Switch Theme:

Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm torn on Path to Glory personally. I like the concept but I'm concerned about the "territories" bit.

Hopefully the book versions of things will expand it further.

Unless GW brings back the Realms of Battle map I assume it'll work like how Drukhari gain/lose territory as part of their Crusade system.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 20:39:39


 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 lord_blackfang wrote:
 Mr. Grey wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")


No but seriously. You're complaining about the FULL AoS rules for free. Really??


You don't really have to repeat what I already said if you're not even going to add some delirious justification for the bloated size tho


Well size might have been issue couple decades ago. Thankfully we live in present.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




 ingtaer wrote:
 nels1031 wrote:
 ingtaer wrote:
 nels1031 wrote:
 ingtaer wrote:
Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?


Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.


Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.


In the same boat with my Fyreslayers. Losing Lords of the Lodge is a blow, but I'm not despairing until I see all options.


Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.

Do we think this could be the classic GW trick. Where warscroll battalions aren't allowed in matched play, but that new AOS 3.0 battle tomes will have scrollwar battalions in them that can be used in matched play? Similar to vigilus detachments in 9th edition 40k being obsoleted to be replaced with armies of reknown and supplements.
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

EightFoldPath wrote:
Spoiler:
 ingtaer wrote:
 nels1031 wrote:
 ingtaer wrote:
 nels1031 wrote:
 ingtaer wrote:
Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?


Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.


Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.


In the same boat with my Fyreslayers. Losing Lords of the Lodge is a blow, but I'm not despairing until I see all options.


Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.

Do we think this could be the classic GW trick. Where warscroll battalions aren't allowed in matched play, but that new AOS 3.0 battle tomes will have scrollwar battalions in them that can be used in matched play? Similar to vigilus detachments in 9th edition 40k being obsoleted to be replaced with armies of reknown and supplements.

No. Warscroll Battalions will be relegated to Narrative Play and I would find it unlikely to see new Core Battalions in the battletomes (although it is possible). And you do know that 40K has had supplements as far back as 3rd edition?

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Anyways, having read the new rules they do look like an improvement. The new layout is certainly nice. I can see some rough edges where the FAQ will be needed for clarification, but my biggest criticism (other than random initiative) is in balance of certain core options which is relatively superficial. While I do not like the cap on hit/wound penalties I can also see that they have taken it into account in other areas of the rules rather than just slapping it on as a band-aid, which helps a lot. A lot of things getting terms that really needed them, like wards, and standardized mechanics do a great job of 'cleaning up' the ruleset and making it more practical to use. I am quite happy with the rules update overall.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/14 22:42:39


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Anyways, having read the new rules they do look like an improvement. The new layout is certainly nice. I can see some rough edges where the FAQ will be needed for clarification, but my biggest criticism (other than random initiative) is in balance of certain core options which is relatively superficial. While I do not like the cap on hit/wound penalties I can also see that they have taken it into account in other areas of the rules rather than just slapping it on as a band-aid, which helps a lot. A lot of things getting terms that really needed them, like wards, and standardized mechanics do a great job of 'cleaning up' the ruleset and making it more practical to use. I am quite happy with the rules update overall.

I wonder if those "rough edges" will be in a "rare rules" section like 40k did for 9th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 22:43:42


 
   
Made in us
Crazed Gorger



New Jersey

Anybody got the skinny on the Mawtribes content from White Dwarf?
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 GrosseSax wrote:
Anybody got the skinny on the Mawtribes content from White Dwarf?

I've also been interested in this. Wondering how it incorporates the Excelsis stuff!

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

That "Code of Conduct"... Jesus...

 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, what needs to happen is "Matched Play" gets defined as "Organized, Tournament Play".

Because that's what it's really talking about anyways.

Let the rest of us actually have fun and the tryhards can stay in "Matched Play".
Matched Play is how most people play the game. Just because you don't like tournaments and have a massive axe to grind with them doesn't mean that the main method of playing the game should be renamed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 22:48:46


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

tneva82 wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
 Mr. Grey wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")


No but seriously. You're complaining about the FULL AoS rules for free. Really??


You don't really have to repeat what I already said if you're not even going to add some delirious justification for the bloated size tho


Well size might have been issue couple decades ago. Thankfully we live in present.


I just downloaded it and it was 44MB, and it downloaded in five seconds. The file size is no issue at all.

And HBMC having an issue with one page that says “be kind”… well…

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 22:57:28


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Terrifying Wraith




The code of conduct page is incredibly patronizing
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Billicus wrote:
The code of conduct page is incredibly patronizing

Considering that there are people on this site don't see it as unsporting to not remind their opponent when they forgot something, it probably should be more patronizing.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





It's just Jervis Johnson's own code put in the book, that's all.

Don't see why people could be irked by it. It's basically being polite and fairplay.
   
Made in gb
RogueSangre



West Sussex, UK

 GrosseSax wrote:
Anybody got the skinny on the Mawtribes content from White Dwarf?


I only had a chance to give it a quick look over earlier but it just seemed to be stats for a named Tyrant and a named kraken-eater mega gargant. Couldn’t see any point values for either so just intended to be used with the provided narrative scenarios. The scenario involving the kraken-eater character required 4 kraken-eaters (character + 3 others) so an expensive scenario to run.

There is also a rule section on how to make your own Ogre or Kraken-Eater Mega Tyrant heroes which appears to be the rules they used to make the two names characters.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And HBMC having an issue with one page that says “be kind”… well…
And it's Johnny from the top rope, coming in to jump to conclusions.

My issue with that page is the "ask permission to use unpainted models".

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The weird thing about the bit about unpainted or proxy models is - ok, so what if they say no? It's not like you're asking permission to use unpainted miniatures or proxies but you have a painted set of real miniatures sitting there to use in case they say no.

So it really just comes down to "don't force someone to play with you who doesn't want to play with you" which is like - um, ok?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 23:22:27


 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:


My issue with that page is the "ask permission to use unpainted models".


And proxies.

Also, it's being polite to ask your opponent if it doesn't bother him if you do so. Most of the time, when you ask politely, your opponent will allow it.

No reason to be afraid, it's just a code. It's not mandatory...well, maybe unless you go in an official GW tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The weird thing about the bit about unpainted or proxy models is - ok, so what if they say no?


Well you keep chatting with your opponent and find a solution together. It's called "communication".

Besides, the code isn't a mandatory rule itself. It's just a code. The spirit of the game, if you will.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 23:29:34


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




It would be especially silly in a tournament setting to show up to a game and then have to ask your opponent for permission to use your unpainted models, with the consequence for them saying "no" being that they automatically win because you have no army left.



   
Made in gb
Terrifying Wraith




People who think it's okay to be a dick aren't going to change because of that page, it's a silly thing to put in the book
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Sarouan wrote:
No reason to be afraid, it's just a code.
Who said anything about being afraid?

You lot have got a real knack for jumping to conclusions...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 23:32:55


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

yukishiro1 wrote:
It would be especially silly in a tournament setting to show up to a game and then have to ask your opponent for permission to use your unpainted models, with the consequence for them saying "no" being that they automatically win because you have no army left.





Most major/large tournaments (ergo the kind where its not just the regular local club members) mandate that models be painted already under their own rules. So you'd already have forfeited the tournament before you'd get to the table.

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well, obviously. Thus illustrating why a "leave it up to your opponent when you get to the game store whether they agree to play you" seems like an odd thing to put in a code of conduct. Isn't that inherently obvious that you can't force someone to play against you if they don't want to?

It seems to basically just amount to a finger-waggling at people who aren't doing the hobby the way GW wants them to.

I say this as someone who scrupulously paints every model and would never play with unpainted stuff, BTW - and who doesn't particularly like to play unpainted armies. But that's something I can handle on my own, I don't need GW to stick it into a code of conduct. I think it was a bad thing to include in what is otherwise an unobjectionable document, all it does is upset people, much like the 10VP thing in 40k.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 23:38:11


 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
No reason to be afraid, it's just a code.
Who said anything about being afraid?

You lot have got a real knack for jumping to conclusions...



Well, you talk about having an issue with it, even though it's just a code and you don't have to follow part or all of it if you don't want to. I assume you are somewhat afraid of it being hypothetically used against you. Even though it may never happen.

Besides, if it's just one line...I think it's a bit of an overreaction to complain about it.


Most tournaments do indeed have rules about painted models / armies, anyway. And if they want to use the code...they will clearly announce it in their rules, like the other rules tournaments always show for its participants before they apply for it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 23:39:33


 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
And HBMC having an issue with one page that says “be kind”… well…
And it's Johnny from the top rope, coming in to jump to conclusions.

My issue with that page is the "ask permission to use unpainted models".

Would you prefer the 40K rules for unpainted models in the 'Chapter Approved - Grand Tournament 2020 Mission Pack'?

When you play a Grand Tournament game, there are 10 victory points available if every model in your army is painted to a Battle Ready standard. Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Ghaz wrote:
Would you prefer the 40K rules for unpainted models in the 'Chapter Approved - Grand Tournament 2020 Mission Pack'?

When you play a Grand Tournament game, there are 10 victory points available if every model in your army is painted to a Battle Ready standard. Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base.
Those are even worse.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

changemod wrote:
I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.

Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ClockworkZion wrote:
changemod wrote:
I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.

Double turn is a feature, not a bug.


If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not blaming luck is another weird thing to put in there. I mean yes, on the one hand, it's tiresome to come across the guy who tries to say every time he doesn't roflstomp you it's only because he's rolling badly. But blaming bad luck is a classic way people defuse tense situations. Including it seems like a case of defensiveness on the part of the developers - "no, it's your own fault you lost, not ours!"

"Never blame the dice" is useful as a rule of thumb for improving one's own play, but I really don't think it belongs in a code of conduct designed to produce pleasant games - if anything, telling people they can't let off steam by blaming the dice gods seems likely to increase the odds of unpleasantness, not decrease them.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I think it's less about blaming bad luck and more about still talking about a bad (or good) dice roll 2 turns later.

Or 2 weeks later.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: