on their attackers. What wouldn´t make sense is if you shoot first at a target, get assaulted after that and fire again at the people who just charged you because the crew needs a lot of time to reload their artillery. It is still a medieval type of weapon which can´t fire repeatedly like an autocannon does.
It's firing lightning bolts, not arrows. I think any kind of argument about "reloading time" goes out the window with that being the case.
There's no downside to a lightning bolt hitting next to you? Nobody can move out of the shooty parts way? This way is impressively dumber than earlier.
-
Ghosts and Leader charged the Crossbowmen. The Leader augmented the close combat attacks of the Ghosts (42 attacks!) and the Crossbowmen were thoroughly slimed (wiped out). The Ghosts consolidated 3´´ inches to the left board edge and away from the Hammer & Board guys/gals. Wraiths spent the turn spooking around the fence.
Bolt Thrower caused only minor casualties on the Ghosts. Hammer & Board guys/gals advanced towards the Ghosts and failed the charge again (5´´ needed and Sigmarines rolled a 3´´).
-
Ghosts and Leader charged the Crossbowmen. The Leader augmented the close combat attacks of the Ghosts (42 attacks!) and the Crossbowmen were thoroughly slimed (wiped out). The Ghosts consolidated 3´´ inches to the left board edge and away from the Hammer & Board guys/gals. Wraiths spent the turn spooking around the fence.
Bolt Thrower caused only minor casualties on the Ghosts. Hammer & Board guys/gals advanced towards the Ghosts and failed the charge again (5´´ needed and Sigmarines rolled a 3´´).
consolidated 3´´ ?
Consolidated not just a 40k thing anymore?
Why do you ask me? I only work here. Well, I haven´t presented the demo but my opponent who introduced me to this new edition didn´t cry foul. In 40K consolidation is allowed after wiping out an enemy unit which also happened in our case. AoS plays like 40K thanks to round bases and the deletion of the regiment formation. It could have been right or wrong.
Makes perfect sense. With the regiment formation consolidation happened automatically because you removed models from the block* but the two blocks remained locked together. Now that its round bases you have to move them yourself to retain the consolidation of the warrior block
*and from the rear of the block as well, so you always stuck together until either one side was dead or fleeing
Saw a battle report from the weekend. The new endless spells crank up the killing another notch.
Turn 1 concession. Lobbing purple sun through portals. They ended up ammassing 34 mortal wounds, 10 normal wounds, and battle shock removed 10 models in one turn on two units of 30 in the first turn.
That was with tzeentch. The portal spell allows you to mitigate short range spells with ease.
auticus wrote: Saw a battle report from the weekend. The new endless spells crank up the killing another notch.
Turn 1 concession. Lobbing purple sun through portals. They ended up ammassing 34 mortal wounds, 10 normal wounds, and battle shock removed 10 models in one turn on two units of 30 in the first turn.
That was with tzeentch. The portal spell allows you to mitigate short range spells with ease.
To be fair, it is 160pts combined to even attempt that combo. Either spell unbound sounds like it would've utterly shifted that outcome and had the one player not conceded, couldn't they have moved the Purple Sun right back through that portal?
The guillotine one can only move in a straight line though, so you can't change direction. It will do it worst damage in the initial turn, thereafter it will be a blocking element and distraction rather than a controlled attack force.
The point cost might balance things out; if not GW might well adapt the power of the spells a little here and there if they are proven to be broken. I think GW wants them to be mainstream rather than not; which implies that they will have to balance them to a point where they are attractive to take, but not so powerful that they are broken.
This might even just be done by introducing more protective elements against spells (not just countering but buffs that shield units from the full effect of magical based attacks or even just endless spell attacks).
auticus wrote: Saw a battle report from the weekend. The new endless spells crank up the killing another notch.
Turn 1 concession. Lobbing purple sun through portals. They ended up ammassing 34 mortal wounds, 10 normal wounds, and battle shock removed 10 models in one turn on two units of 30 in the first turn.
That was with tzeentch. The portal spell allows you to mitigate short range spells with ease.
To be fair, it is 160pts combined to even attempt that combo. Either spell unbound sounds like it would've utterly shifted that outcome and had the one player not conceded, couldn't they have moved the Purple Sun right back through that portal?
He could have. Also, the real TBF here is that its Tzeentch. Who expects a balanced game against Tzeentch?
Why do you ask me? I only work here. Well, I haven´t presented the demo but my opponent who introduced me to this new edition didn´t cry foul. In 40K consolidation is allowed after wiping out an enemy unit which also happened in our case. AoS plays like 40K thanks to round bases and the deletion of the regiment formation. It could have been right or wrong.
Well, that's wrong. Consolidate happens at the end of the attack sequence regardless of wiping.
40k plays like aos due to adopting a lot of the same mechanics, just means whoever showed you didn't play any aos since it's always and still does only have 2 steps to the attack sequence.
Looking like more and more people are starting to accept (and embrace) that warhammer has turned into a version of MtG with models.
Seeing a lot of MtG comparisons (and responses have gone from violently rejecting this to cautiously agreeing now)
In MTG (and other card games like Hearthstone or Eternal), most decks break down into a couple archetypes: Aggro - which is play a lot of small stuff/spells fast and beat face quickly but has no staying power, Combo - where you try to get a specific combo off that's really strong or near-unstoppable, Midrange - where you just play a lot of strong stuff but don't have a real finisher/trickery, or Control - which focuses on preventing the opponent from doing anything until they can reach an endgame state.
To convert it to AoS terms, Aggro would be full Alpha Strike - something like Hammerstrike Stormcast or Murderhost, where you just run forward and try to do as much damage on Turn 1 or 2, knowing that if the opponent survives til later turns you don't have the late game power to combat them. Control would be something like Vanguard Wing, where you don't really have as much killing power on Turn 1 without outplaying, but you can lock down the entire enemy army while racking up points and getting everything positioned as you want it.
Currently I would say most armies in AoS fall into Midrange. They just try to have a good mix of stuff that can all affect the board, not as much all in on one trick. Death lists are a bit more Combo, where you try to stack as much stuff onto one or two units and rez them repeatedly and buff them into the stratosphere.
A lot of times in the card game world, Aggro beats Combo by killing them before they can get their trick off, Combo beats Control by setting up the board/gamestate in such a way that it can't be stopped, and Control beats Midrange by killing/removing all their strong things. Aggro vs Control is a bit more involved, because the Aggro player will try to rush down the Control player before they can get to the point where they can remove things, while the Control player knows that if they can sacrifice health early and stabilize later, it's a guaranteed win.
It'll end up similarly in AoS, I think. Alpha v Summoning will come down to how T1 goes - if the Alpha Strike army can kill all or most of the enemy Heroes on T1, the Summoning player doesn't have much of a way to start getting more stuff. But if those Heroes survive properly and get the Points to Summon, the Alpha Striker will be overwhelmed and won't be able to turn off the tide of bodies before it scores everything. Very interesting gameplay.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And also a lot of talk about how the game is essentially going to be alpha strike / lots of damage vs summoning now. Things we discussed early on in this thread.
Correct. Because thats how card games go, thats the game design that is attractive to the real fans of AOS, and that also speeds up tournament play which is good.
I was listening to a youtube over the weekend where the speakers were talking about how they are glad that the game is so lethal and the game can end T1 or T2 because they can get in many more games this way and tournaments won't have sandbagging as much. They lamented hordes getting a bonus because they wanted to see hordes go away and to keep model count very small, so that games would go even faster than they are now, and allow them to transport 10-20 models a lot easier than more than that.
Another one made mention to how he just started AOS and liked it because it reminded him a lot of Magic and he was a huge magic player, and this was right up his alley.
The whole time I was remembering being slagged for being stupid enough to compare it to magic for the past couple of years lol.
auticus wrote: Correct. Because thats how card games go, thats the game design that is attractive to the real fans of AOS, and that also speeds up tournament play which is good.
I was listening to a youtube over the weekend where the speakers were talking about how they are glad that the game is so lethal and the game can end T1 or T2 because they can get in many more games this way and tournaments won't have sandbagging as much. They lamented hordes getting a bonus because they wanted to see hordes go away and to keep model count very small, so that games would go even faster than they are now, and allow them to transport 10-20 models a lot easier than more than that.
Another one made mention to how he just started AOS and liked it because it reminded him a lot of Magic and he was a huge magic player, and this was right up his alley.
The whole time I was remembering being slagged for being stupid enough to compare it to magic for the past couple of years lol.
If by "real fans" you mean "some fans" I agree. I will reiterate that when GW publishes unbalanced games popularity inevitably drops.
When I say "real fans" im' referring to the people that are gushing about it, who have been gushing about it since the first GHB came out in 2016. To include the guys that get very nasty when you start talking about houseruling. My twitter feed is literally filled with a solid twenty or so posters that post several times a day on how great everything's been and is and how huge their communities are. (And I believe them, they are all in the uk which makes a big difference too save for a couple of US celebrities and I'm not sure what their local scene is like since they seem to primarily travel to big regional tournaments)
It would seem its only unbalanced if you aren't showing up with a summon spam list or a mortal wound spam list. (bringing the cliche knife to the gunfight)
That goes back to my other thread about why we accept this to be ok and even embrace it.
can some one give a quick description of what they have actualy stuffed the main book whit?
core rules are only 20 pages so what are the remaining 300p?
Bolt Thrower, while in close combat, shot into close combat. Christ, they haven´t changed this stupid rule!
Yeah, they actually have. A ranged unit can only shoot whatever is within 3" of them.
If you'd charged the bolt thrower with the Wraiths or Chainrasp, the leader could have gone around massacring everything else assuming they weren't all stacked up.
This is still not good enough imo. If the crew is fighting for their life in cc, they shouldn´t be able to calmly reload their artillery piece and shoot at their adversries. It is only a game and therefore some abstractions have to be made. I understand that. But this rule is not a feature but a bug. Other tabletop games get it right. If I would be playing AoS in the future, this would be the first rule that gets deleted.
Well, in that case, they should just add overwatch. A ranged unit won't be sitting still watching a group rush at them with swords. That's equally as stupid, man. They'll fire at the immediate threat.
There's no downside to a lightning bolt hitting next to you? Nobody can move out of the shooty parts way? This way is impressively dumber than earlier.
Not when you arrived to the bloody battle via lightning bolt, dude.
It's like many of you want a grounded, realistic, medieval wargame but you forget that GW makes models of giant flippin' flying sharks, gorgons with wings, and a giant walking zit.
There are still physics of battle. It doesn't matter if a gorgon or a dragon are involved. They would still adhere to the realm of physics and believability.
There are no dragons in literature or movies that breathe fire all over a swirling melee and only hurt the bad guys, for example.
Gorgons, demigryphs, dragons, etc, would still follow the rules of their fictional reality.
I wouldn't mind if a couple units had some fluff rules that let them defy this, because it would be defined by their fiction, but not as a universal.
I'm also not opposed to an overwatch mechanic. I think that adding a viable honest-to-god overwatch mechanic would be good.
Just played a 1000 game using endless spells. I took cogs for daughters of khaine, he took geminids for his legions of nagash. We had a total of 4 potential casts a turn and we summoned a grand total of 0 endless spells either through failing the cast or dispelling or in my case past turn 1, the spell being strictly worse than mind blades. We did each get a double turn though, and I dont think even a clutch geminids would have made up for the carnage those turns created.
Maybe it's different when you have more wizards tk throw more spells around with and a 6x4 to really take advantage of cogs, but I'd really rather cut the double turn instead of having a balancing mechanic that needs to be casted, not dispelled and then effect you.
My group has stopped using the double turn. Even the 2-3 guys that were reluctant to that, agree after 2 weeks of gaming without it. It makes the game objetively better. And we are a group of 10-15 people.
Galas wrote:My group has stopped using the double turn. Even the 2-3 guys that were reluctant to that, agree after 2 weeks of gaming without it. It makes the game objetively better. And we are a group of 10-15 people.
So if you are house ruling things, why not house rule what is broken instead of the double turn. If the changes means it changes the game so be it. It's for your group. So change what is broken.
auticus wrote:I wish we could get rid of the double turn :(
Don't you play with house rules my friend? Can't you change the rules that make the double turn dreaded? Or is it your group will not adapt? I know you explained to me why the double turn is bad. I say turn it around. In stead of having the double turn that is bad, change what is bad by keeping the double turn. Or do people really love the IGOUGO that they don't want that to change?
I have changed the rules years a go and my son loved it (for 40K when it became boring), so I can't see why grown men wouldn't want to make the game better when it's played by friends/group most times. I know with strangers it's not done, but a close group who can agree should be able to change other mechanics of the game that make the double turn bad.
In other words why don't people stop the IGOUGO mechanics in Age of Sigmar.
Dude, changing it so that turns are simply 'you me you me' is super simple and easy for everyone to agree on, as well as for new people to accept.
I would agree that IGOUGO is an outdated concept and shouldn't be used in games as big as AoS or 40k but those are much harder mechanics to get everyone to agree to change. The simpler and the less houserules the less barrier of entry and the less arguments.
Galas wrote:My group has stopped using the double turn. Even the 2-3 guys that were reluctant to that, agree after 2 weeks of gaming without it. It makes the game objetively better. And we are a group of 10-15 people.
So if you are house ruling things, why not house rule what is broken instead of the double turn. If the changes means it changes the game so be it. It's for your group. So change what is broken.
They did. Nothing in AoS is even as close to how broken the double turn is. Not to mention the ease of solution to beneficial result ratio is extremely good.
As for the rest, it isn't that simple and you know it.
I would agree that IGOUGO is an outdated concept and shouldn't be used in games as big as AoS or 40k but those are much harder mechanics to get everyone to agree to change.
IGUGO works very well for games as big as AoS/40k if done right.
For AoS you have two options:
alternate phases instead of turns and keep the double turn
remove the double turn
I know there are people who like it, but there were also those who "liked" and defended measuring from the model instead of the base because it is the best rule ever made.
Honestly I like chucking the double turn entirely and just alternating. The hypocrisy comes when people argue 'but that creates second-turn disadvantage!' It does, but the double-turn provides a disadvantage that's exponentially worse. I distinctly remember every single game in which my tournament army got a double turn and actually lost, because both times I made a critical mistake. That isn't to brag; a newbie with three matches under their belt could have won most of my double-turn games, it's that bad.
It does seem a very odd choice to allow in the game considering what you can achieve in a single turn; giving a player two turns one after the other is only fun in so much as yes it lets them act out a specific battleplan without interruption; but it means that they've now had two full turns of dealing damage to their opponent. It's one thing I really hope GW turns around and removes or revises or such.
Anyone going against an opponent who gets to turns against them is going to be at a huge disadvantage. With the game operating a lot faster now even the first two turns offer little protection.
Sure, in theory after your opponent has two you've got a chance for two, but by that point you're already at a huge disadvantage. You might not even get many choices either because after two turns (esp this edition) most units that can get into close combat will be locked in close combat, so already a good portion of what is still alive will already be tangled up.
It's also just really, really unenjoyable to be on the receiving end of. IGOUGO has enough downtime as it is, the double turn leaves you spending even more time sitting around uninvolved with anything actually going on on the table.
Fafnir wrote: It's also just really, really unenjoyable to be on the receiving end of. IGOUGO has enough downtime as it is, the double turn leaves you spending even more time sitting around uninvolved with anything actually going on on the table.
Except rolling the dice and removing even more of your models from the table
Fafnir wrote: It's also just really, really unenjoyable to be on the receiving end of. IGOUGO has enough downtime as it is, the double turn leaves you spending even more time sitting around uninvolved with anything actually going on on the table.
Except rolling the dice and removing even more of your models from the table
Which makes things even worse, since it means I can't just clock out for half an hour.
Often times, since it turns most games into pretty one-sided affairs, it'll be better just to concede if someone gets the double turn, just to save yourself from having to sit through it.
I'm sure there is. But we just don't feel that motivated to come up with and troubleshoot a fix for an add on we won't be able to take advantage of until we both expand our spell centred armies.
Once he's gotten more painted for his legions or the new storm casts and I either use my sylvaneth or get morathi and warlocksthen well revisit endless spells
jonolikespie wrote: Ain't nothing less fun that sitting at a table and spending 45 minutes doing nothing but waiting and taking models off the table.
This is the primary reason we have agree to stop using the double turn. It is just not fun. Not for the person that receives all the damage one army can do in two turns, not even for the player that can use the double turn, because whats the point in playing when you opponent can't respond?
And Davor, has others have said, we could try to do an alternative system of phases like the Lord of the Rings game of GW but that would be much more complex and create much more debate in our community. To just stop using the double turn has been 2000 times more easy. Nobody argues anymore about using it.
jonolikespie wrote:Dude, changing it so that turns are simply 'you me you me' is super simple and easy for everyone to agree on, as well as for new people to accept.
I would agree that IGOUGO is an outdated concept and shouldn't be used in games as big as AoS or 40k but those are much harder mechanics to get everyone to agree to change. The simpler and the less houserules the less barrier of entry and the less arguments.
Fair enough, I see where you are coming from.
NinthMusketeer wrote:[As for the rest, it isn't that simple and you know it.
I never said it would be, but after being in this hobby for over 20 years and just see us complain and do nothing about it, I find it sad as us as grown men can't even try to fix it to have more fun. I find it funny when we were 5 something was broken we would talk about it in a few minutes and then we continue playing. Funny as adults we can't do that no more.
Galas wrote:And Davor, has others have said, we could try to do an alternative system of phases like the Lord of the Rings game of GW but that would be much more complex and create much more debate in our community. To just stop using the double turn has been 2000 times more easy. Nobody argues anymore about using it.
I just find it sad as a community we will moan and complain and do nothing about it. I see people like Auticus who want to do something about it and it gives me hope that grown men can come together and have fun. As for more debate in our community, isn't that what we are doing? So why not turn that debating negative energy into debating positive energy. After all there is nothing wrong with debating and that is why we come to forums, to debate and other things. Debating is not a bad thing.
Yes I know in pick up stranger games it is really awckward but when you already have a group you play with regularly I can't see why people can't keep making house rules as they go.
That said, there is no right or wrong answer here, we all have opinions and that is all they are.
We do house rules all the time. We play competitive tournaments too but most of the time we are doing narrative games, multi player games, narrative mini-campaings, etc... and all of those use a ton of house rules.
We did something about the double turn. We stoped using it because we believe it is a bad mechanic that makes the game less fun by existing. We have no reason to think and write 20 different changes to try to make it more interesting, when at a fundamental level is something we don't like.
Galas wrote: We do house rules all the time. We play competitive tournaments too but most of the time we are doing narrative games, multi player games, narrative mini-campaings, etc... and all of those use a ton of house rules.
We did something about the double turn. We stoped using it because we believe it is a bad mechanic that makes the game less fun by existing. We have no reason to try 20 different changes to try to make it more interesting, when at a fundamental level is something we don't like.
That is great. I am really glad people come together and use lots of house rules.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Just played a 1000 game using endless spells. I took cogs for daughters of khaine, he took geminids for his legions of nagash. We had a total of 4 potential casts a turn and we summoned a grand total of 0 endless spells either through failing the cast or dispelling or in my case past turn 1, the spell being strictly worse than mind blades. We did each get a double turn though, and I dont think even a clutch geminids would have made up for the carnage those turns created.
Maybe it's different when you have more wizards tk throw more spells around with and a 6x4 to really take advantage of cogs, but I'd really rather cut the double turn instead of having a balancing mechanic that needs to be casted, not dispelled and then effect you.
Thanks for sharing, but one match is far from enough data to go off of. Hopefully more people will share their battle results so we can get a better idea of how this edition is going to play out. I does show me that a 30" unbind range is likely to be a real game changer. Has anyone else seen the points leaks on reddit? I can't link to it since I'm at work right now, but it looks like Tzeentch (rightly) got hit hard with points hikes.
Yea I really think the change to unbind really plays in a lot, coupled with needing 7s to cast.
It just seems weird as "counter play". The counter play to the double turn is if:
A) a player takes an endless spell
B) it's successfully cast
C) it resolves it's effect
D) it's close enough to the casters units that your opponent moving it will benefit in some way.
Or you can just unload with your endless spell, take the mediocre hit in return from the spell manipulation and possibly get a game ending double turn
I used an alternating system in my last campaign. A lot of guys loved it. A lot of guys that hate house rules hated it because it was a house rule.
The majority don't want house rules so it was binned. So double turn for me is here to stay.
Sadly there are a couple guys that liked alt activation so much that they won't play AOS without it now which means they aren't participating with us anymore.
I posted this in the N&R thread, but thought I'd say it here as well. Battalions seem to have gotten a 50-60 pt increase across the board to account for the extra CP they generate. Since you can buy CP for 50 points, this makes sense. As a side note, Monsters of Chaos are still not an ally options for Slaves to Darkness, so a (non-Khorne) Slaughterbrute still can't ally with his master. I guess Thorgrath Thrice-Blooded will have to use the generic Chaos allegiance abilities if he wants to play with his pet Slaughterbrute, Cuddlekins.
Also, I find people getting mad at "houserule away initiative rolls" funny because technically you're still using them but always conceding to give the opponent his turn instead of taking a double turn yourself.
So it's their own fault for not being gentlemen about it.
But eh, that's the spirit of competitiveness. I think a good adjustment for it, since it was a LotR, would to be able to assign some units a overwatch/reactive move ability when a double turn happens to better blunt the damage and keep both players active.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Honestly I think dumping rolled initiative but having endless spells is a rather artful way of compensating for first turn advantage.
Sadly there are a couple guys that liked alt activation so much that they won't play AOS without it now which means they aren't participating with us anymore.
Haha, talk about backfire. Maybe you can get some Skirmish/ShadeSpire games on the side with them?
I’ve played AoS since 2015 and have never felt like I wanted to remove the double turn. Never heard anyone in my group complain about it either, even when comparing the game to 40k. I’ve played in tournaments and run an AoSFB group. Again, never heard a single complaint about the double turn from an AoS player in those. I find it exciting personally and would not want it removed. I enjoy the uncertainty. Many historical games have similarly random mechanics where your entire army could conceivably ignore your commands if the dice go against you. I have no problem with those either. So there’s an alternate perspective.
Agreed and i quite enjoy how they nerfed it a bit as well made endless spells work into it but to each their own. I can however easily see a competitive player's point in that it puts his strategy and min-maxing far too much into random chance's hand rather than losing on his own terms.
So to that I understand the preference for house rules. Which in itself is just a good warhammer tradition.
But it's not just a min-maxing thing. There's nothing to min max, it's entirely out of the players' hands. You just get it or you don't. It's inherently unfair. Do you enjoy just sitting there for 45 minutes not playing while your opponent wins an uncontested game?
Yeah, as I said, nobody in my group is a min-maxer competitive players, we are mostly narrative and casual ones. We just don't find fun in the double turn.
Not saying that people that likes it is wrong. Of course it is not. What is fun is subjetive.
stupid, man. They'll fire at the immediate threat.
