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 mean my other argument is that the double turn be taken out, shot, quartered, burned, buried in 2 corners of the globe and the other 2 parts yeeted into outer space. Having it go into the Open Play lets GW keep marketing it as a feature; whilst letting matched play have an actual chance at balanced gameplay (I mean as far as GW rules allow)
I'll see what I can come up with myself then. But the point remains, even if AT & LI dont mix, I feel like the Titan rules implementation in LI is to shallow for my tastes. I already envision myself playing LI eventually as 1500 - 2000 point games, and you only get one or two titans per side in such games, will not hurt to have something to give them more flavour
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/21 05:57:11
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
Yeah, I do agree that a mixing of Titanicus and LI, with more focus on the Titans but a nice mix of availability of smaller units like tanks and heavy weapon troops, would be pretty cool.
As it is, Epic looks to be shaping up to be a relatively snappy game once you've got the USRs under your belt, which is probably good.
We also haven't really seen any batreps yet because so much stuff isn't in people's hands. I'm looking forward to seeing people make batreps of different legions fighting, different kinds of formations fighting against each other, different combinations of allies and titans, see how planes and bombing runs do, all that stuff, that we're just not going to get right away.
I had another look at the October White Dwarf battle report now that we know the formations in the book and as I already expected there are other formations used in that battlereport we don't have yet. The Blood Angels army has a Sky Hunter Phalanx and a Drop pod Assault in addition to the known Armoured Company.
The Sky Hunter Phalanx in the battlereport focuses on bikes, jetbikes, javelins and proteus speeders which according to the symbols used are all vanguard slots for five slots used in total. So while we don't know how many of those are compulsory and how many are optional we at least know that every compulsory slot in this formation is a vanguard slot as there are no non-vanguard units in this formation. This formation makes sense since none of the current formations really allows big vanguard armies since we only have a single slot in the Demi-Company and another single slot in the Aerial Assault.
The Drop Pod Assault formation seems to be close or the same to the Demi-Company just that it allows you to upgrade every detachment with Drop-Pods instead of Rhinos.
For anyone not yet knowing how Transports work, as far as I understood it unless the formation itself has a special Transport rule you need to use transport detachment slots for any transport you buy and since the Demi-Company is the only formation that even has transports slots for SM you won't be able to use any for the Garrison Force/Armoured Company/Aerial Assault. Transports bought in generic transport slots can be used for any detachment in the formation. In addition any formation can have a special transport rule that allows you to upgrade your detachments with a transport without using a slot but the transport can only be used by the detachment is was purchased for in this case. The Demi-Company for example allows you to buy Rhinos for any Infantry only detachments and the Aerial Assault formation allows you to buy Storm Eagles and Thunderhawks as transports for any detachment in the formation (Though you could still bring them as Aerial Support detachments anyway) The only questionmark for me is how the Deathguard player got rhinos for their Garrison Force in the Battlereport. The formation doesn't have any transport slots or transport rules and neither the rhino nor the Tactical detachment has a rule that allows them to be purchased together even if there are no Transport slots or special rules. Maybe the mission they played had a special rule or the Garrison Force will be changed in the expansion book or they just made a mistake, no idea
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/21 06:16:02
Overread wrote: I mean what can GW release for Open Play. Open Play is "do what the freaking heck you want".
I get the "3 ways" is marketing, but I kinda don't see the point in the company telling me I can play with toys "my own way". They don't need to tell me that; that's a given
For GW they don't have to release anything. Narrative they can do campaign rules; release campaign packs and even run campaigns and such; Matched is dead simple too; but for Open its a free for all on what you do. Heck just introducing 1 house-rule to Matched Play makes it "open play"
And I agree with the points about AT and LI being different systems that work better being different rather than trying to merge the two. Whilst it can sound fun in theory; in practice it not only ends up splitting the game into two systems trying to run alongside each other; but it can also end up increasing the complexity of how the game mechanically works. This can be a huge thing when players have to do the mechanics themselves. IT can slow things down; make it harder to learn how to play and also can end up just lacking that fun element.
They can offer ways to play that isn't matched play but neither has story behind.
So matched play with less restrictions. More varied scenarios. Asymmetric scenarios.
I mean my other argument is that the double turn be taken out, shot, quartered, burned, buried in 2 corners of the globe and the other 2 parts yeeted into outer space. Having it go into the Open Play lets GW keep marketing it as a feature; whilst letting matched play have an actual chance at balanced gameplay (I mean as far as GW rules allow)
Ah yes. Pamper to players of bad skill who just want to see game result from lists who don't know how to screen, deploy etc.
Who can never imagine playing as well as say season of war guys who reqularly get into position they want to force opponent to take double as it is bad spot to be in for opponent...
As sayig goes. Bad players complain, good players laugh and win either way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/21 07:41:36
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to dealing with messed up systems"
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
I mean my other argument is that the double turn be taken out, shot, quartered, burned, buried in 2 corners of the globe and the other 2 parts yeeted into outer space. Having it go into the Open Play lets GW keep marketing it as a feature; whilst letting matched play have an actual chance at balanced gameplay (I mean as far as GW rules allow)
Exalted. The double turn is my biggest gripe with Age of Sigmar because it's so easy to make the game not fun.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
tauist wrote: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to dealing with messed up systems"
Its only messed up if you are bad player.
Bad players whine, good players laugh at bad players and win anyway as it's matter of skill who wins. Not double turn which rarely decides game anyway(and indeed in some games only way one side CAN win is threat of getting or forcing double turn. Without double turn one side in certain matchups never wins/never loses)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/21 10:34:48
tauist wrote: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to dealing with messed up systems"
Its only messed up if you are bad player.
Bad players whine, good players laugh at bad players and win anyway as it's matter of skill who wins. Not double turn which rarely decides game anyway(and indeed in some games only way one side CAN win is threat of getting or forcing double turn. Without double turn one side in certain matchups never wins/never loses)
I haven't the foggiest whaat you are talking about. Anyways, lets just agree to disagree and move on
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
tauist wrote: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to dealing with messed up systems"
Its only messed up if you are bad player.
Bad players whine, good players laugh at bad players and win anyway as it's matter of skill who wins. Not double turn which rarely decides game anyway(and indeed in some games only way one side CAN win is threat of getting or forcing double turn. Without double turn one side in certain matchups never wins/never loses)
That’s blatantly just bad game design.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/21 12:01:52
The double turn is fine. Players need to adjust their style of play to account for the potential impact of it, the gameplay that emerges from the ruleset as a result creates space where players can choose to play aggressively and throw caution to the wind (this means that if they get a double turn they can try to maximize the benefit to themselves, but if they get double turned they are more likely to lose dramatically) or play conservatively and try to minimize and mitigate the potential risk (this means that if they get a double turn the impact and benefit of it is often minimal, but if their opponent gets the double turn there isn't much pain to be felt from it). In my experience, if both players take a conservative approach, it leads to a slower-paced tactical game with lower lethality levels more along the lines of 4th/5th era 40k, which I myself (and many others) generally enjoy. If both players elect aggressive, then the game is just as lethal and killy as any modern game of 40k is/was in the 9th edition era. When one chooses aggressive and the other chooses conservative, then you can get some really interesting and tactical games of cat and mouse going, BUT this kind of strategy mis-match is also where differences in player skill becomes apparent, if both players are relatively highly skilled the gameplay can be phenomenal, if one player is considerably better than the other then it can be a bit lopsided.
My experience introducing people to AoS is that a lot of people dislike the double turn in theory because they have heard about it online and it seems like something which is logically obvious to result in some sort of feelsbad, but after actually playing through a game or two and experiencing it they realize its not really much of a problem and an interesting mechanical quirk that helps create interesting gameplay. My own personal experience is that the double turn doesn't really impact the outcome of games the way many people believe it does (at least not in the current edition).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/21 13:06:12
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs.
Funny you should say that...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/21 13:24:33
I guess going to a new scale and the associated costs depends how many are contributing to the terrain.
for earlier games printed card etc for buildings works fine, ditto books for hills (though hills can be made to be scale agnostic, ditto rocky outcrops etc)
can get terrain quite cheaply when you go back a bit old school, and if you consider the time taken clipping and cleaning plastic custom made is probably faster too
best way in a group is you all make or get "some" then share it out
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs.
Funny you should say that...
And the thumbnail isn't even photoshopped
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/21 14:22:48
leopard wrote: I guess going to a new scale and the associated costs depends how many are contributing to the terrain.
for earlier games printed card etc for buildings works fine, ditto books for hills (though hills can be made to be scale agnostic, ditto rocky outcrops etc)
can get terrain quite cheaply when you go back a bit old school, and if you consider the time taken clipping and cleaning plastic custom made is probably faster too
best way in a group is you all make or get "some" then share it out
Yeah, if you want to make a full urban board with GWs plastic boards and buildings, it'll cost a fortune. If you make roads and/or make or buy older cardstock buildings and play on a Mousemat board, it'll cost a fraction. Generic home made polystyrene hills will be fine.
If you go full homemade, you could end up with:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/21 13:49:29
chaos0xomega wrote: The double turn is fine. Players need to adjust their style of play to account for the potential impact of it, the gameplay that emerges from the ruleset as a result creates space where players can choose to play aggressively and throw caution to the wind (this means that if they get a double turn they can try to maximize the benefit to themselves, but if they get double turned they are more likely to lose dramatically) or play conservatively and try to minimize and mitigate the potential risk (this means that if they get a double turn the impact and benefit of it is often minimal, but if their opponent gets the double turn there isn't much pain to be felt from it). In my experience, if both players take a conservative approach, it leads to a slower-paced tactical game with lower lethality levels more along the lines of 4th/5th era 40k, which I myself (and many others) generally enjoy. If both players elect aggressive, then the game is just as lethal and killy as any modern game of 40k is/was in the 9th edition era. When one chooses aggressive and the other chooses conservative, then you can get some really interesting and tactical games of cat and mouse going, BUT this kind of strategy mis-match is also where differences in player skill becomes apparent, if both players are relatively highly skilled the gameplay can be phenomenal, if one player is considerably better than the other then it can be a bit lopsided.
My experience introducing people to AoS is that a lot of people dislike the double turn in theory because they have heard about it online and it seems like something which is logically obvious to result in some sort of feelsbad, but after actually playing through a game or two and experiencing it they realize its not really much of a problem and an interesting mechanical quirk that helps create interesting gameplay. My own personal experience is that the double turn doesn't really impact the outcome of games the way many people believe it does (at least not in the current edition).
The double turn is gak and I have won ninety percent of games my shooting army (ko) got the double before I quite playing aos
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs.
Funny you should say that...
And the thumbnail isn't even photoshopped
Fun video, but his buildings are all way too big imo. They'd be big in titanicus, but by all indications building for height, more than a couple levels for LI won't be very helpful. Lack of roads was quite apparent.
I also think the spire set is sortof a waste of LI, because of the garrisoning of building, general advice on how to build them to my mind shift towards maximizing roof space to place infantry bases, which the spires sorta compete with.
Has anyone been able to ascertain whether or not ruins will be destructible in LI?
it does appear buildings can be destroyed, and turned into ruins presumably, Epic has had ever since I played it had the issue of buildings being death traps but ruins being perfectly safe..
leopard wrote: it does appear buildings can be destroyed, and turned into ruins presumably, Epic has had ever since I played it had the issue of buildings being death traps but ruins being perfectly safe..
Yah that's already an incongruity I can't quite wrap my head around, I get not wanting a middle stage to destruction as the logistics would just explode, same time it seems the logistics have exploded if we need to make little area terrain the same dimensions as each structure.
My concern if ruins, even if they're their own weird third thing, aren't destructible like structures, it will be very weird mechanically, Like a titan can destroy a structure but ruin force it to go around? Seems very strange, especially seeing as they didn't base or glue down any terrain in the battel reports.
I'm excited to tear through the ruin set, I'm just hoping the rules makes sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/21 15:23:21
Has anyone been able to ascertain whether or not ruins will be destructible in LI?
From squinting at the rulebook pages in GMG's review I'm 95% sure that ruins won't be destructable. They're listed in the 'area terrain' section alongside things like rivers & cliffs, and simply grant a weak cover save to units inside.
Meanwhile there's a separate 'structures' section for undamaged buildings which covers the list of building types we've seen previewed. These have rules for garrisons, assaults, and being targeted / destroyed.
Edit: "When a Structure collapses it is removed from the battlefield and replaced with an area of Difficult Terrain that occupies roughly the same area as the Structure."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/21 15:28:37
to be honest the solution is, and always has been, simple yet not in the rules
a building has a profile, and when destroyed its replace by ruins, with the associated consequences for those inside
add in that ruins also have a profile, and can also be destroyed, replaced with ruins, with again consequences for those inside
i.e. you are never clearing the ruins away, but can cause further collapses (using the same building) making them a bit more risky than an intact building, but probably still better than being in the open as only certain weapons can collapse them
Has anyone been able to ascertain whether or not ruins will be destructible in LI?
From squinting at the rulebook pages in GMG's review I'm 95% sure that ruins won't be targetable. They're listed in the 'area terrain' section alongside things like rivers & cliffs, and simply grant a weak cover save to units inside.
Meanwhile there's a separate 'structures' section for undamaged buildings which covers the list of building types we've seen previewed. These have rules for garrisons, assaults, and being targeted / destroyed.
the problem this causes is basically as you advance on a building you want to fire upon and collapse it, so it cannot be collapsed once you are inside it, which seems a bit nuts
but then this is the Warhammer universe so whatever really
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/21 15:26:37
leopard wrote: the problem this causes is basically as you advance on a building you want to fire upon and collapse it, so it cannot be collapsed once you are inside it, which seems a bit nuts
From what I've seen ruins give substantially less benefits for defense than an intact building, so this is probably moot. If your dudes are in area terrain they can just be targeted normally and maybe they get a 6+ save.
