Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frim what ive gathered, thundertusks and those sylvaneth archers could use price increases.

Wayniac wrote:

 HunterEste wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Points balance: That is all.

I just hope it's not all. Lately, I read a few forums about this and it really sent me back to the old days of players only bitching about point cost and judging the efficiency of units in game on that basis alone.

And honestly, that's not a time I'm fond of. Because it's not true, units aren't just a matter of points.

It's good GW keep promoting the others ways to play the game. Let's keep it with as many choices as possible, and put them on equal grounds. Let's keep points at what they are; a tool for players to use, not a tyrannical obligation.

Despite our best efforts, the toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC gamer community will eventually infect this game, just like it infected 40k and Fantasy. It's not a pleasant realization....but a reality we must accept. Just make sure you aren't one of "those players" and encourage the fly casual groups as much as you can.

Sad but true. The "competitive" crowd tends to scream the loudest because they are the most visible (via tournaments and conventions), and as a result drown out everyone else. What we can hope for is that the game itself remains at a good point, and doesn't cater too much to the whim of those types of people.

This is the most elitist thing I've ever heard anyone say on this forum. I appreciate the value of open play and narrative play but for those things points are ultimately meaningless. Points in age of sigmar aren't for you or anyone else looking to have a casual, fun experience because you don't need them. Presumably you can determine along with your opponent what each of you can bring to have an enjoyable match without even glancing at the back half of the ghb, or even just doing a quick run through to see if they're in the same ballpark. Narrative or Open players whining about points is a lot like whining in Warmahordes forums about how broken Eldar are. It has nothing to do with you.

A discussion of point efficiency of units is important because matched play is designed for competitive events and competitive matches. Points are designed for competitive events and competitive matches. If units are underrepresented then talking about why they don't see use and tweaking their cost down will open up a variety of different options. If units are overperforming tweaking them upwards frees up lists to be more creative. It's not always just people pissing and moaning about their army not being wtfomgbbq uber l33t, a lot of the time it's just people frustrated with the available design space to build lists in because for a lot of people, myself included, list building is one of the best part of the hobby.

tl;dr If you can't see the irony of statements like 'toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC' or 'those people' when talking about this particular subject that's your problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Frim what ive gathered, thundertusks and those sylvaneth archers could use price increases.

Absolutely.

It is interesting though, I feel like point reductions should end up being far more common than point increases. A few standouts like the huskard on thundertusk(he can heal, he should be MORE expensive than the frostlord not less, I don't care how much damage the rider does when that breath attack exists) or the warrior brotherhood should go up, but I think when they first made the handbook they tended to sit on the high side with things like light and medium cav or basic archer type units and a lot of those can come down.

But if that many things seem like they should cost less, wouldn't it be better to increase the minority of models that should cost more? The same effect with less changes.

Im going to operate under the assumption that they wont change any warscrolls, so the best bet will be points increases for blatantly undercosted things (as mentioned above) and points decreases for the stuff that is a bit overcosted.

I mean, the main worrying things right now are Destruction and Sylvaneth, right? The arms race and points decreasing is what makes 40k so lethal now a days, and unless we want more of that, price increases would be the best bet.

As to what GW will do... who knows.

I wouldnt mind a way to make Dracoths Battle Line so people can run an extremis chamber list.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

Pass. Random initiative becomes unbelievably interesting as you get deeper into the game; it's basically an entire extra game on top of normal AoS. The tricks you can pull by using the double turn to your advantage are incredible, even just deliberately not taking the double turn, or forcing your opponent to get a double turn when they aren't in position to capitilize on it is immense. Listen to rob symes talk about it on the newest 9th realm to get a more informed idea of what I'm talking about.

Every game I have played where a player got a round 1/2 double-turn, that player won. Every single time. What I see is a 50% chance the game will be decided by skill and a 50% chance the game is decided by an initiative roll.

I've played a few games where a double-turn didn't win a game but helped even the field. Generally is against lists like my ironfists and the Order-Draconis "IN YOUR FAKKIN FACE" lists where you are bound to have turn one combats. Hell, I got a double turn 1/2 and still lost against that list but I know I'd have lost eariler if I hadn't had a double turn to reposition my remaining ardboyz after that crippling Alpha strike (it also helps I did NOT screen, didn't think he'd be THAT fast).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

Yep, kill it. I've only got a couple of games under my belt, but floating initiative is the only thing about AoS that really jumps out at me as awful. The fact that I have to build my entire tactical plan off of a 50/50 gamble is ridiculous.

Another thing I'd like to see is loosened up battleline restrictions for armies without much unit variety. Picking up Rotbringers and realizing that I can't actually use anything else from the other Nurgle-based factions without compromising my comp is annoying, especially when I only have a single unit type to draw from to begin with. I like to think that the Battleline requirements should inform composition, rather than restrict it as a tax, if that makes any sense.

ERJAK wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Sad but true. The "competitive" crowd tends to scream the loudest because they are the most visible (via tournaments and conventions), and as a result drown out everyone else. What we can hope for is that the game itself remains at a good point, and doesn't cater too much to the whim of those types of people.

This is the most elitist thing I've ever heard anyone say on this forum. I appreciate the value of open play and narrative play but for those things points are ultimately meaningless. Points in age of sigmar aren't for you or anyone else looking to have a casual, fun experience because you don't need them. Presumably you can determine along with your opponent what each of you can bring to have an enjoyable match without even glancing at the back half of the ghb, or even just doing a quick run through to see if they're in the same ballpark. Narrative or Open players whining about points is a lot like whining in Warmahordes forums about how broken Eldar are. It has nothing to do with you.

A discussion of point efficiency of units is important because matched play is designed for competitive events and competitive matches. Points are designed for competitive events and competitive matches. If units are underrepresented then talking about why they don't see use and tweaking their cost down will open up a variety of different options. If units are overperforming tweaking them upwards frees up lists to be more creative. It's not always just people pissing and moaning about their army not being wtfomgbbq uber l33t, a lot of the time it's just people frustrated with the available design space to build lists in because for a lot of people, myself included, list building is one of the best part of the hobby.

tl;dr If you can't see the irony of statements like 'toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC' or 'those people' when talking about this particular subject that's your problem.

Doubling down on this, it's not even just competitive matches that match play is useful. With a standardized point system, I can go to any club anywhere, ask if anyone wants a game, say the size of game I want to play, and without having to spend any time hashing things out, we're already on the same page and playing in 5 minutes.

I would like to see the IGOUGO system. Put in the Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit way. You move, I move, You shoot, I shoot, we all assault.

They already have the Priority system in place from LotR so that is good. We can even say for smaller point games it plays like LotR where the minis are individual unit and only need to be in unit co-herency ONLY if you want a BONUS for movement or what not.

Add a bit more tactics. Like front units can shield but not attack so the get a bonus for defence while units in the back can attack but no defence.

This way we can have tray movement or block movement for those who want it and can still play as is now for those who want to as well.

I would actually like alternate activation.

I activate a unit. You activate a unit.

I love those types of games.

I'd also love if this thread didn't devolve into another pointless evil waac points is evil vs narrative gamers are crybaby threads.

Maybe they should make an epic rap battles of history between those two and we could just link the youtube everytime it starts.

Alternate activation, if done like Bolt Action, could be great.

Random initiative works, and works well. The more games you play the more you realize its not an auto win if you get back to back turns.

That said I much prefer alternate activation in games, but the random initiative isnt that bad, just a different mechanic then most are use to and once you learn how to play with it adds a whole new layer of thinking.

Going all in and losing the initiative goes back to big risk big reward, you know you might lose the initiative but if you win it you will easly wipe them out. Risk reward

 zfreie wrote:
Random initiative works, and works well. The more games you play the more you realize its not an auto win if you get back to back turns.

That said I much prefer alternate activation in games, but the random initiative isnt that bad, just a different mechanic then most are use to and once you learn how to play with it adds a whole new layer of thinking.

Going all in and losing the initiative goes back to big risk big reward, you know you might lose the initiative but if you win it you will easly wipe them out. Risk reward

The thing is, if you go all in on a double turn and lose its really not that crippling. As compared to the massive benefit you get from doing so it's not so much a risk-reward as something you do automatically because the odds favor that approach by a large margin. I've played both with and without, and it's fixed initiative that adds tactical layers because one can plan things out rather than being forced to wait and see what the initiative result is before determining action. For the more cinematic feel of a narrative battle then rolled initiative has a place and I think is even preferable, but on the strategic side where matched play lies that sort of thing takes away from the game. Can you imagine Chess with random initiative?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the topic of battleline, I would like to see more options become available based on multi-faction keywords. For example, have blightkings and plague monks become battleline on just Nurgle allegiance rather than mortal Nurgle and pestilens, respectively. Make several of the faction exclusive aelf battleline be based on aelf allegiance rather than the specific sub faction. Make squig hoppers and spider riders battleline for grot allegiance, and leadbelchers battleline for ogor allegiance. And so on.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Points balance: That is all.

Agreed...

I read a whole bunch of those player... aka competitive folks... and not taking the optimal list ect ect...

I'm of the competitive gamer I try and make a list to win so I work on making my list that way and I play match play. There are casual ways of gaming in aos so to be honest I not sure why there is a problem with wanting to play competitive and optimal?

That being said if GW fixes the point cost would that not make more units optimal which in turn would allow for many different variance in army building. This would in turn make for more equal games... that being said the competitive folks should not be picked on cause that the way they like to play... which really goes the same for all type of gamers... casual, story based ect to each their own.

That being said if someone wanted to play me and they said let make for a more story based game Id be down for it.

Big thing is match play imo was designed for tourney players so the competitive peeps.... that being said I use dispossessed trying to make them competitive is a douzy but I have to say I have done pretty well

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 zfreie wrote:
Random initiative works, and works well. The more games you play the more you realize its not an auto win if you get back to back turns.

That said I much prefer alternate activation in games, but the random initiative isnt that bad, just a different mechanic then most are use to and once you learn how to play with it adds a whole new layer of thinking.

Going all in and losing the initiative goes back to big risk big reward, you know you might lose the initiative but if you win it you will easly wipe them out. Risk reward

Can you imagine Chess with random initiative?

I could, and it would be quite the cluster haha however it still could be interesting to play. Chess pieces are more cut and dry, no hoping to roll 6's somewhere for super awesome ability's. Never designed to be played like that, but I bet you money we could make a sweet version of chess that uses random turns thats fun to play.

I understand both sides, and with how all the units work, and how the terrain works and everything else, AOS is SO random, the random turns fit in with the rest of the game. lol Its something different then most other games and it tickles me the right way. I'm a freak I know.

 zfreie wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 zfreie wrote:
Random initiative works, and works well. The more games you play the more you realize its not an auto win if you get back to back turns.

That said I much prefer alternate activation in games, but the random initiative isnt that bad, just a different mechanic then most are use to and once you learn how to play with it adds a whole new layer of thinking.

Going all in and losing the initiative goes back to big risk big reward, you know you might lose the initiative but if you win it you will easly wipe them out. Risk reward

Can you imagine Chess with random initiative?

I could, and it would be quite the cluster haha however it still could be interesting to play. Chess pieces are more cut and dry, no hoping to roll 6's somewhere for super awesome ability's. Never designed to be played like that, but I bet you money we could make a sweet version of chess that uses random turns thats fun to play.

I understand both sides, and with how all the units work, and how the terrain works and everything else, AOS is SO random, the random turns fit in with the rest of the game. lol Its something different then most other games and it tickles me the right way. I'm a freak I know.

I think you are hitting on the point of the GHB as a whole right there; multiple ways to play.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the topic of battleline, I would like to see more options become available based on multi-faction keywords. For example, have blightkings and plague monks become battleline on just Nurgle allegiance rather than mortal Nurgle and pestilens, respectively. Make several of the faction exclusive aelf battleline be based on aelf allegiance rather than the specific sub faction. Make squig hoppers and spider riders battleline for grot allegiance, and leadbelchers battleline for ogor allegiance. And so on.

This opens up army composition to so much customization and story building. I would absolutley love to see something like this. Like Fafnir said, battleline should open up options, not restrict them. They shouldnt a tax, but be a driving force of where the rest of your army should gravitate towards. I do very much like the keyword system though!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Of course not! Just as you would not shame optimized lists, or tournament players, or competitive players.

Sorry if my quote got misunderstood. It's just a feeling that I have when I recently read about the reactions from several forums on this matter. And it was all focusing on point cost - and that only. It really looked like the General Handbook is only about points cost. Which is not.

So that's why I took your "that is all" as an illustration of my feeling; to me, that's not all that needs to be for Age of Sigmar. New rules of 3, new victory conditions, new battleplans (or, why not, redone battleplans for some that didn't work as intended), new Path to Glory (updated tables, new factions and so on)...Matched Play is a fine way to play. I just hope it's not becoming the only one.

To me, competitive or tournament players aren't toxic; they're players like the others. But they're not the only kind of players. Just a part of them. Let's keep giving everyone what they want, and not putting one way to play as "above" the other.

That's what I wish for the General Handbook II. For now, we have seen the point cost part, because it's what is showed the more until now. I wish to see the other parts as well.

I'd love for shooting rules to be tweaked. I still think it makes no sense for units locked in melee combat to be able to sheathe their swords, draw a bow, and take a shot at some other unit, all while someone is trying to stab them to death.

Also, no friendly fire penalty or rules? C'mon....that's silly.

The firing out of combat is one that bugged me.
While shooting someone in combat is fine and makes sense, it doesn't make sense to stop fighting, shoot someone else thats 50 yards away then continue the fight.

By all means keep shooting while in combat, just make it so that you can only shoot the person your fighting.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
What do i want

Actual balance or as close as we can get. So better points.
Skirmish rules.

More campaign support.

More optional house rules that make things like shooting into melee have a risk for the shooter and can hurt their own buddies.

What don't I want?
A return to crutches and obvious takes. Or should I say, more of them.

I don't want a loosening up of the balanced rules for balanced games.

We as a community say we want balance in one hand and then in the other wish we could do stuff like super summon and spam over powered spells.

Keep the balanced games balanced. Bring in optional rules for narrative games.

Basically where I'm at, with the exception of skirmish rules simply because I doubt their offering would beat Hinterlands. Of course if they could adopt that ruleset it would be great.

I'm hoping one of these days, Bottle is going to start a blog update with "So I'm on the way to a meeting in Nottingham"

 Jackal wrote:
The firing out of combat is one that bugged me.
While shooting someone in combat is fine and makes sense, it doesn't make sense to stop fighting, shoot someone else thats 50 yards away then continue the fight.

By all means keep shooting while in combat, just make it so that you can only shoot the person your fighting.

My thing with firing into combat, with the swirl of melee there's a good chance that when you loose your arrow, your target will have moved and there's a darn good chance a buddy might suddenly be standing where the enemy was mere moments ago. Then again....that would really cripple ranged if there was friendly fire, wouldn't it?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But if that many things seem like they should cost less, wouldn't it be better to increase the minority of models that should cost more? The same effect with less changes.

Because there are a large number of units that pretty approprietly priced, most of the battleline unit for example are pretty good, combined with most foot heros and heavy cav. About 60% I would say are not meaningfully overcosted or undercosted, increasing the cost of the ops doesn't automatically help the UPs because not everything is meaningfully unbalanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
The firing out of combat is one that bugged me.
While shooting someone in combat is fine and makes sense, it doesn't make sense to stop fighting, shoot someone else thats 50 yards away then continue the fight.

By all means keep shooting while in combat, just make it so that you can only shoot the person your fighting.

What about units with mounts AND riders that have shooting attacks? Or heros? Legolas doesn't seem to have an issue shooting something far away while in combat, why is the Knight Venator or Alith Anar not capable of it? Realism?

'

Why is every random goblin as good a shot as legolas?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

Pass. Random initiative becomes unbelievably interesting as you get deeper into the game; it's basically an entire extra game on top of normal AoS. The tricks you can pull by using the double turn to your advantage are incredible, even just deliberately not taking the double turn, or forcing your opponent to get a double turn when they aren't in position to capitilize on it is immense. Listen to rob symes talk about it on the newest 9th realm to get a more informed idea of what I'm talking about.

Every game I have played where a player got a round 1/2 double-turn, that player won. Every single time. What I see is a 50% chance the game will be decided by skill and a 50% chance the game is decided by an initiative roll.

I don't want to be the L2p Guy but if you try to play the game like the double turn is some random thing that may or may not happen, you are going to lose on it. When you have first go, always assume your opponent is going to get the double turn, when your opponent has first go THEN you can gamble a bit but if you get wiped off because of 1 double turn to a list that isn't Launch fiends or Skryre Fyre then you made a tactical error.

Remember, if they get a double turn, they can't get another one until after YOU do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why is every random goblin as good a shot as legolas?

I didn't know the Knight Venator or Anith Alar were goblins. Wierd, they look a bit tall for that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why is every random goblin as good a shot as legolas?

Agreed. If they're going to allow shooting into a combat, at least make all To Hit rolls of a '1' hit friendly models.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why is every random goblin as good a shot as legolas?

Have you ever heard of the Legend of the Great anf Fertile Legoblas?

Bardic Tale wrote:Did anyone notice the Tomb Kings under experimental rules? Should I get my hopes up that they will return?

Ghaz wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why is every random goblin as good a shot as legolas?

Agreed. If they're going to allow shooting into a combat, at least make all To Hit rolls of a '1' hit friendly models.

I don't agree with the one. If shooting into combat like was said before, everybody shouldn't be Legolis so it's a 50/50 when shooting into combat. You have a 50% of hitting your own unit just like you would the enemy. That I can agree with. Other wise this will become like 40K and shooting will become the norm and over powered and the way to play.

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

Pass. Random initiative becomes unbelievably interesting as you get deeper into the game; it's basically an entire extra game on top of normal AoS. The tricks you can pull by using the double turn to your advantage are incredible, even just deliberately not taking the double turn, or forcing your opponent to get a double turn when they aren't in position to capitilize on it is immense. Listen to rob symes talk about it on the newest 9th realm to get a more informed idea of what I'm talking about.

Every game I have played where a player got a round 1/2 double-turn, that player won. Every single time. What I see is a 50% chance the game will be decided by skill and a 50% chance the game is decided by an initiative roll.

I don't want to be the L2p Guy but if you try to play the game like the double turn is some random thing that may or may not happen, you are going to lose on it. When you have first go, always assume your opponent is going to get the double turn, when your opponent has first go THEN you can gamble a bit but if you get wiped off because of 1 double turn to a list that isn't Launch fiends or Skryre Fyre then you made a tactical error.

Remember, if they get a double turn, they can't get another one until after YOU do.

In all of those games save one I was the one getting the double turn and winning easily as a result, I didn't mention it because the point isn't about me winning but about the double-turn player winning.

Meh, forcing my opponent into a double turn has actually won me more games than getting one. I think it's actually a crucial component but I got used to it thru Wrath of Kings which does the same but you can generally only double up on about a third of the army instead of the whole thing.

Ok, so I've seen this mentioned in here a few times....but what do you mean when you say "if your opponent gets a double turn, you get one next"? If this is an actual thing, can you tell me which page of the current GHB it is on? No one at my local store apparently knows this.

 HunterEste wrote:
Ok, so I've seen this mentioned in here a few times....but what do you mean when you say "if your opponent gets a double turn, you get one next"? If this is an actual thing, can you tell me which page of the current GHB it is on? No one at my local store apparently knows this.

Double turn would go something like this. You win initiative and tell me to go first. Then you go second. Then you win initiative again but this time you decide to go first. So hence you have a double turn. Thing is, now I go second. I could win initiative and then I can say I go first, then I have the double turn.

Hope this helps.