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.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

Fezza213 wrote:
every table top game expects you to buy miniatures and most expect you to buy books which have rules which increase the power of your army.

Do they?
I thought most games provided you with rules (free or for a cost) to use your models, period.

Not have the very same models be more or less powerful depending on which book you use to field them.

Whats wrong with that?

Pay for the book and your models are 20% better. seems fair.

I didn't say anything was wrong with that.
You agree it's a form of 'pay to win' though?

Are we really entering the discussion if it's pay to win? Seriously? In my opinion it makes it more fluffly GW did hint they are planning something for the older books I suspect it's going to involve the app.

 shinros wrote:
Are we really entering the discussion if it's pay to win? Seriously?

Do you mean it's ridiculous to have the discussion because it obviously is 'pay to win' or because it obviously is not?

 Zywus wrote:

 shinros wrote:
Are we really entering the discussion if it's pay to win? Seriously?

Do you mean it's ridiculous to have the discussion because it obviously is 'pay to win' or because it obviously is not?

If you believe that paying for "more options that may or may not be better than what everyone has" is "pay to win", then I take it you probably don't play 40k, or X-wing, or Armada, or Magic, or Warmahordes, etc.....

Neronoxx wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 shinros wrote:
Are we really entering the discussion if it's pay to win? Seriously?

Do you mean it's ridiculous to have the discussion because it obviously is 'pay to win' or because it obviously is not?

If you believe that paying for "more options that may or may not be better than what everyone has" is "pay to win", then I take it you probably don't play 40k, or X-wing, or Armada, or Magic, or Warmahordes, etc.....

"May or may not be better"?

Using your models in a (most) 40K formation(s) unquestionably makes them better than just using their main codex to build an army with them. Buying two books make the exact same models better in the game than using one.
Is that not a case of 'pay to win'?

What upgrades are you talking about?
You have to pay for battalions.

 Swara wrote:
What upgrades are you talking about?
You have to pay for battalions.

Indeed, I have 0 problem with someone paying extra points on top of the models they are fielding to gain a special rule (s).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zywus wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 shinros wrote:
Are we really entering the discussion if it's pay to win? Seriously?

Do you mean it's ridiculous to have the discussion because it obviously is 'pay to win' or because it obviously is not?

If you believe that paying for "more options that may or may not be better than what everyone has" is "pay to win", then I take it you probably don't play 40k, or X-wing, or Armada, or Magic, or Warmahordes, etc.....

"May or may not be better"?

Using your models in a (most) 40K formation(s) unquestionably makes them better than just using their main codex to build an army with them. Buying two books make the exact same models better in the game than using one.
Is that not a case of 'pay to win'?

In 40k, that is a direct example of 'pay to win.'

Age of Sigmar has nothing like that at the moment, none the least with Matched play. The extra rules cost extra, as has been stated above.

 Ghaz wrote:

When was the last time you saw Yakface post an anonymous rumor?

Faeit and Dakka work differently. When Faeit post his rumors from an 'anonymous' source, he becomes responsible for those rumors. If he's not willing to take even a modicum of effort to weed out his less reliable 'anonymous' sources, then his credibility suffers.

Dakka doesn't post rumors. Dakka users post rumors. If poster Joe Schmoe posts a bunch of 'anonymous' rumors that don't pan out, then it's Joe Schmoe's credibility that suffers. Dakka's credibility only suffers when the number of Joe Schmoe's far out weigh the number of Sad Pandas and Lady Atias.

Don't confuse the poster of the rumors with where the rumors are posted. Faeit the website may do a decent job at rumors, but Faeit the user lacks any credibility.

Sorry I have to disagree. On one hand you say Yakface doesn't post rumours so Dakka gets a bye or and escape of rumours posted but Faeit doesn't If Natfka owns the Faeit site and he is responsible the I guess Yakface is just as responsible How come it's ok to blame the Dakka poster to claim a rumour and it turns out false and Yakface doesn't get blamed but Faeit poster or rumour person doesn't get the blame but Natfka does?

It can't go different ways. If Natfka gets the blame because his sources are wrong, then that mean Yakface is wrong because he is letting us post false or wrong rumours as well. If Yakface can get a free pass then Natfka shouldn't get blamed either for what is posted on Faeit.

They are both the same, so again I say crapping on Natfka is crapping on Yakface. Just like how Yakface doesn't give out rumours, Natfka doesn't give out rumours either. If I am wrong about Natfka giving out rumours as his own, please show me then, and I will concede I am wrong.

 Zywus wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

Fezza213 wrote:
every table top game expects you to buy miniatures and most expect you to buy books which have rules which increase the power of your army.

Do they?
I thought most games provided you with rules (free or for a cost) to use your models, period.

Not have the very same models be more or less powerful depending on which book you use to field them.

Whats wrong with that?

Pay for the book and your models are 20% better. seems fair.

I didn't say anything was wrong with that.
You agree it's a form of 'pay to win' though?

Oh I should of added :-P cause I was being sarcastic as hell lol. Expecting people to pay more money to win is total bs. pay for the better book or lose pay for better models or lose.

It is becoming battle of the pocket change -_-

Davor wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

When was the last time you saw Yakface post an anonymous rumor?

Faeit and Dakka work differently. When Faeit post his rumors from an 'anonymous' source, he becomes responsible for those rumors. If he's not willing to take even a modicum of effort to weed out his less reliable 'anonymous' sources, then his credibility suffers.

Dakka doesn't post rumors. Dakka users post rumors. If poster Joe Schmoe posts a bunch of 'anonymous' rumors that don't pan out, then it's Joe Schmoe's credibility that suffers. Dakka's credibility only suffers when the number of Joe Schmoe's far out weigh the number of Sad Pandas and Lady Atias.

Don't confuse the poster of the rumors with where the rumors are posted. Faeit the website may do a decent job at rumors, but Faeit the user lacks any credibility.

Sorry I have to disagree. On one hand you say Yakface doesn't post rumours so Dakka gets a bye or and escape of rumours posted but Faeit doesn't If Natfka owns the Faeit site and he is responsible the I guess Yakface is just as responsible How come it's ok to blame the Dakka poster to claim a rumour and it turns out false and Yakface doesn't get blamed but Faeit poster or rumour person doesn't get the blame but Natfka does?

It can't go different ways. If Natfka gets the blame because his sources are wrong, then that mean Yakface is wrong because he is letting us post false or wrong rumours as well. If Yakface can get a free pass then Natfka shouldn't get blamed either for what is posted on Faeit.

They are both the same, so again I say crapping on Natfka is crapping on Yakface. Just like how Yakface doesn't give out rumours, Natfka doesn't give out rumours either. If I am wrong about Natfka giving out rumours as his own, please show me then, and I will concede I am wrong.

The poster is responsible for what he post, not the website he posts on unless it is his website. By your logic, your just as responsible for the crap Faeit posts just because you post here on Dakka.

And with that, back on topic here, OK?

Neronoxx wrote:

 Swara wrote:
What upgrades are you talking about?
You have to pay for battalions.

Indeed, I have 0 problem with someone paying extra points on top of the models they are fielding to gain a special rule (s).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zywus wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 shinros wrote:
Are we really entering the discussion if it's pay to win? Seriously?

Do you mean it's ridiculous to have the discussion because it obviously is 'pay to win' or because it obviously is not?

If you believe that paying for "more options that may or may not be better than what everyone has" is "pay to win", then I take it you probably don't play 40k, or X-wing, or Armada, or Magic, or Warmahordes, etc.....

"May or may not be better"?

Using your models in a (most) 40K formation(s) unquestionably makes them better than just using their main codex to build an army with them. Buying two books make the exact same models better in the game than using one.
Is that not a case of 'pay to win'?

In 40k, that is a direct example of 'pay to win.'

Age of Sigmar has nothing like that at the moment, none the least with Matched play. The extra rules cost extra, as has been stated above.

Ok, then I stand corrected.

We'll see if (and if so, how soon) those kind of formations is introduced in AoS in the future.

Uh, where's the power creep people are talking about? I don't see it. More options doesn't mean those options are better. And the grand alliance abilities anyone can get are pretty good. This is on top of the option to, you know, just play without points or use a fan comp. It's hardly pay to win because if your opponent is using the Generals Handbook benefits then guess what? It's right there for you to use as well. Your opponent has a nifty new battletome? Use the generic options. Or just don't use the allegiance benefits at all. There are so many holes and ways around this that any cries of power creep are only guesses at what may come with only circumstantial evidence to support it.

Or hey, believe that there is power creep (and that GW hasn't changed at all) and just leave the game behind since its clearly going downhill. The rest of us will just have to enjoy AoS on our own.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Uh, where's the power creep people are talking about? I don't see it. More options doesn't mean those options are better. And the grand alliance abilities anyone can get are pretty good. This is on top of the option to, you know, just play without points or use a fan comp. It's hardly pay to win because if your opponent is using the Generals Handbook benefits then guess what? It's right there for you to use as well. Your opponent has a nifty new battletome? Use the generic options. Or just don't use the allegiance benefits at all. There are so many holes and ways around this that any cries of power creep are only guesses at what may come with only circumstantial evidence to support it.

Or hey, believe that there is power creep (and that GW hasn't changed at all) and just leave the game behind since its clearly going downhill. The rest of us will just have to enjoy AoS on our own.

Yep. More options =/= better. The new stuff is cool and fluffy but from the initial reviews I have listened to they are not simply "Generals Handbook rules +1" - they are thematically interesting options. They all seem to be very much in keeping with making a pure Sylvaneth army play as differently as possible from an Order army that includes Sylvaneth rather than power creep.

The only whinge I have is that I want the already released Battle Tome to get an update sooner rather than later because I want to run a pure Fyreslayers army and don't want to miss out on the nice Allegiance abilities!

Hate to keep derailing this thread (sorry mods), but doesn't the app make the whole "i've got a shiny Battletome and you don't!" thing moot?

You can get the formations there as well and the Facebook confirmed they're going to add alot of stuff from the handbook into it as well.

I'm really not seeing the creep part other than what some people who do everything in their power to get ahead and win will cause. But those people are unavoidable in every system. (Sadly :-( )

Looking at what we have seen so far of the sylvaneth , it seems the overriding aim is to give the player more choice and flexibility, rather than more power. The alliegence abilities and artefacts are all in the generals handbook so every army that sticks to a grand Alliance will have access to this.

The spell lore seems to be a different approach to magic rather than a more powerful one. To take the flesh eaters book for example, there are three heroes that each have their won unique spell. It seems like the sylvaneth books heroes will not have their own spells but will be able to choose one from the lore instead. This is a great change I think. It lets people make unique heroes.

As an aside I am very impressed with the work James Hewitt has done so far. He was responsible for betrayal at Calth, silver tower and the Slyvaneth rules. He has been working on blood bowl too which is very encouraging for that project.

There has been a lot of talk about GW losing their most talented designers but if they are able hire more people like James, the future will be bright.
To get back to AOS, I am very much looking forward to a Tzeentch Arcanite battletome in the new style though it seems we will be getting bonesplittas and beastclaw raiders first.

I wonder if you generate spells or know them all.
If you have the core rule generic spells as a base and just randomly generate one from the spell table, it sounds really hard to get the spell you like.
Then again, if you get lots of rolls or even know the whole lore its a huge advantage to any wizard that dont have a spell lore yet.
Perhaps you trade in the generic spells for 3 rolls on the lore table?
Perhaps you buy spells (for points), that would be new.

more here:http://wellofeternitypl.blogspot.com/2016/07/age-of-sigmar-artworks-x-sylvaneth.html

That's such a nice piece of art.

 Fayric wrote:
I wonder if you generate spells or know them all.
If you have the core rule generic spells as a base and just randomly generate one from the spell table, it sounds really hard to get the spell you like.
Then again, if you get lots of rolls or even know the whole lore its a huge advantage to any wizard that dont have a spell lore yet.
Perhaps you trade in the generic spells for 3 rolls on the lore table?
Perhaps you buy spells (for points), that would be new.

There are six spells. Each wizard can choose one. Each wizard or hero can also choose one magical item from a list of six. There are also six command abilities to choose from. You can just pick one or you can roll depending on what you and your opponent decide. I imagine that every battletome will have these lists of six going forward. The generals handbook contains all of these lists except the spells.

Chikout wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
I wonder if you generate spells or know them all.
If you have the core rule generic spells as a base and just randomly generate one from the spell table, it sounds really hard to get the spell you like.
Then again, if you get lots of rolls or even know the whole lore its a huge advantage to any wizard that dont have a spell lore yet.
Perhaps you trade in the generic spells for 3 rolls on the lore table?
Perhaps you buy spells (for points), that would be new.

There are six spells. Each wizard can choose one. Each wizard or hero can also choose one magical item from a list of six. There are also six command abilities to choose from. You can just pick one or you can roll depending on what you and your opponent decide. I imagine that every battletome will have these lists of six going forward. The generals handbook contains all of these lists except the spells.

Great! The magic need something to make it interresting IMO.
It has been kind of silly to see such lame spells for this supposedly uber fantastical magic-made-manifest kind of setting.

 ImAGeek wrote:
That's such a nice piece of art.

Is it? It looks exactly the same generiart as the rest of their current output.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
That's such a nice piece of art.

Is it? It looks exactly the same generiart as the rest of their current output.

I don't agree, but there we are.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Is it?

Good lighting, good composition, good rendering. It's objectively well made on a technical level.

You're obviously free to not enjoy it.

Actually, I think the beetle in that art looks like something out of Magic: The Gathering from about 15 years ago.

I have no idea if that's supposed to be compliment or an accusation.

It has now been duly noted that 'opinions will differ'.

This is, however, neither News nor Rumor, so, back On Topic here...

We played a 2 on 2 Warhost battle this weekend and discovered some cool balancing mechanisms within the matched play lists. I have been running a pure Ironjawz army. It has been crushing a lot of armies lately. When I constructed the army using the points system, I found out that the only way to satisfy the Battleline unit requirements was to choose the Ironjawz Allegiance. Normally, I could choose either Destruction or Ironjawz, but since my Brutes and Gore Gruntas are only Battleline (and I don't really use Ard Boyz) if I choose Ironjawz Allegiance, I had to go with Ironjawz. Since I chose Ironjawz Allegiance, I did not get all of the cool Allegiance abilities (there are no Allegiance Ironjawz perks). Maybe the Sylvaneth book will give them Allegiance perks so they can run pure Sylvaneth. I think this is a problem only Ironjawz face because the other new armies have units that are Battleline without having to be their own Allegiance. I think I can also run more Ard boyz and choose Destruction (I don't really think of them as Ironjawz). Anyway, the point I am making is that my really powerful Ironjawz army was balanced by not getting cool Allegiance abilities.

I do like some of the artwork for AoS, and dislike some of it. What I think tho, is that what they're aiming for is both focus on the models, since they are the things we'll buy, and on the atmosphere. This isn't the old WHFB where there was "Fantasy 1500 Germany" "Fantasy 1300 France" "Fantasy dark Canada" and things that were familiar, but cranked up few notches. I own a good few of old WHFB books, and while the art was great, it clashed with the models, as they looked rather "poor" compared to the artwork. Heck, even up to 5th Edition 40K the artwork was much superior to the models themselves. Now the models are, at least in my opinion, much more detailed than the artwork, because those are the selling point of the game. The generic feeling is because we're not having any specific piece of lore to work with, plus they're giving us players a lot of space to create our own worlds.
I for once welcome the change from gorgeous, specific artwork feeling familiar to this new one. Some of the art isn't great, I agree, but so is, for me, John Blanche's art.

5 new kits for Treedudes.

I was thinking AoS might be GW's attempt to shrink a bloated WHFB range, but it seems they are releasing just as many kits as they've culled.