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.

While I am exited for the new edition the more we see the less I am being enthused. Yes I know there is more to come, but I have a feeling we don't. To me, from what I am seeing, this is really not a new edition. This is just like the General's Handbook. Just a few tweaks. Not much has really changed to call this a new edition.

I am not saying I am correct since it's my opinion only. This will not stop me from buying it and restart playing once I see the changes done. This also doesn't mean I don't like it, I do. Just calling it a new edition just seems so wrong to me. How can this be a new edition? Almost everything is the same.

New magic spells. Yes that is something entirely new. I would call this a supplement rather than a new edition.

Can't shoot out of combat mechanic. A small Tweak rather than a new mechanic. New mechanic for double turn. New mechanic for spells. Can't remember if anything was said how assaulting works. So with this that I see, is this really a new edition? No, not at all. Small tweaks that is it. I hate to say this, but it just screams GW of old, doing very little and exaggerating like it's a huge difference. Again this is something we get in supplements not really a new edition. We got this in 40K. New books for different ways to play.

We don't even get points in the game. We need to buy a separate book. So again this screams of supplements, not a new edition.

So what we have very little added to Age of Sigmar. Not enough is added to be called a new edition. Again, time will tell and this could be the tip of the ice burg. I don't know, seeing this is still GW and seeing the rules that have changed seem lazily done, I have a feeling that this is more the entire picture than the tip. I really hope I am wrong here. Non the less I will still play the game and like it.

Just calling it a second edition just seems wrong.

Davor wrote:
While I am exited for the new edition the more we see the less I am being enthused. Yes I know there is more to come, but I have a feeling we don't. To me, from what I am seeing, this is really not a new edition. This is just like the General's Handbook. Just a few tweaks. Not much has really changed to call this a new edition.

I am not saying I am correct since it's my opinion only. This will not stop me from buying it and restart playing once I see the changes done. This also doesn't mean I don't like it, I do. Just calling it a new edition just seems so wrong to me. How can this be a new edition? Almost everything is the same.

Was 40k 4th edition really new edition? 5th? 6th? FB 5th ed? 7th? 8th?

What constitutes new edition?

They don't need to and shouldn't need to re invent the game every edition. That's a sure way to lose a playerbase if you ask me.

I'd definitely say it's a new edition. It's just like 40k going from 6th to 7th. The only part I really see a discussion over is whether it's AOS 2.0 or 3.0.

tneva82 wrote:

Davor wrote:
While I am exited for the new edition the more we see the less I am being enthused. Yes I know there is more to come, but I have a feeling we don't. To me, from what I am seeing, this is really not a new edition. This is just like the General's Handbook. Just a few tweaks. Not much has really changed to call this a new edition.

I am not saying I am correct since it's my opinion only. This will not stop me from buying it and restart playing once I see the changes done. This also doesn't mean I don't like it, I do. Just calling it a new edition just seems so wrong to me. How can this be a new edition? Almost everything is the same.

Was 40k 4th edition really new edition? 5th? 6th? FB 5th ed? 7th? 8th?

I have said numerous times we have always been playing third edition .XXXX. 4th was 3.1, 5th was 3.2, 6 was 3.3 and 7 was 3.4.

What constitutes new edition?

ignore this, formatting got screwed up and I lost interest fixing it.

So if this will be supplement...Tournaments will have to define are these used or not? As supplements are additional ways to play they aren't mandatory or even on default "on".

Your describtion of a new edition seems to me like a completely new game. A new edition is just tweeks to an already established ruleset. An supplement is not about tweeking core rules, but additions to a game, like new ways to play the game, new magic items, new battleplans - much like Malign Portents.

I think it's a new edition because GW chose to call it that. No other criteria needed, honestly.

Any changes to the core rules such that the original free pdf is no longer valid is probably all GW deems necessary to increment that edition number. I imagine they're also pretty hesitant to do that too often for fear of rule whiplash.

Lemondish wrote:
I think it's a new edition because GW chose to call it that. No other criteria needed, honestly.

Any changes to the core rules such that the original free pdf is no longer valid is probably all GW deems necessary to increment that edition number. I imagine they're also pretty hesitant to do that too often for fear of rule whiplash.

The way people whine about books being "invalidated" when an FAQ comes out, I can imagine GW is hesitant to declare something a new edition unless they really feel the scope of changes warrants it.

I started with 7th (right after the Dark Angels 7th Edition Codex Dropped), and 7th Edition compared to 8th Edition... huge difference. Definitely much closer to a new game than a supplement.

That said, since AoS has been a "living" game for so long, I can't see AoS 2nd Edition actually being a new game. My guess is that it was time to progress the story (through miniatures as well) since the Realmgate wars are over and Malign Portents is the narrative that makes up AoS now. If I'm not mistaken, Malign Portents is mainly Stormcast vs. Legions of Nagash. That being the case, it seems the right time to release a new core set with new models.

Now, to the rules... will they be an actual new edition or just a supplement. I gotta lean on the side of just a supplement... essentially the Generals Handbook 2018 + new models.

SG

Lemondish wrote:I think it's a new edition because GW chose to call it that. No other criteria needed, honestly.

Going by what GW says, they can't even get their own rules correct. So just because GW says something doesn't mean it's correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Last Edition wrote:
Your describtion of a new edition seems to me like a completely new game. A new edition is just tweeks to an already established ruleset. An supplement is not about tweeking core rules, but additions to a game, like new ways to play the game, new magic items, new battleplans - much like Malign Portents.

So what is General's Handbook? It tweeked the core rules in Age of Sigmar 1.0. So does that mean General's Handbook is AoS 2.0? Then GH2017 is AoS3.0?

This is a 2.0.

They're making some fundamental changes in a few key areas.

1. Lore - Death is rising, the setting is changing a bit. This comes with new models.
2. Mechanics - Core gameplay mechanics are changing. (Shooting, summoning, etc).
3. New Stuff - There is new stuff being added to the rules, endless spells, new spells, magic is generally evolving from "beta" to "release."
4. Probably further evolution of the AoS brand through deprecating older lines. AoS is becoming its own game, apart from WHFB (thank god) and every release is a step further down that line.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is a 2.0.

They're making some fundamental changes in a few key areas.

1. Lore - Death is rising, the setting is changing a bit. This comes with new models.
2. Mechanics - Core gameplay mechanics are changing. (Shooting, summoning, etc).
3. New Stuff - There is new stuff being added to the rules, endless spells, new spells, magic is generally evolving from "beta" to "release."
4. Probably further evolution of the AoS brand through deprecating older lines. AoS is becoming its own game, apart from WHFB (thank god) and every release is a step further down that line.

I am not saying you are wrong or I am correct. I just like having a good debate.

1. Lore. Malign Portents. It's a supplement. So adding in more lore is what supplements usually do. So don't need a 2.0 to do that.

2. Mechanics. What is really changing? By that I mean it's still the same stats, same phase, almost everything is the same. What has really changed?

3. New Stuff. Again supplements add this in. Look at the 40K books for example. As I said before, General's Handbook. It added stuff. It changed the way the game was played, but yet it was still AoS 1.X.

So exactly what is added in to actually call it 2.0?

I am not here to argue and say I am correct. Just having a friendly discussion and I hope people see it as this instead of attacking them.

*edit*

For me to really call this a new edition, I believe the game needs to be played a bit differently. Add in new stats that make a huge difference in the game. I would say get rid of the "wound roll" for example would call for a new edition. After all if you get hit and don't save it through your armour a mini should be dead. So that will make a huge impact on the game to call it a new edition.

Change the way the phases work. AoS done that with alternate phases. So maybe having alternate phases in the movement and shooting phase would be a new edition then. We don't have this, it's still roll for priority, then IGOUGO system. Nothing really changed. A supplement of adding in a magic phase is what the only drastic turn of events. Again no need for a new edition. After all General's Handbook drastically changed how AoS played and it wasn't a new edition.

So since Genera's handbook changed drastically how AoS played but yet was not a new edition and it only changed a few things at a time, the AoS 2.0 is really not a new edition because it is only adding or changing a few mechinics. So if The General's Handbook was not a new edition 2.0 is really not a new edition as well. Just a good excuse for us to get two books instead of one now.

Why can't we get all these changes in The General's Handbook 2018? There is really no reason to have a 2.0 edition.

Davor wrote:

Lemondish wrote:I think it's a new edition because GW chose to call it that. No other criteria needed, honestly.

Going by what GW says, they can't even get their own rules correct. So just because GW says something doesn't mean it's correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Last Edition wrote:
Your describtion of a new edition seems to me like a completely new game. A new edition is just tweeks to an already established ruleset. An supplement is not about tweeking core rules, but additions to a game, like new ways to play the game, new magic items, new battleplans - much like Malign Portents.

So what is General's Handbook? It tweeked the core rules in Age of Sigmar 1.0. So does that mean General's Handbook is AoS 2.0? Then GH2017 is AoS3.0?

General's Handbook gave you new ways you play; Open Play, Narrative Play and Matched Play, each one giving your additional rules to play with . I am guessing you were thinking mainly of Matched Play, which was Five Rules of One - these are additional rules upon the core rules, which fits a supplement like General's Handbook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Why can't we get all these changes in The General's Handbook 2018? There is really no reason to have a 2.0 edition.

Because General's Handbook does not change the core rules of Age of Sigmar.
We'd had the same 4 pages of core rules for 3 years and we'd had two General Handbooks throughout that time period, and the rules haven't changed.

Once a new rule-set comes out that overides and invalidate our current AoS core rules, then, and only then, a new edition of the core rules is released.

Rest is supplements, like Realm Wars, General's Handbook and Malign Portents.

Last Edition wrote:

General's Handbook gave you new ways you play; Open Play, Narrative Play and Matched Play, each one giving your additional rules to play with . I am guessing you were thinking mainly of Matched Play, which was Five Rules of One - these are additional rules upon the core rules, which fits a supplement like General's Handbook.

So by going what other people have said, this would be cause for a new edition. So are you agreeing with me then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Why can't we get all these changes in The General's Handbook 2018? There is really no reason to have a 2.0 edition.

Because General's Handbook does not change the core rules of Age of Sigmar.
We'd had the same 4 pages of core rules for 3 years and we'd had two General Handbooks throughout that time period, and the rules haven't changed.

Again, that is my point. The core rules still haven't changed in Age of Sigmar.

Once a new rule-set comes out that overides and invalidate our current AoS core rules, then, and only then, a new edition of the core rules is released.

Sorry for being obtuse here, my fault, but I don't see what you are saying here. General's Handbook did indeed invalidate the current AoS core rules. So General's Handbook is either a new edition or not. What is it. By your standard it is. Changing points makes the game play differently. You either have more or less minis to field. General's Handbook does this. It also added in formations that limit to what you can field. That changed the 4 pages drastically as well. So new edition or not?

Rest is supplements, like Realm Wars, General's Handbook and Malign Portents.

So AoS 2.0 is a supplement then? If General's Handbook is a supplement that you just said that would mean AoS 2.0 is a supplement as well since there is about the same amount of changes that the first General's Handbook did as is AoS 2.0 is doing.

First, General's Handbook did NOT invalidate the core rules of AoS. Just because it did so for you, doesn't mean anything,

Let me try this from another angel, because you missunderstood everything I said;

These are the core rules: https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Rulesheets/warhammer-aos-rules-en.pdf

Everything else is supplement.

Will the rules in the coming AoS set override and invalidate the ones currently on the GW website?
If yes then it is a new edition. Nothing says that has to come with major changes.

I guess if GW are releasing a new rule book then it counts as a new edition. I think I remember reading that the core rules will be free again.

A slight change in the rules may not effect one army, but could be a complete overhaul for another. All the new summoning stuff is definitely new edition.

I guess that the new predatory/endless spells could be labeled as an optional supplement.

It is a new edition, simple as that. Personly i would say AoS 2nd ed, instead of AoS 2.0.
GHB + Skimirsh is a supplement as neither changes how the game is played by messing whit the core rule.
This new rule book changes the core rule and thus how the game is played and so it is not a supplement.

I just hope they don't break it because they are making some major changes such as making summoning much more widespread.

Given the changes, I also suspect we'll see a new AOS starter box. The question is, who will they bundle with Space Marines?

They are releasing a new starter set, it's Stormcast (now in Wizard flavour) Vs. Nighthaunt.

Davor wrote:

What constitutes new edition?

GW deciding they would like to charge you 50 bucks again for the same thing.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Davor wrote:

What constitutes new edition?

GW deciding they would like to charge you 50 bucks again for the same thing.

Pretty much this.

So far, this feels more like a version 1.1 than a version 2.0. The persistent magic effect being represented by models is genuinely new, but doesn't exactly need a new edition to implement. Give the model a warscroll. Explain how to use it on the warscroll (can only be "summoned" in by a Wizard keyword model, how it moves, etc, etc) and cost it at 0 points. Anyone can then add it to their army as an option and no new edition is required. Add a note on the warscroll that the model does NOT count as a unit for any game purposes and is really to be treated as a marker.

One of the main advantages of putting the majority of rules on a warscroll is that you can come up with new mechanics on the fly without having to fundamentally update the core rules.

MalfunctBot wrote:
They are releasing a new starter set, it's Stormcast (now in Wizard flavour) Vs. Nighthaunt.

2 years ago, you was a wierdo if you bought a pure NH army. (trust me, i got some wierd looks when i deplyed my NH army pre GHB 17 thouse very few times i actualy played with it in my GW shop)
now, apparently NH is he new cool kids on the block.

The new edition rules are free, so to get into the new edition you don'tt need to buy anything.

The General's Handbook is a yearly update however, but that is not a new edition or being touted as one.

Last Edition wrote:
First, General's Handbook did NOT invalidate the core rules of AoS. Just because it did so for you, doesn't mean anything,

Let me try this from another angel, because you missunderstood everything I said;

These are the core rules: https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Rulesheets/warhammer-aos-rules-en.pdf

Everything else is supplement.

Please instead of trying to say things I never said like it invalidated for me, it didn't please rebuke what I have said instead of adding statements that doesn't rebuke what I have said or made corrections of where I have erred.

Just because you say something doesn't mean it's correct. Again I have given reasons for my thinking. What is your reasons? All you have done is posted the rules. I have given examples of how those rules have changed. For a lot of people it has changed drastically. If you are so correct in your assessment, how come you can't play like this in a Games Workshop tournament? You needed a SUPPLEMENT of General's Handbook in order to participate. So if that is not invalidating the rules and not a new edition, please correct me where I have erred in my statement now.

Again. Not saying you are wrong, but you haven't been proven correct either. Let's please continue the nice debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
It is a new edition, simple as that. Personly i would say AoS 2nd ed, instead of AoS 2.0.
GHB + Skimirsh is a supplement as neither changes how the game is played by messing whit the core rule.
This new rule book changes the core rule and thus how the game is played and so it is not a supplement.

Please prove facts. Frome what we know now, how so? Give examples please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Davor wrote:

What constitutes new edition?

GW deciding they would like to charge you 50 bucks again for the same thing.

They have done this with General's Handbook 2017 and 2017. Will do so again with 2018. Not for $50 but for $30. So your point is?

General's Handbook did indeed invalidate the current AoS core rules.

This is the core of the current argument. Why I added "for you" is because maybe General's Handbook did invalidate it for you (I assumed as much because of your quote), but for many other players, it didn't - you can easily play a legal game of AoS without General's Handbook.

But now in your last response you say General's Handbook didn't invalidate the 4 pages of core rules for you? Help me understand. You say one thing - like in the quote and then turn around to say the very oppisite? I am confused.

All I need to be proven correct about is the core rules haven't changed, which can easily be proven by going to GW's website. So, next time Games Workshop updates their 4 pages of core rules, it's a new edition of those rules, which invalidates the old 4 pages of core rules.

To compare with Roleplaying Games; they release one book with Core Rules, often called Basic Rulebook. Then they release a bunch of supplement books which adds a cluster of additional rules. Some supplement books become so essential to many players that they cannot play without them. But none of these supplement books invalidates the Basic Rulebook. Still, this does not forward the edition. Once the Basic Rulebook is re-written and re-released is the edition moved forward one step, no matter how minor the changes have been to the core rules.

Last Edition wrote:

Spoiler:

General's Handbook did indeed invalidate the current AoS core rules.

This is the core of the current argument. Why I added "for you" is because maybe General's Handbook did invalidate it for you (I assumed as much because of your quote), but for many other players, it didn't - you can easily play a legal game of AoS without General's Handbook.

But now in your last response you say General's Handbook didn't invalidate the 4 pages of core rules for you? Help me understand. You say one thing - like in the quote and then turn around to say the very oppisite? I am confused.

All I need to be proven correct about is the core rules haven't changed, which can easily be proven by going to GW's website. So, next time Games Workshop updates their 4 pages of core rules, it's a new edition of those rules, which invalidates the old 4 pages of core rules.

To compare with Roleplaying Games; they release one book with Core Rules, often called Basic Rulebook. Then they release a bunch of supplement books which adds a cluster of additional rules. Some supplement books become so essential to many players that they cannot play without them. But none of these supplement books invalidates the Basic Rulebook. Still, this does not forward the edition. Once the Basic Rulebook is re-written and re-released is the edition moved forward one step, no matter how minor the changes have been to the core rules.

Ah I see where you are coming from. I can't argue that, fair point. As for me saying one thing and then turn around to say the very opposite, not sure about that part. But I can't refute what you said here. I guess we will just have to see IF the core rules really change and what is added in the free rules.

I am still not saying you are wrong, but I still believe it "feels" like a supplement even though it doesn't real feel like a new edition. Hmmm. Maybe that is what I should of said from the beginning. It doesn't feel like a new edition win the new stuff being added in since stuff like this already changed how AoS plays with the supplements.

On another thought, I guess we can say that it is a new edition if all the supplements are included into one book/set of rules so this way we can't pick and choose what we play or don't play just like what GW did with 40K 6th edition. In 6th edition lots of people HATED the supplements like stronghold assault and GW doubled down in 7th edition by including them into the rules as basic with RAW that you can't exclude them because they were part of the rules now, not supplemental.

Davor wrote:
2. Mechanics. What is really changing? By that I mean it's still the same stats, same phase, almost everything is the same. What has really changed?

Are the new stuff optional or not? That's the difference between new edition and supplement. Supplements add new ways to play but they are optional and default is off.

If you go to play game of AOS are you expected to play with these new rules or not? If yes then that's new edition. If not it's supplement. Without agreeing specifically can I shoot out of combat against anything once this your supplement arrives? If yes that's supplement. If no then that's new edition. Can I use command abilities of any character rather than just general? If yes new edition, if not supplement.