AoS 2

[Greyshadow]

14 hours ago, bsharitt said:

The "your turn, my turn" turn order is probably the dullest, and least thematic, turn order you can do...

Certainly see where you are coming from but if you are a beer and pretzels gamer it is great as you get a regular break each turn to sip your beer and eat your pretzels.

[AdamR]

15 minutes ago, Greyshadow said:

Certainly see where you are coming from but if you are a beer and pretzels gamer it is great as you get a regular break each turn to sip your beer and eat your pretzels.

But if you get double turned then that's even more beer time!

[Twitch of Izalith]

I think a new starter box is more likely than a new edition proper.

The Forgebane box has got me really excited that we might see something similar for AoS in the near future. Something with new models and not a poster boy in sight. I think Marines and Stormcast are fantastic models but thats the problem - I don't need more of them!

Its also great to see a complimentary update to the Necron start collecting going on pre-order with the codex - it shows GW are putting additional thought into the releases which I hope will cross over into AoS. 

I do think the 2018 generals handbook will bring in some significant changes. 1st turn priority roles being the most likely big change to the core mechanics in my opinion - I think they will follow 40k. Rule of one for prayers that aren't on your warscroll is another likely change - in line with the DoK book.

I very much doubt that they will change the rules for targeting characters. Many would simply become far too powerful if they couldn't be sniped with shooting or spells - or at least forced into less than ideal positions by the threat of it. I don't think they would have written Morathi how they did if they were planning on making it harder to target characters.

You can easily make her -3 to hit (she's -1 anyway, -1 for khailebron temple, -1 if you put allied Protectors in front of her) with a 2+ save (mystic shield + cover) and a 6+ ignore wounds. Or you can make her -2 to hit with a 1+ save and a 5+ ignore if you put her next to a cauldron in Hag Nar temple. Oh yeah and there is a prayer so you can re-roll your ignore wounds save.

Would people really want a situation when you couldn't even target that character?

[Richelieu]

1 hour ago, AdamR said:

But if you get double turned then that's even more beer time!

A turn 1-2 double turn by my opponent is one of my favorite things in the game.  Lots of time to think about how I will adapt my strategy, plus the knowledge that I have control of turn order going forward.  If I get wiped out at that point it means I have grossly misplayed and should learn some valuable lessons about how to handle that particular army/battle plan combo in the future.

[ledha]

1 hour ago, Richelieu said:

A turn 1-2 double turn by my opponent is one of my favorite things in the game.  Lots of time to think about how I will adapt my strategy, plus the knowledge that I have control of turn order going forward.  If I get wiped out at that point it means I have grossly misplayed and should learn some valuable lessons about how to handle that particular army/battle plan combo in the future.

I'm in the complete opposite positon. Playing 10 min then looking the opponent playing one hour in a row is infuriating

[Mayple]

8 minutes ago, ledha said:

I'm in the complete opposite positon. Playing 10 min then looking the opponent playing one hour in a row is infuriating

I'm often fine with that, but then they start making 'maybe you should get movement trays' comments when it is my turn no justice.

[AdamR]

3 hours ago, ledha said:

I'm in the complete opposite positon. Playing 10 min then looking the opponent playing one hour in a row is infuriating

Why do his turns take 3x as long as yours? Get some chess clocks and if they are taking too long mete out some justice with one of the whippy plastic measuring sticks!

EDIT- does your opponent do nothing but move and buff for these interminable half hour blocks of solid boredom? You've no saves to make? No combat activation to consider? No cunning pile in strategies to ponder?

[hughwyeth]

Wonder if they'd do a new box with Idoneth as the order faction? Would be a cool way to introduce them with a bang!!

[Sheriff]

Just now, hughwyeth said:

Wonder if they'd do a new box with Idoneth as the order faction? Would be a cool way to introduce them with a bang!!

Don't be silly, it must be Stormcast in all boxes. 

[Twitch of Izalith]

2 hours ago, hughwyeth said:

Wonder if they'd do a new box with Idoneth as the order faction? Would be a cool way to introduce them with a bang!!

That would be really cool but might be a bit optimistic! If the range brings in any existing models It could be a possibility. I think that was the original idea with blightwar but the follow up release of the new Nurgle models and the 'tome got delayed for some reason. It would be a great way to hook people in with a discount on existing models and then hope they get spendy on the new stuff.

I would really like them to do a Destruction based box - I have a 6,000 points+ Orcs & Goblins warhammer fantasy army which I played through 3 editions, but haven't really been sold on any of the AoS options for destruction so far. 

I think there are lots of existing destruction players out there who would like to see some support in the way of new products too.

 

[bsharitt]

3 hours ago, Sheriff said:

Don't be silly, it must be Stormcast in all boxes. 

They did just do a new 40k starter with no Space Marines so the fabric of reality has already been sundered and anything is possible.

[Sheriff]

37 minutes ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

I think there are lots of existing destruction players out there who would like to see some support in the way of new products too.

 

The Destruction sub-thread had a long chat about this. Basically we want at least a Nagash-style tome to give us some rules that let us play on a level playing field with existing models, or actual new stuff like tomes and new models but don't want to push our luck. 

[PJetski]

If we do get AOS 2 I would like to see Strength and Toughness stats come back

It would require a complete rewrite of every single warscroll in the game, but a new edition is the perfect chance to do something like that

[rokapoke]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

If we do get AOS 2 I would like to see Strength and Toughness stats come back

It would require a complete rewrite of every single warscroll in the game, but a new edition is the perfect chance to do something like that

I personally doubt that Strength/Toughness will make a return. Having reread the FAQs yesterday (prepping for my first Adepticon), I noticed that several answers referred to "simplicity and ease of play," which leads me to believe that they'll keep the warscrolls and basic rules fairly simple. Of course, the existing FAQ answers were in relation to the 1.0 rules, so as you say a new edition opens new doors, but I expect the simple approach to win out in the end.

I never played Fantasy, so I've not experienced it from this end, but I've played some 40K (8th edition), where Strength and Toughness do exist. That system is actually pretty simple and elegant, I'll admit -- but I can't imagine the rules team sitting down and hashing out strength/toughness on all the existing units now that they have been nonexistent from the get-go with Age of Sigmar.

[PJetski]

I don't think Strength and Toughness add too much complexity but I agree that they would probably favour simplicity.

That said, they haven't shied away from adding a ton of complexity with Battletomes, the Generals Handbook, and Malign Portents as supplementary rulebooks. Is it possible to design a version of the game with Strength/Toughness that coexists alongside a simpler "To Wound" version?

[bsharitt]

4 hours ago, Sheriff said:

The Destruction sub-thread had a long chat about this. Basically we want at least a Nagash-style tome to give us some rules that let us play on a level playing field with existing models, or actual new stuff like tomes and new models but don't want to push our luck. 

Yeah. I'd definitely love a Moonclan battletome and models, but I'd settle for a Nagash-style tome for the rest of destruction without a battletome.

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, rokapoke said:

I personally doubt that Strength/Toughness will make a return. Having reread the FAQs yesterday (prepping for my first Adepticon),

As someone who plays tons of miniature games from a variety of companies, has played 40k since the days of Rogue Trader and Warhammer Fantasy from 4th edition - I have to say that I actually prefer the Age of Sigmar stat-line to the current 40k one.

I don't mind rulesets with complex rules, and I greatly enjoy a number of them out there, but I feel that Age of Sigmar is in a pretty good place due to the simplification it got.  With the current structure of the most recent books in regards to allegiance abilities, spell lores, prayers, magic items, formations, etc - I think they have a good format for adding just enough complexity to make the game interesting, but simple enough for quick play.  The current stat line also means that you don't run into issues with garbage statistics and after playing using Strength & Toughness for almost 3 decades I have to say that it really does not add anything to the experience.  40k currently has a bit more complexity in the core rules than Age of Sigmar does - and I don't think it is the better game for it right now.

If they do a revamp of the core rules for Age of Sigmar, then all I would prefer is a few small tweaks.  I would like for the rules that refer to measuring to models change to refer to bases instead.  I realize they wrote them due to the mixed nature of bases from moving to square to round bases - but it is poorly written and should just be tossed.

And if it was me writing the rules then I would change the turn structure of the game.  Others may disagree with me, but I would honestly prefer if the game kept the concept of phases (movement, shooting, combat, etc), but used alternating activation within each system.  So movement phase becomes a back-and-forth of positioning between each player, then shooting, and combat.  I think that would be more interesting. 

You could probably leave it there, but if you were also wanting to add a bit more complexity and strategy then incorporating some sort of activation order element somewhat akin to pilot skill values in Xwing would be interesting.  And it could be combined with the idea of issued orders from other systems.  So you could basically have some sort of stat given to a unit that represents their default activation value (such as bring back Intiative), and then add a system where during the hero phase heroes can issue a number of orders to units nearby that boost their value in certain phases.  So you get some strategy to play with activation orders and units that range far from your heroes potentially suffer a bit of a disadvantage in terms of reacting to the enemy.

[S133arcanite]

''We’ve got what is quite possibly the biggest and best Studio Preview ever planned for AdeptiCon – and last year, we announced the new edition of Warhammer 40,000!''

 

 

Adepticon....OOOOOOHHHHH

[hughwyeth]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

I don't think Strength and Toughness add too much complexity but I agree that they would probably favour simplicity.

I don't get why anyone would want it. What does strength and toughness stat do that wounds, rend and damage characteristic don't do? 

"This unit is really strong"- Give it rend and high damage.

"This unit is really tough"- Give it more wounds and saves against mortal wounds. 

I don't get what strength and toughness do that these stats don't already cover. Because wounds carry over in AoS, an attack that does more than 1 damage can take out more than one model. There's your strength.

[S133arcanite]

Just now, hughwyeth said:

I don't get why anyone would want it. What does strength and toughness stat do that wounds, rend and damage characteristic don't do? 

"This unit is really strong"- Give it rend and high damage.

"This unit is really tough"- Give it more wounds and saves against mortal wounds. 

I don't get what strength and toughness do that these stats don't already cover. Because wounds carry over in AoS, an attack that does more than 1 damage can take out more than one model. There's your strength.

I completly agree

[bsharitt]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

I don't think Strength and Toughness add too much complexity but I agree that they would probably favour simplicity.

That said, they haven't shied away from adding a ton of complexity with Battletomes, the Generals Handbook, and Malign Portents as supplementary rulebooks. Is it possible to design a version of the game with Strength/Toughness that coexists alongside a simpler "To Wound" version?

It's less the complexity of it that I don't like, so much as I don't like not knowing my actual combat stats are and relying the back and forth every combat about what my opponents stats are that bogs down 40k game for me despite its relatively simple system. One of the things that's made AoS one of my favorite games is that the actual game is such a straight forward way for my to push my little models around a table. If I want something something really crunchy, I've got pretty heavy hex and counter games on the shelf.

[hughwyeth]

Just now, bsharitt said:

It's less the complexity of it that I don't like, so much as I don't like not knowing my actual combat stats are and relying the back and forth every combat about what my opponents stats are that bogs down 40k game for me despite its relatively simple system. One of the things that's made AoS one of my favorite games is that the actual game is such a straight forward way for my to push my little models around a table. If I want something something really crunchy, I've got pretty heavy hex and counter games on the shelf.

Agreed. I think the complexity and challenge in aos and 40k is in the play on the table, not the stats on the units. If people want complexity, there are board games and hex wargames that totally dwarf anything GW have ever done!

[PJetski]

1 hour ago, hughwyeth said:

I don't get why anyone would want it. What does strength and toughness stat do that wounds, rend and damage characteristic don't do? 

"This unit is really strong"- Give it rend and high damage.

"This unit is really tough"- Give it more wounds and saves against mortal wounds. 

I don't get what strength and toughness do that these stats don't already cover. Because wounds carry over in AoS, an attack that does more than 1 damage can take out more than one model. There's your strength.

It does quite a lot more than you think.

From a thematic perspective it adds more differentiation between units. Why does a Liberators regular hammer have the same To Wound value as a Retributors super-charged deathmace? Rend does not accurately capture this differentiation because some units don't have high enough saves for the Rend to matter. 

Adding an additional offense/defense value reduces the weight of each currently existing stat and makes the game system more granular. You can make a unit more durable without having to increase its save and worrying about any abilities that benefit from a higher save roll (like rerollable saves) or adding more "ignore wounds on 5+" type abilities that add extra dice rolls to the game and slow things down. Stacking save bonuses gets to a weird spot when you have 2+ rerollable saves, and higher Rend weapons are rare.

It adds another layer of strategy of which weapon you want to use in a given situation.

More stats means the arms race is slower, the power creep is less lower, and older armies can stay relevant.

More stats also means buff stacking is less potent. Due to the limitations of a D6 system, if a models defense "budget" are split into 2 stats (wound & save) then a +1 save bonus is very potent. However, if a units defenses are split into 3 stats (wound, save, toughness) then a +1 save bonus is not as pronounced. 2+ rerollable saves are not good for the game and it's a result of stacking buffs onto a single defensive stat.

I'm not saying that it is a necessary change by any means. I would just personally like to see it implemented because it would give the game more depth without adding too much complexity. It could be as simple as changing each weapon to say "Strength" instead of "To Wound" and a quick comparison to the units toughness would give you the value you need to roll. The S/T comparison in 40k is brilliant in its simplicity but also offers a lot of depth for strategic thinking.

[Skabnoze]

35 minutes ago, PJetski said:

It does quite a lot more than you think.

From a thematic perspective it adds more differentiation between units. Why does a Liberators regular hammer have the same To Wound value as a Retributors super-charged deathmace? Rend does not accurately capture this differentiation because some units don't have high enough saves for the Rend to matter. 

 

Because dead is dead?

Doesn't the combination of number of attacks, to-hit, rend, and the damage stat provide enough variation?  Not to mention possible special rules on weapons.

My understanding in this comparison is that the death mace has a better to-hit, a higher rend, increased damage, and a special rule that can cause mortal wounds.

35 minutes ago, PJetski said:

More stats also means buff stacking is less potent. Due to the limitations of a D6 system, if a models defense "budget" are split into 2 stats (wound & save) then a +1 save bonus is very potent. However, if a units defenses are split into 3 stats (wound, save, toughness) then a +1 save bonus is not as pronounced. 2+ rerollable saves are not good for the game and it's a result of stacking buffs onto a single defensive stat.

I would say that 2+ rerollable saves due to stacking buffs is less an issue with the system and more due to poor design within that system.  The strength/toughness system combined with saving throws can just as easily lead to situations where something is just as hard to injure as a 2+ rerollable save.

[Captain Marius]

I like how hit and wound work in AoS bettercthan the old S and T stuff. Lib with a sword hits better but wounds harder, Lib with a hammer hits worse but wounds better. Both weapons are statistically the same but provide a different feel. S and T allow for more variation... but theres a reason i enjoy AoS way more than nu40k and that is simplicity!