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.

No-cost mount upgrades? Game, balance, Gw hardly knew ye.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
No-cost mount upgrades? Game, balance, Gw hardly knew ye.

That's been a thing since GHB1, though? Mounted heroes generally also have the issue of being more targettable, since they take about twice the height.

But free? Or rather, baked into their cost, making non-mounted ones inherently overcosted.

Who thought that was a good idea?

That'd be like having the costs of a dedicated transport part of every squad in 40K, even when you don't take one.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But free? Or rather, baked into their cost, making non-mounted ones inherently overcosted.

Who thought that was a good idea?

That'd be like having the costs of a dedicated transport part of every squad in 40K, even when you don't take one.

Yeah. It's bonkers, I hate it.

That's honestly my biggest complaint about AoS. That issue could have easily been fixed, but GW seems bound and determined to have a single cost for each warscroll. I was hoping they would add some modularity with 2E, but no. It probably would have been a lot of work to update every warscroll and battletome with points costs for gear, but I think it would have been well worth it for the overall balance of the game.

 EnTyme wrote:
That's honestly my biggest complaint about AoS. That issue could have easily been fixed, but GW seems bound and determined to have a single cost for each warscroll. I was hoping they would add some modularity with 2E, but no. It probably would have been a lot of work to update every warscroll and battletome with points costs for gear, but I think it would have been well worth it for the overall balance of the game.

To be honest, I'm not bothered by it. Most of the mounted stuff is legacy for the time being--and even then, some of the legacy stuff never made the cut. I've got a Wood Elf Glade Lord on Great Stag and one on a Horse but no rules.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Biggest change I've seen so far is to the definition of 'wholly within'.

It seemed the same to me, or at least how I played it. What was the change? Specifically referring to bases and not models?

Can you imagine if the put the cost of transports into squad members in 40K?

What if Tac Marines cost 20 points each (13 + 70/10 for the Rhino). Would that be in any way fair?

I don't see how anyone can justify including the price of mounts in a character's cost even when they don't take the mount. That's like... the opposite of game design. That's intentionally breaking something.

Dumbest thing I've seen so far:

Big FAQ wrote:Q: Can I use the new model for the Nighthaunt Black Coach to
represent a Legion Black Coach?

A: Only if your opponent agrees to let you use it as a
proxy model.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 exliontamer wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Biggest change I've seen so far is to the definition of 'wholly within'.

It seemed the same to me, or at least how I played it. What was the change? Specifically referring to bases and not models?

Previously, a MODEL was 'wholly within' if its entire base was within range, and a UNIT was wholly within if at least part of every model's base was within range. Now, the entirety of EVERY base must be within range.

That Black Coach ruling is super dumb.

They're saying that the Black Coach in one army isn't the same as the Black Coach in another?

I for sure miss the point system of old...
Everything with a value, (fair or not, granted, but a value indeed).
Creating a list, point based was one of my favorite part of the hobby back then.
Now it is mostly modelling, so who am I to discuss rules anyway?

Wouldn't the black coach thing be because there are two existing models with completely different dimensions, so we're given two different waescrolls? Is there a difference in the warscrolls? Not able to look atm.

The warscrolls are totally different. However there is still nothing preventing one from converting the new coach into an old one--leave off the spirits, cut off the front two horses, and be sure to give the driver the scythe. Then put it on the correct base, done.

A better question is if it's worth spending three digits on a 120 point model...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can you imagine if the put the cost of transports into squad members in 40K?

What if Tac Marines cost 20 points each (13 + 70/10 for the Rhino). Would that be in any way fair?

I don't see how anyone can justify including the price of mounts in a character's cost even when they don't take the mount. That's like... the opposite of game design. That's intentionally breaking something.

Take 40k and remove points entirely. Do everything off power levels. That is how AoS points work.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can you imagine if the put the cost of transports into squad members in 40K?

What if Tac Marines cost 20 points each (13 + 70/10 for the Rhino). Would that be in any way fair?

I don't see how anyone can justify including the price of mounts in a character's cost even when they don't take the mount. That's like... the opposite of game design. That's intentionally breaking something.

Do marines come with the rhino in the same box?

No?

Well, there you go, they cannot be in the same unit cost.

A handful of old heroes have this because their kit comes with that build like the warboss and freeguild general, the vampire lord and... that's about it. Now, being on a steed makes you bigger, so it's easier to draw LOS and shoot him.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Do marines come with the rhino in the same box?

I don't see how that's relevant. Moreover, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, depending on what box you buy.

Lord Kragan wrote:
A handful of old heroes have this because their kit comes with that build like the warboss and freeguild general, the vampire lord and... that's about it. Now, being on a steed makes you bigger, so it's easier to draw LOS and shoot him.

Your reasoning is highly flawed.

You pay for what something is worth. If the mount is seen to be something that increases the cost, then why would you pay for it when you don't have it? And if there are disadvantages to having a mount as you describe, then why does it cost anything at all, given you are saying it's a trade-off?

Ultimately, everything should have a cost that reflects its value. Baking in the costs of potential upgrades is bad game design.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're saying that the Black Coach in one army isn't the same as the Black Coach in another?

They made an unfortunate decision to give two different units (with different rules and different sculpts) the same name. All the rest of the nonsense flows from that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
A handful of old heroes have this because their kit comes with that build like the warboss and freeguild general, the vampire lord and... that's about it. Now, being on a steed makes you bigger, so it's easier to draw LOS and shoot him.

Your reasoning is highly flawed.

You pay for what something is worth. If the mount is seen to be something that increases the cost, then why would you pay for it when you don't have it? And if there are disadvantages to having a mount as you describe, then why does it cost anything at all, given you are saying it's a trade-off?

Ultimately, everything should have a cost that reflects its value. Baking in the costs of potential upgrades is bad game design.

Isn't your point that they DON'T cost and ergo since he says you can draw more easily LOS to it it's tradeoff and thus you pay for the benefits from mount by the LOS issues?

Another thing of course if that's enough of a cost difference. Then again in 40k since you are comparing to them the mount options are underpriced anyway. Bike, jump pack. If you have option you want to use them over walking

Edit: Nevermind.

Yessssss

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 exliontamer wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Biggest change I've seen so far is to the definition of 'wholly within'.

It seemed the same to me, or at least how I played it. What was the change? Specifically referring to bases and not models?

Previously, a MODEL was 'wholly within' if its entire base was within range, and a UNIT was wholly within if at least part of every model's base was within range. Now, the entirety of EVERY base must be within range.

Ahhh, gotcha. The current ruling is how I have always played it...so no big change for me. Thanks for the clarification though.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're saying that the Black Coach in one army isn't the same as the Black Coach in another?

They made an unfortunate decision to give two different units (with different rules and different sculpts) the same name. All the rest of the nonsense flows from that.

TBF one warscroll is the "Legion Black Coach" while the other is just "Black Coach" so the units do not strictly have the same name. Buuut they are still the same thing in spirit if not technically.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're saying that the Black Coach in one army isn't the same as the Black Coach in another?

They made an unfortunate decision to give two different units (with different rules and different sculpts) the same name. All the rest of the nonsense flows from that.

TBF one warscroll is the "Legion Black Coach" while the other is just "Black Coach" so the units do not strictly have the same name. Buuut they are still the same thing in spirit if not technically.

They have vastly different warscrolls, with different rules and different points costs. The Legion Black Coach is objectively inferior.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're saying that the Black Coach in one army isn't the same as the Black Coach in another?

They made an unfortunate decision to give two different units (with different rules and different sculpts) the same name. All the rest of the nonsense flows from that.

TBF one warscroll is the "Legion Black Coach" while the other is just "Black Coach" so the units do not strictly have the same name. Buuut they are still the same thing in spirit if not technically.

They have vastly different warscrolls, with different rules and different points costs. The Legion Black Coach is objectively inferior.

Think the issue is more of not being able to use same model. Yeah maybe legion black coach is inferior. Why can't the other model be used to represent the other? Is the other model even on sale anymore? I can find only one black coach model on sale anyway. And base size is identical on base size chart...

That's one odd ruling.

zamerion wrote:

Spoiler:

From Warhammer Community:

Finally, the Moonclan worship Gorkamorka as the Bad Moon, a colossal celestial entity which spreads madness and mayhem wherever it goes. Reports that the Bad Moon is rising in the Mortal Realms are, of course, nought but rumours – such a thing could only exist in the fevered imagination of a grot…

…right?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're saying that the Black Coach in one army isn't the same as the Black Coach in another?

They made an unfortunate decision to give two different units (with different rules and different sculpts) the same name. All the rest of the nonsense flows from that.

TBF one warscroll is the "Legion Black Coach" while the other is just "Black Coach" so the units do not strictly have the same name. Buuut they are still the same thing in spirit if not technically.

They have vastly different warscrolls, with different rules and different points costs. The Legion Black Coach is objectively inferior.

What's funny is that 120 point model has a combo which lets it kill anything in one combat phase


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

zamerion wrote:

Spoiler:

From Warhammer Community:

Finally, the Moonclan worship Gorkamorka as the Bad Moon, a colossal celestial entity which spreads madness and mayhem wherever it goes. Reports that the Bad Moon is rising in the Mortal Realms are, of course, nought but rumours – such a thing could only exist in the fevered imagination of a grot…

…right?

The real takeaway here is Battletome: Firebellies confirmed.

(Sarcasm)

The snowy banner on the warhammer community is changing in an interesting way.

 Ghaz wrote:

zamerion wrote:

Spoiler:

From Warhammer Community:

Finally, the Moonclan worship Gorkamorka as the Bad Moon, a colossal celestial entity which spreads madness and mayhem wherever it goes. Reports that the Bad Moon is rising in the Mortal Realms are, of course, nought but rumours – such a thing could only exist in the fevered imagination of a grot…

…right?

Spoiler:

I'm equally amused and confused that night gobbos are getting the skaven treatment in AoS, rumours, hints and denial.