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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Actually yes, every monster/warmachine is more or less equal in power.
Heroes tend to be the same amount of Wounds/saves across the board.

This is so untrue I debated whether or not to report it as trolling.

Rather than making accusations of trolling, how about explaining how it is "so untrue"?

Because when I'm sitting here browsing through the app, I'm looking at the majority of Heroes on foot being 5 Wounds with saves tied to their keywords or the appearance of the model/wargear.
Wizards tend towards 6s, Heroes that appear lightly armored[helm, chestplate, or a combination of the two] tend towards 5s, fighty Heroes clad in the same amount of armor with shields or a greaves/gauntlets tend towards 4s, and it takes getting into massively plate clad Heroes like the Stormcast or Chaos heroes before you start seeing 3s.

Monster Heroes or Monsters in general tend to start at saves of 4s, and depending on the size of unridden/ridden monsters they tend towards capping out at 12 Wounds. You do have exceptions(most notably, Archaon with his 20 Wounds and his 3+ save or the Star-Drake with its 16 Wounds and 3+ saves), but the trend is 4s with 12s. I mean hell, even the Celestant-Prime(one of the units considered to "break the game") is 3+ with 8 Wounds and restricted to 1 per army.

For me, full-throttle, cut-throat games with a sporting opponent are the best way to have fun with miniatures.

I'm just excited for this. Basically a bonus to army building for thematic forces. Yes please! This could be awesome!

Has anyone heard anything to get their hopes up for some new Tzeentch (*chough*pleaselordofchangeprettyplease*chough*) stuff, or at least when/if they'll start selling the Silver Tower models separately?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Actually yes, every monster/warmachine is more or less equal in power.
Heroes tend to be the same amount of Wounds/saves across the board.

This is so untrue I debated whether or not to report it as trolling.

Rather than making accusations of trolling, how about explaining how it is "so untrue"?

Because when I'm sitting here browsing through the app, I'm looking at the majority of Heroes on foot being 5 Wounds with saves tied to their keywords or the appearance of the model/wargear.
Wizards tend towards 6s, Heroes that appear lightly armored[helm, chestplate, or a combination of the two] tend towards 5s, fighty Heroes clad in the same amount of armor with shields or a greaves/gauntlets tend towards 4s, and it takes getting into massively plate clad Heroes like the Stormcast or Chaos heroes before you start seeing 3s.

Monster Heroes or Monsters in general tend to start at saves of 4s, and depending on the size of unridden/ridden monsters they tend towards capping out at 12 Wounds. You do have exceptions(most notably, Archaon with his 20 Wounds and his 3+ save or the Star-Drake with its 16 Wounds and 3+ saves), but the trend is 4s with 12s. I mean hell, even the Celestant-Prime(one of the units considered to "break the game") is 3+ with 8 Wounds and restricted to 1 per army.

Stop talking nonsense, Kan.

Gyrocopter vs Steamtank
Skaven Pack Master vs Skarr Bloodwrath

They are not of equal power at all.

It's irrelevant anyway.

If you want to build your forces with a Warmachine, a unit of infantry and a hero, the existence of an optional points system doesn't stop you from doing that even if you decide to use it .

 insaniak wrote:
It's irrelevant anyway.

If you want to build your forces with a Warmachine, a unit of infantry and a hero, the existence of an optional points system doesn't stop you from doing that even if you decide to use it .

If the optional points system is tied to you sticking within your subfactions, it actually will.

There are no units of Infantry within the Ironweld Arsenal subfaction for Grand Alliance: Order. The subfaction consists of Warmachines and Heroes only.

Did the rules say subfaction? all that little poster said was Theme, are themes subfactions?

Why are we back to fighting about rules that we dont even know exist yet...

Chopxsticks wrote:
Did the rules say subfaction? all that little poster said was Theme, are themes subfactions?

Why are we back to fighting about rules that we dont even know exist yet...

Keywords are tied to the subfactions, at least if the way this is explained here in their blurb is accurate.

 Kanluwen wrote:

If the optional points system is tied to you sticking within your subfactions, it actually will..

Unless you choose to ignore that requirement.

Rules that exist can be ignored... But can still be used by those who want to use them.

Rules that don't exist don't benefit anyone.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:
Did the rules say subfaction? all that little poster said was Theme, are themes subfactions?

Why are we back to fighting about rules that we dont even know exist yet...

Keywords are tied to the subfactions, at least if the way this is explained here in their blurb is accurate.

I don't see how this says you're limited to a subfaction? It says if you stick to one subfaction, certain units become battleline units that wouldn't be if you mixed and matched from different subfactions.

I rather like it this still means I can take stormcast for my devoted of sigmar army I am planning. I will have a lot of flagellants since they are most likely core. For matched play it's still rather open in the theme of the grand alliances.
Still my GW store is looking more forward to narrative play.

It'll be interesting to see how this works with battalions

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:
Did the rules say subfaction? all that little poster said was Theme, are themes subfactions?

Why are we back to fighting about rules that we dont even know exist yet...

Spoiler:

Keywords are tied to the subfactions, at least if the way this is explained here in their blurb is accurate.

I don't see how this says you're limited to a subfaction? It says if you stick to one subfaction, certain units become battleline units that wouldn't be if you mixed and matched from different subfactions.

How can you not see how this limits you to a subfaction?

To use a theoretical example based upon what little they gave us(Ironjawz Brutes become Battleline if you take purely Ironjawz) as an example under the Matched Play system:
Little Billy wants to play an Ironjaw and Moonclan army for a game. His opponent wants to play "Matched Play". Little Billy wants to take Brutes but no Ardboys.

Little Billy cannot do this army, as Brutes only become Battleline units when taking pure Ironjawz. He has to take Ardboys in order to "unlock" his Brutes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

motski wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how this works with battalions

I would assume that the battalions were taken into consideration for this, since you're already required to take a relatively high amount of units within the battalions that are likely to become touted as "Battleline" units.

Little Billy can take some battleline Moonclan, then, can't he? It doesn't say each subfaction must bring battleline units.

In the teaser, anyway. Maybe it'll say differently later. We don't know. But from what it tells us...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:
Did the rules say subfaction? all that little poster said was Theme, are themes subfactions?

Why are we back to fighting about rules that we dont even know exist yet...

Spoiler:

Keywords are tied to the subfactions, at least if the way this is explained here in their blurb is accurate.

I don't see how this says you're limited to a subfaction? It says if you stick to one subfaction, certain units become battleline units that wouldn't be if you mixed and matched from different subfactions.

How can you not see how this limits you to a subfaction?

To use a theoretical example based upon what little they gave us(Ironjawz Brutes become Battleline if you take purely Ironjawz) as an example under the Matched Play system:
Little Billy wants to play an Ironjaw and Moonclan army for a game. His opponent wants to play "Matched Play". Little Billy wants to take Brutes but no Ardboys.

Little Billy cannot do this army, as Brutes only become Battleline units when taking pure Ironjawz. He has to take Ardboys in order to "unlock" his Brutes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

motski wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how this works with battalions

I would assume that the battalions were taken into consideration for this, since you're already required to take a relatively high amount of units within the battalions that are likely to become touted as "Battleline" units.

He has to take Ardboys to unlock the Brutes as a battleline unit yeah, but he can still use them if he doesn't go pure Ironjawz. They just aren't battleline in that case.

 Spinner wrote:
Little Billy can take some battleline Moonclan, then, can't he? It doesn't say each subfaction must bring battleline units.

In the teaser, anyway. Maybe it'll say differently later. We don't know. But from what it tells us...

Considering the fact that they talk about "Battlefield Roles" and then discuss "Battleline" units(which is the equivalent to Core it seems), I have a suspicion we're looking at something more like 40k's CADs than a big happy free for all from multiple factions.

Maybe. Maybe not. All we know is that you need to take Battleline units if you want to mix subfactions in a matched play army. Getting worked up about things that might or might not happens seems kinda...

Pointless.

Actually, it's a surprisingly flexible restriction, and I like it more the more I think about it.

Given how 40k currently works and they way they seemed to have set up AoS I'd bank on general battleline and other units within a Grand Faction opening other roles inside that grand faction (regardless of subfaction).

However, for those that love a specific subfaction, they have the option to take certain units as battleline if they stick to that subfaction.

We'll see but that's the way I'm thinking it's heading which is fine for me.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Given how 40k currently works and they way they seemed to have set up AoS I'd bank on general battleline and other units within a Grand Faction opening other roles inside that grand faction (regardless of subfaction).

However, for those that love a specific subfaction, they have the option to take certain units as battleline if they stick to that subfaction.

We'll see but that's the way I'm thinking it's heading which is fine for me.

Yah, it seems clear this is the intent TBH. But it's clear that right now all we can do is speculate. To me it sounds like a percent of the army have to be battle line units, before you can take none-battle line units. But then the question is, do you have to take certain battle line units, before you can take certain "elite" units?

-Could I take beastmen as battle line for my Chaos knights? Skavan as battle line for Beast-men Monsters? ect. (Any battleline units and any elite units.)

/OR/

-Do you need to take some Beastmen before unlocking chaos monsters? So many Warriors before unlocking knights? (I.E. Some elite units are linked to some Battleline units.)


All we realy know is that by sticking to a sub-faction you get to side-step the normal battle-line units and take something normally a elite unit for your battle-line.

If everyone could be polite that'd be great, rule 1 doesn't cease to exist in N&R. A few posters over the last 2 pages have been toeing it pretty hard

Talked to the FLGS today and they spoke to the rep recently. Storecopy of handbook should be at the FLGS who are doingthe campaign July 2nd (least ours is) so I cant wait. Gotta get the Ironjawz ready!

Can't wait to start planning out my Order army. I recently became fully painted too, so I think I am really going to enjoy this campaign!

 Bottle wrote:
Can't wait to start planning out my Order army. I recently became fully painted too, so I think I am really going to enjoy this campaign!

I'm rushing to get my stuff painted in time.

 Kanluwen wrote:
That's a big leap from a small blurb.

Not really. It's a fairly logical inference based upon years of experience with GW writing rules.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS. It's now just becoming the same old crap just with new names.

And GW are going to come around and force you to play this way, are they Kan?

As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

But not everyone is you, some people want a little structure in their game. This new system allows both.

Deal. With. It.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS. It's now just becoming the same old crap just with new names.

And GW are going to come around and force you to play this way, are they Kan?

As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

Could you be more condescending? Attack the game, not the players.

 Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS. It's now just becoming the same old crap just with new names.

And GW are going to come around and force you to play this way, are they Kan?

As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

Could you be more condescending? Attack the game, not the players.

But he is attacking the game.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS. It's now just becoming the same old crap just with new names.

And GW are going to come around and force you to play this way, are they Kan?

As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

Could you be more condescending? Attack the game, not the players.

But he is attacking the game.

Oh really? So telling fellow adults to "continue playing kids plastic army men" and "bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises" ís not at all a comment on the players? Come on. I thought we were past this stuff after the first 6 months.

Indeed.

We really don't need the insults and/or digs at other posters.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

But not everyone is you, some people want a little structure in their game. This new system allows both.

Deal. With. It.

Just like how people want to play Unbound in 40K, and can't because people refuse to play that? Same thing can happen with points in Age of Sigmar now. You can't get a game in unless it's with points. And also look how well not playing Unbound worked. You got more cheese playing with a bound (or what ever it's called) army than an unbound army. So people are afraid this will happen in AoS.

You don't have to be so rude about it.