New AOS Edition comes out in June

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.

**EnTyme**

Is it time to make a new thread? I'm really enjoying this discussion, but it's kind of off-topic for this thread. In fact, this thread isn't particularly relevant anymore since the edition is already out.

**Farseer_V2**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Listbuilding is more difficult in a balanced game, not non-existent. Having the right balance of front line, support, hammer, anvil, etc will still crush an army of randomly selected options. People know this. But some are afraid that without being able to get a dramatic advantage by making an overpowered list they won't be able to win as many games. Saying this sounds petty so there are other reasons brought up as a cover.

What sounds petty is your assigning a motive to a group of players that is entirely off base.

**NinthMusketeer**

Farseer_V2 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Listbuilding is more difficult in a balanced game, not non-existent. Having the right balance of front line, support, hammer, anvil, etc will still crush an army of randomly selected options. People know this. But some are afraid that without being able to get a dramatic advantage by making an overpowered list they won't be able to win as many games. Saying this sounds petty so there are other reasons brought up as a cover.

What sounds petty is your assigning a motive to a group of players that is entirely off base.

Explain how I am wrong and I will gladly rescind that statement.

**kodos**

Davor wrote:
kodos wrote:GW is learning and improving
But they are still not there were they once were regarding rules writing/game design

You are wrong here. GW is at where they are rules wise right now. That might change in a month or two. Thing is GW have great rules IT'S THE COMMUNITY who doesn't want to play them. If people actually played the game instead of saying it was crap and ironically best prices at the time, GW could have used these rules for 40K and Age of Sigmar. I was hoping Age of Sigmar was going to use these rules but didn't.

So GW makes rules that the community wants. It does seem the community wants these rules. I am not saying ALL people want it but in general it seems more want it this way. The rules I am talking about is Lord of the Rings. I never played The Hobbit but I believe the rules are basically the same. There is also LotR mass battle as well which is a great rule set but people didn't play it either. Again prices were great. It's what people have been asking for at the time, great rules, BALANCED rules, and good prices. LotR offered this but the community balked at it for one reason or another. Why do I say GW might not be there in a month or so? Depending on the new rules for LotR since it's adding the "keyword" system that is 40K and AoS, we don't know what else is changed. Until that comes out, GW has great rules right now. It is just the Games Workshop community who doesn't want it.

So GW does do good rules, sadly it's us the community who refuses them.

The time GW wrote good rules was also the time they made LoTR.

And people played it, it was just that the LotR Community was not so forgiving regarding pricing than the other GW Fanboys.
Doubling the price per miniature killed the game in an instand, and here it was more popular than Warhammer at the time

GW was able to write good rules, but the people they attracted with those were not those that would buy everything at any price

**NinthMusketeer**

If the rules for fantasy & lotr were switched I would still be playing fantasy. The setting is what brought me to the game and at the end of the day what keeps me in it.

**Farseer_V2**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Farseer_V2 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Listbuilding is more difficult in a balanced game, not non-existent. Having the right balance of front line, support, hammer, anvil, etc will still crush an army of randomly selected options. People know this. But some are afraid that without being able to get a dramatic advantage by making an overpowered list they won't be able to win as many games. Saying this sounds petty so there are other reasons brought up as a cover.

What sounds petty is your assigning a motive to a group of players that is entirely off base.
Explain how I am wrong and I will gladly rescind that statement.

Simple - you can simply enjoy list writing as an aspect of the hobby. I don't need list writing to win games as that's largely immaterial to my fun. I enjoy the actual process of writing lists and trying to squeeze extra efficiency out of units or trying to find a niche to make an overlooked unit viable. I don't do any of that to help me win games as I rarely play with those lists - I simply write them because its a part of my hobby. It started during my time working for GW when one of my favorite things to do was to sit down and write lists with customers which grew into helping customers find ways to use their favorite (often 'less than optimal') units. And from there its remained a favorite part of my hobby.

I'm not suggesting that's how everyone views it, I am suggesting that you've effectively pained everyone who enjoys list writing with the same brush stroke. That being that anyone who likes list building needs it or wants it because they are afraid they wouldn't be good at the game without it.

**Davor**

auticus wrote:LOTR fails for the same reason KOW fails. The listbuilding phase in LOTR isn't interesting. The rules ARE great, probably to me the greatest set of rules GW ever did. But because its not a game about combos and synergies, it will forever be a game that is ignored by the bulk of players.

I never thought about that. That is so true now that you told me that. I guess loving a faction was why I played and bought what was cool and just used that when I played. Thank you for that, I can see it in another way now that I haven't before.

EnTyme wrote:Is it time to make a new thread? I'm really enjoying this discussion, but it's kind of off-topic for this thread. In fact, this thread isn't particularly relevant anymore since the edition is already out.

While I agree the topic is not in the proper thread, thing is, 2.0 is out now and this thread should be closed and a new one open. Thing is as you said great discussions are going on now so I would hate to see this one closed especially a Dakka thread that is going respectfully.

kodos wrote:
Davor wrote:
kodos wrote:GW is learning and improving
But they are still not there were they once were regarding rules writing/game design

You are wrong here. GW is at where they are rules wise right now. That might change in a month or two. Thing is GW have great rules IT'S THE COMMUNITY who doesn't want to play them. If people actually played the game instead of saying it was crap and ironically best prices at the time, GW could have used these rules for 40K and Age of Sigmar. I was hoping Age of Sigmar was going to use these rules but didn't.

So GW makes rules that the community wants. It does seem the community wants these rules. I am not saying ALL people want it but in general it seems more want it this way. The rules I am talking about is Lord of the Rings. I never played The Hobbit but I believe the rules are basically the same. There is also LotR mass battle as well which is a great rule set but people didn't play it either. Again prices were great. It's what people have been asking for at the time, great rules, BALANCED rules, and good prices. LotR offered this but the community balked at it for one reason or another. Why do I say GW might not be there in a month or so? Depending on the new rules for LotR since it's adding the "keyword" system that is 40K and AoS, we don't know what else is changed. Until that comes out, GW has great rules right now. It is just the Games Workshop community who doesn't want it.

So GW does do good rules, sadly it's us the community who refuses them.

The time GW wrote good rules was also the time they made LoTR.

And people played it, it was just that the LotR Community was not so forgiving regarding pricing than the other GW Fanboys.
Doubling the price per miniature killed the game in an instand, and here it was more popular than Warhammer at the time

GW was able to write good rules, but the people they attracted with those were not those that would buy everything at any price

I am one of those unforgiving people who left when The Hobbit came out. I agree with you about the pricing and what not. All I was saying about the rules. Rules are current so therefore they are the best still. So it means GW can make great rules right now. Hope this makes sense since I didn't explain myself properly the first time.

**Wayniac**

I honestly hate list building because it's just combos and as a result, you have a large number of things being ignored because something else is better. That, to me, is awful design. There should never be a situation where one unit is invalidated because another can do the same role but better/cheaper.

I'd rather have a game where you are not penalized for liking the fluff/aesthetics of Unit X over Unit Y.

**NinthMusketeer**

Farseer_V2 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Farseer_V2 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Listbuilding is more difficult in a balanced game, not non-existent. Having the right balance of front line, support, hammer, anvil, etc will still crush an army of randomly selected options. People know this. But some are afraid that without being able to get a dramatic advantage by making an overpowered list they won't be able to win as many games. Saying this sounds petty so there are other reasons brought up as a cover.

What sounds petty is your assigning a motive to a group of players that is entirely off base.
Explain how I am wrong and I will gladly rescind that statement.

Simple - you can simply enjoy list writing as an aspect of the hobby. I don't need list writing to win games as that's largely immaterial to my fun. I enjoy the actual process of writing lists and trying to squeeze extra efficiency out of units or trying to find a niche to make an overlooked unit viable. I don't do any of that to help me win games as I rarely play with those lists - I simply write them because its a part of my hobby. It started during my time working for GW when one of my favorite things to do was to sit down and write lists with customers which grew into helping customers find ways to use their favorite (often 'less than optimal') units. And from there its remained a favorite part of my hobby.

I'm not suggesting that's how everyone views it, I am suggesting that you've effectively pained everyone who enjoys list writing with the same brush stroke. That being that anyone who likes list building needs it or wants it because they are afraid they wouldn't be good at the game without it.

My statement was only in regards to individuals who use listbuilding arguments as a cover when really what they want is, in essence, an unfair advantage just by bringing certain OP options. They do not enjoy listbuilding--they enjoy winning, and building a list is simply a means if not a chore to that end. Someone who really does enjoy listbuilding (I do, tremendously) knows full well that balance makes for a more interesting process, not less.

**Farseer_V2**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Farseer_V2 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Farseer_V2 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Listbuilding is more difficult in a balanced game, not non-existent. Having the right balance of front line, support, hammer, anvil, etc will still crush an army of randomly selected options. People know this. But some are afraid that without being able to get a dramatic advantage by making an overpowered list they won't be able to win as many games. Saying this sounds petty so there are other reasons brought up as a cover.

What sounds petty is your assigning a motive to a group of players that is entirely off base.
Explain how I am wrong and I will gladly rescind that statement.

Simple - you can simply enjoy list writing as an aspect of the hobby. I don't need list writing to win games as that's largely immaterial to my fun. I enjoy the actual process of writing lists and trying to squeeze extra efficiency out of units or trying to find a niche to make an overlooked unit viable. I don't do any of that to help me win games as I rarely play with those lists - I simply write them because its a part of my hobby. It started during my time working for GW when one of my favorite things to do was to sit down and write lists with customers which grew into helping customers find ways to use their favorite (often 'less than optimal') units. And from there its remained a favorite part of my hobby.

I'm not suggesting that's how everyone views it, I am suggesting that you've effectively pained everyone who enjoys list writing with the same brush stroke. That being that anyone who likes list building needs it or wants it because they are afraid they wouldn't be good at the game without it.
My statement was only in regards to individuals who use listbuilding arguments as a cover when really what they want is, in essence, an unfair advantage just by bringing certain OP options. They do not enjoy listbuilding--they enjoy winning, and building a list is simply a means if not a chore to that end. Someone who really does enjoy listbuilding (I do, tremendously) knows full well that balance makes for a more interesting process, not less.

That largely depends on what you want to get out of list building. Games like KoW, WoTR, LoTR (just games from my wheelhouse) are more balanced games than say AoS or 40k but I find list writing to be far less rewarding or entertaining in those games. A well balanced game doesn't make list writing more interesting if the only thing you get out of it is bringing different compositions of units. There is a great deal of fun to be had in tinkering and tech-ing with various lists, especially when your goal is optimize units or to make sub optimal units more viable. I don't mind having the conversation but you do a fantastic job of condescending to effectively anyone who doesn't share your view point.

**kodos**

I have to say that I spend much more time tweaking lists for KoW than for AoS.

A fun part of list building for me is to find synergies within the list with a specific theme and not to find the best artefact, command skill and unit.
This is just quick math (of course for those that are not good at calculations it is more difficult and not so obvious) between different options to get the best.

It is not like that there are not different lists, but like for Stormcast it is obvious what is better and what units you should take to get most synergies out.
While just taking the stuff you like gives you a weaker list most of the time

In KoW everything is viable but there are still units that work better together than others and finding those is not only math alone and with many more options they are harder to find.
Taking the stuff you like gives you not a list that make you lose the game by default, but you can still tweak it to make it better

**NinthMusketeer**

Farseer_V2 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Farseer_V2 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Farseer_V2 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Listbuilding is more difficult in a balanced game, not non-existent. Having the right balance of front line, support, hammer, anvil, etc will still crush an army of randomly selected options. People know this. But some are afraid that without being able to get a dramatic advantage by making an overpowered list they won't be able to win as many games. Saying this sounds petty so there are other reasons brought up as a cover.

What sounds petty is your assigning a motive to a group of players that is entirely off base.
Explain how I am wrong and I will gladly rescind that statement.

Simple - you can simply enjoy list writing as an aspect of the hobby. I don't need list writing to win games as that's largely immaterial to my fun. I enjoy the actual process of writing lists and trying to squeeze extra efficiency out of units or trying to find a niche to make an overlooked unit viable. I don't do any of that to help me win games as I rarely play with those lists - I simply write them because its a part of my hobby. It started during my time working for GW when one of my favorite things to do was to sit down and write lists with customers which grew into helping customers find ways to use their favorite (often 'less than optimal') units. And from there its remained a favorite part of my hobby.

I'm not suggesting that's how everyone views it, I am suggesting that you've effectively pained everyone who enjoys list writing with the same brush stroke. That being that anyone who likes list building needs it or wants it because they are afraid they wouldn't be good at the game without it.
My statement was only in regards to individuals who use listbuilding arguments as a cover when really what they want is, in essence, an unfair advantage just by bringing certain OP options. They do not enjoy listbuilding--they enjoy winning, and building a list is simply a means if not a chore to that end. Someone who really does enjoy listbuilding (I do, tremendously) knows full well that balance makes for a more interesting process, not less.

That largely depends on what you want to get out of list building. Games like KoW, WoTR, LoTR (just games from my wheelhouse) are more balanced games than say AoS or 40k but I find list writing to be far less rewarding or entertaining in those games. A well balanced game doesn't make list writing more interesting if the only thing you get out of it is bringing different compositions of units. There is a great deal of fun to be had in tinkering and tech-ing with various lists, especially when your goal is optimize units or to make sub optimal units more viable. I don't mind having the conversation but you do a fantastic job of condescending to effectively anyone who doesn't share your view point.

Im sorry if that's how my statements came across, but I intended them to apply to only a narrow category of players. Not anyone who disagrees or anyone outside that narrow group. As I mentioned in the same post; to me, an avid listbuilder, KoW listbuilding was bland before it was balanced and having it be bland after being balanced (I am assuming it is now, I haven't touched it in some time) just speaks to balance not being the cause. Regardless, the idea that I am speaking poorly of anyone who enjoys listbuilding is flawed on a fundamental level unless you wish to argue that I am insulting myself. Understand that from my perspective it is you acting condescending.

**Galas**

Theres a difference in list building when you are building an army and when you are building a deck.

People like list-building to be like a deck in a card game. They want cards that are bad, they want cards that are ok, they want cards that are OP and they want others that are OP under certain circunstances.

The List-building phase in AoS and Warhammer 40k is what defines your strategy. You have your combos premade, and you just try to use them. The less interaction with your opponent, the better (This is why many people also love the double turn. If I can do all my stuff without interruption and auto-win, is better)

In a game with a list building phase where you make your army, like LOTR, you have some kind of strategy, but that strategy is always made with the idea of facing an enemy on the field (Ex: I will take this horse unit to support my right flank because I have heavy infantry protecting the middle.), and once you enter the battlefield, for your strategy to work, you need to have an interactive game because if your opponent does nothing you can't basically play, because theres no interesting choices.

**Hulksmash**

Funny side note. FEC might actually be able to be the summoning king with a relatively decent build. A properly built FEC list can summon 1k points by turn 3-4. They make lizardmen jelly.

Sadly this isn't as over the top as Lizards adding 500pts because FEC actually need the summoning to compete with any other battletome armies desperately.

**auticus**

This is why for any narrative event I run I'm sticking to my original scenario houserule where if you bring in more than 20% of your points for free your opponent gets a sudden death victory condition.

Its worked great for the past couple of years and is still very relevant today.

**Hulksmash**

auticus wrote:
This is why for any narrative event I run I'm sticking to my original scenario houserule where if you bring in more than 20% of your points for free your opponent gets a sudden death victory condition.

Its worked great for the past couple of years and is still very relevant today.

For a narrative event I'm totally in support of this. For matched play FEC is actually one that I don't mind having that kind of ability. Honestly the GK's and Ghouls are still so overpriced (GK made worse with it with GHB 18) that you're adding just what you should mostly have anyway. But in Narrative where people should be bringing more reasonable lists then it's way, way over the top

**lord_blackfang**

FEC burn all their command points and their command trait and 300 points in battalions for that, and have no other command abilities, and end up with 4 copies of one wizard who knows the same 3 spells (no lore of their own) so you can't even cast with all of them unless you add Endless Spells or use realm spells.

**Hulksmash**

lord_blackfang wrote:
FEC burn all their command points and their command trait and 300 points in battalions for that, and have no other command abilities, and end up with 4 copies of one wizard who knows the same 3 spells (no lore of their own) so you can't even cast with all of them unless you add Endless Spells or use realm spells.

I posted an actual functioning list in the army list section . But the list does pre suppose that you are playing realms. Locally and at the two major gt events here in the US I'm looking at attending in the next few months are all using realm rules (i.e. you are fighting on such and such realm) for their scenarios so those 4 kings would all have spells they could cast outside of the core 4. Mostly they'd help with dispel since the lens took a hit you'd need it now.

**auticus**

Oh hell there is some noise on twitter from some of the podcast celebrities about woods blocking line of sight being not necessary and now sylvaneth wild woods blocking line of sight is "broken".

**Hulksmash**

I see where they are coming from because shooty armies aren't exactly lighting up the top tables but.....los blocking trees is amazing for mid level gaming and already puts AoS above 40k on several levels for me.

**auticus**

I think pure shooting armies are one of the things that drive people off interest in AOS to be honest. It was also easy-mode in my opinion.

Breaking up the battlefield just makes sense.

**Hulksmash**

auticus wrote:
I think pure shooting armies are one of the things that drive people off interest in AOS to be honest. It was also easy-mode in my opinion.

Breaking up the battlefield just makes sense.

Agreed. For new to middle of the road players shooting armies can be disgusting. So breaking it up is 100% good by me. Trees blocking LoS has literally zero effect on my higher tournament armies (and I doubt it does on most others) but it definitely does make a difference for my for fun armies because that's where I don't have the tools to make shooting pointless

**Kanluwen**

auticus wrote:
Oh hell there is some noise on twitter from some of the podcast celebrities about woods blocking line of sight being not necessary and now sylvaneth wild woods blocking line of sight is "broken".

Specifically who? Most of the ones I follow/pay attention to are nothing but fans of it--especially noting "that it doesn't affect models with Fly".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
I think pure shooting armies are one of the things that drive people off interest in AOS to be honest. It was also easy-mode in my opinion.

Breaking up the battlefield just makes sense.

There's very few pure shooting armies and this argument is, no pun intended, not seeing the forest for the trees. Part of what makes the crazier shooting armies so powerful is things that trigger on 6s--Judicators, Longstrikes, now Castigators and Celestar Ballista.

This change also should have resulted in a roughly 10-15 point drop on Waywatchers and Glade Guard, since those two units are very reliant upon shooting to do anything.

**auticus**

First one on my feed this morning was Tyler Emerson. He has been going on about how he thinks it broke the tournament builds and now there are no shooting builds anymore and that is a really bad thing. He's been tweeting this a few times now over the past few days.

There have been podcasts discussing this as well allegedly (gleaned from comments) and a lot of agreement on this.

When I hear someone lamenting "shooting builds" to me that means a build that is mostly if not all shooting. Or at least a build that relies on its shooting to win games and that anything that can prevent them from having unrestricted access to the table will cause extreme players to stop taking them at all.

There were a few others that I do not follow that get liked or commented on so show up in my feed saying similar things, but I don't know WHO they are since they are running off of monikers and I don't have the real name to them.

**Kanluwen**

auticus wrote:
First one on my feed this morning was Tyler Emerson. He has been going on about how he thinks it broke the tournament builds and now there are no shooting builds anymore and that is a really bad thing. He's been tweeting this a few times now over the past few days.

There have been podcasts discussing this as well allegedly (gleaned from comments) and a lot of agreement on this.

When I hear someone lamenting "shooting builds" to me that means a build that is mostly if not all shooting. Or at least a build that relies on its shooting to win games and that anything that can prevent them from having unrestricted access to the table will cause extreme players to stop taking them at all.

These are two WILDLY different things though.

A "shooting army" is, by definition, one that is primarily shooting. Its damage dealing is shooting, its units have shooting attacks, etc etc. This is things like Swifthawk Agents and Wanderers.
A "shooting build" is an army build that is primarily shooting. This is things like Judicator spam or Reaver heavy Idoneth.

There were a few others that I do not follow that get liked or commented on so show up in my feed saying similar things, but I don't know WHO they are since they are running off of monikers and I don't have the real name to them.

So you don't really know if they're a "big deal" or not, they just get liked/commented on. I know I get a bit of random commenting from people when Ben Johnson or other Studio members reply to a comment I've made.

It doesn't make me a "big deal" though.

**auticus**

And Vincent Venturella

"I hate it. Its a bad rule that will lead to bad things. Bad for new players, causes strange incentives, makes for less fun and is just silly. The base citadel woods rule is the problem"

They are a big deal in that they have the designer's ear. We can split hairs all day long over who is and is not a big deal, but both Tyler and Vince are fairly prominent AOS celebrities with the developers ears.

**Kanluwen**

auticus wrote:
And Vincent Venturella

"I hate it. Its a bad rule that will lead to bad things. Bad for new players, causes strange incentives, makes for less fun and is just silly. The base citadel woods rule is the problem"

Which was then followed by:

The base woods should be an obstacle that grants cover. This is meta warping rule on a free piece of terrain. We can argue about how often, how many bases, etc. until the cows come home. Doesn't change anything, this does nothing positive but will cause endless frustration.

His comment that you've apparently taken out of context(never heard of the guy before today, but looking at the tweets & replies section--which is where this was) was in relation to someone asking him for his opinion on it.

They are a big deal in that they have the designer's ear. We can split hairs all day long over who is and is not a big deal, but both Tyler and Vince are fairly prominent AOS celebrities with the developers ears.

And if you think that some of them are getting preferential treatment, you're dreaming. GW just published the FAQ regarding one of the biggest abuses that some of the bandwagoning Idoneth tourney guys were doing--shipwrecks now have to account for objectives when being placed.

**auticus**

I've listened to him talk on his podcast about it. He prefers that woods only grant a cover bonus of +1, he doesn't like terrain that blocks line of sight because it makes missile units not be able to shoot at things, which he thinks is very bad game design and very frustrating.

And if you think that some of them are getting preferential treatment, you're dreaming

Well they get access to all of the product two weeks before any of us, are part of the playtesting crew that provides feedback to Ben & co. and have historically had a great amount of influence in changing things.

I've been a part of the community for over twenty years now, and my club were playtesters back in 6th and 7th edition. Playtesters have the ability to influence game design a lot more than you are giving credit for.

**Skimask Mohawk**

It's ironic that one of the big complaints in the transition from 7th to 8th whfb was that terrain, specifically forests didn't matter any more. They went from blocking los in the same way and slowing units to 1/4 of their movement to nothing, making the game for less tactical.

I think the Los thing could have been a bigger problem if the fly rule wasn't there. Most big casters have fly, so can see any units hiding. Endless spells also help since non of them are targeted

**auticus**

Yeah the transition from 7th to 8th was very heated and very ugly. Not as ugly as 8th to AOS... but a lot of people rage quit when 8th hit.

At the same time a lot of people loved that their cannons could now shoot through five layers of forests with laser guided precision.

I've hated true line of sight since its dropped and wish it would die in a fire. It has caused the most frustration and the most quality opponents that I have had to quit because of it being so gamey.