Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[Jamopower]

Isn't the rules concerning who goes first part of the scenario that is played? I'm sure there is plenty of battleplans with a roll off even now. 

[Kramer]

3 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

Isn't the rules concerning who goes first part of the scenario that is played? I'm sure there is plenty of battleplans with a roll off even now. 

Some narrative and open play ones definitely do. From memory the 6 matched play ones are all set up first, decide first turn 

[bsharitt]

 

15 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

Isn't the rules concerning who goes first part of the scenario that is played? I'm sure there is plenty of battleplans with a roll off even now. 

Some of them do change it, but the player who finishes deploying first choosing who goes first is in the core rules, and thus is the default if nothing else is specified.

[BobbyB]

all of the matched play ones specify that the player who finishes deploying first chooses as far as I can remember.  but this might be moot if the new ghb comes at the same time as the new edition

[RuneBrush]

I can see up to two things changing.  Firstly you roll off with a +1 if you deployed first.  Secondly they remove the 1 drop mechanic from battalions.

9 minutes ago, BobbyB said:

all of the matched play ones specify that the player who finishes deploying first chooses as far as I can remember.  but this might be moot if the new ghb comes at the same time as the new edition

It's been confirmed that we'll get the new handbook alongside the new edition rules.

[Olincay]

*Remember those awesome persistent spells we know are on the way? They will interact with the turn sequence in an interesting way too*

I NEED TO KNOW NOW DAMMIT

[Ollie Grimwood]

53 minutes ago, PJetski said:

They're probably going to do the Battletome armies first, and Ironjawz are the destruction posterboys.

They’re the true poster boys of AoS the Stormcast thing is just an Internet misconception. 

[Kirjava13]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

Slaves & Everchosen article coming up later today

It would be cool if they combined those two factions under a new Battletome

I initially misread that as "Skaven and Everchosen" and I was so confused.

[Kamose]

3 hours ago, Arkiham said:

BURN YOUR ARMIES, THROW AWAY ALL THE GAMES WORKSHOP STUFF

Oh... but isnt it the fashionable thing to do ? 

 

 

Waaay ahead of ya there! I also burned down my house too! Just to be sure GW got the message!

[Jamopower]

1 hour ago, bsharitt said:

 

Some of them do change it, but the player who finishes deploying first choosing who goes first is in the core rules, and thus is the default if nothing else is specified.

I would class the one in the core rules as one of the available battleplans,  although a very simple one. Scenarios are very important part of the game,s, but they aren't often rulesystem specific, I've played AoS scenarios in other games and vice versa. 

[hughwyeth]

17 minutes ago, Kamose said:

Waaay ahead of ya there! I also burned down my house too! Just to be sure GW got the message!

I go one step further. Here's a short clip of me confronting GW:

 

[michu]

24 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

I go one step further. Here's a short clip of me confronting GW:

 

To top that someone would have to paint miniature with one thick coat in front of Duncan.

[PJetski]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/05/16/16th-may-faction-focus-everchosen-and-slaves-to-darknessgw-homepage-post-3/

That last sentence is very interesting.

It sounds to me like command abilities will cost command points, but maybe Archaon will make them free?

[lolwut]

In a fair & balanced game, it's always in your best interest to prevent the double turn from happening against you, and to take it if indeed it is available to you. 

So how have our odds of seeing the double turn changed in a fair & balanced 5 turn game? 

Let n represent the number of game turns, wherein a roll-off happens to determine a new turn order. 

The odds of not seeing a double turn in a 5 turn game is (0.58)^4. (Because the first turn can never be a double turn).

In a general sense, you can express the general form as: 

F = (n 0)p^0(1-p)^n + (n 1)p^1(1-p)^n-1 + ... + (n n-1)p^(n-1)*(1-p)^1 + (n n)p^n*(1-p)^0

The number of double turns is the number of times that the second player wins the roll off.  If games go to 5 turns, here are your probabilities: (disclaimer: i have rounded .583333 to .58)

4 double turns: (4 0) * (p^0) * (1-p)^4 = 1 * 1 * (.42)^4 = 0.031 or ~3%, down from 6%

3 double turns: (4 1) * (p^1) * (1-p)^3 = 4 * (.58) * (.42)^3 = 0.1718 or ~17%, down from 25%

2 double turns: (4 2) * (p^2) * (1-p)^2 = 6 * (.58)^2 * (.42)^2 = 0.356 or ~36%, down from 37%

1 double turn : (4 3) * (p^3) * (1-p)^1 = 4 * (.58)^3 * (.42)^1 = 0.327 or ~ 33%, up from 25%

The odds of 0 double turns is just .58^4 = 0.113 or ~ 11%, up from ~6%

So the odds of seeing at least 1 double turn went from ~94% down to ~89%. Yet the odds of seeing 1 or 2 double turns went  up from 62% to 69%. The odds of seeing 3 or 4 double turns went down from 31% to 20%. 

Although I doubt a game of Sigmar makes it to 5 turns anyway. 

Will this really have an impact in your average game of Sigmar? I can't imagine this will produce that much of a change. 

[SaJeel]

Mechanically not much has changed, but i feel like from a play perspective this will feel better, As the double turn will feel more fair and less cheap,

Great break down @lolwut

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, rokapoke said:

At least have a little hope

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

 

Lol.

[tolstedt]

Looks like Varanguard will be 260 and Archaon will be 600 or even 580

[Brightstar]

4 hours ago, bsharitt said:

Nice, the roll off for turn itself isn't being changed much at all and the strategy around the promised more strategic double turn will be in the overall strategy of other rules. Hopefully they found a nice happy median between the 40k style static turn order being so boring and the double turn being a little  OP in certain circumstances. I'm guessing that something to do with the persistent spells happens in your opponents turn or requires and opponent turn to "reset" or something so the double turn might weaken or negate the effects of your spells some how.

Yeah, i hope all the changes go in this direction instead of complete rules rewrites - like chargers striking first and damage doesnt wrap. I'd rather tweaks amd fixes. Complete overhauls divide the community.

[blueshirtman]

6 hours ago, Bloodmaster said:

Or maybe, and I know it might be a strange concept form some here, remeber that GW has a strange new format to update warscrolls and pointcosts to fix balance and rule issuse. I know, I know, it sounds fantastic and as it only is a few years old, thus relativly young, it is easy to forget about it. But heres a hint, it's called Generals Handbook, and rumours have it, that one will follow shortly after the AoS 2.0 release.  

 

From what I understand the last generals handbook just nerfed destruction armies and BCR in particular. So your not making me feel better about GW, could do in the future.

 

6 hours ago, Bloodmaster said:

Man, I really don't get why some of you can't see the new edition of a chance to get a more balanced rule set and army balancing but instead see every little titbit of rumours as the sign of falling skies, a conspiracy to weaken them - and only them, and assume that just the one titbit of rumoured rule change will come and the rest of the rule set remains unchanged.  

Show me the parts that would make you think that BCR will get better undet]r the upcoming rules? Am not saying the sky is falling, I said I understand why GW makes the changes, I said more extra rules are nice. But it does not change the fact that unless GW rewrites BCR rules, they do not have the stuff that is important or made better under the new rules.

 

6 hours ago, Bloodmaster said:

Or maybe you have to reconsider your army choice and admit that its time for a little side project until you get the powerhouse treatment you demand for you plastic toy soldiers, which might be never, since GW never can satisfy anyone, especially those who see their armies as weak and blame GW for choosing an army from the old world that has 1-2 units!

Sure man, send me the money I will start another army.  I can PM you my adress.

[TheOtherJosh]

18 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

Show me the parts that would make you think that BCR will get better under the upcoming rules?

The fact that once you get in combat with ranged units the other units won’t be dealing with them shooting out of combat.

None of us have seen anything other than the tip of the iceberg in regards to new rules. In less than the next 44 days we will have all the new rules for the 2.0 rollout.

And sometime (shortly) thereafter we will have the cool stuff on how non-magic armies will be involved with the new type of magic.

As my grandfather often said “Don’t get excitement ...” when everyone started becoming overly anxious that something was going to go poorly. (It usually didn’t go anywhere nearly as badly as folks thought.)

Remember that the entire metagame will change come the Rules Change. 

And if nothing else, we know that GW is willing to take a ruleset that they released only 3 years ago and do a rework to answer issues with how the game has progressed since release. 

“It’s Change we can believe in.” (tm) - Kairos Fateweaver In ‘8  

 

[Ollie Grimwood]

With BCR and Destruction it was a case of GHB16 giveth and GHB17 taketh away, hopefully GHB18 will take the more sensible middle ground. Though that’s not really anything to do with the new rule set. Ongoing Matchplay balance is part of the GHB’s job. 

[broche]

@lolwut I think your analysis is a bit shallow. 
 Second battle round is often decisive, and odds change in new rules will affect your decision making. 
 Let say i choose who go first.
 Before I had 50% chance of going first again in round 2. Now it's up to 58.3% (Or one game out of twelve).
 I also had 50% chance of going second then first in round 2. Now it's down to 41.7% (Or one game out of twelve).
 From a gambling perspective, a 50-50 decision is quite different from a 60-40.
 I suspect you'll see more player choosing to go first with that rule change.

[Gotrek]

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

 

Lol.

And this is why i refuse to hope. Really irritates my buddy that I'm not jumping on the nighthaunt hype train for my death army.

[lolwut]

40 minutes ago, broche said:

@lolwut I think your analysis is a bit shallow. 
 Second battle round is often decisive, and odds change in new rules will affect your decision making. 
 Let say i choose who go first.
 Before I had 50% chance of going first again in round 2. Now it's up to 58.3% (Or one game out of twelve).
 I also had 50% chance of going second then first in round 2. Now it's down to 41.7% (Or one game out of twelve).
 From a gambling perspective, a 50-50 decision is quite different from a 60-40.
 I suspect you'll see more player choosing to go first with that rule change.

My analysis doesn't care who chooses to go first in the first turn. 

It is purely looking at the likelihood of a double turn given that you pretty much always want to get a double turn, or deny a double turn. 

If you want to come up with a more comprehensive look at the game theory behind the double turn, and factor in people misplaying which leads to edge cases (for example, where you want your opponent to take a double turn) into your probability, I am not stopping you. 

[GeneralZero]

ontent of the box revealed/leaked.

Wow!! even more than in aos 1.0. I'll probably get 2