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.

 auticus wrote:
The facebook account said there were no core rules changes.

Right. Though they did mention updated Rules of One. I'm betting on Arcane Bolt no longer having the "only once per turn" restriction (like Smite does in 40k). I can't really think of any other changes to the Rules of One that I would expect, though.

Yeah. I'd expect tweaks to matched play rules but those aren't core mechanics.

Shooting into combat is a core mechanic.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah. I'd expect tweaks to matched play rules but those aren't core mechanics.

Shooting into combat is a core mechanic.

Yup, we're on the same page. As much as some folks may want it, I expect no change to rolling for priority every turn, either, since that is also a core mechanic (and, FWIW, I'm fine with it).

Looks like a decent number of new Battleplans, too, which is cool. Curious to see how the siege rules work.

Also, can't wait for you to finish up your Empires of Sigmar or whatever you want to call it so I can use my Mighty Empires tiles again.

Allies is actually a great idea! Now I can use my monsters of chaos again!

 DarkBlack wrote:
Allies is actually a great idea! Now I can use my monsters of chaos again!

They gave the Slaughterbrute the 'Khorne' keyword and the Mutalith Vortex Beast the 'Tzeentch' keyword some time ago. It will be nice to be able to use the Cockatrice with my Arcanites as the fluff says they do.

Well, saving and hit mechanics are part of the core rules and the rules of one affect them. MAYHAPS they make the following rule of one: natural rolls of 1 for to hit and to wound rolls for ranged weapons in combat cause a mortal wound on the shooter.

I suspect a rule saying multiple instances of the same buff don't stack in matched play. I would really like to see matched play go to fixed initiative as well, since it is a cruel joke when trying to create balanced matchups. So many of my least fun games have been because I got a double turn and won with no effort.

That very discussion is being waged on the tga forum right now (double turns)

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm loving everything I see here.

... except for the failure to include the core rules in the book.

I mean, come on, it's only 8 pages. 8 pages makes this book "complete" as the only thing I need to actually, well, play.

auticus wrote:Yeah. I'd expect tweaks to matched play rules but those aren't core mechanics.

Shooting into combat is a core mechanic.

The matched play rules could add a caveat to shooting into combat in matched play without changing the core rules.

DarkBlack wrote:Allies is actually a great idea! Now I can use my monsters of chaos again!

Good news for me an my next project list! I'd have to drop one of the Monsters (probably the Gargant), but I'd otherwise be able to run this as Slaves to Darkness Allegiance!

Ghaz wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
Allies is actually a great idea! Now I can use my monsters of chaos again!

They gave the Slaughterbrute the 'Khorne' keyword and the Mutalith Vortex Beast the 'Tzeentch' keyword some time ago. It will be nice to be able to use the Cockatrice with my Arcanites as the fluff says they do.

As far as I can tell, the non-god-aligned warscrolls are still valid. At least they're still available in Azyr. Doesn't really matter right now since Chaos wants to be using Tzeentch or Khorne allegiance over Chaos Allegiance, but the Brayherd, Skaven, or Slaves to Darkness Allegiances may get some cool buffs you want to use on your chaos monsters. It would allow Brayherds to use Bullgors, Centigors, Harpies, and Jabberslythes again without breaking Allegiance. Old school Beastmen armies are now legal again!

NinthMusketeer wrote:I suspect a rule saying multiple instances of the same buff don't stack in matched play. I would really like to see matched play go to fixed initiative as well, since it is a cruel joke when trying to create balanced matchups. So many of my least fun games have been because I got a double turn and won with no effort.

I'd be surprised not to see them heading this way. When Blades of Khorne came out, the Bloodsecrator and Bloodstoker abilities were updated in such a way that they can no longer stack.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm loving everything I see here.

... except for the failure to include the core rules in the book.

I mean, come on, it's only 8 pages. 8 pages makes this book "complete" as the only thing I need to actually, well, play.

4 pages actually. The rules weren't in Disciples of Tzeentch or Blades of Khorne either. I wonder why they stopped including them in new books.

I definitely don't want fixed turn order nor do I want shooting into combat taken away. I especially don't want the 40k character targeting rule.

I am very excited about the ally rules. I can't wait to see what the Free People's allegiance looks like, and hopefully it means some of the old Empire factions are being merged together again.

 EnTyme wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm loving everything I see here.

... except for the failure to include the core rules in the book.

I mean, come on, it's only 8 pages. 8 pages makes this book "complete" as the only thing I need to actually, well, play.

4 pages actually.

The rules weren't in Disciples of Tzeentch or Blades of Khorne either. I wonder why they stopped including them in new books.

Sorry. I somehow thought I saw them expanded to 8 pages somewhere. Or maybe that was 40k 8E talking.

I hope it wasn't to get people to buy a 2nd book, when GW gives away the AoS rules pamphlet for FREE.

 Bottle wrote:
I definitely don't want fixed turn order nor do I want shooting into combat taken away. I especially don't want the 40k character targeting rule.

I am very excited about the ally rules. I can't wait to see what the Free People's allegiance looks like, and hopefully it means some of the old Empire factions are being merged together again.

Agreed. I'm good with all the current stuff and am super excited for the allies.

In general I am hoping they don't go the can't stack route. Though it's why I held off on my sky dwarf army. I'd say it's 50/50 on whether they go the single time route since they changed the wording in khorne not to stack but kept the wording in Kharadon that would allow them to stack. So we'll see.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm loving everything I see here.

... except for the failure to include the core rules in the book.

I mean, come on, it's only 8 pages. 8 pages makes this book "complete" as the only thing I need to actually, well, play.

4 pages actually.

The rules weren't in Disciples of Tzeentch or Blades of Khorne either. I wonder why they stopped including them in new books.

Sorry. I somehow thought I saw them expanded to 8 pages somewhere. Or maybe that was 40k 8E talking.

I hope it wasn't to get people to buy a 2nd book, when GW gives away the AoS rules pamphlet for FREE.

I doubt it's anything that nefarious. Likely has more to do with page counts than anything.

 Bottle wrote:
I definitely don't want fixed turn order nor do I want shooting into combat taken away. I especially don't want the 40k character targeting rule.

I am very excited about the ally rules. I can't wait to see what the Free People's allegiance looks like, and hopefully it means some of the old Empire factions are being merged together again.

I seriously doubt shooting into/out of combat will be touched since its a very core mechanic of AoS and even adding something like a -1 hit penalty would hugely change how the game is played. Ditto for the character rule.

I'm still surprised to see so many people be opposed to fixed turn order in matched play. It's unquestioningly bad for competitive play and it wouldn't be removed from narrative play where it really shines.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I definitely don't want fixed turn order nor do I want shooting into combat taken away. I especially don't want the 40k character targeting rule.

I am very excited about the ally rules. I can't wait to see what the Free People's allegiance looks like, and hopefully it means some of the old Empire factions are being merged together again.

I seriously doubt shooting into/out of combat will be touched since its a very core mechanic of AoS and even adding something like a -1 hit penalty would hugely change how the game is played. Ditto for the character rule.

I'm still surprised to see so many people be opposed to fixed turn order in matched play. It's unquestioningly bad for competitive play and it wouldn't be removed from narrative play where it really shines.

Random turn order is just as much, if not more of, a "core" mechanic for Age of Sigmar than shooting into combat or character sniping. Changing any of the three would have a significant impact on tournament list building and match outcomes.

Not really. It's possible for any random AoS game to end up with fixed initiative simply as a result of the rolls. The mechanics don't change, the way the phases work don't change, etc. Tactics would, but that isn't a gameplay mechanic, and the rule of 1 for spells had more of a dramatic impact than fixed initiative would anyway. While great fun at times, in a tournament setting the idea is to match players such that their skill is the greatest determining factor in winning a match; as long as random initiative exists that will not be true. I resent that the balance of my competitive games has to be sacrificed to subsidize people who can't win without a double turn. If I secure turn choice and go second the first round, I know I have a 50/50% chance of winning outright because of the double regardless of who is sitting across the table and how skilled they may be. It's so demotivating that I don't even want to play in tournaments because I can't actually test my skills there.

I have heard top table tournament players say they like the double turn because it always keeps you in the game with a chance of a comeback. If the top table tournament players enjoy it, I am trusting it's good for the tournament scene overall.

I am not a top table tournament player myself (and forgive me Ninth, but from what I understand neither are you), but from my experience with 40k 8th I think that taking out the double turn will suck the enjoyment out of the play styles of many armies, and lead to a stronger shooting meta. Here are the reasons why:

I play Genestealer Cult in 40k and their army tactic is built around a the 'Cult Ambush' an ability that potentially lets you set up within 9" and then charge. To make a 9" charge on 2D6 is a 27.77% chance. As you can imagine the cult ambush is an almost unusable tactic right now with close combat units because of this low probability - instead I now run my Genestealers and Patriarch up the battlefield and use the ambush to set up my gun troops because gambling everything on a 27.77% chance makes for some brutally unforgiving games.

There are so many rules in AoS tied to a similar 9" set-up radius (for example all of summoning) that taking away the double turn would really cripple a lot of play styles.

40k has a saving grace with the Strategems (allowing me to reroll) - AoS does not have a mechanic like that currently. Instead it has the double turn which turns a 27.77% chance into a 27.77% followed by a 50%. It's the risk and reward that I like and opens up more tactics and playstyles in my opinion.

Lastly there is an interesting dynamic between scenarios giving first turn advantage, the advantage of an early double turn, and securing the choice with a low drop army (allowing your opponent to counter deploy you to some extent). Take Border Patrol for example, there is such an inherent first turn advantage in the scenario that most people still opt for it even if it puts them at a 50% risk of a turn 2/3 double. Taking away the double turn will make some scenarios massively weighted onto the first turn (and as a result massively benefit one-drop armies).

So these are some reasons why I like the double turn. I actually wish they had included it in 40k too.

What you are talking about is exactly a problem--subsidizing a strategy that doesn't actually work or punishing a player who played a game well by giving his opponent a double-turn comeback. Further, a double turn is more likely to cause one player to become dominant in a game than it is to give the other player a comeback, if such a situation is to be avoided then so is random turns. Listbuilding currently revolves around undercosted units/battalions first, and exploiting the double turn second. A good spread of unit roles in an army or proper positioning does not matter as much as one's ability to exploit (or mitigate) random initiative. Note how there is only dice in the whole game system that Kairos cannot modify because it would be too strong. Placing that much weight on a single dice roll takes control away from players and makes luck a bigger determining factor. Which in Matched Play, ostensibly the mode for players to test their skill, is a bad thing. If chess tournaments ran off random initiative no one would take them seriously. In 40k specifically, try it. Play random initiative games with other players and see how it works out, just notify them ahead of time so they can optimize their list appropriately. Or go to the 40k forum as suggest that it should be used at tournaments. Maybe I'm wrong and people will be receptive to it, and it will actually work.

As for top table tournament players; if that means large national tournaments or regional ones then no, I don't have a chance to be because I cannot afford to travel to them. So it's great to hear that my financial status now affects the validity of my opinion on the game. Pay to win taken to a whole new level.

I have no idea of your financial status Ninth, so to try and twist my comment into being a stab at that feels somewhat dishonest. Hopefully you have spoken with me enough to know I simply value the opinions of those prominent in the scene because they themselves play tournament AoS more than anyone else and have the largest pool of experience to draw upon. Nothing more should be construed and if it came across as anything else I apologise.

I would say even with tournaments and matched play, promoting an enjoyable game trumps over testing a player's skill. If removing the double turn makes the games a truer test of skill but makes matches more cagey and turns certain match-ups into rock-scissor-paper because the randomness is toned down, I say overall it is worse for the game. This is what I have heard people say and it also corresponds to my own experience of playing two very similar games (AoS and 40k 8th) where one has the double turn and one doesn't.

Oddly if they kept the lower drops equals auto go first then I could see double turn worming in 40k. But since the competitive scene is going to roll for first, because the play testers are also the tournament heads, it doesn't matter much.

As a guy who has won or come in second every AoS tournament he's been to locally and has for years finished in the top at national level gts for 40k it's my opinion that random turn is good for the game. The style of play it enourages in combination with the scenarios is excellent. I find aos much more enjoyable and far less rock paper scissor than 8th 40k and I wouldn't want that to change.

It came across like you were saying 'well these bigwig tourney guys said they like it so your concerns are invalid'. At least to me.

As for fun vs skill I see your point, and I think its a good one that helps me understand your position much better. The reason we fundamentally disagree so strongly here is because for me random initiative doesn't make things more fun in matched play--it makes them significantly less fun. I don't dislike random initiative inherently but when I show up to matched play I want to test my skill against my opponent, this is as opposed to just creating an entertaining 'cinematic' like I would in a narrative game. I even have whole armies that I only use for one or the other. Turn order changing hurts my enjoyment in the former but helps my enjoyment in the latter.

See Ninth, I think random initiative actually takes the skillet of top players to a higher level. The ability to control the game and leave options for the randomness is huge. It's why I think random initiative is better. It helps the middle pack players feel like they have a chance even when things are grim but it also seperates the upper end too.

 Hulksmash wrote:
See Ninth, I think random initiative actually takes the skillet of top players to a higher level. The ability to control the game and leave options for the randomness is huge. It's why I think random initiative is better. It helps the middle pack players feel like they have a chance even when things are grim but it also seperates the upper end too.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It makes the top players harder to beat but also easier?

I think Hulksmash is saying it creates swingy and exciting games on the lower/middle tables and requires high level strategy on the top tables because it forces a player to account for the luck going with or against them if they are to succeed.

Random initiative.....I think should be adjusted some how. Its like a double edge sword to me as on one hand it can really help you out but on the other hand I know there are times when im praying to dice gods for my opponent not to get the double turn cause it would mean the game is over turn 2...

It is a cool concept for sure because a good player would have to really weigh options as to if the opponent or themselves would get the double turn but with some of the armies out there....it becomes more of a stress.

I did a team tourney last weekend at a local shop and while my partners and mine lists were not too competitive but still decent, we came across alot of mortal wound lists. Let me just say FEC and TK doing shouts at -2 bravery grots.....I was brown in the pants every time. When roll for initiative came up each time I was worried cause if they got it I was for sure a goner and always needed my turn after theirs to re-adjust my units so I could survive. So maybe they can do some sort of modifier on the roll to benefit the underdog of the turn, that would make people think about how aggressively they will play and if they could cripple the opponent enough that the double turn wont hurt them as bad. Idk if its a solid idea or not, sure there are ways to break it.

With the new GH17 the only real rules changes I want to see are mystic shield giving a 6+ save against mortal wounds, not being able to shoot at a character if a battline unit is closer, and alligence abilities for moonclan grots (dont think the last one even has a chance due to the leaked images)

Random initiative can stay cause at the end of the day its AoS and I dont want it becoming too much like the new 40k. Love the new edition of 40k but still want each system to play a little different since I play both and dont want to be burnt out on either.

Well it seems my experience with random initiative may just be unusually bad. Anecdotal but what I'm hearing here and from other regions is that round 1-2 doubles don't decide games very often at all. Though I would still like to see round 2 be fixed order and random initiative kicking in starting round 3.

Typically the games I have played in, random initiative ends the game in turn 2 or 3 for all intents and purposes to the player that gets it first.

I don't like that the game is so hugely dependent on an initiative roll like that. I don't care what the top tournament players enjoy. For me it makes the game grossly unfun.

The option to have it removed would be my preference. I don't want to take things away from people that enjoy it. But I also don't want "officialdom" shoved up my butt every time either. Much like base to base is an option, I'd like to see things like this become an option.

The other positive is that Game of Thrones game has alternate activation and I'm going to back that as if it has enough players would become my go to fantasy game if anything else. My community is also trying to revive kings of war, though I'm less excited about that.

I really like what they've put out so far. I'm excited to see what tidbits they release for Death tomorrow.


This is purely conjecture, but they've said that there will be no core rules changes in GHB 2017 and if they've also left out the core rules that could mean they might update the core rules separately a couple months down the road. I actually don't think they will do that, but ti's possible. It seems like right now they have a good opportunity to see how certain things work in 8th 40k and use those observations to help decide what (if any) changes to make to the core rules in the future.

Other than b2b measuring what do you think they would change?