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.

-

Giant hats... for everyone!

A faction based on space whales.

Roll a die to determine who determines whose turn it is. If the number is neither odd nor even, the game ends and you must throw millet at your opponent.

(Actual answer: I have no idea what's even going to happen next month, let alone years from now.

Except for the hats. I'm betting on that one.)

 Bottle wrote:

For me I imagine there will be a way to hide characters from ranged attacks, for example if they are within 1" of a unit of 5 or more models of a similar type they can no longer be targeted by ranged attacks.

One of the TO's of NOVA said that they used such a rule in their tournament and it proved to be too much in favour of the heroes. They are powerful and being able to attack them separately somewhat evens the odds. I think the above will not make it into a possible next iteration.

I expect to see the following: A unit within 3 inches of one or more enemy units can only target them with shooting or melee attacks.
Some people complain against the opposite which is less "realistic"/cinematic and takes away some of the fun.

More serious thought: If every faction eventually sees a complete changeover to round bases, we might see a return of base to base measurement.

CoreCommander wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

For me I imagine there will be a way to hide characters from ranged attacks, for example if they are within 1" of a unit of 5 or more models of a similar type they can no longer be targeted by ranged attacks.

One of the TO's of NOVA said that they used such a rule in their tournament and it proved to be too much in favour of the heroes. They are powerful and being able to attack them separately somewhat evens the odds. I think the above will not make it into a possible next iteration.

I expect to see the following: A unit within 3 inches of one or more enemy units can only target them with shooting or melee attacks.
Some people complain against the opposite which is less "realistic"/cinematic and takes away some of the fun.

That's interesting. I haven't played a game with modified rules yet, and I run my lists very character heavy (for example my 30 model school league list has 7 heroes in it). But thinking about the exploits of my cannon so far in Age of Sigmar, it has killed the king of Brettonia and mortal crippled Grimgor Ironhide. It seems having more than one cannon would give you an auto-delete on a character each turn. It would be nice if characters had a bit more safety, but maybe the multiple wounds is enough.

toasteroven wrote:More serious thought: If every faction eventually sees a complete changeover to round bases, we might see a return of base to base measurement.

I hope so!! I already play base to base - but it would be nice not to have to agree on it as a houserule in the future.

The warscrolls formula isn't likely to change, but the warscrolls themselves may and, in my opinion, they should. They're available for free on the internet - you can always download them and GW can update and fix them if they so desire and in XXI century it's not really a problem to download updated ones.

As for other rules... I'm sure they'll add attaching heroes to units, line of sight/cover rules that is not about area terrain and most likely expand on the spells, giving mages more options than two basic and one special spell. We might also see them alter the pile-in moves or how combat works. And/or shooting in combat.

For myself I hope if new rules are introduced they make them an optional extra.

The best thing about AoS is the brevity and simplicity of the core rules. If GW start adding more stuff they will just move back towards the bloat that affects WHFB/40K.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For myself I hope if new rules are introduced they make them an optional extra.

The best thing about AoS is the brevity and simplicity of the core rules. If GW start adding more stuff they will just move back towards the bloat that affects WHFB/40K.

In a sense they have already been doing that and it's been working really well in my opinion. For example the GW school league rules are actually presented as a battleplan which works really well. I think if GW added Warband rules, or apocolypse style rules, presenting them again as battleplans works really well.

In this case though we're only talking a page or so more rules. So I don't think we have to worry for rules bloat just yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Klerych wrote:
The warscrolls formula isn't likely to change, but the warscrolls themselves may and, in my opinion, they should. They're available for free on the internet - you can always download them and GW can update and fix them if they so desire and in XXI century it's not really a problem to download updated ones.

As for other rules... I'm sure they'll add attaching heroes to units, line of sight/cover rules that is not about area terrain and most likely expand on the spells, giving mages more options than two basic and one special spell. We might also see them alter the pile-in moves or how combat works. And/or shooting in combat.

The only reason I don't want the warscrolls to change in format or content is that it would render the legacy Warscrolls as outdated. And we all know GW are never going to update those. I was hoping for the legacy warscrolls to be playable in 20 years time still.

I think characters will be left to fend for themselves.
AoS is all about brevity/simplicity, so as soon as you start adding in little extra rules it'll start to unravel without applying the same complexity across the board.

I definitely think base to base measuring will (re?)appear.
I think scenery/cover will be revisited. It's simple as it is, but it creates some very weird situations and keeping track of what each type of terrain is is problematic - so I think it needs a rethink. I think a 'true shape'/'area' terrain differentiation would be simple to implement.

I think there's room a couple more 'basic' spells - buffs or debuffs for to-hit and to-wound.
I think for the sake of 'balance', debuffs work better - for example, spamming +1 to-hit on one of your units is pretty simple to do, and can be done almost with impunity.
Casting -1 to hit on an enemy unit means wizards need to be closer to the front line - so easier to unbind the spell or kill the mage - and whilst it reduces the efficacy of the enemy unit, it prevents it being spammed into an auto-hit/auto-wound scenario.

GW does a total 180 and AOS 2.0 becomes whfb 9Th edition lol

I think some sort of foc will ensue if there is a 2.0 due to community complaints (and the fact that they have restrictions on list builds in their own tourneys).

As for characters, they won't let you hide them. Characters are very powerful and that is how they balance them with squads of normal or veteran troopers. It is frustrating to lose a characters or general, but that's where strategy comes in to play! You can't just run him out in the open or take any objective. Bloodthirsters and nagash are still fragile.

Maybe something like the 8th edition Look Out Sir rules for heroes outside a regiment. (IIRC a 4+ save and the unit takes the hit instead). It would obviously be excluded from heroes with the monster keyword.

This is all conjecture though. I have no idea how it would alter the game.

A little bit more clarification on the summoning rules would be a nice improvement too :-)

We have already seen a minor change with the Celestant-Prime having the "may only take one per army" rule, which I'm sure is in response to the ever present criticism of it trusting the players' good nature and desire for fairness. I expect we'll see that added to other large units and named characters such as Nagash and Archaon as the receive rereleased warscrolls. I do feel there are other areas the game can be improved but a lot of the current suggestions seem rooted in the mindset of previous players from other rulesets.

Shooting into and out of combat seems like it's meant to address the problem of "tying-up" ranged units relative to AoS's generally lower number of shots or less durability for these units.

Heroes are not universally beatsticks like in 40k (don't know enough about WHFB to comment). There are lots of heroes who are meant to be purely buffing models and should be taken in multiples to make up for their lack of durability, which was something I noticed while looking at making a "deathrattle tribe" army. Necromancers, liche priests, and tomb heralds are all essential units in getting value out of your skeletons, despite being incredibly squishy. At the moment I'm going to run one necromancer with each unit of skeleton warriors or grave guard, one liche priest per skeleton archer unit, and multiple tomb heralds to recover casualties. If you want a hero to be a durable front-line brawler then you need to pick from the pool of heroes designed for that purpose such as Archaon or Krell.

AoS has gone to great lengths to remove special rules and generalized abilities in favor of redistributing them across the units/factions as thematic elements which fit the lore of a given unit. Things like "look out sir", stat buff abilities, and -1 to casting abilities all already exist in AoS but they are distributed to different units which makes them unique in their "slot". Necromancers gain "look out sir" by keeping death units within 3" and tomb heralds grant "look out sir" to any other death hero by remaining within 3" of them. Dwarf runelords can give other dwarf units a 6++ or add -1 to rend. Mortis Engines with Blasphemous Tomes and Corpse Carts with Balefire Braziers both give a -1 penalty to opposing wizards within a 12" or 18" distance respectively. In all cases giving these abilities to all units would make the above units less unique and worse overall.

I agree with others that base measurement and determining LoS will possibly see changes as the game goes on. Though I don't think base measurement in particular will see any changes until at least all of the remaining WHFB models are reboxed with round bases, since the rule seems almost entirely there as a way to get around the issues caused by base mixing.

The one thing I'm really hoping we see is for some abilities to become less specialized. To go back to the dwarf runelord, his rune buffs are only applicable to "dispossessed" units which destroys the ability to take one alongside any army not filled with dwarves. Overall I can see why this important, given how strong the buffs are, but on the other hand its disappointing how few units have more universally applicable buffs when you consider that you no longer have to only pick units out of a certain race/codex/faction.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For myself I hope if new rules are introduced they make them an optional extra.

The best thing about AoS is the brevity and simplicity of the core rules. If GW start adding more stuff they will just move back towards the bloat that affects WHFB/40K.

Seconded. I just hope to see rules for ranked units and Characters joining units. A couple pages there would go a long way to satisfying the "must have bricks" contingent.

Jack Flask wrote:


....
...

The one thing I'm really hoping we see is for some abilities to become less specialized. To go back to the dwarf runelord, his rune buffs are only applicable to "dispossessed" units which destroys the ability to take one alongside any army not filled with dwarves. Overall I can see why this important, given how strong the buffs are, but on the other hand its disappointing how few units have more universally applicable buffs when you consider that you no longer have to only pick units out of a certain race/codex/faction.

No doubt this limitation is intended to encourage players to use thematically fluffy armies rather than combining whatever units from the whole range will grant the optimum combos.

I dont think we will see a 2.0, GW has a habit of doubling down hard on bad ideas and disregarding good ones. BUT I do hope they tighten up the rules, they can expand beyond 4 pages and still have a simple game. Some edits and clarifications could go a long way and for the love of all that exists go back to measuring from bases. I would rebase all my models if that one bit of common sense could be imposed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


No doubt this limitation is intended to encourage players to use thematically fluffy armies rather than combining whatever units from the whole range will grant the optimum combos.

Which is one thing I have absolutely no problem with, really. I like thematically fluffy armies, and making things more generic would be a step in the wrong direction, to my mind.

Yes, the rot started in 40K with the invention of Allied and Unbound lists or whatever they are called, the ones where you can take anything.

What is the point in giving armies limitations and then giving players an easy way to ignore them?

AoS could turn into a special rule combo hunt without proper limitations on what you can put in your army.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, the rot started in 40K with the invention of Allied and Unbound lists or whatever they are called, the ones where you can take anything.

What is the point in giving armies limitations and then giving players an easy way to ignore them?

AoS could turn into a special rule combo hunt without proper limitations on what you can put in your army.

What is the point in giving armies limitations and then giving players an easy way to ignore them? You're giving the player an option to exchange away in game benefits for the option to take whatever models he feels like playing with. You gain no Detachment Command Benefits when you play Unbound. While this is seen by the more jaded elements of the community as a shocking opportunity to min/max and abuse the system, I believe it was introduced to allow players to legally field fun themed armies that were never legal before. All Kroot army? Make it work! Space Marine Scout army led by Telion? Make it happen! (I realize this is legal in the new codex in a CAD, but wasn't when 7th came out) Inquisition/Death Watch army using mainly Sternguard? Live the dream, brother! Tournaments tend to prefer rigid structure, so I doubt there was any thought at all that Unbound could be misused in an organized play setting. I can't think of a single tournament that allowed Unbound.

So far as AoS 2.0 is concerned... I think it's WAY too early to tell. We have no idea how the game will end up. I don't think we'll see a mad dash 'special rule combo hunt' past what we've already seen. The keyword system ensures that Khorne abilities generally only impact Khorne units. Death Wizards generally only summon Death units. The exceptions are few and far between. If I had to guess, I'd say that AoS will end up like MtG. The core rules won't really change at all over the years. They might be cleaned up or reworded to clear up ambiguity, but I'm not anticipating major changes. Any new mechanics will be introduced via unit war scrolls. Of course, the ultimate dictator for what happens will be sales. If AoS sells - and it appears to be selling better than Fantasy, but we'll need to wit for financial statements to be sure - AoS will stick around.

You could always play whatever models you wanted, but just not use their rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You could always play whatever models you wanted, but just not use their rules.

You can't in a community that values WYSIWYG or if you value WYSIWYG. I want to play Scouts. I don't want to play Tactical Marines and use Scout Models. My opponents don't want me to play Tactical Marines and use Scout Models. Ultimately, if the community doesn't support proxies, proxying is not an option. From a personal standpoint, I allow others to proxy, but would never do so myself. I enjoy the hobby elements too much to just field whatever chunk of plastic is roughly the right shape and on the right base and call it a Scout.

If the community is unwilling to support that, what makes you and or GW think the community will support a complete lack of a balancing system?

 jonolikespie wrote:
If the community is unwilling to support that, what makes you and or GW think the community will support a complete lack of a balancing system?

What complete lack of a balancing system are you talking about? I assume you're being dramatic, are referring to Age of Sigmar and are ignoring pretty much the entirety of the army deployment rules. Being able to alternate deployment and see what your opponent has put down before you choose your next unit is a huge advantage. It allows to savvy players to balance on the fly during deployment. In my experience thus far, this has resulted in very balanced games. Of course, a certain amount of sportsmanship is required. If your community lacks sportsmanship, you have more pressing concerns than deployment rules.

Now, if you meant a complete lack of a pre-game list building mechanic, then yes, I would agree. Age of Sigmar's core rules don't support list building ahead of time. I understand that this is a paradigm shift, but it's not an abandonment of balance. Organized play events can still be run using Battle Plans to define the rounds or simply by limiting the board size and adding time constraints. "Play a game on this board in this amount of time and tell us the outcome. Major Victories are worth more than Minor Victories."

 toasteroven wrote:
More serious thought: If every faction eventually sees a complete changeover to round bases, we might see a return of base to base measurement.

My FLGS already does that, specifically with out Slow Grow League.

 Klerych wrote:
The warscrolls formula isn't likely to change, but the warscrolls themselves may and, in my opinion, they should. They're available for free on the internet - you can always download them and GW can update and fix them if they so desire and in XXI century it's not really a problem to download updated ones.

I'd be happy with an official points system. Maybe in effect copy & paste the Azyr lists.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You could always play whatever models you wanted, but just not use their rules.

You can't in a community that values WYSIWYG or if you value WYSIWYG. I want to play Scouts. I don't want to play Tactical Marines and use Scout Models. My opponents don't want me to play Tactical Marines and use Scout Models. Ultimately, if the community doesn't support proxies, proxying is not an option. From a personal standpoint, I allow others to proxy, but would never do so myself. I enjoy the hobby elements too much to just field whatever chunk of plastic is roughly the right shape and on the right base and call it a Scout.

That doesn't invalidate my point. You can't play 6th and 7th edition in a community that values balanced games that don't have Unbound, and other such claptrap.

I used to enjoy the game elements too much to just field whatever load of nonsense someone wants to bung on the table because of Unbound, Flyers and stuff. So now I don't play any more.

Well done, GW. Top job!!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You could always play whatever models you wanted, but just not use their rules.

You can't in a community that values WYSIWYG or if you value WYSIWYG. I want to play Scouts. I don't want to play Tactical Marines and use Scout Models. My opponents don't want me to play Tactical Marines and use Scout Models. Ultimately, if the community doesn't support proxies, proxying is not an option. From a personal standpoint, I allow others to proxy, but would never do so myself. I enjoy the hobby elements too much to just field whatever chunk of plastic is roughly the right shape and on the right base and call it a Scout.

That doesn't invalidate my point. You can't play 6th and 7th edition in a community that values balanced games that don't have Unbound, and other such claptrap.

I used to enjoy the game elements too much to just field whatever load of nonsense someone wants to bung on the table because of Unbound, Flyers and stuff. So now I don't play any more.

Well done, GW. Top job!!

Meh. No matter what changes they make, they'll alienate some people and make others happy. You're in the unhappy camp this edition. Maybe you'll be in the happy camp next edition.

You also seem to be equating Unbound with unbalanced. I don't think this is a fair comparison. I could also say the Combines Arms Detachment is unfair and unbalanced because it allows a number of death star units that unbalance average games to the point that unless you were running one you couldn't win a tournament.

I've honestly never seen anyone play an unbound army in 40k outside of hardcore fluff bunnies who want a very specific force. I can't imagine it has ever been a problem, and I have no idea why there was such a huge uproar about it.