AoS 2

[ledha]

One of slight indication is in the nurgle battletome, where there is a mention of "before rolling to see who start first in the battle".

Maybe we won't have automatic choice of who start first with number of deployments, but it will now be random. I like it

[Gaz Taylor]

+++  Mod Hat On +++

Just want to point out to a few people in this topic that it pays to be nice to everybody when discussing things like this. Play nice

Back on topic....

18 hours ago, HorticulusTGA said:

You are totally right and we should first make clear what "new edition" means to us.  

Yes I agree and I think most of us are sort of in the same book and near the same page. I'm happy to be proven wrong but I don't think we will see the reorganisation you are thinking about. I think we will see a move in the background (I'm really thinking Nagash is going to free Slaanesh to get those souls but something will go wrong) but from a rules point of view we will see the same core rules and Generals Handbook. I'm hoping that they keep the Malign Portent's site going, as it has an amazing summary for the background or maybe a YouTube video summary. In a new box set I hope we see the same core rules and maybe a booklet covering the new background (this is the direction they seem to be moving in now as a splash release to show off new models as it's good for new players and older players who want a deal). 

[HorticulusTGA]

1 minute ago, Gaz Taylor said:

(...)

Yes I agree and I think most of us are sort of in the same book and near the same page. I'm happy to be proven wrong but I don't think we will see the reorganisation you are thinking about. I think we will see a move in the background (I'm really thinking Nagash is going to free Slaanesh to get those souls but something will go wrong) but from a rules point of view we will see the same core rules and Generals Handbook. I'm hoping that they keep the Malign Portent's site going, as it has an amazing summary for the background or maybe a YouTube video summary. In a new box set I hope we see the same core rules and maybe a booklet covering the new background (this is the direction they seem to be moving in now as a splash release to show off new models as it's good for new players and older players who want a deal). 

I'd be 100% for that, just having a new starter set and a new main book including : 

- the narrative fluff, up to Malign Portents (and after, maybe with Nagash and Slaanesh as you said - that'd be awesome )

- the setting fluff included in MP and the Traveler's Guide of the Mortal realms.

- the core rule and the 3-ways-to-play. 

- Hobby and painting contents . 

[hughwyeth]

Regarding character protection- there's already rules for this in the specific tomes (put some wounds onto nearby characters eg Nagash/Morghasts). If you introduced some character protection rules (especially Look out sir! rules) into the core rules, you'd be doubling up for some forces. 

I think that, just as with summoning, rules changes will take place in battletomes, not in the core rules. I doubt (and really don't want) the core rules to change. 

[Lousy Beatnik]

I actually quite like the "mighty battles" book as an introduction.

It does, however, suffer from the horrid price and being quite outdated by now (Red Slayers, Steamhead Duradin...).

It also copped so much at release by people unimpressed with AoS in general. When I got over my hate, I searched for reviews - so many "lol, $125 (dollaridoos) for a four page rulebook!" comments.

[Morglum StormBasha]

So aos open day is scheduled for 30 June. Heat 3 is 9-10 June. 

Last year 40k 8th released on 17 june.

so that would seem to be a likely date 

[RuneBrush]

One thing I will chuck into the mix is that things like Realm rules shouldn't exist within the Core Rules - they should live within specific publications (e.g. Malign Portents, Generals Handbook) or Battleplans.  Core Rules should be focused purely on how you play Age of Sigmar, regardless of if you plop down six models or three-hundred.

 

2 hours ago, hughwyeth said:

Regarding character protection- there's already rules for this in the specific tomes (put some wounds onto nearby characters eg Nagash/Morghasts). If you introduced some character protection rules (especially Look out sir! rules) into the core rules, you'd be doubling up for some forces. 

I think that, just as with summoning, rules changes will take place in battletomes, not in the core rules. I doubt (and really don't want) the core rules to change. 

Based on what some people are suggesting it would only double up for the Necromancer as Nagash has a large number of wounds and wouldn't be eligible  for a look our sir style ability.

[Zambo]

2 hours ago, hughwyeth said:

Regarding character protection- there's already rules for this in the specific tomes (put some wounds onto nearby characters eg Nagash/Morghasts). If you introduced some character protection rules (especially Look out sir! rules) into the core rules, you'd be doubling up for some forces. 

I think that, just as with summoning, rules changes will take place in battletomes, not in the core rules. I doubt (and really don't want) the core rules to change. 

Totally agree that multiple saves can become a problem, this could be solved with a new rule of 1 which would IMO be a step in the right direction 

regarding specific protection within tomes that would be fantastic but as an IJ player can’t see that happening any time soon 

[TheKingInYellow]

Here is the character shooting fix that should exist:

If a hero with 5 or less wounds is hit in the shooting phase, on a 4+ they can transfer that hit to a friendly Battleline unit within 3".

Simple, not overpowered, makes Battleline units even more attractive.

[PJetski]

I am generally not in favour of character protection rules because it would double dip with the multiple power anti-shooting artifacts and "bodyguard" warscrolls and possibly result in Herohammer, but the best suggestion I have heard is this:

• You can't target a Leader with 9 wounds or less unless that is more than 18" away unless they are the closest visible enemy model.

So shooting attacks from 18" would function exactly the same, but it would stop units like Longstrikes and artillery from sniping heroes across the board. 

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, TheKingInYellow said:

Here is the character shooting fix that should exist:

If a hero with 5 or less wounds is hit in the shooting phase, on a 4+ they can transfer that hit to a friendly Battleline unit within 3".

Simple, not overpowered, makes Battleline units even more attractive.

Biggest disadvantage with this is that Battleline doesn't actually exist outside the Pitched Battle profiles (i.e. it doesn't exist within the Core Rules currently)

[BaldoBeardo]

I still can't quite get my head around how character 'sniping' is seen to be such a big deal. It's been an unchanged part of the core mechanics since day 1, hasn't been amended in either GHB.

Completely agree with statements that this kind of stuff belongs in battletomes or the GHB. Look at how characters are handled in LoN - critical to how the army functions, their abilities are either LoS or so short ranged as to practically be in combat - so the *really* squishy ones have been given a mitigation mechanic already.

We don't actually know yet how GW intend to handle 'new versions' of Battletomes. The GHB matched play profiles and new errata process tackle the main issues that you got between army book updates and new minis can just be released with a PDF, meaning we could be looking at a sisters of battle-esque gap between 'tome versions.

Introducing new rules into core like this would require a lot of work on updating existing materials - otherwise you'd be in a situation where a necromancer with an artefact is now virtually invulnerable just so Ironjawz are a bit more serviceable.

My vote? Re-edit the core rules in line with the FAQ and errata. Additional 'rules commentary' document/PDF with diagrams and order of resolution examples - these help new-to-intermediate players, but are unnecessary for more veteran players.

All other universal changes handled via GHB.

[Sheriff]

I play with a ton of artillery and its actually quite difficult to kill heroes still. They can hide, have anti-shooting abilities, etc. Can only do about 8 wounds to heroes by the time i've been attacked, and only to the un-hidable ones. 

If a hero lets itself in range of a firing squad then it deserves to die, its intuitive. 

[ledha]

2 hours ago, PJetski said:

I am generally not in favour of character protection rules because it would double dip with the multiple power anti-shooting artifacts and "bodyguard" warscrolls and possibly result in Herohammer, but the best suggestion I have heard is this:

• You can't target a Leader with 9 wounds or less unless that is more than 18" away unless they are the closest visible enemy model.

So shooting attacks from 18" would function exactly the same, but it would stop units like Longstrikes and artillery from sniping heroes across the board. 

which is a bit stupid because longstrike are, in LORE and in gameplay, here for sniping heroes. Remove that and not only they don't make sense anymore, they will become a 180 pts unit who can only put 6 wound at best, and only on chaff, which is ultimate garbage

same thing for the Jezzails. Making the only two snipers units of the game unable to snipe is a bit sad.

[RuneBrush]

I was actually thinking the other day that one solution to the shooting debate would be for GW to create more heroes around the 7~9 wound mark.  Currently we have a plethora that are 4, 5 or 6 wound (thus easily killable at range) and then we jump up to behemoths at 12+*.  Having something in that middle range should help them survive that turn 1 or 2 instant death, especially for melee armies - but without adding new mechanics in or nullifying heavy shooting armies.

* please note that I'm generalising

[chord]

I think the solution to sniping would be more with LOS rules.  Make it so 50% or greater of the model being targeted is visible.  (or something, since that probably going to lead to debates)

As it is now I have played many where they don't even check LOS.

[Tonhel]

I 

1 hour ago, BaldoBeardo said:

I still can't quite get my head around how character 'sniping' is seen to be such a big deal. It's been an unchanged part of the core mechanics since day 1, hasn't been amended in either GHB.

Completely agree with statements that this kind of stuff belongs in battletomes or the GHB. Look at how characters are handled in LoN - critical to how the army functions, their abilities are either LoS or so short ranged as to practically be in combat - so the *really* squishy ones have been given a mitigation mechanic already.

We don't actually know yet how GW intend to handle 'new versions' of Battletomes. The GHB matched play profiles and new errata process tackle the main issues that you got between army book updates and new minis can just be released with a PDF, meaning we could be looking at a sisters of battle-esque gap between 'tome versions.

Introducing new rules into core like this would require a lot of work on updating existing materials - otherwise you'd be in a situation where a necromancer with an artefact is now virtually invulnerable just so Ironjawz are a bit more serviceable.

My vote? Re-edit the core rules in line with the FAQ and errata. Additional 'rules commentary' document/PDF with diagrams and order of resolution examples - these help new-to-intermediate players, but are unnecessary for more veteran players.

All other universal changes handled via GHB.

 

1 hour ago, Sheriff said:

I play with a ton of artillery and its actually quite difficult to kill heroes still. They can hide, have anti-shooting abilities, etc. Can only do about 8 wounds to heroes by the time i've been attacked, and only to the un-hidable ones. 

If a hero lets itself in range of a firing squad then it deserves to die, its intuitive. 

 

49 minutes ago, ledha said:

which is a bit stupid because longstrike are, in LORE and in gameplay, here for sniping heroes. Remove that and not only they don't make sense anymore, they will become a 180 pts unit who can only put 6 wound at best, and only on chaff, which is ultimate garbage

same thing for the Jezzails. Making the only two snipers units of the game unable to snipe is a bit sad.

I do think there should be a slight possibility for a look out sir for foot troops. My Khorne characters on foot are quite scared from Dark Elves (Aelves) Bolt throwers... . 

The look out sir can be 5+, but it would help a bit. ;-)

[Aex]

8 hours ago, ledha said:

One of slight indication is in the nurgle battletome, where there is a mention of "before rolling to see who start first in the battle".

Maybe we won't have automatic choice of who start first with number of deployments, but it will now be random. I like it

Honestly, a new Activation system is something AoS needs. But even the classic turn sequence would be fairer than Initiative rolls.

 

[BunkhouseBuster]

To the folks asking for a sort of character protection rule similar to what is in 40K, let me say this:

Let 40K be 40K, and let AoS be AoS.

We don't need to have rules that cross over between systems.  To me, the strength of AoS is in the simplicity and abstract nature of the core rules.  We don't need to add in additional paragraphs of rules that are there to change up how the game flows or will affect some armies in the wrong way.  If some armies need help keeping some heroes alive, then lets change the warscrolls or allegiance abilities in those armies and units, not a blanket rule that would cause problems as soon as it is implemented.

But on the topic of AoS 2....

I don't think that we will get a new edition of the game.  Rather than a 2.0, we could see instead a 1.1 update of the rules with, as others have mentioned, a consolidation of the FAQs and Errata combined with pictures and examples in the core rules as a way to clarify and help explain the game better to new players.  Change is not what we are needing right now, but refinement; smooth out the rough edges and polish up the splotches.

[Aex]

Quote

Let 40K be 40K, and let AoS be AoS.

I think, it's okay to have similiar core mechanisms (Character rules) in both systems. 

Base sizes are another Story.  Overlapping bases especially. Legit, but feels like abuse. Something, even simple Rules never should be. 

[Redmanphill]

I’d love to see miscasts brought in, when casting a spell on the roll of double 6’s or double 1’s the caster takes d3 mortal wounds.

Shooting has to be toned down when it comes to character sniping, some armies rely heavily on their characters for synergy and the are quickly removed by gun lines. They weren’t fun to play against in WHFB and they aren’t fun in AOS.

[Richelieu]

56 minutes ago, Aex said:

Honestly, a new Activation system is something AoS needs. But even the classic turn sequence would be fairer than Initiative rolls.

 

Evidence?  Simply stating something prefaced with "honestly" doesn't make it true.  Each player has an equal chance to win initiative and each player has an equal chance to plan for a double turn.  The advantage of having a low number of drops, thereby increasing chance of choosing who goes first can be addressed purely through points.  

[bsharitt]

7 hours ago, Aex said:

Honestly, a new Activation system is something AoS needs. But even the classic turn sequence would be fairer than Initiative rolls.

 

The "your turn, my turn" turn order is probably the dullest, and least thematic, turn order you can do. Way too orderly for a battle. The random turn isn't perfect, but I do like that it can throw a wrench into carefully laid plans when you don't know exactly when your next turn is. Though my favorite in general is the unit activation kind where every unit has some kind of actions so they can move, shoot, cast spells, etc all on their activation(depending on how many actions they have) and on top of that I like the draw tokens from a bag to see who goes. Though that'd be a whole different game, and I definitely don't see GW doing that kind of massive change. But between static turns or random turns, I'll take random any day.

[pseudonyme]

3 hours ago, bsharitt said:

The "your turn, my turn" turn order is probably the dullest, and least thematic, turn order you can do. Way too orderly for a battle. The random turn isn't perfect, but I do like that it can throw a wrench into carefully laid plans when you don't know exactly when your next turn is. Though my favorite in general is the unit activation kind where every unit has some kind of actions so they can move, shoot, cast spells, etc all on their activation(depending on how many actions they have) and on top of that I like the draw tokens from a bag to see who goes. Though that'd be a whole different game, and I definitely don't see GW doing that kind of massive change. But between static turns or random turns, I'll take random any day.

The Star Wars legion activation system seems really fun

[Johann]

12 hours ago, Richelieu said:

Evidence?  Simply stating something prefaced with "honestly" doesn't make it true.  Each player has an equal chance to win initiative and each player has an equal chance to plan for a double turn.  The advantage of having a low number of drops, thereby increasing chance of choosing who goes first can be addressed purely through points.  

Except in the first turn... dropping battalions at once removes the equality, because many factions have a few to zero options here.

But i wouldn’t remove the mechanic either, just make it fairer