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.

I think people often misunderstand the dynamic of AoS. Say there is a unit being buffed by characters such that it is flat-out better than your units and you cannot beat it in melee. In 40k, asking armies to shoot through it or maneuver to the other side of the unit to bypass LoS is reasonable because every army has ways to do that. In AoS, most armies don't. And many don't have the means to achieve it via magic either. Some can counter-play by deploying their own buffs. But the entire dynamic of supporting buffs in AoS hinges on the ability for characters to be sniped.

Of course, armies relying on their support heroes can counter-play by putting them in cover for a bonus to save rolls, or using a forest to get out of LoS. Unless one happens to be playing against KO who forest's don't block LoS for because it doesn't work against fliers, or against MW shooting that doesn't care about cover or hit rolls. Which is where we get to the point that the armies doing the sniping are the ones flat-ignoring the available counterplay. It actually shows how well they work given the almost total overlap between ignoring them and being an issue.

But if someone really wants to try a game with 40k look our sir I have some Fyreslayers who would be VERY happy to oblige. I am sure Tzeentch would also be quite entertained to mow through the enemy with their now-untouchable wizards behind a wall of horror wounds they summoned.

 Ghaz wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/02/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-delivers-the-most-comprehensive-ruleset-ever/

All of the rules have been given a number for easy referencing, and the key sections are clarified with additional points to make everything crystal clear. You’ll also find margin notes which call out referenced rules, points to note, and examples.

I like the 'groundbreaking new layout' which is... the same as many classic wargames going back to the 60s. Section 10.1.1.etc...

It isn't bad, necessarily, but its weird that they're calling this out as a 'wow' moment.

This is pretty much how the Middle-Earth rulebook has been laid out since The Hobbit edition.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think people often misunderstand the dynamic of AoS. Say there is a unit being buffed by characters such that it is flat-out better than your units and you cannot beat it in melee. In 40k, asking armies to shoot through it or maneuver to the other side of the unit to bypass LoS is reasonable because every army has ways to do that. In AoS, most armies don't. And many don't have the means to achieve it via magic either. Some can counter-play by deploying their own buffs. But the entire dynamic of supporting buffs in AoS hinges on the ability for characters to be sniped.

Of course, armies relying on their support heroes can counter-play by putting them in cover for a bonus to save rolls, or using a forest to get out of LoS. Unless one happens to be playing against KO who forest's don't block LoS for because it doesn't work against fliers, or against MW shooting that doesn't care about cover or hit rolls. Which is where we get to the point that the armies doing the sniping are the ones flat-ignoring the available counterplay. It actually shows how well they work given the almost total overlap between ignoring them and being an issue.

But if someone really wants to try a game with 40k look our sir I have some Fyreslayers who would be VERY happy to oblige. I am sure Tzeentch would also be quite entertained to mow through the enemy with their now-untouchable wizards behind a wall of horror wounds they summoned.

You're picking out some of the more egregious examples, but this sucks for armies like Nighthaunt who absolutely need their support heros, but they get sniped away real easy by armies that can produce more shooting.

For the Fyreslayers argument, there wasn't even that much shooting around when that battletome came out, so I'd be perfectly fine with allowing it.

I don't buy the terrain argument either. Most tables in AoS are pretty bare, keeping your support heros in cover or out of LoS is much easier said than done. It's not like we have anywhere near the terrain density on average that 40k has in 9th.

This wasn't as big of an issue before, but more and more armies are getting access to better and better shooting. It's trivially easy for most of the recent battletome armies to blow away these characters. I'm hoping there is something that helps balance this out in the future.

But is issue then with　core rules or battletome and do we want to start arms race neccesiting power ups on battletome. Leads to the power creep in 40k

 Sasori wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think people often misunderstand the dynamic of AoS. Say there is a unit being buffed by characters such that it is flat-out better than your units and you cannot beat it in melee. In 40k, asking armies to shoot through it or maneuver to the other side of the unit to bypass LoS is reasonable because every army has ways to do that. In AoS, most armies don't. And many don't have the means to achieve it via magic either. Some can counter-play by deploying their own buffs. But the entire dynamic of supporting buffs in AoS hinges on the ability for characters to be sniped.

Of course, armies relying on their support heroes can counter-play by putting them in cover for a bonus to save rolls, or using a forest to get out of LoS. Unless one happens to be playing against KO who forest's don't block LoS for because it doesn't work against fliers, or against MW shooting that doesn't care about cover or hit rolls. Which is where we get to the point that the armies doing the sniping are the ones flat-ignoring the available counterplay. It actually shows how well they work given the almost total overlap between ignoring them and being an issue.

But if someone really wants to try a game with 40k look our sir I have some Fyreslayers who would be VERY happy to oblige. I am sure Tzeentch would also be quite entertained to mow through the enemy with their now-untouchable wizards behind a wall of horror wounds they summoned.

You're picking out some of the more egregious examples, but this sucks for armies like Nighthaunt who absolutely need their support heros, but they get sniped away real easy by armies that can produce more shooting.

For the Fyreslayers argument, there wasn't even that much shooting around when that battletome came out, so I'd be perfectly fine with allowing it.

I don't buy the terrain argument either. Most tables in AoS are pretty bare, keeping your support heros in cover or out of LoS is much easier said than done. It's not like we have anywhere near the terrain density on average that 40k has in 9th.

I 100% agree Nighthaunt have it bad, and feel they should have a rule like the Necromancer does to bounce wounds over to minions. I would say that the egregious examples are the ones that most need to be addressed, and 40k LoS wouldn't, certainly not without creating new ones of at least equal severity if not worse. And if the board doesn't have enough terrain in the first place that isn't even an issue with the rules.

This wasn't as big of an issue before, but more and more armies are getting access to better and better shooting. It's trivially easy for most of the recent battletome armies to blow away these characters. I'm hoping there is something that helps balance this out in the future.

This I am actually confused by. Going backwards through to the start of 2020 we have SBL, Lumineth, Slaanesh, DoK, SoB, Seraphon, KO, DoT. Of those, a minority of three are problematic due to shooting and for two of them the problem is down to one ability on one warscroll in the army and it is the same ability on both; MWs on unmodified hit rolls that let them ignore cover & look out sir. The problems AoS has with shooting are the strongest evidence that the problem does not lie in the inherent counterplay options but rather with armies who ignore them. KO only reinforces this with their shooting dominance being so reliant on ignoring LoS-blocking terrain. Shooting overall is also further strengthened by the availability of the double-turn which disproportionately rewards them.

None of what makes for problematic shooting in AoS is down to look out sir not being strong enough. Making it 40k style would mean most armies having no ability to kill supporting characters short of going through the units in front of them. It eliminates more counterplay than it creates, because the only answer to support heroes hiding behind units is to have enough magic to blast them down or have high-movement fliers. As a Nighthaunt player with both at your disposal I can understand why this might not be a problem that comes to mind as readily, but please understand that for a large number of armies it very much would be.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Togusa wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Togusa wrote:
It's not, but the game stores get x number of copies, and depending on where you live and how popular things are there, it's usually better to preorder from them rather than the GW website.

Hopefully these new protections they've instituted for this release combined with the higher printing of the product will even things out.

That happened when ordering from GW's webstore (I'm not sure if that's H.B.M.C.'s case, but I've seen it reported multiple times, that the xstock on GW's website lasted about 2 minutes).

Plus, it's a different advice from the one you just gave, too ^^

I'm just pointing out for those who choose to order from the webstore that they did mention new protections to make it better, and that I hope it works for those who choose to order from the webstore.

When did they mention that?

That is what I was told by the store manager at my local Warhammer store. It was also told to me by my FLGS owner, who heard the same from his GW rep.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:

Togusa wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Togusa wrote:
It's not, but the game stores get x number of copies, and depending on where you live and how popular things are there, it's usually better to preorder from them rather than the GW website.

Hopefully these new protections they've instituted for this release combined with the higher printing of the product will even things out.

That happened when ordering from GW's webstore (I'm not sure if that's H.B.M.C.'s case, but I've seen it reported multiple times, that the xstock on GW's website lasted about 2 minutes).

Plus, it's a different advice from the one you just gave, too ^^

I'm just pointing out for those who choose to order from the webstore that they did mention new protections to make it better, and that I hope it works for those who choose to order from the webstore.

This is not a helpful thing to propagate. To my knowledge there was only one post in this thread (by you, even?) about a store manager relating better webstore mechanisms to counteract scalpers. Without an official press release that is neither reliable nor can it be taken as company line, regardless of how effective it will be if it's implemented.

Further there is no evidence of higher printing whatsoever. All we have is the announcement that they made "lots", italicized for effect. That is not quantifiable nor the first time they said that in the lead up to a release that sold out quickly.

You run the risk of easing people willing to believe you into a false sense of security. Please don't do that. Until we actually see it play out differently, it's prudent to assume that Dominion is super limited and if you'd like to get one, you should be there the moment it goes on pre-order to try to prevent disappointment.

The store manager has never steered me wrong before, I'm not sure why he'd make this up now only to later lose my business for bull gaking me, which he knows to be something I would do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think people often misunderstand the dynamic of AoS. Say there is a unit being buffed by characters such that it is flat-out better than your units and you cannot beat it in melee. In 40k, asking armies to shoot through it or maneuver to the other side of the unit to bypass LoS is reasonable because every army has ways to do that. In AoS, most armies don't. And many don't have the means to achieve it via magic either. Some can counter-play by deploying their own buffs. But the entire dynamic of supporting buffs in AoS hinges on the ability for characters to be sniped.

Of course, armies relying on their support heroes can counter-play by putting them in cover for a bonus to save rolls, or using a forest to get out of LoS. Unless one happens to be playing against KO who forest's don't block LoS for because it doesn't work against fliers, or against MW shooting that doesn't care about cover or hit rolls. Which is where we get to the point that the armies doing the sniping are the ones flat-ignoring the available counterplay. It actually shows how well they work given the almost total overlap between ignoring them and being an issue.

But if someone really wants to try a game with 40k look our sir I have some Fyreslayers who would be VERY happy to oblige. I am sure Tzeentch would also be quite entertained to mow through the enemy with their now-untouchable wizards behind a wall of horror wounds they summoned.

You're picking out some of the more egregious examples, but this sucks for armies like Nighthaunt who absolutely need their support heros, but they get sniped away real easy by armies that can produce more shooting.

For the Fyreslayers argument, there wasn't even that much shooting around when that battletome came out, so I'd be perfectly fine with allowing it.

I don't buy the terrain argument either. Most tables in AoS are pretty bare, keeping your support heros in cover or out of LoS is much easier said than done. It's not like we have anywhere near the terrain density on average that 40k has in 9th.

This wasn't as big of an issue before, but more and more armies are getting access to better and better shooting. It's trivially easy for most of the recent battletome armies to blow away these characters. I'm hoping there is something that helps balance this out in the future.

Give it time, it's likely NH will get a new book sometime in the near future.

Voss wrote:


I like the 'groundbreaking new layout' which is... the same as many classic wargames going back to the 60s. Section 10.1.1.etc...

It isn't bad, necessarily, but its weird that they're calling this out as a 'wow' moment.

The numbering is old hat, as anyone who played classic hex map and cardboard counters games knows. And as far as I'm concerned, it's about time that they introduced something like this. It's somewhat mind-boggling that miniatures games as a whole have never adopted this rules format.

On the other hand, the notes to the side of the rules *are* unusual, and - if done properly - are a welcome addition for anyone who's desperately trying to chase down that one rule in the rulebook.

Eumerin wrote:

Voss wrote:


I like the 'groundbreaking new layout' which is... the same as many classic wargames going back to the 60s. Section 10.1.1.etc...

It isn't bad, necessarily, but its weird that they're calling this out as a 'wow' moment.

The numbering is old hat, as anyone who played classic hex map and cardboard counters games knows. And as far as I'm concerned, it's about time that they introduced something like this. It's somewhat mind-boggling that miniatures games as a whole have never adopted this rules format.

On the other hand, the notes to the side of the rules *are* unusual, and - if done properly - are a welcome addition for anyone who's desperately trying to chase down that one rule in the rulebook.

I'm kind of unimpressed with that aspect, to be honest, since the sidebar explanations (which aren't that unusual, tbh) don't line up with the rules they're explaining. In fact, most of what we see aren't explaining rules. They're just... additional thoughts that the actual rules aren't covering, or somewhat related rules that you might care about later.

The third note, for example, is explaining the 'shot with all the models that you want to' in 10.0, and the middle note is explaining that targets being in melee/engagement doesn't affect shooting attacks (neither of which are terms they actually bother to use, even though I'd guess that's what 'being within 3"' effectively means) Its somewhat related to 10.1.1, but not really, since 10.1.1 is about the shooting unit and the note is about the target. Presumably its going to get mentioned again somewhere in 13.X when they get around to explaining how to make attacks (and presumably, picking a target).

Mostly I just want to see how deep the cross referencing goes. Both how many steps a reference chain can take you, and if it gets recursive at any point.

 lare2 wrote:
Beyond the obvious SCE and Kruleboyz tomes, has there been any word on others coming once 3rd drops? (please be NH, please be NH)

Sorry... NH? All that's coming to mind is Nerf Herders, which is probably wrong.

Nighthaunt probably

 Vovin wrote:
Nighthaunt probably

Very much Nighthaunt. Our heroes are gonna continue to be blown off the table for the foreseeable.

I know we haven't seen anything yet but so far, as a Nighthaunt player, I'm really disappointed to see the lack of changes to shooting so far. I'd also really like to see random selection when shooting with a unit outside of melee into melee. Something like, for every successful wound roll, roll a die. For every 1-3 rolled, one of your own models is wounded, for every 4-6 rolled, one of the enemy is wounded.

To be fair we only have seen briefest of brief view of shooting rule. Only thing of note was look out sir. Anything else we don't know.

One big thing is of course obscuring terrain. More of that and lots of issues gets solved. Except for those units that ignore LOS but that's not issue with core rules now is it? That's warscroll specific issue to be solved there. Making core rule that aims at that makes armies without that issue struggle unreasonable hard then as THEIR counter plays gets removed resulting in invincible units that will just smash through everything.

 Vovin wrote:
Nighthaunt probably

Ah, fair enough - not sure why they didn't come to mind.

If NH is a common acronym, has anyone suggested it (and other AOS faction names) to be added to the Dakka Glossary thing, so they get the tooltip to explain them?

Togusa wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Togusa wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Togusa wrote:
It's not, but the game stores get x number of copies, and depending on where you live and how popular things are there, it's usually better to preorder from them rather than the GW website.

Hopefully these new protections they've instituted for this release combined with the higher printing of the product will even things out.

That happened when ordering from GW's webstore (I'm not sure if that's H.B.M.C.'s case, but I've seen it reported multiple times, that the xstock on GW's website lasted about 2 minutes).

Plus, it's a different advice from the one you just gave, too ^^

I'm just pointing out for those who choose to order from the webstore that they did mention new protections to make it better, and that I hope it works for those who choose to order from the webstore.

When did they mention that?

That is what I was told by the store manager at my local Warhammer store. It was also told to me by my FLGS owner, who heard the same from his GW rep.

I mean... i was a GW store manager, back in the day. We were mushrooms.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/03/how-warhammer-age-of-sigmars-new-edition-turns-monsters-and-heroes-up-to-11/

I'm a fan of this new stuff.

There are currently at least two books who never saw an update in 2.0. Idoneth and Maggotkin. I do hope they get a book soon.

Yeah I’m enjoying the idea of this stuff. Interested to see the peaks at the warscrolls

As a Spiderfang player with lots of big spiders, I LOVE this.

Though, I’m not entirely sure I like the idea of the person who goes second getting an extra CP each time. If you get rid of the random initiative, that’ll give the second player double the CP. if you keep random initiative the game is horrific. Maybe all this talk of being able to react in your opponent’s turn will help random initiative though.

I’m intrigued anyway, Sigmar is one of those games I both love and hate lol.

Giving extra CP for going Second isn't going to mitigate that immediately having another (literal) shot at blowing away your opponents army is far more powerful.

Seems to be they're just desperate to cling to Double Turn so they don't have to admit it's a bad rule.

The heroic and monster abilities are... interesting.

I'm definitely in favor of generic abilities to make dispel attempts, so people aren't forced to tote a wizard around (or just live with it in the case of armies without wizards.

On the other hand, I'm leery of battletomes eventual introducing army specific abilities that just break this system- either by allowing multiples per turn, or just introducing 'even more better' ones.

I really dislike this approach of just dumping more rules on top of rules. Now we have heroic abilities too! And monster abilities!

Making the existing rules just work better is so passe. Rules bloat for you! And for you! And for you too!

yukishiro1 wrote:
I really dislike this approach of just dumping more rules on top of rules. Now we have heroic abilities too! And monster abilities!

Making the existing rules just work better is so passe. Rules bloat for you! And for you! And for you too!

Its how GW operates.

And I agree with others who commented that the extra CP in no way makes up for the generally devastating effect of a player having a double turn.

So, I haven't followed AOS much since the first reveals. Is that whole ethos of just four pages of rules (or whatever the total was misleading though it may have seemed at the time due to warscrolls) long out the door with them advertising instead about the complexity of the ruleset instead as a selling feature? Has the pendulum swung completely the other way? Again, this might be old news for many/most here but I only occasionally look at AOS releases for RPG fig purposes.

TBH monsters and heroic habilities are what makes monsters and heroes in MESBG so extremely tactical and fun to use.

This ones are, as expected, just inferior in every way. But at least they are something, and they can be cool to use.

 Ordana wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I really dislike this approach of just dumping more rules on top of rules. Now we have heroic abilities too! And monster abilities!

Making the existing rules just work better is so passe. Rules bloat for you! And for you! And for you too!

Its how GW operates.

And I agree with others who commented that the extra CP in no way makes up for the generally devastating effect of a player having a double turn.

Doesn't it even manage to make it worse because if you go second on turn one you get the extra CP on top of the full alpha strike potential of an unmolested army? So if you get double turn then, you end up having even more potential than you did before?

How much impact have CP abilities generally had in 2nd ed?

 warboss wrote:
So, I haven't followed AOS much since the first reveals. Is that whole ethos of just four pages of rules (or whatever the total was misleading though it may have seemed at the time due to warscrolls) long out the door with them advertising instead about the complexity of the ruleset instead as a selling feature? Has the pendulum swung completely the other way? Again, this might be old news for many/most here but I only occasionally look at AOS releases for RPG fig purposes.

I doubt it. I bet it will still try to keep to 10 pages max including examples. It's just adding one paragraph of rules to 5-page rules adds complexity already.
Anyway, not really liking it much, the extra "tactical" choices of the hero and monster skills are beyond simplistic and there will always be the one obvious thing to pick. It's an illusion of choice.

 Geifer wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I really dislike this approach of just dumping more rules on top of rules. Now we have heroic abilities too! And monster abilities!

Making the existing rules just work better is so passe. Rules bloat for you! And for you! And for you too!

Its how GW operates.

And I agree with others who commented that the extra CP in no way makes up for the generally devastating effect of a player having a double turn.

Doesn't it even manage to make it worse because if you go second on turn one you get the extra CP on top of the full alpha strike potential of an unmolested army? So if you get double turn then, you end up having even more potential than you did before?

How much impact have CP abilities generally had in 2nd ed?

In the pile of rumors that eventually become true is the rumor of command points reseting each battle round. So you will be unable to bank them. If you choose to go for the double turn, you are making your enemy have more CPs avaliable than you no matter what (well, outside of killing his general or performing heroic actions)

2nd Ed dosn't have the focus on reactive commands that 3rd have, those CP may actually be valuable to mitigate the double turn. We still need o see the new reactions for each phase.

About the new stuff being an illusion of choice. Is not so much about having new choices but about having new tools. Im in love with what this new rules bring to the game.

I’m a little sad Titanic Duel isn’t called Let Them Fight.