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.

I am only wait for the AoS shift to make spells models. Want to play a psychic heavy army like GK, demons or 1ksons, need to buy 2-3 boxs of models to represent something that was a token or a skill check before.

A single 30€ purchase to represent endless spells is hardly going to break the bank at that point.

Also Endless Spells are optional and all Wizards get their own spell set plus sometimes more from faction allegiance. Don't make up problems where none exist.

When it is 2-3 difference boxs it is suddenly 90 euro, which is a lot of money. Specially now with the crazy inflation we have. Plus you actually have to be able to get them. When your store gets 2-3 boxs, then there is a high chance you won't get the spells you want. Not a problem for armies that aren't psychic power based, but it is a problem for armies that do need them.

And yet AoS armies that specialise in Wizards still don't need to buy the Endless Spells to be good. Ergo making up a problem that doesn't exist.

From what I have seen all armies in AoS have to have to faction building, and the magic ones run the faction spells or not spells for the non magic factions. Even the steam dwarfs have relics that let them run around with spells in a bottle. So people very do need some of them. And from what I understand no army in AoS including the sun elfs and chaos demons are as "magical" as 1ksons or GK, unless summon mechanics are counted.

Karol wrote:
From what I have seen all armies in AoS have to have to faction building, and the magic ones run the faction spells or not spells for the non magic factions. Even the steam dwarfs have relics that let them run around with spells in a bottle. So people very do need some of them. And from what I understand no army in AoS including the sun elfs and chaos demons are as "magical" as 1ksons or GK, unless summon mechanics are counted.

Karol, Endless Spells are in AoS, not 40k. And you play 40k, not AoS. And this is a 40k thread, not an AoS thread. So, why are you complaining about Endless Spells?

With how the rules from one end up in the other sooner or later, I fully expect stuff like faction buildings and faction spells to become obligatory sooner or later. AoS just had a new edition and it is greatly influanced by how 9th ed rules work. We even have a lot of faction terrain right now. Thankfuly to use them one has to use tournament rule sets and there is no , in order to get chapter tactics you have to field the bunker or the ork gargant head etc.

Karol wrote:
With how the rules from one end up in the other sooner or later...

*gasps* Sigmar might get Strength and Toughness back one of these days?

Karol wrote:
From what I have seen all armies in AoS have to have to faction building,

12 out of 24 AoS armies have faction terrain all of which are optional. Sylvaneth have had Wyldwoods since AoS 1.

and the magic ones run the faction spells or not spells for the non magic factions.

13 out of 24 armies have faction-specific Endless Spells and Fyreslayers have their not-magic Endless Spells, for a total of 14 out of 24. Again, all optional.

Even the steam dwarfs have relics that let them run around with spells in a bottle.

One artefact, also optional.

So people very do need some of them.

Nope because (say it with me now) they are all optional.

And from what I understand no army in AoS including the sun elfs and chaos demons are as "magical" as 1ksons or GK, unless summon mechanics are counted.

Sacrosanct Stormcast, Cities of Sigmar, Soulblight, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Hedonites, Disciples, Maggotkin, Idoneth, Lumineth, Seraphon, Sylvaneth, Nighthaunt, Gloomspite, and Warclans are all pretty wizardy. Not a single one of these factions requires their Endless Spells (if they have them) to be good, fun or competetive.
Just because you hate 40k and want to be mad all the time about it doesn't mean you can just make things up that have no basis in reality.

 Gert wrote:
...Just because you hate 40k and want to be mad all the time about it doesn't mean you can just make things up that have no basis in reality.

You clearly haven't been on Dakka very long. People who hate 40k and want to be mad about it make things up that have no basis in reality all the time, as do people who love 40k and want to smear other games/other editions, or people who had a favorite edition, or a least favorite edition, and that's just in 40k General.

I've been around long enough and I call out nonsense when I see it.

Karol wrote:
With how the rules from one end up in the other sooner or later, I fully expect stuff like faction buildings and faction spells to become obligatory sooner or later. AoS just had a new edition and it is greatly influanced by how 9th ed rules work. We even have a lot of faction terrain right now. Thankfuly to use them one has to use tournament rule sets and there is no , in order to get chapter tactics you have to field the bunker or the ork gargant head etc.

Soooo.....you're worrying about a problem that might exist, in a future edition, instead of wondering about the rules for your army in their Shiny New Best Ever Codex(TM) that's going to be released in a couple of weeks?

 Gert wrote:
I've been around long enough and I call out nonsense when I see it.

But clearly not long enough to learn that if you argue with Karol he just digs in his heels.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
But clearly not long enough to learn that if you argue with Karol he just digs in his heels.

Maybe I'm just an optimist that hopes people look at the nonsense they write one day and decide to just not write nonsense anymore. Futile? Maybe.

I think in the case of a fifteen-year-old your best bet is to wait three to five years; outside intervention is unlikely to make a difference, but eventually he'll be horribly embarrassed about it under his own power.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Soooo.....you're worrying about a problem that might exist, in a future edition, instead of wondering about the rules for your army in their Shiny New Best Ever Codex(TM) that's going to be released in a couple of weeks?

Why would I wonder, the codex was leaked already. Wondering about stuff that already exists seems strange.

Plus am I wrong for saying that the rules for w40k and AoS mirror each other? And in one of the last big events in the US the SoB terrain was a crucial part of the army performance, but it only worked, because the orgenisers allowed the people attending to replace a pice of event terrain with a faction specific pice of terrain. Am I suppose to think, that GW makes all those bunkers, ork fortifications etc to not sell them because under thet errain rules existing right now it is very hard to use them. And if they do that, why shouldn't they do faction spells too. Seem like a logical thing to do, specially as they could link them to the event books like the rust book, and have more then just a book for people to buy.

So your "evidence" is one list from one tournament, the latter of which probably wasn't official.

Karol wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Soooo.....you're worrying about a problem that might exist, in a future edition, instead of wondering about the rules for your army in their Shiny New Best Ever Codex(TM) that's going to be released in a couple of weeks?

Why would I wonder, the codex was leaked already. Wondering about stuff that already exists seems strange.

Plus am I wrong for saying that the rules for w40k and AoS mirror each other? And in one of the last big events in the US the SoB terrain was a crucial part of the army performance, but it only worked, because the orgenisers allowed the people attending to replace a pice of event terrain with a faction specific pice of terrain. Am I suppose to think, that GW makes all those bunkers, ork fortifications etc to not sell them because under thet errain rules existing right now it is very hard to use them. And if they do that, why shouldn't they do faction spells too. Seem like a logical thing to do, specially as they could link them to the event books like the rust book, and have more then just a book for people to buy.

The entire codex? Or are you just referring to the limited amount of leaks we've already seen?

And gw already tried to incorporate those faction specific terrain pieces into games in that book they released earlier this year. You know, the one that went over like a lead balloon? You're worrying about problems that don't currently exist, instead of things that do.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Smoke Launchers are a Stratagem. . . Like, fething why?!

It may seem like a minor point but there were multiple times in 8th where I employed a Rhino rush up the table for the sake of the mission/initiative, and many Rhinos would pop smoke to help ride out the inevitable counterfire. Something about the removal of the ability to pull a tactic like that and sticking it behind a CP cost (and for one unit only) just really rubs me the wrong way, and seems sort of indicative of larger problems.

Its part of the design philosophy though. You move the models around the table, but the tactics/strategy layer comes from cards/CPs.

Fundamentally our way of thinking doesn't fit with the modern game.

My equivalent would be 2nd ed. My mech platoon (3 chimera with troops, 3 'Russ) would roll onto the table, fire all its weapons, pop smoke, turn 2 drive through the smoke, guns blazing.

But now my strategy is meant to be move and fire models, while doing clever gotcha's with cards. I just don't think that way? But a lot of people do and indeed far prefer that to stuff limited by their model selection.

Yup, we are not of any interest to gw anymore.

I also can confirm what ERJAK said. Having brought dozens of players into the game, for many people painting has been a huge motivation killer, though it kind of bleeds into the "my models suck" problem.
Many people start out, work hard to get their stuff painted, play their first few games and then realize that they need to buy and paint even more models to actually be able to win. At that point having to invest all the work to paint more is more of a problem than spending additional money for most - either they quit, or the start fielding large amounts of unpainted models. And the more unpainted models there are, the less is the motivation to actually paint them all.

Unless you're talking about people who didn't talk to anyone or do any research, and just jumped right into the tournament scene with the first 5 things they bought, what you're describing sounds a lot less like a painting problem and a lot more like a problem with the way that group handles new players.

Racerguy180 wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Smoke Launchers are a Stratagem. . . Like, fething why?!

It may seem like a minor point but there were multiple times in 8th where I employed a Rhino rush up the table for the sake of the mission/initiative, and many Rhinos would pop smoke to help ride out the inevitable counterfire. Something about the removal of the ability to pull a tactic like that and sticking it behind a CP cost (and for one unit only) just really rubs me the wrong way, and seems sort of indicative of larger problems.

Its part of the design philosophy though. You move the models around the table, but the tactics/strategy layer comes from cards/CPs.

Fundamentally our way of thinking doesn't fit with the modern game.

My equivalent would be 2nd ed. My mech platoon (3 chimera with troops, 3 'Russ) would roll onto the table, fire all its weapons, pop smoke, turn 2 drive through the smoke, guns blazing.

But now my strategy is meant to be move and fire models, while doing clever gotcha's with cards. I just don't think that way? But a lot of people do and indeed far prefer that to stuff limited by their model selection.

Yup, we are not of any interest to gw anymore.

Agree with this RE:9th. Even though it's (erroneously imo) labeled the "edition where movement finally matters", most of the strategic advantage still lies in setting up tactics that allow you to pop strats at the right moment. It's not movement at all anymore. No. It's timing. That's totally fine imo, but personally, I like the older way a little better. As stated above - just put the launchers on my vehicle where they belong and write rules such that I feel like I'm maneuvering my army to put it in the best possible place to win. The way it works now I feel less like a "general" moving his troops around the field and more like a Trainer making sure I've summoned the correct Pokeman to the battle and trying to ensure he get's his power-ups at the right time.

It's not inherently bad imo. It's just not the direction my group enjoys.

Tycho wrote:

Agree with this RE:9th. Even though it's (erroneously imo) labeled the "edition where movement finally matters", most of the strategic advantage still lies in setting up tactics that allow you to pop strats at the right moment. It's not movement at all anymore. No. It's timing. That's totally fine imo, but personally, I like the older way a little better. As stated above - just put the launchers on my vehicle where they belong and write rules such that I feel like I'm maneuvering my army to put it in the best possible place to win. The way it works now I feel less like a "general" moving his troops around the field and more like a Trainer making sure I've summoned the correct Pokeman to the battle and trying to ensure he get's his power-ups at the right time.

It's not inherently bad imo. It's just not the direction my group enjoys.

Definitely gotta disagree here, movement is very easily the most important phase of the game that matters wayyyyy more than any other by an incredible margin. Using your movement to position correctly is a large part of the timing you mentioned, in fact! Especially with the way Primary works in 9th edition, your movement phase isn't just setting you up for this turn, you have to make sure it works with the upcoming turn as well

Edit: I still cannot get quoting to function correctly!

^Movement is important, sure, but there's a lot more emphasis on planning for and timing your Stratagems, as well as knowing the possible Strats your opponent can pull off. Imo it's pretty aggravating, its not the sort of thing I want to spend my time thinking about. I'd prefer to spend my time thinking about vectors of attack and LOS, and the engagement with terrain.

In prior editions we had Psychic powers, but the number of those were pretty limited in comparison to the 30 or so strats each book has, and Psychic powers were limited to only a few models and one phase.

I definitely don't agree with the idea that vectors of attack and LoS aren't important, or are de-emphasized. In 8th sure, but the terrain rules play a very important part of every game of 9th I've played. As far as strats and such go, I've found just asking your opponent what they can do to alleviate the mental burden. Whenever I plan to do something, I just ask if they can interact with it, if no, great! Off I go. If yes, cool, I didn't get caught out.

Gores wrote:
I definitely don't agree with the idea that vectors of attack and LoS aren't important, or are de-emphasized. In 8th sure, but the terrain rules play a very important part of every game of 9th I've played. As far as strats and such go, I've found just asking your opponent what they can do to alleviate the mental burden. Whenever I plan to do something, I just ask if they can interact with it, if no, great! Off I go. If yes, cool, I didn't get caught out.

Oh I didn't suggest that movement and terrain weren't important as well, but strats add this other layer of gak on top that can actually be absolutely critical.

And as for asking about possible interactions, the issue I have is that covering the possibilities can actually be pretty difficult, especially since many can be combined. Imo it's a layer that just doesn't need to be there, or at least could be extremely cut down.

I really believe most 9th edition codex stratagems are much milder than their 8th counterpats.


Theres not that many times I have changed my strategy based in the stratagems my opponent has access too. The game is still all played on the table, I don't really care most of the time if my opponent has X buff to their shooting, etc... instead of a couple "I activate -1 to hit" or "You can't retreat", but even those aren't that relevant to my planning, because if the opponent really wants to use them theres nothing I can do agaisnt it.

 Galas wrote:
I really believe most 9th edition codex stratagems are much milder than their 8th counterpats.


Theres not that many times I have changed my strategy based in the stratagems my opponent has access too. The game is still all played on the table, I don't really care most of the time if my opponent has X buff to their shooting, etc... instead of a couple "I activate -1 to hit" or "You can't retreat", but even those aren't that relevant to my planning, because if the opponent really wants to use them theres nothing I can do agaisnt it.

That gets back to my original gripe about Smokescreen going from a native unit ability, Smoke Launchers, to being a Strat. The Strat actually removes strategic "on table" options in favor of a "gotcha mechanic" in response to an opponent action. It's a negative value-add to the game, imo. And if it's "not relevant to your planning" then it really didn't need to make the move to Strat from unit-ability.

I agree in the fact that I actually don't quite like that much stratagems.

Many of the things they do could be achieved by other means (Like changing the Cp strat of making units veterans for +X point costs like trueborns, etc...) or the "equipement" like melta bombs being just upgrades you pay for.

But they are also aren't as bad as most people makes them to be.

I really believe, tought, that they should be more attached to your actual commands assets. I'm not talking about straight up AoS command habilities but more LOTR might points.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Gores wrote:
I definitely don't agree with the idea that vectors of attack and LoS aren't important, or are de-emphasized. In 8th sure, but the terrain rules play a very important part of every game of 9th I've played. As far as strats and such go, I've found just asking your opponent what they can do to alleviate the mental burden. Whenever I plan to do something, I just ask if they can interact with it, if no, great! Off I go. If yes, cool, I didn't get caught out.

Oh I didn't suggest that movement and terrain weren't important as well, but strats add this other layer of gak on top that can actually be absolutely critical.

And as for asking about possible interactions, the issue I have is that covering the possibilities can actually be pretty difficult, especially since many can be combined. Imo it's a layer that just doesn't need to be there, or at least could be extremely cut down.

Sure, that's totally fair. Personally I don't find the extra layer too burdensome, and adds more than it detracts until it starts taking away wargear and turning it into strats. But in general I'm a fan of the resource management aspect strats add, and in practice don't find theres actually a ton of possibilities my opponents have to gum up my works, but I also play a lot and everyone will have a different level of how much they think its fair to remember

The turning of equipment into strats is pretty awful. I'm surprised Hunter Killer missiles didn't suffer the same fate.

I dislike the implementation of stratagems because too many of them are tactical and not strategic. The idea of having a limited pool of strategic resources that you expend for various benefits is a sound idea - I really like the ones spent during list construction and wish those could be expanded - but Strats that you use during the game for extra damage and whatnot, and especially the reactionary 'gotcha!' strats, are just awful.

As to the (non-problem of) Endless Spells, those would be cool in 40k. In fact, I'm sure that a lot of here thought that the much-hyped Psychic Awakening was GW's way of introducing such a concept into 40k. Instead there wasn't much psychics, and not a lot of awakening, just repeated Primaris rules and half-hearted tweaks to each army in the build up to 9th but man, it would'a been cool if we'd have got some. I own tons of Endless Spells and I don't even play AoS. They're great minis.