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.

Could it be that the formations will be the balancing factor here, along with scenarios?

Ahhh, I saw this coming with the 40k formations and detachments.

No longer will models be sold as individuals or single unit box sets. You will be made to spend $100+ at a time buying the entire formation in 1 go from a box set.

This sounds like a game you'd play a few times and get bored with it really quick.

 MWHistorian wrote:
This sounds like a game you'd play a few times and get bored with it really quick.

Particularly with super awesome amazeballs formations in play, as you'd just literally see the same collection of units over and over ...

- Salvage

From looking at the models and the rules, this game seems like one of the worst mini wargames ever made. I agree with the sentiment of playing once and getting really bored with it.

 MWHistorian wrote:
This sounds like a game you'd play a few times and get bored with it really quick.

Agreed. Very little tactical flexibility, certainly compared to 8th edition.

It seems to me like GW have designed this as a very casual, "beer and pretzels" game - and that's how they're selling it. Now, that's fine, but you could at least create some decent rules for it, for people who want to play a bit more seriously. 40k is actually a fantastic example of an in-depth (if a little unbalanced) game that can be, and is, still played very casually.

I was initially fairly relieved and even excited hearing a lot of the rumours/confirmations that have landed in the past few days (no compulsory round bases, for example), however these rules are simply terrible, and have put my enthusiasm for the release right down, if true. It may be worth seeing if the AoS rules can be adapted from or combined with the LotR rules (which are actually quite good and are of a similar style).

The one thing I am wondering with the rules right now is how do we avoid our characters getting sniped? I don't think we have seen a footslogger character's warscroll yet. Maybe they can join units with certain keywords.

 MWHistorian wrote:
This sounds like a game you'd play a few times and get bored with it really quick.

I haven't played it yet and I am bored already. This game is going to be the biggest flop of 2015. My group already said there is no way in hell that we are going to play this game on a Friday night.

Thanks for the writeup of your thoughts last page Salvage, and yeah... I was very open to this but everything I've seen has made me start looking elsewhere. Curious how the Darklands rulebook will look when it releases (hopefully this summer). But what to use all these chaos dwarfs for now...!? Of course that's always been a problem for long-suffering CD fans, it's just now more people will be joining in that conundrum.

 RiTides wrote:
Thanks for the writeup of your thoughts last page Salvage, and yeah... I was very open to this but everything I've seen has made me start looking elsewhere. Curious how the Darklands rulebook will look when it releases (hopefully this summer). But what to use all these chaos dwarfs for now...!?

8th edition games

Definitely true, Rihgu - the only issue with that was, I stopped playing fantasy in early 8th and was waiting for "9th" to lure me back in... and AoS obviously isn't really opening the door wide for my chaos dwarfs, even if warscrolls do get put out for the FW units.

I've seen leaked images of the starter set warscrolls. If the melee weapons have a range of 1" the post of the ogre and chaos warrior in base to base and not being able to fight is wrong I think. Even measuring from model to model. Assuming that a warhammer has a range of 1" the probability of a spear or halberd having a 2" range is not out of the realm of possibility.

Holly crap, these rules read like "babies first set of miniature wargaming rules"! They are incredibly shallow and just... bad!

I always knew that the chances of GW returning Fantasy to its tactical glory days were pretty slim, but this is just ridiculous...

And don't measure from the bases, measure from the models? Really? That alone will provide hours of entertaining discussion.

I'm hoping these are the dumbed down noobie rules and that the actual rules are better.


I'm also hoping for chocolate to be discovered as a great way to lose weight.

 Hückleberry wrote:
I've seen leaked images of the starter set warscrolls. If the melee weapons have a range of 1" the post of the ogre and chaos warrior in base to base and not being able to fight is wrong I think.

The example is slightly confusing. In the example, that charge has ended up with more than 1/2" between the models, and is therefore not be legal, regardless of weapon reach. Therefore, the models would not actually end up in that position because with a failed charge you don't move.

The example was made to illustrate what the charge requirements actually are, because even after being told that you measure model to model, I belive that a lot of people are thinking that this is the same as base to base. With some models, you won't be able to charge them without moving on top of their bases.


Another oddity I found today: Turning my Wyvern 180 degrees on the spot costs 7" of movement and doesn't come with any advantages.

@avian ahhh I miss took the example, Thanks for clarifying. Yeah that 1/2 in needs to be errata or house ruled lol. I just saw some leaked images of the new models assembled and judging by how robust the model is the 1/2 in shouldn't be a problem on a round base by my little empire swordsmen on a square base is going to be hurting and needing a house rule.

Avian wrote:

 Hückleberry wrote:
I've seen leaked images of the starter set warscrolls. If the melee weapons have a range of 1" the post of the ogre and chaos warrior in base to base and not being able to fight is wrong I think.

The example is slightly confusing. In the example, that charge has ended up with more than 1/2" between the models, and is therefore not be legal, regardless of weapon reach. Therefore, the models would not actually end up in that position because with a failed charge you don't move.

The example was made to illustrate what the charge requirements actually are, because even after being told that you measure model to model, I belive that a lot of people are thinking that this is the same as base to base. With some models, you won't be able to charge them without moving on top of their bases.


Another oddity I found today: Turning my Wyvern 180 degrees on the spot costs 7" of movement and doesn't come with any advantages.

Does facing actually matter?

I didn't find anything in the rules about facing mattering and I also didn't find anything that corroborated that 7" move to change facing. You can move in whatever direction you like any number of inches you like (up to your movement characteristic), and there is no reason why you couldn't just rotate the model during its movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless: Avian are you talking about the part that says that "No part of the model may move further than the model's move characteristic"?

Yeah, that warscroll shows a very LotR like direction, which, due to its simplicity, is something I sort of saw coming. Evidently looking up what you need to wound on a chart is beyond GW's target market .

Still, LotR's simplicity was a good thing and, with the other rules, actually made for a great game, so let's hope this is the same (though judging by the 4 pages we've seen that's not going to be the case, if that is it) and, to be fair, I can see a lot of people (especially young people) being pleased with or attracted by these rules. Again, it's probably a decent business move from GW.

PhantomViper wrote:
I didn't find anything in the rules about facing mattering and I also didn't find anything that corroborated that 7" move to change facing. You can move in whatever direction you like any number of inches you like (up to your movement characteristic), and there is no reason why you couldn't just rotate the model during its movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless: Avian are you talking about the part that says that "No part of the model may move further than the model's move characteristic"?

Correct, rotating a model costs movement as parts of the model move. Otherwise you will get a supremely unfair advantage by pivoting for free, since measurement is now always done from the closest parts of the models themselves.

 judgedoug wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
I didn't find anything in the rules about facing mattering and I also didn't find anything that corroborated that 7" move to change facing. You can move in whatever direction you like any number of inches you like (up to your movement characteristic), and there is no reason why you couldn't just rotate the model during its movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless: Avian are you talking about the part that says that "No part of the model may move further than the model's move characteristic"?

Correct, rotating a model costs movement as parts of the model move. Otherwise you will get a supremely unfair advantage by pivoting for free, since measurement is now always done from the closest parts of the models themselves.

Ok, I can see that.

Guess there will be lots of sideways and butt attacks in this game then.

Yes, if you don't want to lose movement most of your models will never change facing.

I would completely ignore the part where it says the base doesn't count as part of the model. It just makes things difficult for no reason.

I don't understand - are there point cost or are there not? Is it really field any and everything you can fit into your deployment zone?

Also, if I have 5 models. I have several different ways to field them? Like 5 units of 1 model, 1 unit of 5 models, 2 units of 2 models and 1 unit of 1???

I

Colehkxix wrote:
I would completely ignore the part where it says the base doesn't count as part of the model. It just makes things difficult for no reason.

I agree. Measuring from bits of the model opens up all sorts of potential difficulties. Much easier to measure from the edge of the base, especially as all models will be based on standard size bases.

@Azeroth, as far as we can see at the moment, there are no points costs. If players want a balanced game they will need to judge by the scrolls for their units how strong they are.

Azeroth wrote:
I don't understand - are there point cost or are there not? Is it really field any and everything you can fit into your deployment zone?

Also, if I have 5 models. I have several different ways to field them? Like 5 units of 1 model, 1 unit of 5 models, 2 units of 2 models and 1 unit of 1???

I

That's what I've heard, and that you get bonuses if you have less models than your opponent.

Azeroth wrote:
Also, if I have 5 models. I have several different ways to field them? Like 5 units of 1 model, 1 unit of 5 models, 2 units of 2 models and 1 unit of 1???I

Yep. And in most cases one dude is a free champ (which seem to have +1A across the board so far). So that'd be 5x 1 champ, or 1x 1 champ + 4 grunts, or 2x 1 champ + 1 grunt and 1x 1 champ.

Had a look at the 96 page book today, and there are already quite a few buffs that target a single unit, just in these two forces and their limited unit options. So if you want to go the synergy route - which is absolutely what army building is based around in this thing - you're going to want to keep focused around a few shared keywords and not necessarily spam tiny units. Sadly, it totally looks like we'll see armies made up of 1-2 formations. And spoiler: Sigmarines and Khorne Dudes have only one formation each in the book, and it includes all the units in the box.

- Salvage

There's a 96 page book too? I kinda though that they might do a book for it, but hadn't actually heard anything about it... Is it 96 pages of more in-depth rules? Or different formations? Or just fluff?

So, if I take twenty goblins and my opponent takes 21 chaos Knights I need to ensure I stop deploying really quickly or I'll never get the sudden death rule I'd need to stand even a remote chance of winning?

Obviously it wouldn't be as simple an army as that but it's still a bit pants

ahzek wrote:
So, if I take twenty goblins and my opponent takes 21 chaos Knights I need to ensure I stop deploying really quickly or I'll never get the sudden death rule I'd need to stand even a remote chance of winning?

Obviously it wouldn't be as simple an army as that but it's still a bit pants

Who knows chaos knights and goblins both might need +4s to hit and +4s to wound. They could have all kinds of reasons fluff wise to buff the weaker units. From being corrupted by magics to being tougher for surviving the end times so far. for all we know in AoS goblins and chaos knights will have very similar stats on the warscrolls. Also with no strength modifiers (except for rend) to armor save who's to say that I don't get hot dice and have 3 goblins tank all your attacks that wounded? I just think people are getting crazy with all these assumptions based on 8th edition stats. Obviously its an entirely new game. Who is to say that the prosecutor warscroll(see above) is not the normal for all basic units from different armies?