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.

Davor wrote:

dosiere wrote:Anyone else find it odd they’re still releasing a generals handbook this year? I guess for point adjustments to older tomes?

Some would say GW is just sucking money out of their customers. Others would say GW is a business and needs to do to make money. Me? I would say the point costs should be in the rule book and we don't need to go down the road of having multiple books, but here we are starting a new edition with multiple books now. Not upset or surprised, just find it funny that Age of Sigmar was suppose to be about streamlined and making it easier, but already starting out the gate on being cumbersome because of a minimum of 3 books or two books and a bunch of printed out pages of Warscrolls to start playing a game.

What ever happened to having just one book to start with?

You're not getting points in the main rulebook. Realistically, you should never want that. The main rulebook isn't something that I ever really bring with me at this point.

If you want points without having a GHB, buy an army that has a book and isn't Seraphon, Fyreslayers, or one of the other 'first wave' books.

We've been using look out sir since 2015 AOS dropped (only it was in the traditional sense where heroes got to pass on wounds from shooting on a 4+)

This I'll take as a compromise. Our houserule has been refined anyway to be more in line with LOTR adaption, where every terrain piece you cross and enemy model you cross to hit your target you take a -1 to hit (-3 max).

That came in place of saying area terrain flat out blocked line of sight.

Anyone else find it odd they’re still releasing a generals handbook this year? I guess for point adjustments to older tomes?

They said from day 1 of GHB 2016 that the GHB would be an annual release where they coudl use it to tweak points and add things to the game. Expect a new one every year.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

Davor wrote:

dosiere wrote:Anyone else find it odd they’re still releasing a generals handbook this year? I guess for point adjustments to older tomes?

Some would say GW is just sucking money out of their customers. Others would say GW is a business and needs to do to make money. Me? I would say the point costs should be in the rule book and we don't need to go down the road of having multiple books, but here we are starting a new edition with multiple books now. Not upset or surprised, just find it funny that Age of Sigmar was suppose to be about streamlined and making it easier, but already starting out the gate on being cumbersome because of a minimum of 3 books or two books and a bunch of printed out pages of Warscrolls to start playing a game.

What ever happened to having just one book to start with?

You're not getting points in the main rulebook. Realistically, you should never want that. The main rulebook isn't something that I ever really bring with me at this point.

If you want points without having a GHB, buy an army that has a book and isn't Seraphon, Fyreslayers, or one of the other 'first wave' books.

I disagree here respectfully. While I could be wrong here so I am only talking about myself, one of the reasons why I never got into The Hobbit when it was being a new edition for Lord of the Rings, was because of the multiple books I had to buy here. By that I mean I bought the starter set. Then GW wanted me to buy another $100 book just so I could have the points. WTF?! No thank you. So while the small mini rule book was included in the boxset of the game it had no points like the other editions had.

This is how I am seeing it. I see where you are coming from, and I agree, but I also see GW of old starting to trickle in. Again it's the "nickle and diming" us to death all over again. Well at least it's starting to.

To me a new edition should have everything in the book/boxset to play the game. I don't believe I should have to buy multiple "DLC" to get the FULL EXPERIANCE of a game to play. I guess I am old school and don't like the way how GW is trying to make their table top game as a video game.

If anything the new points should be free and we can download of their website. But alas, we need to buy two books now because points are updated. Another part bugs me about paying for updated points, is this should be Errata which should be free. Now we are paying for "patches". At least GW is not asking 40K prices yet for these patches.

The rules for the new edition will be free, Davor. The book that's being released sounds like it'll be mostly fluff, maps, etc. to me. We've always had points updated in the GHB. It's where players expect them to be.

 Kanluwen wrote:

NinthMusketeer wrote:So your stuff is bad, their stuff is good, and they need a nerf.

EnTyme wrote:
That "one trick" is basically a delete key for any non-monster enemy hero, though. Most lists only have at most three-four heroes that actually matter to the list. Two units of 30 Glade Guard could easily wipe them out or at least cripple them. I'm not saying magic and wizards don't need to be rebalanced, I'm just saying Glade Guard are good at taking out characters. Spell sniping is a problem, but so is ranged sniping. Thing "X" being more broken doesn't mean thing "Y" is balanced.

And "ranged sniping" is being addressed. Remember that we've been told that ranged units cannot fire out of combats. Magic sniping isn't being addressed at all, or at least we haven't seen anything suggesting it has been.


And if you can't

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Btw, 20 shots at 4+/4+ is an average of 5 wounds, easily able to kill a foot hero in that turn they have rend -3. Arcane bolt won't do that.

Arcane Bolt can be used multiple times during the course of a match and can be buffed up with a Balewind Vortex to have more range than a Glade Guard's Longbow.

Btw, suggesting that a 20 model block requiring no enemies within 3" of them at 4+/4+ with a "once per game" ability active is an "easily able to kill a foot hero" thing is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

You're not talking about a single Hero giving a buff there. You're talking about quite a bit of caveats and blowing a once per game ability to 'delete' a character--that's a one trick list and it's getting nerfed between the locking of units into combat and the Look Out Sir silliness.

Though I would totally get behind heroes ignoring look out sir when making their own shooting attacks, that's a good idea.

This needs to be handled very specifically though. It can't be just a blanket rule, because then it still makes Wizards get a boost. Look at the Aspect of the Sea for example; it gets to make ranged attacks as well as cast and have CC attacks too. It also benefits some Heroes that get ranged options for whatever reason.

It needs to be specific to units like the Waywatcher, Knight-Venator, and the Ironweld Engineers. Characters that aren't super fighty, aren't super commandy--they're basically just monster/character killers.

So your stuff is bad, their stuff is good, and they need a nerf. You are playing up your own downsides and completely ignoring theirs (for starters, arcane bolt is an average of 1.66 mw a turn, so three turns to do what bodkins will do in one). Also, vortex is a problem, we established that above. The only reason to bring it up again is to deflect because you can't defend your position.

I think we've argued the point enough, and it's starting to drift off-topic.

 EnTyme wrote:
I think we've argued the point enough, and it's starting to drift off-topic.

That's fair, I'll drop it.

The vortex is indeed a giant pain in the ass that needs addressed properly.

EnTyme wrote:The rules for the new edition will be free, Davor. The book that's being released sounds like it'll be mostly fluff, maps, etc. to me. We've always had points updated in the GHB. It's where players expect them to be.

All the rules will be free? That is good to know. I didn't know that. Mind you while it seems I am complaining, I am not complaining, just saying what I felt should have been done. After all I will be buying it just wishing it would have been more money to minis.

*edit*

Sorry depression kicked in today. I see the negative side is coming out. Will try some painting, and hopefully I have a better nite and a good sleep for tomorrow.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So your stuff is bad, their stuff is good, and they need a nerf. You are playing up your own downsides and completely ignoring theirs (for starters, arcane bolt is an average of 1.66 mw a turn, so three turns to do what bodkins will do in one).

If you want to realistically get into it, remember that Arcane Bolts are Mortal Wounds while Arcane Bodkins are "just" -3 Rend. Yes, you can put a hell of a lot more shots with Arcane Bodkins into a single target--but it's a once per game ability that requires you to be within 20 inches and is on what is supposed to be a premiere ranged unit that somehow is just hitting on 4s and wounding on 4s. We're also, as of the current crop of previews, seeing that now an enemy Wizard or Hero will get a flat -1 to Hit simply for standing around near a friendly unit. We're seeing that those Glade Guard are now going to be hitting on 5s and wounding on 4s, not counting any Command Abilities or spells that grant additional negatives to hit.


Additionally:
Glade Guard to get their +1 to Hit requires that the unit at the time of use be 20+ models and not be within 3" of an enemy unit.

I'm well aware that Glade Guard are able to 'delete units' as EnTyme put it, but I think you're ignoring the point I've been trying to hammer home here. There's very few ranged units that can do what Glade Guard do and this silliness of the "Look Out Sir" is targeting something that realistically isn't an issue. If it applies to spells? I'll retract my statement. But until we have that confirmed--or we get more things like the Glade Captain with Battle Standard(an 'umbrella' of nope to spell wounds) spread across multiple armies--I will always consider ranged to be a nonissue when spells exist.

Also, vortex is a problem, we established that above. The only reason to bring it up again is to deflect because you can't defend your position.

The reason to bring it up is, again, that it is nothing but beneficial for the caster. You cast it once, it's there. It renders the caster immune to CC, it grants them +1 to their casting values, and it makes it so that the range on their spells is perked up significantly.

auticus wrote:
The vortex is indeed a giant pain in the ass that needs addressed properly.

I think it needs to be re-designed from the ground up. There's just no way to flex it in its current incarnation so it won't be abused. I could see that being addressed in the new rulebook though, including the batch of terrain warscrolls in there would be nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So your stuff is bad, their stuff is good, and they need a nerf. You are playing up your own downsides and completely ignoring theirs (for starters, arcane bolt is an average of 1.66 mw a turn, so three turns to do what bodkins will do in one).

If you want to realistically get into it, remember that Arcane Bolts are Mortal Wounds while Arcane Bodkins are "just" -3 Rend. Yes, you can put a hell of a lot more shots with Arcane Bodkins into a single target--but it's a once per game ability that requires you to be within 20 inches and is on what is supposed to be a premiere ranged unit that somehow is just hitting on 4s and wounding on 4s. We're also, as of the current crop of previews, seeing that now an enemy Wizard or Hero will get a flat -1 to Hit simply for standing around near a friendly unit. We're seeing that those Glade Guard are now going to be hitting on 5s and wounding on 4s, not counting any Command Abilities or spells that grant additional negatives to hit.

You're proving my point. Why don't we agree to disagree and drop it?

 EnTyme wrote:
The rules for the new edition will be free, Davor. The book that's being released sounds like it'll be mostly fluff, maps, etc. to me. We've always had points updated in the GHB. It's where players expect them to be.

like with the 40k rules?
and if you want to play anything but "open" you need the book (no one would consider a game as "free were only lvl 1 is available and you need to pay to get lvl 2-10)

Matched play rules have always been in the GHB, and I expect them to stay there. I expect the "AoS 2.0" book to be more or less optional. I expect the content to be closer to this than this

 kodos wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
The rules for the new edition will be free, Davor. The book that's being released sounds like it'll be mostly fluff, maps, etc. to me. We've always had points updated in the GHB. It's where players expect them to be.

like with the 40k rules?
and if you want to play anything but "open" you need the book (no one would consider a game as "free were only lvl 1 is available and you need to pay to get lvl 2-10)

This remains to be seen. With 40k, you have access to "Power" levels as well as "Points". You don't need a Codex for anything but the army special rules/relics to play if you do strictly Power.

AoS doesn't have Power. We just have Points, and people are apparently hopelessly unable to figure out how to balance armies without someone telling you "This big scary monster is meaner than Dave the Accountant" so Open Play is basically nonexistent because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
Matched play rules have always been in the GHB, and I expect them to stay there. I expect the "AoS 2.0" book to be more or less optional. I expect the content to be closer to this than this

I'm thinking that the rules for Matched Play, Narrative, and Open Play will be in the AoS 2.0 rulebook same as they are for 40k.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
The rules for the new edition will be free, Davor. The book that's being released sounds like it'll be mostly fluff, maps, etc. to me. We've always had points updated in the GHB. It's where players expect them to be.

like with the 40k rules?
and if you want to play anything but "open" you need the book (no one would consider a game as "free were only lvl 1 is available and you need to pay to get lvl 2-10)

This remains to be seen. With 40k, you have access to "Power" levels as well as "Points". You don't need a Codex for anything but the army special rules/relics to play if you do strictly Power.

Like I said the full game is not available for free, you get 1 Scenario and Power Points (from the online army builder) together with the core rules

 kodos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
The rules for the new edition will be free, Davor. The book that's being released sounds like it'll be mostly fluff, maps, etc. to me. We've always had points updated in the GHB. It's where players expect them to be.

like with the 40k rules?
and if you want to play anything but "open" you need the book (no one would consider a game as "free were only lvl 1 is available and you need to pay to get lvl 2-10)

This remains to be seen. With 40k, you have access to "Power" levels as well as "Points". You don't need a Codex for anything but the army special rules/relics to play if you do strictly Power.

Like I said the full game is not available for free, you get 1 Scenario and Power Points (from the online army builder) together with the core rules

And you can get more scenarios from Chapter Approved for 40k.

On a totally different plane of existence, AoS gives you points and scenarios/battleplans for your army in your army book.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And you can get more scenarios from Chapter Approved for 40k

You missed that we are talking about "free rules" here, so it is still that the full game is not available for free and you should not expect it to be different for AoS 2.0

 kodos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And you can get more scenarios from Chapter Approved for 40k

You missed that we are talking about "free rules" here, so it is still that the full game is not available for free and you should not expect it to be different for AoS 2.0

Except you're literally missing, again, that you're trying to compare two different game systems.

AOS doesn't have Power costs.

Circular argument is circular.

It sadly is.

I did like the notation about Command Points today. I'll be interested to see how it will interact with Reinforcement Points and Summoning.

That's what I'm wondering. Getting a few extra command points in exchange for keep 150 points in reserve may actually give me an incentive to look into summoning.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And you can get more scenarios from Chapter Approved for 40k

You missed that we are talking about "free rules" here, so it is still that the full game is not available for free and you should not expect it to be different for AoS 2.0

Except you're literally missing, again, that you're trying to compare two different game systems.

AOS doesn't have Power costs.

AoS does not have any kind of points so you conclude that the full game will be free in 2.0

I say there will be point costs in 2.0, as there will be free rules, were you can try the game or run test/demo games and the full game will only be available if you pay for it (this is nothing bad)
and you have not brought an argument to proof me wrong yet

Matched play will have point costs. Those will be in a book that is not free as has been the case since GHB 2016.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looks liike we can spend points on command points. 50 points = 1 command point. (edit: nevermind I see a few of you talking about this already lol)

Seems like some people think that it's applicable to reserve points, while I thought it was unspent points period. Since you have to allocate points to reinforcement/reserve during list building, I'd assume that you literally you'd just have to have unspent points

Floating prison pylons?

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Seems like some people think that it's applicable to reserve points, while I thought it was unspent points period. Since you have to allocate points to reinforcement/reserve during list building, I'd assume that you literally you'd just have to have unspent points

You are correct, reserve points are spent points.

The next one is by the interpretation of the rule, you can spend points on a battalion, get the +1 CP for that, then also get the applicable CP on top of that, since a battalion is not strictly spending points on an actual unit.

So say you have a 200 point battalion. You'd get +5 CP for choosing it.

+1 CP for choosing the battalion, then +4 CP for choosing to spend 200 points on something not a unit.

The wording says "not spent on units", so it'll need some clarification, but the FB page replied to several questions about reinforcement points and CP with the implication that they'll be talking more about reinforcement points in another preview.

auticus wrote:
The next one is by the interpretation of the rule, you can spend points on a battalion, get the +1 CP for that, then also get the applicable CP on top of that, since a battalion is not strictly spending points on an actual unit.

So say you have a 200 point battalion. You'd get +5 CP for choosing it.

+1 CP for choosing the battalion, then +4 CP for choosing to spend 200 points on something not a unit.

It seems like that is true ATM but I imagine that is not how it will work, probably fixed with an FAQ or errata.

I already have people asking me about this for our public campaign and I am nixing that unless the FAQ comes out and says thats how you get to do it. Seems absurd to me right now that that is how it works so hopefully it gets clarified.