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.
They already exist, either through nurgle's ability that gives basically the whole army a 5+ inv save or through things like rerollable 1s and then stacking those on high save models.
The Nurgle ability is more analogous to how FnP was; it goes on in addition to the regular save (in fact, the rule on nurgle models in 40k is exactly the same rule as the one from AoS) and is rolled individually for each wound caused. The ethereal rule is what works exactly like an invul save, also seen on one of the eel unit variants and has been around on bastiladons since launch. Notably ethereal got a debuff with legions of nagash--it used to be able to benefit from positive modifiers and as such units could get cover and/or mystic shield for a 3+ or 2+ ignoring all rend.
2+ reroll 1s is bad, but high armor saves is something a well-rounded army should be prepared to fight (though not to say there aren't instances of abuse in this category (looking at you fulminators)).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/14 19:00:43
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Yea the treelord ancient with the +1 to save and ignore -1 rend is pretty fun to use
Of all the times I ran that, he died three times: Twice to the gradual whittling away by mobs explicitly designed to counter that build, and once to a miraculous trebuchet roll.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Yea the treelord ancient with the +1 to save and ignore -1 rend is pretty fun to use
Of all the times I ran that, he died three times: Twice to the gradual whittling away by mobs explicitly designed to counter that build, and once to a miraculous trebuchet roll.
I one shotted him with Glotkin's 2d6 damage vomit attack. -2 rend, opponent rolled a 1 for his armor save, and I rolled box cars for the damage roll. Bye bitch!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/14 20:32:38
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Yea the treelord ancient with the +1 to save and ignore -1 rend is pretty fun to use
Of all the times I ran that, he died three times: Twice to the gradual whittling away by mobs explicitly designed to counter that build, and once to a miraculous trebuchet roll.
I one shotted him with Glotkin's 2d6 damage vomit attack. -2 rend, opponent rolled a 1 for his armor save, and I rolled box cars for the damage roll. Bye bitch!
Could he have not rerolled that from his command ability?
And mines died to 6 necropolis knights and some mournghouls
So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .
Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn't game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics.
Also, arrows piercing heavy armor enough to kill is a myth. The longbow did not pierce french steel plate armor, no matter what the Brits will tell you.
Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren't even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor.
It was only until the advent of firearms that plate / heavy armor became obsolete.
Really, think about it; you're a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don't you think that after the battle you'd want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?
Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.
Yeah, that was their primary purpose. Its just that he said that ranged weapons was used to kill heavily armored targets in classical warfare, but that wasn't true until the development of firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: There are quite a lot of shooting units running around with stuff way more powerful than an IRL longbow, just sayin...
Which makes shooting into combat even dumber, as killing your own soldiers would become even likelier. For example, artillery was as dangerous to friendly soldiers as it was to enemy soldiers in WW1 in 2, as if the trajectory is wrong or the targets are too close there was a chance of blowing up friendly soldiers.
I never said shoot the heavy armor from the front. You said that. I said rain them down on top or shoot from the sides. You know. Where the armor isn't (or at least it's lighter). Sure it doesn't work as well in a 5 v 5 fight, but any line fighting involving two or more lines deep of infantry makes sense to me.
Sure you can cherry pick what you'd like from history to defeat the argument, but you didn't address the game mechanic part of it at all.
I'll concede it doesn't work as well for things like Handgunners, cannons, and ballista from the front. But I find it more than fair for a fair number of other things found in the game and in many circumstances. We can trade back and forth about what situations what side does or doesn't work in, but I'm just communicating that to write off the concept entirely is ridiculous.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/14 23:14:09
Even if you attack them from above casualties would be minimal. Heavy armor was that good. There is still no record of archers shooting into a melee where they could hit their own men.
Your claim that from a historical perspective archers would shoot into melee and that was the only way to deal with heavily armored opponents is quite false.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 06:09:23
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
thekingofkings wrote: any indicators that base to base measuring will be a requirement?
I certainly hope so. B2B seems to be the single most common "house rule" used by like every major tourney and most people with a modicum of sense. Though a few unit abilities will need to be tweaked for that (looking at you, Ripperdactyls) but shouldn't be too major.
auticus wrote: CPs in 40k are easy to farm also because you can get a ton by doing easy mode building soup lists and detachment style lists that have no drawback.
I like the concept of CP. CP can be used to enforce balance and non extreme builds. The way GW does it you get your extreme one dimensional power build AND a shed load of CPs to go with it.
Really its the fact there is no cap on them, and there are multiple ways to roll to see if you get it back. Guliman, guard strat, and guard relic, lets you roll 2 dice for your own CP, and 1 for your oponants. It would not be bad if EVERYONE got that level of BS.
Well with the FAQ armies tend to get plenty of them even without allies and for example pure IG went from realm of dimishive returns. Pure guard might not even want the warlord strategem anymore. They already get more than enough especially as guard isn't even particularly CP hungry army. Unlike some other armies they don't have super powerful 2-3 CP strategems you are using all the time nor are they riddled with awesome relics so 1 extra is generally max you want.
So there's basically one issue. Guard battallion as ally for CP hungry army.
The only issue with base to base being REQUIRED will simply be that won't support squares and will be forcing people to rebase (another contentious and hot topic)
Maybe auticus, but really even measuring from square bases is both possible and still less fiddly than measuring from the models. I still have all my dudes and dudettes on square bases and the games go just fine. Frankly I forgot that measuring from models is still a thing, square or round bases, I havent seen anyone actually use that rule since about 2 months after AoS came out.
I use squares for my legacy guys because I refuse to rebase my massive collection. My new stuff I put on the circles that come with the kits. Some people get very cranky because somehow that is a massive advantage. But thats derailing the topic.
I don't see an issue with squares and circles since I've done this in 40k as well since 3rd ed 40k (square based demons in my chaos army) and mostly its been fine.
At the risk of starting a fight, does AoS use mortal wounds too much or is it right? I feel like they’re slightly overused, but then again, I’m usually up against Stormcast so I might just have a skewered view of things.
auticus wrote: I use squares for my legacy guys because I refuse to rebase my massive collection. My new stuff I put on the circles that come with the kits. Some people get very cranky because somehow that is a massive advantage. But thats derailing the topic.
I don't see an issue with squares and circles since I've done this in 40k as well since 3rd ed 40k (square based demons in my chaos army) and mostly its been fine.
Im with you are the square bases, I dont know why GW switched, but just do waht my friend does, If you have a massive army of squares, just carry a sack of round bases and tack, pop them onto it if someone is making a fuss, the only time it ever really becomes a problem with with skaven, problem solved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: At the risk of starting a fight, does AoS use mortal wounds too much or is it right? I feel like they’re slightly overused, but then again, I’m usually up against Stormcast so I might just have a skewered view of things.
Not really, i thought the same thing, especially when looking at how 40k mortal wounds work. But then also remember, wounds bleed over in AoS. AoS games go faster then a 40k game, so it all comes out in the wash really. Unless you are playing the storm fiend list, then its just broken.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 12:25:42
Future War Cultist wrote: At the risk of starting a fight, does AoS use mortal wounds too much or is it right? I feel like they’re slightly overused, but then again, I’m usually up against Stormcast so I might just have a skewered view of things.
Way too much. Mortal Wounds are an interesting concept and used sparingly could be great, but in AOS the main cornerstone of play is load up on as many mortal wounds as you can get and spam them. Stormcast can deal a heinous amount easily so are definitely an offender. It is one reason why they and tzeentch sit atop the power rankings and if you're opponent wants to bust the game will likely be running those.
In campaign events I put a limit on mortal wound output to at least keep the games interesting. Otherwise if a casual brings a list that doesn't have much mortal wound output and they face a list that dumps 20+ on them a turn, often they are done with AOS. Now in a tournament environment... thats a different story.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 12:27:44
auticus wrote: I use squares for my legacy guys because I refuse to rebase my massive collection. My new stuff I put on the circles that come with the kits. Some people get very cranky because somehow that is a massive advantage. But thats derailing the topic.
I don't see an issue with squares and circles since I've done this in 40k as well since 3rd ed 40k (square based demons in my chaos army) and mostly its been fine.
Im with you are the square bases, I dont know why GW switched, but just do waht my friend does, If you have a massive army of squares, just carry a sack of round bases and tack, pop them onto it if someone is making a fuss, the only time it ever really becomes a problem with with skaven, problem solved.
The cynic in me suspects its to cut costs. They don't have to spend money maintaining the moulds for square bases anymore. Its cheaper to just use the existing round base moulds and use those to make bases for everything.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Yea the treelord ancient with the +1 to save and ignore -1 rend is pretty fun to use
Of all the times I ran that, he died three times: Twice to the gradual whittling away by mobs explicitly designed to counter that build, and once to a miraculous trebuchet roll.
I one shotted him with Glotkin's 2d6 damage vomit attack. -2 rend, opponent rolled a 1 for his armor save, and I rolled box cars for the damage roll. Bye bitch!
Could he have not rerolled that from his command ability?
And mines died to 6 necropolis knights and some mournghouls
On second thought I think it was Dirthu who I one shotted. Stupid branch bois all look alike.
Anyone wonder if they will take a stab at uniformly fix summoning with some sort of summoning resource? Like a universal summoning currency used in game to summon unless you have another mechanic (nurgle for example)? Heard rumors of this from someone at warhammer fest. And they wont cost reinforcement points.. just your summoning points or whatever.
Honestly if they tried forcing round bases I'll be ignoring that and sticking with the ones I have. But if anyone wants to force me to use round ones then I'll happily swap my army over right after that person buys those bases.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
auticus wrote: I use squares for my legacy guys because I refuse to rebase my massive collection. My new stuff I put on the circles that come with the kits. Some people get very cranky because somehow that is a massive advantage. But thats derailing the topic.
I don't see an issue with squares and circles since I've done this in 40k as well since 3rd ed 40k (square based demons in my chaos army) and mostly its been fine.
Im with you are the square bases, I dont know why GW switched, but just do waht my friend does, If you have a massive army of squares, just carry a sack of round bases and tack, pop them onto it if someone is making a fuss, the only time it ever really becomes a problem with with skaven, problem solved.
The cynic in me suspects its to cut costs. They don't have to spend money maintaining the moulds for square bases anymore. Its cheaper to just use the existing round base moulds and use those to make bases for everything.
This truly is probably why, but when ever someone complains about how rounds are so much better, i just show them stuff like this.
Because no matter how hard you try, nothing in AoS will ever look as comfy as a block of chaos warriors.
pm713 wrote: Honestly if they tried forcing round bases I'll be ignoring that and sticking with the ones I have. But if anyone wants to force me to use round ones then I'll happily swap my army over right after that person buys those bases.
Thats exactly what I say. I'll be glad to switch to rounds once that person buys and rebases my army for me
auticus wrote: I use squares for my legacy guys because I refuse to rebase my massive collection. My new stuff I put on the circles that come with the kits. Some people get very cranky because somehow that is a massive advantage. But thats derailing the topic.
I don't see an issue with squares and circles since I've done this in 40k as well since 3rd ed 40k (square based demons in my chaos army) and mostly its been fine.
Im with you are the square bases, I dont know why GW switched, but just do waht my friend does, If you have a massive army of squares, just carry a sack of round bases and tack, pop them onto it if someone is making a fuss, the only time it ever really becomes a problem with with skaven, problem solved.
The cynic in me suspects its to cut costs. They don't have to spend money maintaining the moulds for square bases anymore. Its cheaper to just use the existing round base moulds and use those to make bases for everything.
This truly is probably why, but when ever someone complains about how rounds are so much better, i just show them stuff like this.
Because no matter how hard you try, nothing in AoS will ever look as comfy as a block of chaos warriors.
I know right? I just love seeing blocks of close formation units. The fact they dropped it in AoS is the main reason why I never really got into it. I mean, sure, the models are nice...but what about those blocks tho?
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
pm713 wrote: I still move my units around in blocks. It looks so much better than the weird horde thing most units have otherwise.
Im looking at getting skrimish trays to put my round guys in because i move them around more that way since they always stay clumped, and i run my 40 warriors in a huge 2 rank line so.
In the game I wrote, you can do close formations like a shield wall to gain defensive bonus, or choose loose formation (skirmish) to gain bonus movement.
auticus wrote: In the game I wrote, you can do close formations like a shield wall to gain defensive bonus, or choose loose formation (skirmish) to gain bonus movement.
I like options.
That's neat. Might I suggest a -1 to hit loose formation units with ranged weapons? Historically speaking that's how they avoided getting hit. Well, that or tetsudo / shield walls / plate armor.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
A lot of games have done that as well (old whfb for example). The reason I chose the route I did is because if you have two formations that both give a defensive bonus, there's not as much a reason to take one over the other.
~4100
~1660
