AoS 2

[hughwyeth]

50 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. 

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.

I get what you're saying, but I haven't found 40k to express a models' strength or toughness any better in game. They've simplified strength and toughness in 40k now so that a laspistol could damage a warlord titan- isn't that just the same as AoS in effect? A laspistol, strength 3 can damage a t100 model as easily as a t6 model if they have the same save. There's some additional granularity there if the S vs T is within half to double of each other, but when I've played 8th 40k, it's never felt like that gave any greater sense of a model's strength than AoS' basic statline. I think the SvT 40k system is needed more in that game because much more damage is done in shooting than in AoS and they need to be able to express the much greater granularity in ranged weapons' strength. 

It comes own to preference of course- I think AoS portrays model's strengths and weakness very effectively and I don't see, having play quite a few 40k games, how swapping out the To Wound roll with a SvT roll would improve perceptions of model strengths and weaknesses. 

[PJetski]

A laspistol can injure a titan but it's very unlikely and very low impact.

Thematically it would make more sense for a Judicator to have a lower chance of wounding a Bastiladon than a grot. In terms of gameplay it's not good to have all defenses tied to so few stats because you end up with situations where units have 2+ rerollable saves.

[Valien]

2 hours 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. 

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.

Totally agree with everything you've said and i also find that simple SvT idea in 40k 8th ed. brilliant.

Also id like to add that AoS as it stands right now is not a simple game. People keep telling they want simplicity in AoS but hey, i've tried some games with the Malign Portents new rules and the things you have to keep up in each round are immensely many. Plus if you're playing with a new Battletome (lets say Nurgle) you always need to write things down or else you're gonna forget so many. So no AoS isnt a simple game imo. It started as a simple game with few rules but lately with each new battletome (more complicated warscrolls,more things to keep up with) new Malign portents rules added,  negates that simplicity.

[Skabnoze]

4 hours ago, PJetski said:

A laspistol can injure a titan but it's very unlikely and very low impact.

Thematically it would make more sense for a Judicator to have a lower chance of wounding a Bastiladon than a grot. In terms of gameplay it's not good to have all defenses tied to so few stats because you end up with situations where units have 2+ rerollable saves.

Having played goblins longer than many current players have been alive, I prefer this system where playing the models that I like does not mean quite as much of an uphill struggle just to cause some damage to something.  Age of Sigmar's strength as a game system is its simplicity and the fact that it manages the visual spectacle of a tabletop wargame very well.  The fact that many units are relatively close in function and ability is a plus rather than a minus.  If they want to add more layers of strategy to the game there are better sections of the rules do to that through rather than putting the SvT aspect back in.  I would honestly prefer in 40k if they took it out and swapped to the Age of Sigmar system.

There are other game systems on the market that handle intricate and complex rules in a better way.

[RuneBrush]

17 hours 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 actually think you could implement something that would have the same effect with a lot less effort.  Just give some models an "Extra Tough" type rule whereby they modify the wound roll by -1 or -2.  You could hook it into other requirements - so maybe you only receive it if the rend is 0 or -1, or it only does 1 damage.  It keeps the game flowing just as quickly but allows some units to have that really resilient feeling

[HorticulusTGA]

Another hint that the new edition won't see too drastic a change is the release of a Magic themed supplement. They'll keep things consistent and coherent !

[ledha]

13 hours ago, PJetski said:

A laspistol can injure a titan but it's very unlikely and very low impact.

Thematically it would make more sense for a Judicator to have a lower chance of wounding a Bastiladon than a grot. In terms of gameplay it's not good to have all defenses tied to so few stats because you end up with situations where units have 2+ rerollable saves.

Yeah, they could add something that make the Bastiladon sturdier than a grot, like many more hp or a save that ignore rend, meaning you'll need many, many, many more shots to kill him than a grot.

And 2+ rerollable saves, which can happen on only a very few selection of model (dracoth and stardrake with staunch defenders and mystic shield or castellant, nagash with mystic shield) are not a problem when most of the armies (tzeentch, nurgle, khorne, skryre, pestilens, stormcast, bonnesplitterz, the entirety of death, fyreslayer, daughter of khaine, kharadrons, darkling covens, beastclaw raiders, legion of azghor etc...),   have mortal wounds, rend -2 or -3, insta kill abilities, or can ally with armies that have some.

[bsharitt]

2 hours ago, HorticulusTGA said:

Another hint that the new edition won't see too drastic a change is the release of a Magic themed supplement. They'll keep things consistent and coherent !

I think slow evolution is probably the way they're going between supplements, the GHB and new rules slowly introduced in battletomes. Sort of how they reworked summoning for death with the grave site deepstrike and healing that makes it much more useful in matched play. Iron heart of Khaine being as a hero alpha stike mitigation that I wouldn't be surprised to see a version of in newer big heroes.

[BunkhouseBuster]

17 hours ago, PJetski said:

Thematically it would make more sense for a Judicator to have a lower chance of wounding a Bastiladon than a grot. In terms of gameplay it's not good to have all defenses tied to so few stats because you end up with situations where units have 2+ rerollable saves.

But that could happen back in 7th Edition 40K, and was one of the game breaking combos that could had be twisiting around Allies, Formations, and Psychic power shenanigans.  And that is a game that used Strength and Toughness values.

Using different rules to represent different aspects of combat is just that, different.  One set of rules in not inherently better than others.  You have to determine where on the scale of Simulation-to-Abstraction you want your rules set to have, and go from there.  AoS is further down the Abstraction end of the spectrum, while other games are further down the Simulation path, including ones that use more defined unit/model characteristics.  One cannot make an objective claim that a certain method is better, as it is entirely opinion based since this is all done for fun for games.

Plus using universal model characteristics would increase the amount of core rules or special rules that everyone playing needs to know.  One of the unique aspects of AoS was that all of a unit's special rules would be included on its rules page, the Warscroll, rather than in 30+ pages of Special Rules.  It isn't saying that one way is better, but that this is how they are approaching the rules set.

Personally, I'm a fan of more abstract games these days.  I can greatly appreciate the desire to see exactly which limb gets cut off in battle or exactly how which part of a mech gets hit by a blast, and those can be lots of fun.  But with my limited hobby time, I just can't invest the time into the hobby aspect in addition to the gameplay.  That's why I like the Warscrolls containing all the rules: you only have to learn the rules that you will be using!

Oh, and you know what else Age of Sigmar is good for?  It's modularity.  Since the game is so abstract, it lends itself to being customized however you want.  If you want to write up a variation on the rules where you include in a Strength/Toughness chart, go for it!  Try it out!  Let us know how it goes!  There is plenty of room in the hobby for fan projects like that, and the hobby will only be better for someone trying to improve it.

[PJetski]

10 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

But that could happen back in 7th Edition 40K, and was one of the game breaking combos that could had be twisiting around Allies, Formations, and Psychic power shenanigans.  And that is a game that used Strength and Toughness values.

It's not Strength/Toughness specifically, but the distribution of offense/defense across more parameters rather than fewer.

The 2+ rerollable saves came as a result of 40k 7th edition having low wound values. In order to survive the offensive power creep they had to keep increasing avoidance rates, and in a D6 system you run into a problem where each additional +1 save is more valuable than the previous point.  When they added Guilliman at the end of 7th he had a 3++ and a 4+ chance to just resurrect instantly for free - this is defensive power creep in action. To counteract the defensive power creep they had to add D weapons that could instantly kill... does this scenario sound familiar with what has been happening in AOS?

They recognized this was a problem and made a universal change across the board in 8th to increase the wound characteristics and reduce reliance on avoidance. A hero would have 2 or 3 wounds, while in 8th have 4-6 now. Doubling  the wounds of models (or more - Knights have 24 wounds now!) allowed them to reduce the reduce armor and invuln saves across the board, remove instant-kill weapons, and has made 40k ten times more enjoyable to play.

You have actually proven my point quite succinctly without even realizing it

I would like to see AOS gain more granularity in its offense/defense stats. S/T is a means to that end, and while it's not the only possible solution it would be an elegant solution because it is a system familiar to a vast majority of the playerbase and would add a lot of thematic differentiation between units.

[Arkiham]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y0WpTuFCDNPOSQhHx7Se5qv-W_mHyidF/view

 

this doesnt seem to be getting much discussion... 

 

AoS phase 2

[HorticulusTGA]

8 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y0WpTuFCDNPOSQhHx7Se5qv-W_mHyidF/view

 

this doesnt seem to be getting much discussion... 

 

AoS phase 2

it came from here  The last few pages of the rumor thread are discussing it with quite some news posted in the chat on twitch 

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

In all honesty I think we are blowing this a bit out of water based on Symes' word. I mean, he was a nice fell and all, but A) he has been out of GW for almost a year by now, meaning he's at this point a tad out of the loop B) he is working on suppositions by and large. 

 

TL:DR I will believe half of what I am hearing when I see it at warhammer community or a few leaked physical images.

[RuneBrush]

Phase 2 seems to suggest that there is a long term plan for the rules (rather than revising based on what works in 40k).  Partly this makes sense - most of us have predicted base to base measuring for some time, and enhanced Magic also makes perfect sense (possibly even to the point of having a Magic Phase).

[Skabnoze]

6 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Phase 2 seems to suggest that there is a long term plan for the rules (rather than revising based on what works in 40k).  Partly this makes sense - most of us have predicted base to base measuring for some time, and enhanced Magic also makes perfect sense (possibly even to the point of having a Magic Phase).

Well, the core rules are so short that I would not at all be surprised to see them tweak them occasionally in new versions of the General's Handbook.

[LLV]

from what ive heard warscrolls are staying the same - so no strength and toughness.

Soul Wars, ahem , I mean AoS Phase 2 will be similar to what it is now at its core

[AthlorianStoners]

3 minutes ago, LLV said:

from what ive heard warscrolls are staying the same - so no strength and toughness.

Soul Wars, ahem , I mean AoS Phase 2 will be similar to what it is now at its core

Soul Wars you say, that sounds epic.

[Turgol]

Well Souls Wars is the name of July’s AoS new novel. So it makes sense for the new starter set and generally new phase of the setting to be called AoS: Souls War and have a novel as introduction, just as 40k with Dark Imperium as new phase.

I am starting to trust LLV.

[LLV]

Thank Martin from WHTV - had he have not let the whole 'AoS phase 2' thing slip on camera over the weekend - none of this would be possible!

[Carnelian]

Thanks Martin!

[HorticulusTGA]

15 hours ago, LLV said:

from what ive heard warscrolls are staying the same - so no strength and toughness.

Soul Wars, ahem , I mean AoS Phase 2 will be similar to what it is now at its core

Great news. 

That's funny, I always thought the first AOS starter set should have got a name... Like "Gates of Azyr"

https://www.blacklibrary.com/warhammer-age-of-sigmar/novels/gates-of-azyr.html 

https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Wars-Josh-Reynolds/dp/1784966878

As other have said, I guess Souls War (like Blighwar or Dark Imperium) won't be the name of the new edition per se, but of the new starter set. 

[BURF1]

On 3/21/2018 at 7:57 PM, Valien said:

Totally agree with everything you've said and i also find that simple SvT idea in 40k 8th ed. brilliant.

Also id like to add that AoS as it stands right now is not a simple game. People keep telling they want simplicity in AoS but hey, i've tried some games with the Malign Portents new rules and the things you have to keep up in each round are immensely many. Plus if you're playing with a new Battletome (lets say Nurgle) you always need to write things down or else you're gonna forget so many. So no AoS isnt a simple game imo. It started as a simple game with few rules but lately with each new battletome (more complicated warscrolls,more things to keep up with) new Malign portents rules added,  negates that simplicity.

good thing only like 6 people use MP

[BURF1]

On 3/27/2018 at 6:41 AM, RuneBrush said:

Phase 2 seems to suggest that there is a long term plan for the rules (rather than revising based on what works in 40k).  Partly this makes sense - most of us have predicted base to base measuring for some time, and enhanced Magic also makes perfect sense (possibly even to the point of having a Magic Phase).

Magic is too strong as it is, thank you very much. With Maggotkin and LoN magic has eclipsed shooting as the single most unbalanced and overpowered aspect of the game.

[Skabnoze]

24 minutes ago, BURF1 said:

Magic is too strong as it is, thank you very much. With Maggotkin and LoN magic has eclipsed shooting as the single most unbalanced and overpowered aspect of the game.

I think it just needs to be better applied across all armies than it currently is.  If they were to release a supplement book that introduces magic lores & items for all of the existing allegiances then I think it would help balance things out quite a bit.  From there they could just replace or modify those lores when they release a battletome with that lore (if necessary) or in future releases of the General's Handbook.

But from what I have seen so far the biggest issue with magic as a whole is the imbalanced access to it.  After that the main imbalance would be confined to specific armies or spell lores.  But not having a lore at all puts you way farther down the food-chain and that is something I feel they should really address.

[HorticulusTGA]

27 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I think it just needs to be better applied across all armies than it currently is.  If they were to release a supplement book that introduces magic lores & items for all of the existing allegiances then I think it would help balance things out quite a bit.  From there they could just replace or modify those lores when they release a battletome with that lore (if necessary) or in future releases of the General's Handbook.

But from what I have seen so far the biggest issue with magic as a whole is the imbalanced access to it.  After that the main imbalance would be confined to specific armies or spell lores.  But not having a lore at all puts you way farther down the food-chain and that is something I feel they should really address.

If they were to release a supplement indeed...