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.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m really happy with how the new orc book is looking, but I’m one of those who believes that it’s important to have ‘normal’ versions of races to act as a benchmark for the others. And at the moment, we have no normal orcs anymore. Don’t Ironjawz and Bonesplittas come from regular orcs rather than being spawned?

Of course it does leave a nice gap to be filled out later. Maybe they could do something really different with them. Orc skypirates for example. There’s the Grotbag scuttlers but I’ve also heard about airborne Waaaghs too.

Use 40k as an example; Ironjawz are Goth...Bonesplittas are a mixture of snake bites (traditionalists) and death skullz (warpaint and superstition), and the third type could be everyone else (cunning of bloodaxes, arrogance of bad moons, speed loving of evil suns and the looting aspect of death skullz).

Give them crude blackpowder weapons too, to really mark them out.

I don’t really see how Orc Skypirates are any more ‘normal orcs’ than Ironjawz or Bonesplittas. Also, Goffs are the ‘normal’ Orks of 40k, so by your comparison, Ironjawz are in AoS.

There's already been mention of the Grotbag Scuttlers in both the Kharadron and Gloomspite battletomes as basically 'sky pirates'.

 Ghaz wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m really happy with how the new orc book is looking, but I’m one of those who believes that it’s important to have ‘normal’ versions of races to act as a benchmark for the others. And at the moment, we have no normal orcs anymore. Don’t Ironjawz and Bonesplittas come from regular orcs rather than being spawned?

Of course it does leave a nice gap to be filled out later. Maybe they could do something really different with them. Orc skypirates for example. There’s the Grotbag scuttlers but I’ve also heard about airborne Waaaghs too.

Use 40k as an example; Ironjawz are Goth...Bonesplittas are a mixture of snake bites (traditionalists) and death skullz (warpaint and superstition), and the third type could be everyone else (cunning of bloodaxes, arrogance of bad moons, speed loving of evil suns and the looting aspect of death skullz).

Give them crude blackpowder weapons too, to really mark them out.

I don’t really see how Orc Skypirates are any more ‘normal orcs’ than Ironjawz or Bonesplittas. Also, Goffs are the ‘normal’ Orks of 40k, so by your comparison, Ironjawz are in AoS.

There's already been mention of the Grotbag Scuttlers in both the Kharadron and Gloomspite battletomes as basically 'sky pirates'.

Right. I know. Nothing to do with my point though

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m really happy with how the new orc book is looking, but I’m one of those who believes that it’s important to have ‘normal’ versions of races to act as a benchmark for the others. And at the moment, we have no normal orcs anymore. Don’t Ironjawz and Bonesplittas come from regular orcs rather than being spawned?

Of course it does leave a nice gap to be filled out later. Maybe they could do something really different with them. Orc skypirates for example. There’s the Grotbag scuttlers but I’ve also heard about airborne Waaaghs too.

Use 40k as an example; Ironjawz are Goth...Bonesplittas are a mixture of snake bites (traditionalists) and death skullz (warpaint and superstition), and the third type could be everyone else (cunning of bloodaxes, arrogance of bad moons, speed loving of evil suns and the looting aspect of death skullz).

Give them crude blackpowder weapons too, to really mark them out.

I don’t really see how Orc Skypirates are any more ‘normal orcs’ than Ironjawz or Bonesplittas. Also, Goffs are the ‘normal’ Orks of 40k, so by your comparison, Ironjawz are in AoS.

There's already been mention of the Grotbag Scuttlers in both the Kharadron and Gloomspite battletomes as basically 'sky pirates'.

Right. I know. Nothing to do with my point though

But it does point out to Future War Cultist (who may or may not know) that the 'Sky Pirate' concept is already in the fluff.

OK, Orc sky pirates do wander off far off from normal orcs but I think my original point still stands. Having ‘normal’ orcs would be good and makes the others seem more normal. They could still have black powder weapons too; something similar to ogors (a mixture of artillery and weapons for high ranking characters).

EDIT:

I do know about the Scuttlers too. I’m actually hoping they arrive someday.

It looks like the Great Waaagh! Allegiance might go off the 'Orruk' keyword, if true means all the Greenskinz units (still legal in matched play) will be included, and they could release new ones straight into it.

Yeah, the abilities we see for that use the Orruk keyword, not "Great Waaagh!" or whatever. So Greenskinz might still be legal for it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It looks like the Great Waaagh! Allegiance might go off the 'Orruk' keyword, if true means all the Greenskinz units (still legal in matched play) will be included, and they could release new ones straight into it.

That would be cool. I sort of figured they'd do something like 'Cites of Sigmar', where they'd combine the Greenskinz, Regular Goblins, (sourbreath) Trolls, and Manhunters, for some sort of 'Destruction Gribblies' army.

Phoenicium up today !



Looks really strong, a flat +1 to wound and to hit because a small unit died ?

So just take a small unit of Freeguild guard, throw them at a Strong enemy unit. Have them die and them BAM +1 to hit and wound. I mean it seems to only work for that phase but it can be useful

I can work with that.

I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter". Plus, I don't think it's really fair to have new armies getting these rules while older codices don't. It also pushes people competitively to play just the best sub-faction because of the traits. This Phoenicium trait looks really powerful compared to a measly +3" range with guns.

I don't want AoS to end up like current 40k, broken by a single release of a OP book full of every bonus in existence. It still looks far from being the case as the bonuses are much more reasonable and restricted to some army compositions but still.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
So just take a small unit of Freeguild guard, throw them at a Strong enemy unit. Have them die and them BAM +1 to hit and wound. I mean it seems to only work for that phase but it can be useful

I can work with that.

Depending on how many units you get in combat and your opponent, this might not work

 Aaranis wrote:
I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter". Plus, I don't think it's really fair to have new armies getting these rules while older codices don't. It also pushes people competitively to play just the best sub-faction because of the traits.

I get what you're saying, but I guess for me I'm happier having these subfaction-defining rules than just faction-scale rules alone. Although I'm also an idiot who assumes people are like me and play these army games primarily for the hobby, so rules that match the background are a boon because it means in-game experience matches the models / armies / fluff better. 100% agree that there's a balance problem in AOS that keeps getting worse, but that's not new. When I play AOS, it's a) to get minis on the board that I like that have rules that better represent them than more generic systems can, and b) for carnage. I want balance, I go to KOW.

That said, the first piece of advice I give people interested in AOS is to only consider collecting / playing an army with an updated battletome. You are missing out on a really significant amount of flavor - and power - otherwise. (He said full of anticipation for Tzeentch 2.0 )

 Aaranis wrote:
I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter".

Would it shock you to know AoS has been doing this since the Kharadron Overlords book in first edition? Personally I prefer it to the way they handled subfactions in the first Sylvaneth book.

 Aaranis wrote:
Phoenicium up today !

Spoiler:

Looks really strong, a flat +1 to wound and to hit because a small unit died ?

It is stronger in theory than in practice I think. The opponent is unlikely to target a small unit first anyways because weakening larger, nastier units is usually a better option. With this in play even more so. What it does do, IMO, is promote tactical thinking starting with list building going into how one engages.

Yeah I admit I'm wrong on some points just because I joined AoS recently, I'm really not knowledgeable about early releases and such. I too love having sub-faction traits, but only when they're balanced and encourage different tactics and list building. Not having 5 trash traits and 1 OP for example. It's all I'm asking them to do.

No info on an updated Nighthaunt book by the way ?

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter".

Would it shock you to know AoS has been doing this since the Kharadron Overlords book in first edition? Personally I prefer it to the way they handled subfactions in the first Sylvaneth book.

Yeah, I agree. I actually prefer this right now. I really like how it can open up completely different playstyles and the way units work with each other. My Nighthaunt don't have any such options, and it kind of blows. On the other hand, my Stormcast and Sylvaneth have a ton of options. The Sylvaneth is really great IMO, as they really change the playstyle and units you bring.

It can be tougher to balance, and sometimes some subfactions are better than the others, but usually they are pretty close to each other. It's been pretty rare that one is just far and away better than all those present that you only take it, though there is usually one that is a bit on the weaker side compared to the rest.

Part of the problem can also be that some of these sub factions can be easier to pull off than others, giving the appearance of being stronger when it's not really the case.

terry wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
So just take a small unit of Freeguild guard, throw them at a Strong enemy unit. Have them die and them BAM +1 to hit and wound. I mean it seems to only work for that phase but it can be useful

I can work with that.

Depending on how many units you get in combat and your opponent, this might not work

Maybe not the way I laid out, but lets say I have 4 Freeguild Guard in combat at the start of a turn and my opponent decides to resolve that combat and wipe them out first. He just inadvertently gave me a +1 bonus to hit and wound that round.

Is it something I can guarantee? No, probably not. But it is a bonus an opponent can give you accidentally that can give the an edge in the rest of the phase.

But presumably you need to tell your opponent which city you are using, right?

 sockwithaticket wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:Vampires are all over the Mortal Realms including Azyr and the new Cites of Sigmar - when Nagash and Sigmar are not outright fighting they are probably given the same lattitude as Scourge privateers or Khainites.

Its fun that you can now have Blood Knights unit (Mecranaries) leading your Free Cities cavalry but yeah a Vampire led living army would be very nice and loresome, as you say Neferata has not changed and has her living and dead agents everywhere....

I used to have a Von Carstein army with plenty of Sylvanian militia. Ahh good old 6th(?).

Yeah, apparently Vlad was a pretty good ruler. Harsh, but fair.
I do miss the Old World. At least we still have Gotrek.

 Sasori wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter".

Would it shock you to know AoS has been doing this since the Kharadron Overlords book in first edition? Personally I prefer it to the way they handled subfactions in the first Sylvaneth book.

Yeah, I agree. I actually prefer this right now. I really like how it can open up completely different playstyles and the way units work with each other. My Nighthaunt don't have any such options, and it kind of blows. On the other hand, my Stormcast and Sylvaneth have a ton of options. The Sylvaneth is really great IMO, as they really change the playstyle and units you bring.

It can be tougher to balance, and sometimes some subfactions are better than the others, but usually they are pretty close to each other. It's been pretty rare that one is just far and away better than all those present that you only take it, though there is usually one that is a bit on the weaker side compared to the rest.

Part of the problem can also be that some of these sub factions can be easier to pull off than others, giving the appearance of being stronger when it's not really the case.

Agreed on all counts, IMO you summarized AoS subfactions quite well here.

The Phoenicium army seems to be for the people who used to like playing MSU melee armies in WHFB. Dark Elves players were often doing this in 6th and 7th edition.
Also Flagellants will profit from this, since they are only good with high casualties anyway.
Sounds interesting to me.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter".

Would it shock you to know AoS has been doing this since the Kharadron Overlords book in first edition? Personally I prefer it to the way they handled subfactions in the first Sylvaneth book.

Yeah, I agree. I actually prefer this right now. I really like how it can open up completely different playstyles and the way units work with each other. My Nighthaunt don't have any such options, and it kind of blows. On the other hand, my Stormcast and Sylvaneth have a ton of options. The Sylvaneth is really great IMO, as they really change the playstyle and units you bring.

It can be tougher to balance, and sometimes some subfactions are better than the others, but usually they are pretty close to each other. It's been pretty rare that one is just far and away better than all those present that you only take it, though there is usually one that is a bit on the weaker side compared to the rest.

Part of the problem can also be that some of these sub factions can be easier to pull off than others, giving the appearance of being stronger when it's not really the case.

Agreed on all counts, IMO you summarized AoS subfactions quite well here.

It's also important to remember that a core problem with the subfactions in 40K is that you end up with a heavy bias toward "soup" lists that combine several subfactions together. AoS just doesn't let you do that at all unless you agree to play with multiple armies. You get one "faction" for your army and that is it, though you can nearly always ally in options from outside. Though even then some subfactions don't let you - eg Skaven subfactions have to remain pure to their subfaction grouping to be allowed. This division and regulation of allied units and such drastically helps abuse what 40K suffers from in soup approaches and its something that I think 40K would benefit from greatly.

Don't the free cities undermine that though? I mean, are those just big books of soup, considering how you can field different factions together?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Don't the free cities undermine that though? I mean, are those just big books of soup, considering how you can field different factions together?

Not really because the Cities is a balanced single army with several different themed forces within it.
It's important to realise that whilst we might see the 5 or so different armies that comprise it, they are now one single force so far as AoS is concerned. Dwarves, Empire, High, Dark, Wood elves are all dead and gone. Whilst the remains of those armies are what makes up Free Cities as a single force with themes within. So its balanced out.



Also the different themed "cities" within the batteltome can only be fielded on their own. So if your city is themed around the Scourge Privateers (darkelf pirates) then you'll be tied into their allegiance bonuses and also their models. You might be able to bring allies from outside, but you'll be capped at 1/4 points of the army to include allies. Many allegiance abilities already only affect units with the right keyword which will typically be only from that subfaction.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Don't the free cities undermine that though? I mean, are those just big books of soup, considering how you can field different factions together?

From an outside perspective it can seem that way, however the factions it is merging together were previously over-split to the point of uselessness. It would be like if Space Marines were split into scouts, terminators & centurions, vehicles & techmarines, librarians, jump infantry & flyers, and foot marines, with each of those as a separate codex.

Reviews are also appearing of the new rulebook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpVNHfMi5y0


Honestly looking like its a very useful publication, plus they've also made it smaller so its even easier to pack. I think it also gives an idea of what GW considers "core" to the game at this stage, so it was interesting to see that mercenaries and the meeting engagements weren't in there, but I think part of that is still giving value to the books that many will have only just bought. Even so it means that that plus the GHB2019 would be all you'd need for varied games. For your bog standard no mercenaries 2K game its all in there.

Curious that they didn't go and add the FAQ and Errata pages to the book, that would have been a fine time to put them into print, even if it meant they had to make it battletome sized in dimensions and then add more pages. Granted many of the FAQ/Errata for specific armies would have been "wasted" and those documents do update pretty often so I can also see justification in GW not printing them in a hard copy only to have some fall out of date within weeks. Esp since they'd not have been able to include the content from the more recent tomes (accounting for printing time and shipping time).

Overall it looks like a very neat book and I'm glad to see GW taking this kind of step. Whilst we can argue about the "drip feed" approach to rules vs expansion of core rules in the end if GW releases one of these every year or two then it should keep the book load down. Plus lets not forget many of the expansion books often fall into the "store/club" copy situation where not everyone buys them.

 Overread wrote:
Reviews are also appearing of the new rulebook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpVNHfMi5y0



Curious that they didn't go and add the FAQ and Errata pages to the book, that would have been a fine time to put them into print, even if it meant they had to make it battletome sized in dimensions and then add more pages. Granted many of the FAQ/Errata for specific armies would have been "wasted" and those documents do update pretty often so I can also see justification in GW not printing them in a hard copy only to have some fall out of date within weeks. Esp since they'd not have been able to include the content from the more recent tomes (accounting for printing time and shipping time).

Overall it looks like a very neat book and I'm glad to see GW taking this kind of step. Whilst we can argue about the "drip feed" approach to rules vs expansion of core rules in the end if GW releases one of these every year or two then it should keep the book load down. Plus lets not forget many of the expansion books often fall into the "store/club" copy situation where not everyone buys them.

Apparently, any errata that pertains to the rules in this book has already been edited in. That's what Ben Johnson said on the live stream.

Chikout wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Reviews are also appearing of the new rulebook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpVNHfMi5y0



Curious that they didn't go and add the FAQ and Errata pages to the book, that would have been a fine time to put them into print, even if it meant they had to make it battletome sized in dimensions and then add more pages. Granted many of the FAQ/Errata for specific armies would have been "wasted" and those documents do update pretty often so I can also see justification in GW not printing them in a hard copy only to have some fall out of date within weeks. Esp since they'd not have been able to include the content from the more recent tomes (accounting for printing time and shipping time).

Overall it looks like a very neat book and I'm glad to see GW taking this kind of step. Whilst we can argue about the "drip feed" approach to rules vs expansion of core rules in the end if GW releases one of these every year or two then it should keep the book load down. Plus lets not forget many of the expansion books often fall into the "store/club" copy situation where not everyone buys them.

Apparently, any errata that pertains to the rules in this book has already been edited in. That's what Ben Johnson said on the live stream.

that's great to hear !

Kinda interested on what you take as allies for CoS. Propably a lot but you never know.

Sotahullu wrote:
Kinda interested on what you take as allies for CoS. Propably a lot but you never know.

Depends on the city.

There's a rule for Stormkeeps, letting you take a quarter of the army as Stormcast. Living City can do the same but with Sylvaneth and Tempest's Eye can do Overlords.