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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Locally the only interest in ToW is from a few college aged folks who never played WHFB but are conditioned to check out every new GW thing. The actual fantasy veterans stayed with T9A, while AoS is looked at mostly by folks who identify as 40k players but like the models.

That's not even close to being accurate.

Okay then you explain to everyone what my local group plays.

I missed the "Locally" part, honestly. My bad.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
At the rate AoS has been selling, I'd guess its popularity is closer to The Old World than it is to 40k.

Now that we have The Old World we can acknowledge again that AoS is trash and go back to the beloved old setting.

Next step: the setting gets squatted a second time as GW's accountants panic over dropping AoS sales.

Given that the 'legacy' factions can only get models from Age of Sigmar, you'd think the existence of Old World would HELP its sales...

Google trends data and subreddit subscribership suggests that TOWs popularity is a drop in the bucket compared to AoS anyway.

I'll take sale numbers over subreddit subscriberships, even if they are only regional estimates based off the larger online stores in Aus.

Online presences are weird, sometimes very niche games appear to have a huge online presence because for whatever reason half the real world community is also part of the online community. Other times the online presence only represents a tiny fraction of the community.

But I never really said that TOW is particularly popular... just that AoS is closer to that than 40k

TOW is an interesting one, so far no one I know of my old WHFB group has picked it up, I don't think it shifted huge amounts of stock. Launching with Bretonnia and Tomb Kings I found was odd, basically a couple of the least popular armies back in the day, especially since they didn't update the tired old core kits.

I'll take sale numbers over subreddit subscriberships, even if they are only regional estimates based off the larger online stores in Aus.

Sure, if any of us knew what those looked like it would be a much easier conversation, but we don't- so working from indirect measures is what we have to deal with.

Not a big fan of the seperate release days for the faction packs. Its not a huge time gap in the grand view, but just seems like a weird choice to make.

I guess they anticipate things going smoother with it spaced out like that.

Ah well day 1 errata confirmed.



(command group omitted from the rules, again, after being errata'd in in 3.0, and despite the musician being pictured on the damn warscroll)

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Ah well day 1 errata confirmed.



(command group omitted from the rules, again, after being errata'd in in 3.0, and despite the musician being pictured on the damn warscroll)

Unless they don't do anything now?

I wouldn't put it past the current GW fad of simplification. Heck I already got annoyed that AoS kind of encourages you to take a full compliment of musicians and banners (but only one leader...) which if you actually do it results in infantry and cavalry blocks that can be made up of more support than actual fighting units.

standard and musicians are in the rules.
standards give +1 control score to the unit.
musicians give an additional rally roll.

For reference, here is how command groups are typed in 4.0

.... WHY GW WHY can't you just do the old Musicians 1 and someone else picks up the trumpet? It's not hard!!

I wouldn't mind if units came in packs of 10 or 15 per "box" but with most being 5 having 2 support per 3 troops just looks all kinds of silly. There's a few units that might warrant it - I could see some nurgle ones having more musicians than normal; but so many just don't look right at all.


Yes I know its a 'me' problem and its easily fixed but still!

Doubling up on command does let you field minimum and maximum sized units without swapping models. I think in 4.0 you're also going to be capped to two per unit as you can only increase model count once.

I agree it's looking kinda naff on a reinforced 3-strong unit, like Revenant Seekers or the new FEC cav.

I feel like the AoS team is slowly trying to make AoS a skirmish game - each edition they reduce infantry sizes

Dudeface wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Ah well day 1 errata confirmed.



(command group omitted from the rules, again, after being errata'd in in 3.0, and despite the musician being pictured on the damn warscroll)

Unless they don't do anything now?

Or army selection/unit composition stuff like that is on the other side of the card?

Greenfield wrote:


Or army selection/unit composition stuff like that is on the other side of the card?

Every other unit has Command options in their keywords.

 Overread wrote:
I feel like the AoS team is slowly trying to make AoS a skirmish game - each edition they reduce infantry sizes

we still haven't seen what points are looking like this edition

 Platuan4th wrote:

Greenfield wrote:


Or army selection/unit composition stuff like that is on the other side of the card?

Every other unit has Command options in their keywords.

Yep, thanks, I've seen this now. I agree, this looks like a mistake.

2 musicians would look silly, 3 or more would look cool it they stand together.

Now I would like to build a full unit of trumpeteers and drummers. What a powerfull sight for the cities to have a such a duardin unit on the field.
If only you could get some bagpipes and accordions too.

Having skimmed through the rules today, I'm pretty disappointed. This ruleset reads so bland, I'd rather play anything else. The only thing that's an improvement is how prayers work now. Everything else is just so so boring with not even a hint of innovation or any justification for a new edition.

Bland in what way? The actions you can take? Unit special abilities? Army composition?

Yeah I feel like GW has managed to pack more flavor into the game while keeping it more manageable in the process, not bland at all.

I don't see much flavour in the core rules. Abilities (Move, Run, Fight, etc.) are basically the same, but the removed Morale and no combat resolution really irks me. It basically doesn't matter who wins a round of combat, if none of the units is destroyed. Respawning models for every army via Rally feels weird. The Control stat seems... unnecessary or at least not like a big enough improvement over the way 3E handled it to drop Morale. Army composition locked to the heroes I don't like. Double turn basically gets no penality again as far as I can see, unless you're also behind on VPs, and even then it's a single additional CP.

The change in combat resolution has fundamentally changed how you play the game.

For instance, whilst I absolutely can still just bundle three scythed chariots into infantry or cavalry? There’s a much greater risk that I don’t break my opponent. And we all know what happens when Chariots get stuck in combat.

Likewise, Bretonnian Buses still hit like a ton of brick, but need to be wary of what they’re charging lest they be flanked in the opponent’s next turn.

The grind nature of combat also favours lower level champions. Those with decent stats and access to decent weapons, who can really make their presence felt turn on turn, hacking down multiple enemy models.

It’s now a game which favours planning a turn or three in advance, including “what do I do if my army is bogged down?”.

I wasn’t sold on it at first, but I’m kind of digging it. For instance, Ogres can now really play the attrition game, as can other Monstrous Infantry, without me having to pay for rank after rank in points.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The change in combat resolution has fundamentally changed how you play the game.

For instance, whilst I absolutely can still just bundle three scythed chariots into infantry or cavalry? There’s a much greater risk that I don’t break my opponent. And we all know what happens when Chariots get stuck in combat.

Likewise, Bretonnian Buses still hit like a ton of brick, but need to be wary of what they’re charging lest they be flanked in the opponent’s next turn.

The grind nature of combat also favours lower level champions. Those with decent stats and access to decent weapons, who can really make their presence felt turn on turn, hacking down multiple enemy models.

It’s now a game which favours planning a turn or three in advance, including “what do I do if my army is bogged down?”.

I wasn’t sold on it at first, but I’m kind of digging it. For instance, Ogres can now really play the attrition game, as can other Monstrous Infantry, without me having to pay for rank after rank in points.

I think you might be talking about the wrong game. This is the AoS topic, not TOW.

Whatta mistaka to makea!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Whatta mistaka to makea!

Ironically, most of your statements are still pretty correct for AoS.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
I don't see much flavour in the core rules. Abilities (Move, Run, Fight, etc.) are basically the same, but the removed Morale and no combat resolution really irks me.

I'm a big fan of morale and suppression rules and while they removed the former as a stat, I feel like there's a lot of the latter going in, just in the form of various debuffs, which include debuffs to Control, so you can indeed make a unit temporarily nigh useless without dealing wounds to it. It's highly abstracted but it works on everyone the same now, rather than having a stat which then half the factions are maxed on and the other half are low but with a mitigation mechanic that makes morale effects terrible most of the time no matter who you're fighting...

I would say if anything is bland it's the "stand in circles and push buttons" objectives and the core mechanics are now completely tied into that.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Respawning models for every army via Rally feels weird.

That's already what Rally does though.

Got a 'its not too late' email today for the boxed set. Wonder if they overproduced or undersold?

Voss wrote:
Got a 'its not too late' email today for the boxed set. Wonder if they overproduced or undersold?

Let's not start that again. gak still being available 5 days into the preorder week isn't a bad thing.

Voss wrote:
Got a 'its not too late' email today for the boxed set. Wonder if they overproduced or undersold?

It's the usual Thursday newsblast. It usually is tied to Metawatch nonsense.