Age of Sigmar "2nd edition"

[Adasi]

I expect a new edition shortly to be honest.

Having said that i think it's very clear they're are moving (have moved) away from hard edition resets and the GHB allows them to update rules but i would like them to build on the GHB. For instance, the GHB should be seen as the new edition each year. I would like to see a fluff section similar to what you got in the big hardback rulebooks of old in the GHB along with merged 4pg rules with the necessary FAQ's.

I love playing AoS but my biggest gripe is still the fluff and lack of access to it and this appears to be a shared experience/complaint of many. If anything, AoS needs a new starter box with a fluff booklet to get you into it. You could buy Fantasy 8th ed and read the hardback book and feel fully immersed in the world and all it's races. Right now AoS is a blur and whilst it feels that GW have really put some effort into a focus for the direction of the fluff recently i'd just like to see it consolidated in a book - not have to show my mates 20 different links on the community site, 7 different black library books and 5 very expensive tomes

So to sum up (as i'm really suffering from lack of sleep and rambling) is: I expect a new starter set with hopefully a fluff book. Such a big push for death and aelves to me means that there's probably those coming up in it too! Imagine a new (merged) High Aelves faction vs Death... yeah i'd buy that...i'd buy that several times over!

[Kugane]

I personally prefer it if game developers take the time to keep polishing a game rather than just jumping ship and creating a new edition.

I would prefer having add-on rules rather than having everything replaced every time. I think to keep expanding on a product is better than covering up the past each time.

One of the things that I would personally really love to see would be a "build your own hero" kind of thing, where you can pretty much invest points to put together a hero that will fix issues your army has.

[FRoper]

am i the only one who will think that something will happen this year or at least a new starter set. 

[bsharitt]

If there is a fairly major update, I'm in that camp that it'll be evolutionary and they won't make a major hoopla about it being a "new" edition. I would expect new rules(along with and FAQ roll up) to be released alongside(and hopefully inside, because no actual rules in the GHB is silly) the GHB2018, but they just update them in place and still works will the existing warscrolls, and that if there are any warscroll changes for things that just break under new rules, I'd expect t them to be printing in the GHB, like the Grundstock thunderers update. I'd expect the biggest changes to be to points to rebalance any rules changes if they are big enough(e.g. making shooting units cheaper if shooting gets hit with the nerf bat), but I'd guess overall the change would be evolutionary. I really don't see 40k shooting rules being incorporated into AoS. I joke that I wish my Kharadron Overlords had overwatch nearly everycharge phase, but I think I'd prefer to keep the ability to shoot in and out of combat. The only thing I could see getting, is some kind of protection for characters, though I would rather they not use the 40k version(and even change that one) and instead make it a universal "look out sir" on a 4+ if there's another unit closer.

Another prediction that I'd like to make is that if there is an update, they might use it as an opportunity to drop support for the rest of the compendium armies. I already think the odds of them doing that in the next GHB is pretty good anyway, but probably way higher if there's a real rules update.

[Mordeus]

Hard reset style of rule update would be disappointing imo. Having to relearn everything plus run the risk that the new edition is as flawed as the one it replaces is not something i like. Not after such a short time. In a few more years when the system has really had time to develop itself and grow perhaps but not so soon.

I like what they are doing with the GHB system. Hopefully the next version will include all the stuff they have added in the Firestorm and Malign Portents books. I see those as prototypes, or beta versions of rules, that then get included into the main corpus of rules. Same with the myriad of FAQs we have to deal with now. I play KO and its annoying that a month after they where released, pretty much every warscroll had a minor yet important change.

My main gripe right now, and it is something that could easily be dealt with, is the lack of updates to the warscrolls both on the website and on the app. They have such an organic system to work with and barely do anything. Coming back to the example of the KO, most of the changes where damage modifications. A 3 to a D3. Why can't they change that in the warscroll so you don't have to remind your opponents or have the FAQ at hand all the time.

[DantePQ]

Yep I agree that hard reset would be bad but core rules overhaul would be much welcomed and could be done without changes to warscrolls. For example I'd love double turn to go it's still the worst rule in whole ruleset and isn't much fun played some games without it and the game flow was much better. Another change I'd like is slightly different victory points system - something more then : major,minor, draw. 

I'd hate huge rulebook, 4 pages as core rules are cool but some changes would be very welcome and GW could release them in form of GHandbook but change to core rules along with FAQ would be much simplier for new players. I guess after some time some BT will get refresh treatment. 

[Menkeroth]

In terms of rules what really is needed is the alternate activation like in Malifaux, for instance, and either full model to model play or unit to unit, because it's a traditional GW problem (they never made good games after all) - units but with model to model activation and use, which is odd and bad at the same time.

[Samanar]

The only way I see it happening is by moving the story arch forward. Nagash won, Shadow Aelves enslaved half of the realms, Sigmar is dead or banished and boom, Age of Nagash/Tyrion/Legends/whatever comes as our 2nd edition.  500 years from now, new armies, new lore - the only thing that they should consider is to NOT dust any more armies. Let people play what they have, we all know that 90%+ would jump to the new shiny anyway, if GW did it as a thought-out process, backed by the lore (just like Malign Portents is setting up changes) and not by killing the old armies "just because". Such smooth way of introducing "new edition" would definitely catch more attention and would be easier to accept than simple - "we ran out of books - rinse and repeat" ;).

PS. I could care less about tweaking the rules... I mean they do it with each new Battletome or GHB/erratas so there's no point in moving to 2nd edition to have line of sight fixed in my opinion.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, bsharitt said:

Another prediction that I'd like to make is that if there is an update, they might use it as an opportunity to drop support for the rest of the compendium armies.

 Why?  What conceivable reason,  other than just plain being mean,  could you have for wanting to tell people who have lovingly built and painted armies to just go away? 

[hughwyeth]

I seriously doubt there's a hard reset coming for AoS. The rules are so simple there is no requirement to reset is as there was in the old days of fantasy/40k. I doubt they'll ever do a new set of rules for 40k either. The change in rules in AoS is already happening- summoning is changing, as seen in the Maggotkin book. This is how they'll introduce rules updates- slowly through battletome updates. The core rules don't need to be changed, though I really think a new rules sheet with the FAQ and matched play specific rules integrated into it would be really welcome. Add all the required details in things like movement, pile-in and unit coherency etc. 

The big thing that's missing from GW for any game is a serious App. It's crazy that in 2018, i need to bring the rules sheet, FAQ, General's Handbook and Battletome to play a game (in either PDF or print form). They should have an app with the rules in, fully updated with FAQs and errata integrated, not seperate documents. They should also have the unit warscrolls properly integrated into the app, automatically updated with errata (printing rules and battletomes with incorrect rules, fixed a year ago, is crazy). The AoS/Azyr app is pretty bad really. I pay for the subscription, but it really doesn't know the AoS listbuilding rules at all and is really badly designed. They could also integrate a battle journal type thing into the app. 

[RuneBrush]

I do believe that an update to the rules will focus on game mechanic improvements rather than changing things that are subjective - I honestly can't see priority rolls going because AoS is so well known for it and you can easily house rule your own preference.

@DantePQ I think different victory conditions could easily be done with new battleplans (so generals handbook/other publications) rather that in the core rules.  I'd actually love to see secondary objectives being added, but again think that would be a separate issue to the 2nd ed rules.

 

[Arkiham]

the next edition will change summoning. 

its obvious games-workshop are moving towards it by changing summoning, making it more restrictive etc 

[hughwyeth]

16 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

the next edition will change summoning. 

its obvious games-workshop are moving towards it by changing summoning, making it more restrictive etc 

There are no rules for summoning in the core rules though. So no need for new rules. That's why I think AoS will never be "updated" in one go with new rules. 

[TheKingInYellow]

For AoS to progress to a game system that will be more widely adopted they need to fix:

1. Character targeting rules - Much like 40k 8th, low wound characters need some way to gain protection

2. Shooting rules - Shooting into/out of/across combats needs to go, or needs to carry a penalty/risk.

3. Double turn - Has to go, it's too easy for a game to swing entirely one way based on a single die roll.

Aos 2 basically needs to be 40k 8th edition.

[Sleboda]

13 minutes ago, TheKingInYellow said:

For AoS to progress to a game system that will be more widely adopted they need to fix:

1. Character targeting rules - Much like 40k 8th, low wound characters need some way to gain protection

2. Shooting rules - Shooting into/out of/across combats needs to go, or needs to carry a penalty/risk.

3. Double turn - Has to go, it's too easy for a game to swing entirely one way based on a single die roll.

Aos 2 basically needs to be 40k 8th edition.

Sooo,  for AoS to be better it needs to not be AoS? 

[hughwyeth]

26 minutes ago, TheKingInYellow said:

For AoS to progress to a game system that will be more widely adopted they need to fix:

1. Character targeting rules - Much like 40k 8th, low wound characters need some way to gain protection

2. Shooting rules - Shooting into/out of/across combats needs to go, or needs to carry a penalty/risk.

3. Double turn - Has to go, it's too easy for a game to swing entirely one way based on a single die roll.

Aos 2 basically needs to be 40k 8th edition.

I disagree with all 3. Primarily because I believe AoS is superior to 40k because of simplified rules. If you change the shooting rules, not only do you have to re-point every single shooting unit in the game, you also make it much harder to accurately assign point values to those units. Consider- when a unit has shooting, that shooting ability is relatively easy to cost accurately as the only contextual requirement for it is distance to target. Add rules for in/out/across combat, there's a host of contextual scenarios that need to be taken into account. 

The character rules- I sort of agree with you, but don't think it should be in the rules. It should be implemented as an ability on certain warscrolls. For example- "This Hero is admired and respected by all the troops of this faction. Whenever a magic or shooting attack targets this character, there is a -1 to hit/-1 to cast penalty. " or something along those lines. 

The double turn I understand- it's seen as too powerful. However, I think an overriding rule with any game of any kind is if you know the rules and the potential outcome of any dice roll, prepare for it- that's the skill in the game. This applies to charges of 10"+ or double turns or high cast value spells or anything with low probability and/or high consequence.

[chord]

28 minutes ago, TheKingInYellow said:

For AoS to progress to a game system that will be more widely adopted they need to fix:

1. Character targeting rules - Much like 40k 8th, low wound characters need some way to gain protection

2. Shooting rules - Shooting into/out of/across combats needs to go, or needs to carry a penalty/risk.

3. Double turn - Has to go, it's too easy for a game to swing entirely one way based on a single die roll.

Aos 2 basically needs to be 40k 8th edition.

I disagree with those 3 points.  If you want to play 40K, there is always that option. 

[NemoVonUtopia]

I would  be odd to me if GW made s 2nd edition of AoS in the traditional sence. They have set it up so they can make changes through the Generals Handbook like they added allies. 

24 minutes ago, TheKingInYellow said:

For AoS to progress to a game system that will be more widely adopted they need to fix:

1. Character targeting rules - Much like 40k 8th, low wound characters need some way to gain protection

2. Shooting rules - Shooting into/out of/across combats needs to go, or needs to carry a penalty/risk.

3. Double turn - Has to go, it's too easy for a game to swing entirely one way based on a single die roll.

Aos 2 basically needs to be 40k 8th edition.

40k character targeting rules would be bad for AoS imo. I play Bloodbound quite a lot so I have quite a few low health heros, however, with 40k targeting rules my bloodsecrator would essentially be uncounterable by my opponent because he is always surrounded by my units. Giving heroes cover if they are behind units or a to hit penalty would work better. The best way would probably to adding abilities to individual hero warscrolls like the new cave shaman.

[Menkeroth]

46 minutes ago, TheKingInYellow said:

Aos 2 basically needs to be 40k 8th edition.

No, because the games and settings are too different, it won't work. And what good is in having two identical systems? Also, 8th edition is as arguable and strange as the previous editions, and in my opinion, the 5th one was the best in terms of balance and quantity of content.  AoS needs to be AoS, and as it always grows, changes and expands, GW will eventually come to some stable conclusion which also will be different from 40k.

[Stevewren]

53 minutes ago, NemoVonUtopia said:

  1 hour ago, TheKingInYellow said:

For AoS to progress to a game system that will be more widely adopted they need to fix:

1. Character targeting rules - Much like 40k 8th, low wound characters need some way to gain protection

2. Shooting rules - Shooting into/out of/across combats needs to go, or needs to carry a penalty/risk.

3. Double turn - Has to go, it's too easy for a game to swing entirely one way based on a single die roll.

Aos 2 basically needs to be 40k 8th edition.

1. Disagree. Low wound heroes are a risk, bug they often have powerful command abilities. If they became unhittable then you get a balance isssue. 

2.  I agree a bit. I think a compromise to shooting is better. Maybe not being able to shoot anything when in combat, but have some restrictions. 

3. Disagree massively. The double turn is AOS. It gives you a chance in otherwise hopeless situations. It accentuates defeats sometimes, but from my experience I'd lose the game anyway in an I go you go format. As others have said you can game plan around it. Push forward knowing that if you get the turn you can win and doing it is great. Or defensively buff your units and give your opponents the double turn hoping he won't do much damage so you get the chance for the double turn later. It brings so much more to the game. 

What id like to see is changes to some of the more odd game changing rules like Deadly terrain killing a whole model. Tone that down to one mortal wound for example. 

Make everything 'wholly within' 

[SeanMaguire1991]

I'd argue low wound heroes DO need some form of protection because too many weapons can snipe your valuable heroes. This gives too much advantage to certain armies (Cough PlagueClaw cough). I'd argue for a form of "Look Out Sir" where hits are redirected to a friendly unit if it's within 3' of the targeted hero.  Monsters obviously wouldn't gain this protection. 

Shooting into/out of combat irks me and always will. You can't tell me that you can load a bow, crossbow, Handgun, Cannon, Helblaster while some mad man is trying to hack your face off (unless this game operates on classic Resident Evil logic). Your shooting unit gets engaged then you've done something wrong and should be punished. Granted certain units should be exempt from this like Arkanauts, Corsairs and Kairic Acolytes due to the more wieldy nature of their projectiles. 

 

[heywoah_twitch]

5 hours ago, TheKingInYellow said:

For AoS to progress to a game system that will be more widely adopted they need to fix:

1. Character targeting rules - Much like 40k 8th, low wound characters need some way to gain protection

2. Shooting rules - Shooting into/out of/across combats needs to go, or needs to carry a penalty/risk.

3. Double turn - Has to go, it's too easy for a game to swing entirely one way based on a single die roll.

Aos 2 basically needs to be 40k 8th edition.

1. absolutely not. The way to fix sniping should never be a "can't be targeted" rule. This would be oppressive. Let them only get hit on natural 5+ or something, but if we've learned anything from balewind it's that immunity is not fun. 100point heroes in this game have staggeringly powerful force multiplying buffs, and if they were untargettable, they would be invincible gods watching two death stars not kill eachother all game.

2. The penalty is that the ranged units tend to suck in combat and so they die. The other penalty is that in a battle round you get to shoot once, while melee get to fight twice. This doesn't need "fixing".

3. 100% agree. Even apart from game balance/fun, which it is not, there's already so much waiting in AoS, when you get double turned you basically watch your opponent play for 45min, like you could lose prio and just go to subway if you didn't have to roll saves halfway through.

[Killax]

11 hours ago, Kugane said:

I personally prefer it if game developers take the time to keep polishing a game rather than just jumping ship and creating a new edition.

I would prefer having add-on rules rather than having everything replaced every time. I think to keep expanding on a product is better than covering up the past each time.

One of the things that I would personally really love to see would be a "build your own hero" kind of thing, where you can pretty much invest points to put together a hero that will fix issues your army has.

Well I'd say that one way to polishing up the game would be to adress the core rules. This might aswell be called a new edition while we are at it.

Fact of the matter is that clearly there is a wanting for Generals Handbook, FAQ and Errata. But as always if those surpass over 40 pages, it's just much easier to adress this in actual rules. The meaning of any, the option to be near 3" of your opponent and all the other aspects, 'spots' can be polished out of the core rules.

Design doesn't come from 'fixing issues' which is why we have errata and faq in the first place  . What I would gladly accept as the biggest change is translate the Battalion abilities all into Stratagems and use them in a system akin to 40K (but better). As this way you design your own armies completely with the units you want.

As before though, it's early to discuss this. End 2020 is when AoS has reached it's 5 year life and this used to be the point where GW decided to addopt a new edition. Having said that though, beause AoS is more akin to older WFB it could become 8-10 aswell.

From my perspective the Warscrolls need little to no change right now. However the Core rules that are seperate from the Warscrolls could use an update. Likewise Warscrolls that have been re-worded ideally get updated in the App "with a new edition" to basically smooth out all the designs they use now versus some that appeared in 2015.

Wether such a change is called a Generals Handbook or Age of Sigmar second edition, I don't really care. The way I see it we're in Age of Sigmar 1.2. edition. Where GH2016 was 1.1.

[Iradekhorne]

GH 2017 havent the core rules, same for the new battletomes after it (yea its for dont print it more). I think.. the changue of core rules are closer than we spect. Maybye the generals 2018, or maybye closer.

The fact is, I think they have a good solution, put the option of cast spells on hero phase and also on shooting phase (doing some tipe of bolts). And penalitzing a bit more the shooting.

I have the hope about Gw isnt going to reset again all books and warscrolls, is madness and can crush the fragile community. 

[Killax]

If Im honest about it, 80% of Warscroll designs can easily be kept as is. Costs can indeed easily change per Generals Handbook.
The only thing I wish would eventually occur is that 20% of Warscroll clearity that is given in Errata and FAQ is eventually also translated into an actual product. One that basically whipes the errata/faq pages clean again.

In terms of double-turning, I'm a bit indifferent. I see the pro and con. Not huge on it, but as others have said it does make AoS unique.
In terms of doing something with the Shooting Phase I agree completely, which isn't to say that I want to remove it or "nerf it". What I do want to see is that model placement becomes the highlight of Age of Sigmar. The only phase that pretty much ignores all this is the Shooting Phase. So my personal approach for that would be an either, but not both, so:
A. Shooting while being near 3" enemy models can only be done on those models.
OR
B. A Look out Sir or compairable rule enters Age of Sigmar.

Those who defend the current Shooting phase often come with support X or Y otherwise being too hard to remove. While my responce to that remains that it isn't like a Shooting heavy army doesn't benifit from the exact same ruling. E.g. the Order Herald would be much better if he had it. He allready is much better as say a Bloodsecrator because the effects of a Bloodsecrator don't even compair in threat range that syngs with Order Heralds.

The idea that armies would become too strong if support couldn't get shot down is a fallacy. Because what we see is that some armies have no relevant Shooting phase to begin with, thus per definition are in a worse position. Games Workshop's latest design has countered this with Nurgle's charge and run + ambush or Legions of Nagash's summon + ambush. This works, but again isn't even remotely available to all.

When we look at actual large tournament results the consistent winners are from the 'GA Order', this isn't a coincedence. This is the effect of being the most efficient at using the strongest phase of the game. The only non GA Order army that can replicate this tactic is Tzeentch. Moral is, if anything, character sniping right now is too strong. It defines the competitive meta too much.