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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
FYI, Auticus is told with every update that his concerns are invalid only for them to have turned out entirely valid every time. This could be the time it's different, but...

People think GW games are some subtle hard to figure out. Actually generally you can see what's broken and what's not pretty darn early.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Personally, I never have any issue with things not being realistic or not making sense in settings like AoS and 40k. Canonball only hits the enemy? Magic canonball. Wooden arrow pierces steel armor? Magic arrow. Bolter round pierces Titan chassis? Magic bolter. Fish can fly? Well so can dragons, which is equally as fantastical. Generally I just accept that what I know about physics, chemisty, etc only applies to this world, not any fictional one. I can understand having difficulty with that level of disconnecting from reality though.

Here's novel concept that GW has missed though. You can have magic AND have it make sense. Shock horror actually good writers have managed to do that. Not even that hard if you are professional.

tneva82 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
FYI, Auticus is told with every update that his concerns are invalid only for them to have turned out entirely valid every time. This could be the time it's different, but...

People think GW games are some subtle hard to figure out. Actually generally you can see what's broken and what's not pretty darn early.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Personally, I never have any issue with things not being realistic or not making sense in settings like AoS and 40k. Canonball only hits the enemy? Magic canonball. Wooden arrow pierces steel armor? Magic arrow. Bolter round pierces Titan chassis? Magic bolter. Fish can fly? Well so can dragons, which is equally as fantastical. Generally I just accept that what I know about physics, chemisty, etc only applies to this world, not any fictional one. I can understand having difficulty with that level of disconnecting from reality though.

Here's novel concept that GW has missed though. You can have magic AND have it make sense. Shock horror actually good writers have managed to do that. Not even that hard if you are professional.

AoS is more greek/norse/egyptian mythology and the silmarillion. It's mythic fantasy.


In greek myth you got stuff like, Helios pulling the sun with his chariot or Hercules holding up the world. And a lot of the stuff with the Titans is weird. I suspect that the idea of "Godbeast" comes from the Titans and the world serpent. In some Egyptian Myth the god Atum created everything by masturbating and ejaculating. weird stuff like that can happen in the mortal realms.


The world of the lord of the rings/silmarillion is called "Arda" and it looks like this.

Image of Arda

One of the reasons I like Aos so much is that they took big deliberate step away from realism. If you want realism, with guns and arrows behaving as they should, why not play historical wargames? I have always seen warhammer as a warGAME and not a WARgame, so the abstractions don't bother me.
My absolute favourite writer is Terry Pratchett, who basically invented a setting that would let him write about whatever his imagination could come up with. Aos feels a lot like that.

Eh? Pratchetts first couple Discworld novels were full of weirdness (which was mostly parody of other swords and sorcery novels, not imaginative), but that quickly settled down into hard limits with a consistency that was rarely violated. With a couple exceptions (like Golems and Trolls), they eventually turned into low fantasy lectures on real world problems, with 'racism is bad' turning up quite often.

As for historicals, the easy answer I can give you is deliberately getting history wrong by refighting battles incorrectly is super irritating.

Chikout wrote:
One of the reasons I like Aos so much is that they took big deliberate step away from realism. If you want realism, with guns and arrows behaving as they should, why not play historical wargames? I have always seen warhammer as a warGAME and not a WARgame, so the abstractions don't bother me.
My absolute favourite writer is Terry Pratchett, who basically invented a setting that would let him write about whatever his imagination could come up with. Aos feels a lot like that.

Haha there is the old adage that every Wargamer eventually becomes a historical Wargamer! I keep buying books for historical game systems and will eventually take the plunge...

If you want realism, with guns and arrows behaving as they should, why not play historical wargames? I have always seen warhammer as a warGAME and not a WARgame

Because I like fantasy and what pulled me into fantasy WARgaming was WARhammer and how things operated in a way that at least made sense. I also do play historical wargames. I play Hail Caesar and Warmaster Ancients and Saga. None of those satisfy my fantasy desire however. That used to be what Warhammer was for me.

I can pose the same question to you. If you just want a warGAME why not play a CCG like the Warhammer Card game or Magic the Gathering?

I have no problem with AOS as a setting. I want my battles to feel like battles. I want my battles to reflect cinema and their books (which is something their marketing team continues to stress is their goal). The current game does not reflect any movies or any of their books in any way other than the army types like stormcast are present.

There are no movies nor are there any black library books where a dragon breathes fire over a swirling melee and only hurts the enemy, or a unit of archers or gunners sniper fires into a melee and only hits the enemy. Nor are there any movies or books where our heroic fantasy heroes are leading the battle from the corner of the table cowering in fear because every ranged shot in the other force will target them otherwise. (skaven excluded)

So the design team, stating that they want their game to be this huge cinematic and narrative experience, have a lot of ground to cover to back up their words. Also as their stated goal is for Age of Sigmar to be the #1 fantasy WARgame on the market, they have to find a way to bridge the divide between the people like me, of which I find I'm not as rare as you would like to think, its just that most people like me don't bother checking out AOS boards anymore so you don't hear from them, and getting them engaged with the game again over their competitors. There are many ways to accomplish that without requiring 100 pages of rules or whatever the counter argument to that desire usually is.

auticus wrote:
So the design team, stating that they want their game to be this huge cinematic and narrative experience, have a lot of ground to cover to back up their words.

Pretty ironic that their big push for 'narrative' driven gaming also came at the time when they killed the setting with 30 years of worldbuilding and history and replaced it with the very bare bones of at setting and the promise of filling it in later..

auticus wrote:

If you want realism, with guns and arrows behaving as they should, why not play historical wargames? I have always seen warhammer as a warGAME and not a WARgame

Because I like fantasy and what pulled me into fantasy WARgaming was WARhammer and how things operated in a way that at least made sense. I also do play historical wargames. I play Hail Caesar and Warmaster Ancients and Saga. None of those satisfy my fantasy desire however. That used to be what Warhammer was for me.

I can pose the same question to you. If you just want a warGAME why not play a CCG like the Warhammer Card game or Magic the Gathering?

I have no problem with AOS as a setting. I want my battles to feel like battles. I want my battles to reflect cinema and their books (which is something their marketing team continues to stress is their goal). The current game does not reflect any movies or any of their books in any way other than the army types like stormcast are present.

There are no movies nor are there any black library books where a dragon breathes fire over a swirling melee and only hurts the enemy, or a unit of archers or gunners sniper fires into a melee and only hits the enemy. Nor are there any movies or books where our heroic fantasy heroes are leading the battle from the corner of the table cowering in fear because every ranged shot in the other force will target them otherwise. (skaven excluded)

So the design team, stating that they want their game to be this huge cinematic and narrative experience, have a lot of ground to cover to back up their words. Also as their stated goal is for Age of Sigmar to be the #1 fantasy WARgame on the market, they have to find a way to bridge the divide between the people like me, of which I find I'm not as rare as you would like to think, its just that most people like me don't bother checking out AOS boards anymore so you don't hear from them, and getting them engaged with the game again over their competitors. There are many ways to accomplish that without requiring 100 pages of rules or whatever the counter argument to that desire usually is.

If I may be so bold - if they fixed this, how would you feel? Are there other issues you have that follow this theme? I don't mean to imply that this is somehow a small issue since it's clear it means a lot to you.

The -1 to hit charcters coming up in 2.0 is a positive change that I liked, though not far enough, I viewed it as a compromise.

There are pretty much a solid two house rules that I currently insist on to do AOS. Resolve those two issues and have iit so I don't have to houserule anymore and that'd be great:

* shooting through terrain gives a -1 penalty to hit

* shooting into a melee also gives a -1 penalty to hit. I used to have it where you randomized hits into your buddies but then to make it just easier and not need a second roll, the penalty to hit was acceptable. (that was a compromise on my part to at least make it more difficult to hit into combat)

These stack to a max of -3. These have worked for the most part quite well. Most (80% or so) shots are not penalized at all since they are not in cover fully or not in combat. It makes terrain and cover matter a bit, and also influenced lists to not just be static gunlines. Both things I viewed as positive and the campaign guys (not the powergamers that hate houserules) were all for it because it made the game "make more sense" to everyone (there's a reason I've been able to do this for over 20 years, there are a lot of people that like those type of rules, the problem has always been the minmax guys hate houserules but want to do public campaigns for some reason even though they aren't tournaments)

The other issues I have with AOS are their point system and those being broken, with things like focusing on spamming mortal wounds and the like making casual games not fun, but that issue is in every game (powergaming vs casual) so I just accept that as part of needing to screen powergamers out of casual campaigns if they can't reign it in.

Given that basically all non-hero shooting is 4+, a -3 to hit is unacceptable. Not unless we give -1 to hit for CC units attacking units in Cover, -1 to hit for CC units attacking in a multi-unit melee, etc.

auticus wrote:
The -1 to hit charcters coming up in 2.0 is a positive change that I liked, though not far enough, I viewed it as a compromise.

There are pretty much a solid two house rules that I currently insist on to do AOS. Resolve those two issues and have iit so I don't have to houserule anymore and that'd be great:

* shooting through terrain gives a -1 penalty to hit

* shooting into a melee also gives a -1 penalty to hit. I used to have it where you randomized hits into your buddies but then to make it just easier and not need a second roll, the penalty to hit was acceptable. (that was a compromise on my part to at least make it more difficult to hit into combat)

These stack to a max of -3. These have worked for the most part quite well. Most (80% or so) shots are not penalized at all since they are not in cover fully or not in combat. It makes terrain and cover matter a bit, and also influenced lists to not just be static gunlines. Both things I viewed as positive and the campaign guys (not the powergamers that hate houserules) were all for it because it made the game "make more sense" to everyone (there's a reason I've been able to do this for over 20 years, there are a lot of people that like those type of rules, the problem has always been the minmax guys hate houserules but want to do public campaigns for some reason even though they aren't tournaments)

The other issues I have with AOS are their point system and those being broken, with things like focusing on spamming mortal wounds and the like making casual games not fun, but that issue is in every game (powergaming vs casual) so I just accept that as part of needing to screen powergamers out of casual campaigns if they can't reign it in.

I kind of like those houserules you have there, but they seem really heavy handed against some armies. Some of those situations basically make it so units can be immune to shooting. That doesn't seem right. Though I think you could probably just steal from the 40k side of things instead of adding in so much -1 to hit. For example, Valhallans have a stratagem that lets them shoot into combat, but any hit roll of 1 is resolved against the friendly unit instead of the enemy. Makes for some fun, tense moments I think. The only issue I have with the strat is I can only do it once. I'd love to just blast into my own troops more often, safety be damned Guess there could also be an opportunity there for friendly fire to affect bravery a bit, too.

I also think the fear is that official rules that reduce or disallow shooting into combat would result in shooting heavy armies being very easy to tie down and silence. That may be okay for some (hell, it might even make sense) but I'm not a huge fan of reducing the efficacy of a fantasy army's identity to serve realism. Shooting only the enemy you're locked in combat with, and the new 'look out sir' rule seem to be solid compromises that address the biggest issues people seem to be having with shooting while not going overboard.

Do you find your house rules need to shift often as new books come out and a meta forms around them?

I've always thought rolls of "1" to hit into melee should hit friendly units in the melee.

I’d use the “Vahallen Mechanic” if I was making a table top game.

 EnTyme wrote:
I've always thought rolls of "1" to hit into melee should hit friendly units in the melee.

Lord of the Rings once upon a time had a rule where the bad guys could shoot into a combat, but had to roll a 50/50 roll first to see if they hit friend or foe.

If you are going into the game with the mentality that you should be bringing pure gunlines then yeah. Those rules can be heavy handed. But pure gunlines shooting through three layers of forests with no penalty is RIDICULOUS (caps intentional).

Of course GW also already gives us OFFICIAL rules (caps intenttional). Play in Aqshy and every piece of terrain totally blocks line of sight, and thats written in GW material.

So... I don't find adding a -1 to hit through layers of terrain ridiculous at all considering GW already gave us an OFFICIAL version that is similar only doesn't even let you try at all.

Additionally the amount of -3 to hit is like 1-2% of the entire game so stating that its ridiculous and game breaking is very much overblown. I can count on one hand the number of times that a penalty got that high in 20+ games using it.

At the most its -1 to hit with some -2s to hit. What it does require is that your static gunlines actually have to move to hit something trying to stay in cover. Like what would really happen in a battle.

And 6s always hit is a core rule so even 4+ to hit -3 will hit on 6.

Do you find your house rules need to shift often as new books come out and a meta forms around them?

Not really because those are the only real house rules we've used and to-date nothing GW has done has altered those.

The private campaign group I am now forming are all of the mentality that they aren't coming in to bust the game so we don't have to worry about capping power scores. What I did up until last fall was plug in everyone's lists into Azyr Comp's calculate (if you don't remember what that is, Azyr comp was the first fan comp for AOS before GHB killed all of the fan comps) and that gives me a power score for each army.

We capped power scores so lists would be jigged around until they conformed to the azyr comp power score for a casual event. That actually worked tremendously well and most all games were a lot closer than using GHB points (because Azyr Comp was written to minimize list building so the points values were closer reflective of true power)

I've always thought rolls of "1" to hit into melee should hit friendly units in the melee.

I thought of that a couple years ago but there are a lot of missile units or heroes that can reroll 1s so that would make this rule negligble and not really accomplish much so I didn't go that route.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I've always thought rolls of "1" to hit into melee should hit friendly units in the melee.

Lord of the Rings once upon a time had a rule where the bad guys could shoot into a combat, but had to roll a 50/50 roll first to see if they hit friend or foe.

They still do have this as the basis of their rule. I love it. The middle earth system is something I wish AOS would have been instead (that was the rumor back in 2015 and a lot of people were very excited about it)

auticus wrote:
If you are going into the game with the mentality that you should be bringing pure gunlines then yeah. Those rules can be heavy handed. But pure gunlines shooting through three layers of forests with no penalty is RIDICULOUS (caps intentional).

Of course GW also already gives us OFFICIAL rules (caps intenttional). Play in Aqshy and every piece of terrain totally blocks line of sight, and thats written in GW material.

So... I don't find adding a -1 to hit through layers of terrain ridiculous at all considering GW already gave us an OFFICIAL version that is similar only doesn't even let you try at all.

Additionally the amount of -3 to hit is like 1-2% of the entire game so stating that its ridiculous and game breaking is very much overblown. I can count on one hand the number of times that a penalty got that high in 20+ games using it.

At the most its -1 to hit with some -2s to hit. What it does require is that your static gunlines actually have to move to hit something trying to stay in cover. Like what would really happen in a battle.

And 6s always hit is a core rule so even 4+ to hit -3 will hit on 6.

Do you find your house rules need to shift often as new books come out and a meta forms around them?

Not really because those are the only real house rules we've used and to-date nothing GW has done has altered those.

The private campaign group I am now forming are all of the mentality that they aren't coming in to bust the game so we don't have to worry about capping power scores. What I did up until last fall was plug in everyone's lists into Azyr Comp's calculate (if you don't remember what that is, Azyr comp was the first fan comp for AOS before GHB killed all of the fan comps) and that gives me a power score for each army.

We capped power scores so lists would be jigged around until they conformed to the azyr comp power score for a casual event. That actually worked tremendously well and most all games were a lot closer than using GHB points (because Azyr Comp was written to minimize list building so the points values were closer reflective of true power)

I've always thought rolls of "1" to hit into melee should hit friendly units in the melee.

I thought of that a couple years ago but there are a lot of missile units or heroes that can reroll 1s so that would make this rule negligble and not really accomplish much so I didn't go that route.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I've always thought rolls of "1" to hit into melee should hit friendly units in the melee.

Lord of the Rings once upon a time had a rule where the bad guys could shoot into a combat, but had to roll a 50/50 roll first to see if they hit friend or foe.

They still do have this as the basis of their rule. I love it. The middle earth system is something I wish AOS would have been instead (that was the rumor back in 2015 and a lot of people were very excited about it)

I don't think I ever said it was gamebreaking. I don't think I even came close to implying that since I thought it was clear I haven't played with your houserules and was only sharing my initial impressions. I only said I thought it was a tad heavy handed, and I'm sorry if there's been some kind of misunderstanding here. I was hoping to have a friendly discussion on the way you view this game since you have a unique perspective, I meant no offense.

Thanks for sharing, I'll leave it at that and won't expand any further.

I was looking at Para Bellum's Conquest rules this weekend and one of the first things I said was "wow I don't have to houserule ANY of this, because the rules all make sense and battles behave like battles."

That being said, it was written by Alessio - whom I have great admiration for as a game dev and who writes rules in a way that I really like. In Conquest, terrain "obscures" and if you are "obscured" you don't get to fiire as many ranged dice (reflecting that the unit is in some kind of cover)

Doesn't require 100 extra pages of rules either. Its very easy and makes a lot of sense and makes terrain matter a lot more than it does in AOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lemondish... I was responding to this when i used "game breaking":

Given that basically all non-hero shooting is 4+, a -3 to hit is unacceptable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to -1 to hit in melee if behind cover, walls used to have that rule, and thats a rule that I'd like to see come back as well so if you are defending a wall or on a fortress wall, you get some kind of cover against both melee and shooting.

I like the way they're doing endless spells, having something that costs 20pts to throw into a list to round things out is actually awesome and it seems like, while you will absolutely need something like a Kharadron Navigator or Collar of Khorne, being able to dispel them in your hero phase means they don't just run over non-magic armies.

The 20pt thing is the bigger deal though, for those that don't know, a large portion of the US(and presumably NA) meta doesn't use Triumphs at all.

To answer your question Auticus. I like this more than a ccg because of the physicality of it and I like painting and also because there is a strategic layer to it.
I can understand the frustration of seeing a game move away from a style you prefered, but the nature of the modern market is that there are many great alternatives, whether it is conquest, Kings of war, 9th age, GW's own lotr game or the game of thrones game.
You always seemed like someone who disliked the very core of what aos is. I am surprised you stuck it out as long as you have.

I am surprised you stuck it out as long as you have.

When you have a $15,000 investment in something, it keeps you hooked. A great many alternatives doesn't let me really use that investment any longer, and there comes a point when having to paint whole new armies for things gets tedious. Truth be told if I had known that the investment of my time and money would have turned out how it did, I would have avoided warhammer, but you can't see years into the future so here we are.

I do dislike the core of AOS because the core of AOS is to me a gamey-game that has nothing to do with battles or immersion and are things I tend to have no interest in, and I think that it could be a lot more than what it is now. I also know there are a lot a lot a lot of people like me watching in the wings that feel the same way, so I will at least give voice to that in discussions until places like the TGA or facebook groups ban me because they don't want to see AOS move beyond a shade beyond a simple board game or ccg.

AOS could always remain what it is now and the rules guys give us a few more "advanced" rules. Many games do just that. That gives everyone something that they want and events can all pick and choose what they want to use.

AOS has a lot of cool things that I like too. There are just a few mechanics that I really hate and on top of that the player base has turned tabletop gaming into more of a spectator esport based on winning in a list building phase than what had originally hooked me. Good rules can circumvent that (like having a proper point system that is a lot harder to powergame). I know that AOS *could* be a great game that really does engage many facets of the wargaming community, not just the gamey-game players (I think that having a gamey-game version is fine, but I think to be the #1 fantasy wargame that GW claims is their goal they are going to have to find a way to transcend gamey-game rules, at the very least as an optional set of alternatives)

The 20pt thing is the bigger deal though, for those that don't know, a large portion of the US(and presumably NA) meta doesn't use Triumphs at all.

This is truth. Triumphs are not used, nor are a solid 80% of the game rules beyond the core.

auticus wrote:
The -1 to hit charcters coming up in 2.0 is a positive change that I liked, though not far enough, I viewed it as a compromise.

There are pretty much a solid two house rules that I currently insist on to do AOS. Resolve those two issues and have iit so I don't have to houserule anymore and that'd be great:

* shooting through terrain gives a -1 penalty to hit

* shooting into a melee also gives a -1 penalty to hit. I used to have it where you randomized hits into your buddies but then to make it just easier and not need a second roll, the penalty to hit was acceptable. (that was a compromise on my part to at least make it more difficult to hit into combat)

These stack to a max of -3. These have worked for the most part quite well. Most (80% or so) shots are not penalized at all since they are not in cover fully or not in combat. It makes terrain and cover matter a bit, and also influenced lists to not just be static gunlines. Both things I viewed as positive and the campaign guys (not the powergamers that hate houserules) were all for it because it made the game "make more sense" to everyone (there's a reason I've been able to do this for over 20 years, there are a lot of people that like those type of rules, the problem has always been the minmax guys hate houserules but want to do public campaigns for some reason even though they aren't tournaments)

The other issues I have with AOS are their point system and those being broken, with things like focusing on spamming mortal wounds and the like making casual games not fun, but that issue is in every game (powergaming vs casual) so I just accept that as part of needing to screen powergamers out of casual campaigns if they can't reign it in.

I guess if you're not playing competitively(and especially if you're not using points) these would work, but honestly shooting is pretty underwhelming these days. There are only 4 armies that can have shooting as a strategy and 2 of those armies(mixed order and Tzeentch) have stronger builds focusing on combat/magic and the other 2(kharadron and to a MUCH lesser extent Kunnin Ruck) have fallen off massively. Things like Judicators and Kurnoths still see success, but they're not particularly powerful, just consistently useful. In a competitive environment, these changes, especially if they were combined with the other changes this edition, would limit shooting to basically just 1-2 units of skyfires. They also combo with other things oddly. You could make an entire DoK Army -2 up to -4 to shooting from turn 2 on(assuming good terrain, competitively built armies tend to hit combat bottom of 1 top of 2 or sooner depending on the list.) with their characters being -4 or -5 and Morathi topping out at -6. You could get a stardrake to -5 as well.

If it works for your group, more power to ya though.

Yeah. If I was playing competitively I don't expect any houserules.

These are for public campaign events where immersion and narrative are more important than game mechanics.

The point system is already a large failure IMO in regards to balance. With or without points these rules don't really affect much in regards to that.

auticus wrote:
If you are going into the game with the mentality that you should be bringing pure gunlines then yeah. Those rules can be heavy handed. But pure gunlines shooting through three layers of forests with no penalty is RIDICULOUS (caps intentional).

The penalty is that the enemy unit gets +1 to their saves. Many shooting attacks have 0 Rend. Look at Namarti Reavers, Allopexes, and Leviadons. Weight of fire is supposed to make up for the lack of a Rend.

Of course GW also already gives us OFFICIAL rules (caps intenttional). Play in Aqshy and every piece of terrain totally blocks line of sight, and thats written in GW material.

So... I don't find adding a -1 to hit through layers of terrain ridiculous at all considering GW already gave us an OFFICIAL version that is similar only doesn't even let you try at all.

Which means nothing. The rule was that if you couldn't draw line of sight, you couldn't shoot the thing.

Additionally the amount of -3 to hit is like 1-2% of the entire game so stating that its ridiculous and game breaking is very much overblown. I can count on one hand the number of times that a penalty got that high in 20+ games using it.

Your claim was that you wanted to see a -1 to Hit for firing at units in Cover, -1 for shooting into Combat, in addition to the -1 for targeting a Hero.
That's where I got the "-3 to hit" from.

At the most its -1 to hit with some -2s to hit. What it does require is that your static gunlines actually have to move to hit something trying to stay in cover. Like what would really happen in a battle.

I mean if you want realism, then you'd have a separate shooting mode for archers compared to the other stuff where they're firing arcing shots at units in cover rather than trying to hit specific individuals.

Hell, more than that--one could say that Namarti should be capped to always hit on their stated score no matter what. They're blind, they're not going to get futzed by some line of sight nonsense!

And 6s always hit is a core rule so even 4+ to hit -3 will hit on 6.

So? Doesn't change that it's a silly thing.

I've always thought rolls of "1" to hit into melee should hit friendly units in the melee.

I thought of that a couple years ago but there are a lot of missile units or heroes that can reroll 1s so that would make this rule negligble and not really accomplish much so I didn't go that route.

And there's a lot of melee units and heroes that can reroll 1s too.

New seraphon teaser released. No point chart to go off of but looks like they can easily bank a bunch of their points to summon.

Slaan can give up each of their spells for a sweet 3 conjuration points, plus 1 sweet conjuration point if the general is a slaan (why wouldn't he be?) and another D3 pointts if there are astrolith bearers on the table.

At 6 points they can start summoning stuff.

And slaan cast 3 spells... so if I want to cheese weazel I just bank all my poiints for conjuring. Now I have 10 + d3 points per turn, and 6 is my threshold to start summoning. So I will likely have roughly 12 points a turn banking, just make sure to hide the slaan and astrolith bearer in a dark corner somewhere out of sight.

If its anything like the nurgle table, the bastilladon baby factory will be pumping those monsters out on around 12-18.

"But that means they can't cast any of their other coo spells Auticus"

If I can pump out 2-3 bastilladons for free, I don't need my other spells right away. I can save those for after I've made the game lopsided in my favor (unless my opponent is also spam summoning)

So? Doesn't change that it's a silly thing

K. I'm done arguing over subjective opinions being right or wrong. I'm not trying to change your opinion. You won't change mine. We'll just call it good at that.

Which means nothing. The rule is that the smoke and debris is so thick around the terrain features that it prevents you from seeing over things like woods, buildings, and walls+fences.

Not that you're blocked from seeing through them.

Thats totally not how I've seen the warhammer guys go on about it for their events that were there a couple years ago. In an event packet they even warned that the fire realm was used which meant you couldn't see through terrain features to target things beyond it so to design your lists accordingly. (I ran the event locally, it was downloadable for a bit on the gw website. This was back in 2016.)

auticus wrote:

So? Doesn't change that it's a silly thing

K. I'm done arguing over subjective opinions being right or wrong. I'm not trying to change your opinion. You won't change mine. We'll just call it good at that.

Putting it politely, I feel like you're letting your personal feelings cloud your discussion in this thread a bit much. You don't have to be positive, you don't have to be negative--but man, it's a downer to just hear about how your group is upset with you because you're putting up houserules before the edition is even up for preorder.

Which means nothing. The rule is that the smoke and debris is so thick around the terrain features that it prevents you from seeing over things like woods, buildings, and walls+fences.

Not that you're blocked from seeing through them.

Thats totally not how I've seen the warhammer guys go on about it for their events that were there a couple years ago. In an event packet they even warned that the fire realm was used which meant you couldn't see through terrain features to target things beyond it so to design your lists accordingly. (I ran the event locally, it was downloadable for a bit on the gw website. This was back in 2016.)

Sorry, that's me explaining things poorly.

The rule, as detailed on page 147 of the main rulebook, is that you couldn't see over a terrain feature to any targets that lie beyond it.

Someone in said terrain could still be targeted however. It was fairly (sorry for the pun) heated discussion at the time.

Ah ok. Yeah in the terrain you can still see the target, no question. I was talking about shooting through forests to beyond them, things like that.

it's a downer to just hear about how your group is upset with you because you're putting up houserules before the edition is even up for preorder.

They aren't upset with me. They just made it be known that any public events should all follow tournament standard rules and never have houserules anymore because the environment they are trying to foster is a tournament oriented environment, and public events with houserules confuse people because events with houserules should be private and not in the shop. One even double underlined that a GW shop should never have any houserules in it ever because when he buys his armies it is with the understanding that he knows what is broken or overpowered and thats why he buys them because thats how you play competitively, and houserules kneecap that and screws him over, and thats a waste of his time and money.

My GW manager liked when I ran public campaigns because it emphasized narrative more, but a good chunk of players are not interested in that, so I stepped out of the way recently. He can deal with that however he feels he needs to, its his store. At this point I'd like to steer the conversation away from the AOS players in my city if we could and focus on the other stuff like tthe new changes or continue to discuss wishlisting or whatever.

Seraphon preview is up, looks like with a Slann+Astrolith bearer you'll be able get roughly 3 Terradon Riders(at the cost of 3 spells) per turn and it can be stopped by killing the slann+ any astrolith.

Positives: Seraphon are a solid B+ tier army so getting free units isn't as bad as Tzeentch and Maggotkin getting them. The summoning is very limited and requires using ACTUAL resources rather than something as inconsequential as Command Points(As long as a CP is cheaper than a unit they'll be an inconsequential resource for a summoning army.) And the table is fairly limited. You'll have to give up 3 spells and roll a 2 or higher on the astrolith to afford a unit of Terradon riders every turn. You'll likely hit a bastiladon every 2 turns doing this(pretty much guaranteed that if Terradon riders are 12 Bastiladon will be 24) , but the lost firepower from the Slann spells makes this okayish, It'll take 2 turns of bastiladon shooting to even out the amount of damage lost from 2 turns of your Slann losing 3 spells(most likely).

Negative: Restricts list building. Slann as a general and at least one astrolith bearer are 100% mandatory(assuming there are no further mechanics.) No mentions of the EotG means that it's most likely unchanged, so you have a pretty reasonable chance of getting summoning off with the Slann Reroll. Might lead to gimmick Quad engine lists that just pray for summoning units every turn. Could get even crazier if you use the summoning to summon more engines. Theoretically, you could end turn two with 17 engines of the gods on the board.

Then again, who knows if that's even still a thing yet?

auticus wrote:
New seraphon teaser released. No point chart to go off of but looks like they can easily bank a bunch of their points to summon.

Slaan can give up each of their spells for a sweet 3 conjuration points, plus 1 sweet conjuration point if the general is a slaan (why wouldn't he be?) and another D3 pointts if there are astrolith bearers on the table.

At 6 points they can start summoning stuff.

And slaan cast 3 spells... so if I want to cheese weazel I just bank all my poiints for conjuring. Now I have 10 + d3 points per turn, and 6 is my threshold to start summoning. So I will likely have roughly 12 points a turn banking, just make sure to hide the slaan and astrolith bearer in a dark corner somewhere out of sight.

If its anything like the nurgle table, the bastilladon baby factory will be pumping those monsters out on around 12-18.

"But that means they can't cast any of their other coo spells Auticus"

If I can pump out 2-3 bastilladons for free, I don't need my other spells right away. I can save those for after I've made the game lopsided in my favor (unless my opponent is also spam summoning)

The summoned units do have to be placed within 12" of the Slann or banner, so hiding them in the corner would mean your summoned units will be pretty far from whatever you want them to do.

auticus wrote:
New seraphon teaser released. No point chart to go off of but looks like they can easily bank a bunch of their points to summon.

Slaan can give up each of their spells for a sweet 3 conjuration points, plus 1 sweet conjuration point if the general is a slaan (why wouldn't he be?) and another D3 pointts if there are astrolith bearers on the table.

At 6 points they can start summoning stuff.

And slaan cast 3 spells... so if I want to cheese weazel I just bank all my poiints for conjuring. Now I have 10 + d3 points per turn, and 6 is my threshold to start summoning. So I will likely have roughly 12 points a turn banking, just make sure to hide the slaan and astrolith bearer in a dark corner somewhere out of sight.

If its anything like the nurgle table, the bastilladon baby factory will be pumping those monsters out on around 12-18.

"But that means they can't cast any of their other coo spells Auticus"

If I can pump out 2-3 bastilladons for free, I don't need my other spells right away. I can save those for after I've made the game lopsided in my favor (unless my opponent is also spam summoning)

So? Doesn't change that it's a silly thing

K. I'm done arguing over subjective opinions being right or wrong. I'm not trying to change your opinion. You won't change mine. We'll just call it good at that.

Which means nothing. The rule is that the smoke and debris is so thick around the terrain features that it prevents you from seeing over things like woods, buildings, and walls+fences.

Not that you're blocked from seeing through them.

Thats totally not how I've seen the warhammer guys go on about it for their events that were there a couple years ago. In an event packet they even warned that the fire realm was used which meant you couldn't see through terrain features to target things beyond it so to design your lists accordingly. (I ran the event locally, it was downloadable for a bit on the gw website. This was back in 2016.)

The GHB rules for Aqshy cause all terrain but hills to block LoS. The specific wording is 'cannot see targets that lie beyond them'. So Auticus is right as of GHB 2017.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

auticus wrote:
New seraphon teaser released. No point chart to go off of but looks like they can easily bank a bunch of their points to summon.

Slaan can give up each of their spells for a sweet 3 conjuration points, plus 1 sweet conjuration point if the general is a slaan (why wouldn't he be?) and another D3 pointts if there are astrolith bearers on the table.

At 6 points they can start summoning stuff.

And slaan cast 3 spells... so if I want to cheese weazel I just bank all my poiints for conjuring. Now I have 10 + d3 points per turn, and 6 is my threshold to start summoning. So I will likely have roughly 12 points a turn banking, just make sure to hide the slaan and astrolith bearer in a dark corner somewhere out of sight.

If its anything like the nurgle table, the bastilladon baby factory will be pumping those monsters out on around 12-18.

"But that means they can't cast any of their other coo spells Auticus"

If I can pump out 2-3 bastilladons for free, I don't need my other spells right away. I can save those for after I've made the game lopsided in my favor (unless my opponent is also spam summoning)

The summoned units do have to be placed within 12" of the Slann or banner, so hiding them in the corner would mean your summoned units will be pretty far from whatever you want them to do.

You still have the option to take disposable astrolith bearers(you only need 1 for the D3 points) Or just taking units that shoot(bastiladon) or units that are fast. It's not the worst summoning system we've seen, but it's not going to be easy to stop either.

The Seraphon article has been updated with the second image...