Jump to content

AoS 2 and what it means for Destruction


Soulsmith

Recommended Posts

good news overall. love the spells! Also:

If you’re an existing Ironjawz player, all your allegiance abilities, artefacts, command traits and warscroll battalions will be making the transition to the new edition intact in the latest edition of the General’s Handbook, with a variety of tweaks to points and some rules designed to make your army more balanced and more fun to play.

suggest that we are keeping the current alliegiance/artefact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 313
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Jeah, but again, it is only for Ironjawz. There are also some other Destruction factions. 

In the last GHB2017 only Ironjawz got a real rules and allegiance abilities update from the Destruction factions. 

I seriously hope that they will also preview other Destruction factions and it is not only Ironjawz, like alwayys. Some of us really want some ogor or grot love.

I really don't get excited if I hear about Ironjawz updates anymore, because most of the time they are the only Destruction faction which gets any updates. I really wish that GW also has some changes for the other factions,

Many people hear the word "Destruction" and don't even think about Ogors, Grots, Trolls and giants anymore. I really want more diversity in Destruction factions and not be forced to only play Ironjawz if I want to play a Destruction faction which is supported by GW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, broche said:

@Skabnoze i think it's a nice fix. It doesnt really affect the balance of the game, but it reduce the occurence of double turn (from 50 - 50 to 40 - 60) and slightly speed up game play. For players not knowing the bravery rule: you need to teach them ;)

 

I agree.  It's not terrible.  I'll be upfront, the turn structure for Age of Sigmar is one of the things that I do not care for at all.  I can deal with it, but it is just a feature that I do not like.  After playing games for many many years I find I-go-you-go to be a pretty antiquated system and I prefer games that do something else with turn structure.  On top of that, I find the continual priority roll for Age of Sigmar to make "I-go-you-go" an even clunkier system than I normally think it is.  So, I am completely biased on this one. 

Any change that makes the possibility for a double turn less than it is now is better in my book.  So I do like this rule.  But, it is only about an 8% swing - so it quite a minor change.  They made a lot of noise about this leading up to the article, and then within the article, and so I was expecting something more and hoping for something more tactical and interesting overall.

But in the end, I do still think it is a positive change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

glad to hear of a points decrease on Ardboyz currently they are only really a choice for me in a unit of 30 I’d really like to go back to 2-3 units of 10 as chaff (currently just have more Brutes....) 

the turn prio is interesting while it’s mathematically a 8% swing in practice on the table it’s a - 1/6 chance because there are only 6 results on a dice so in reality only 5 of those faces can result in a win. Tactically this is quite big, often players will give the IJ first turn to prevent the IJ getting a double (or go for one themselves) previously I may have buffed up and sat on the 12” line and gave them the turn back but now it’s in my favour slightly (1/6) that I will get the priority so a viable tactic to play by the seat of your pants could now be to run forward as far as possible (while still maintaining a good distance for their killer units charges) this way if they don’t get the double you are now high up the board and can engage. If they chose to sit back (becasue the fear this) and you still win then you can retreat a bit (probably having also scored objectives for 2 turns and now they have to take chances to get back in it) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big thing I want to see is a wording change on a lot of our hero phase abilities. Most armies last until their own next turn, Ironjawz stuff almost always is until the next combat phase, so throughout your opponent's turn you lose all your buffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aos2.0: Tweaks 

I'm thinking it's evolution not revolution, points drop here, tweak priority roll, dampen shooting a bit, etc., etc. 

It's this command point stuff that is the real game-changer, but seems that will also be quite tame whatever it is. 

That's all fine by me so long as non-tome armies get brought up to a level playing field, getting battalions and spell lists like everyone else. 

Destruction will still not get the same toys as everyone else though as we still lack the passive buffs that the recent tomes got. What we need is new scrolls or bigger point drops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

@Sangfroid  I have to say I am pretty puzzled by the math you listed above.  I am not sure what you mean about only 5 die faces could be a win.

If you have priority already then rolling a 6 now means you get priority. Hence the opponent only has 5 faces he can take priority on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The odds don't work like that though.  You already won on a 6 previously, unless the opponent rolled a 6 also - which is a 1/36 chance of happening.  Previously, if a tie on a 6 happened you would still win 50% of rerolls.  The math does not change.

Either player has a 15/36 chance of winning the priority roll if we exclude ties.  In 1st edition of this rule you have a 50% chance to win any tie.  You keep rolling for ties and if you follow that sequence mathematically it converges on 50%.  Since there are 6 possibilities out of the original 36 that result in ties, and each player has a 50% chance to win the tie, that means each player has another 3/36 chances to win the initial roll.  So, on any roll-off you have an 18/36 chance to win.  With the new system, the person who does not have a chance to score a double turn will win all of the ties rather than just half of them.  In 2nd edition you have 21/36 chances to win if you did not just have a turn, and the player who did just have a turn has a 15/36 chance to win and get a double turn if they want. 

So, we went from both players having a 50% chance to win any particular turn roll to the player who did not just take a turn having roughly ~58% chance to win the roll and the player who did just go having a ~42% chance to win the roll.  The change for a player is effectively 8% and not 1/6 as people keep mentioning.

Basically, one player does have a 16% greater chance to win the roll than the other player in the new system.  But the new system is only an 8% change from the old one.  There is a difference, and any increase to not see double turns I am in favor of.  But there is not enough of a change to this mechanic for me to be excited in any way.  This rule is effectively a foot-note. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

The odds don't work like that though.  You already won on a 6 previously, unless the opponent rolled a 6 also - which is a 1/36 chance of happening.  Previously, if a tie on a 6 happened you would still win 50% of rerolls.  The math does not change.

Either player has a 15/36 chance of winning the priority roll if we exclude ties.  In 1st edition of this rule you have a 50% chance to win any tie.  You keep rolling for ties and if you follow that sequence mathematically it converges on 50%.  Since there are 6 possibilities out of the original 36 that result in ties, and each player has a 50% chance to win the tie, that means each player has another 3/36 chances to win the initial roll.  So, on any roll-off you have an 18/36 chance to win.  With the new system, the person who does not have a chance to score a double turn will win all of the ties rather than just half of them.  In 2nd edition you have 21/36 chances to win if you did not just have a turn, and the player who did just have a turn has a 15/36 chance to win and get a double turn if they want. 

So, we went from both players having a 50% chance to win any particular turn roll to the player who did not just take a turn having roughly ~58% chance to win the roll and the player who did just go having a ~42% chance to win the roll.  The change for a player is effectively 8% and not 1/6 as people keep mentioning.

Basically, one player does have a 16% greater chance to win the roll than the other player in the new system.  But the new system is only an 8% change from the old one.  There is a difference, and any increase to not see double turns I am in favor of.  But there is not enough of a change to this mechanic for me to be excited in any way.  This rule is effectively a foot-note

Trust me I know how the maths work.You explicitly asked what was meant by there's only 5 faces which can win, which is a different question.

Realistically it means that 1 in every 12 times you would have been double turned you now won't be. That might not seem massive but it is an important shift because getting double turned is so bad.

Going from 6/6 to 7/5 (of 12) is actually and makes 1 dropping for the double far more risky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Malakree said:

You explicitly asked what was meant by there's only 5 faces which can win, which is a different question.

Fair enough.  I did indeed ask for that clarification.

I agree that it is an increase and any reduction in the amount of double turns is better than before.  Again, my disappointment stems from the noise they made ahead of time about this being some sort of grand improvement change and alluding to tactical choices. 

Yes, there is a tactical choice when you win the option for taking an immediate turn and instead have the choice to wait and hope for a double turn at a more critical time.  But, that chance is relatively small and it has not gone up enough to really have any bearing on general strategy.  This is not a feature to plan around - it is something that will fairly occasionally come up and if it does then you can take advantage of it.

I like some amount of uncertainty and randomness in games.  I would not have played goblins for over 20 years if i did not.  But, I don't like randomness in determining mid-battle turn order.  That is just a shoddy mechanic in my opinion.  I was hoping that they would discuss a system change that had more strategy and input from a player.

As an example of an interesting turn order that has some player agency, the new Star Wars: Legion game has a system where you get a number of different order cards when you start the game.  Each of these order cards gives you a certain amount of orders you can issue to your units (which affects who can activate in a turn and when), and it also determines who wins priority for the turn.  The turns are shared and use alternate activation, but the priority winner gets to choose to activate first.  In general, the more orders a card lets you issue that turn the lower your chance to win priority.  So the system makes you determine what is more important for you each turn - activating your stuff first, or getting better control over the order your stuff activates in.  There is a serious decision to be made there and a lot of player agency.  I am not recommending this system for Age of Sigmar - but just saying that it is an example of a turn-sequence mechanic that gives the agency to the player and has more thought in it's design than simply roll a die.

Again, the system GW unveiled the other day is an improvement in my book over what we have now.  But it is such a marginal improvement that I find it hard to really get excited about it's inclusion.  I wanted something more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

@Sangfroid  I have to say I am pretty puzzled by the math you listed above.  I am not sure what you mean about only 5 die faces could be a win.

I was mainly simplifying it to experience on the table as if I had the 2nd turn in battle round 1 then on the roll for battle round 2 there is only 5 possible faces of the dice that will roll that could win me the priority because a draw would result in a loss, meaning in real terms is 1/6 chance less (so 16.666r) 

i often find this  with mathhammer  we work out things in decimal percentages but dice are just 6 faces so massive variance in numbers when working out stuff e.g 

20 Brutes attacks 3/3/-1/1 agaisnt a 4+ armour save 

20*0.66 = 13.2 (so 13 or 14 hits) 

13*0.66 =8.58 or 14*0.66=9.24 (so 8 - 10 dice wound) 

8*0.66= 5.28 or 9*0.66= 5.94 or 10*0.66= 6.6 (so 5 - 7 dice cause damage on average) 

20*0.66*0.66*0.66= 5.74992 (pure decimal result) 

so pure decimal would suggest an average of 6 wounds caused (if we round up) whereas dice rolled average is actually 5,6 or 7 wounds caused

seems small but I have seen people in similar situations to the example above “I was expecting to get 6 wounds thru there and kill 2  but only got 5” in reality they should have been expecting/aiming 5,6 or 7. Because dice only have increments of 16.66r% “chance” is why we often get wild spikes in results so I try to boil down a lot of my thinking to “real” simple possible outcomes as I find this helps my descion making on the table quicker. 

So back to priority in my head I will be thinking I have a 1/6 less chance of winning the priority or to get really into my head I’ll be equating it to the chance I take when I leave an important unit near mystical terrain or if I charge over deadly terrain, is the risk worth leaving my models more or less exposed to losing the priority? And the choice will be dictated by how the game is progressing like in the terrain examples sometimes you need to leave yourself hanging in the wind and just take the chance, other times you hold back (stay outside of 3” or don’t go over deadly) because the benefits aren’t worth the risk. 

I know it’s not pure maths but I find this way of thinking beneficial when on the table in the heat of battle ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the rerolls of megaboss if is nearly? 

and where is the boss claw and boss choppa and gore hacka ? They have multiwounds attributes.

For me, the brutes are the most  powerful  on foot unit i think, only after retributors or protectors/decimators vs specific targets. When i compare it vs my skullreapers or wrathmongers i only can cry xD.

For me the best in point eficiency "monstruous" infantry. His only problem is the bravery and movement, bcause they are 5 and is dangerous do a unit of 10, but they work really really well in units of 5. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sangfroid said:

I was just using it as a simple example of how dice work I didn’t mean it to be a true representation of the element force that is Brutes ?

I think the lesson here is that all greenskins should just avoid “numbaz”.  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the new command point mechanics is really cool for bonesplitterz too. The Warboss on wyvern as an ally just became so much better! Being able to place a well timed Waaagh on Bigstabba, Morboys, Boarboys maniak is incredibly powerfull. 

I think bonesplitterz army are a good candidate to hoard command point. They mid game you could unleash a waaaghh, use Fungoid for a retreat and charge and SAvage big boss to buff a unit further. Sound really good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea it looks like the 40k command system is a big influence. I doubt it'll be as comprehensive (40k you have like 20 or so things to spend command points on) but I do predict a few common elements will be used such as command point recycling or maybe even some sneaky armies having the ability to "steal" CP (either directly or "whenever your opponent spends a CP, roll and die and on a 5+ you gain a CP").  I think Grots may have some interesting CP interactions in their update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

Yea it looks like the 40k command system is a big influence. I doubt it'll be as comprehensive (40k you have like 20 or so things to spend command points on) but I do predict a few common elements will be used such as command point recycling or maybe even some sneaky armies having the ability to "steal" CP (either directly or "whenever your opponent spends a CP, roll and die and on a 5+ you gain a CP").  I think Grots may have some interesting CP interactions in their update.

filching command points when the other army turns its back?.......nah it wasnt uz boss, wez just found des command points lying around!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...