Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[Lardidar]

I'm painfully away the weekend of the 23rd...weddings are pain enough but knowing I could be digesting sweet sweet aos....

[Elmir]

Hmmm, faction focus for all the grots in one go? Hopefully they'll get the grots consolidated into one giant battletome that gives them a lot of cool option like the chaos books and Legions of Nagash. 

The rumours do point towards a moonclan release right now, so this might just be wishful thinking on my behalf. 

[Arkiham]

Base to base official? 

 

Not surprised at the least.

 

It's been 3 years had long enough, 

[Infeston]

2 hours ago, bsharitt said:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/06/03/3rd-june-rules-preview-measuring-and-piling-ingw-homepage-post-2/

Base to base is finally official.

Now pile in has to be at least as close as before, not closer. So now you're free to wrap around those big models. That's going to be a big deal.

Official base suggestion chart coming too, but not "technically" required, but you can bet tournaments will make it a requirement.

I really really hope GW will include the appropriate bases with each old model that still has square bases. I would find it a bit cheap if they would just sell all the old models with square bases instead and not include round bases.

I think the Grot focus is a bit meh... All the Destruction focusses were just "Use old command abilities, include allies and use the new spells". Also I didn't like that they put all the Grots in one place. I would have thought they make a "Moonclan special". Now I am considered that all the Moonclan rumours might also be just hot air.

[Furuzzolo]

I think that, despite the poor Faction Focus, grots fans should be pretty happy!
Only battletome factions and factions with allegiance ability got a faction focus (3 or 4 missing, right now). Grots got no battletome nor allegiance ability.

That should tell us good news are on the way, no?

[Skreech Verminking]

17 minutes ago, Infeston said:

I really really hope GW will include the appropriate bases with each old model that still has square bases. I would find it a bit cheap if they would just sell all the old models with square bases instead and not include round bases.

I think the Grot focus is a bit meh... All the Destruction focusses were just "Use old command abilities, include allies and use the new spells". Also I didn't like that they put all the Grots in one place. I would have thought they make a "Moonclan special". Now I am considered that all the Moonclan rumours might also be just hot air.

Well it’s also a little bit disappointing, just like the skaven faction focus.

almost no information about any kind of point decreases or new rule updates.

 

[Infeston]

12 minutes ago, Furuzzolo said:

I think that, despite the poor Faction Focus, grots fans should be pretty happy!
Only battletome factions and factions with allegiance ability got a faction focus (3 or 4 missing, right now). Grots got no battletome nor allegiance ability.

That should tell us good news are on the way, no?

Jeah propably. We will see. Let's remain hopeful at the moment. We Destruction fans can still hope. ? We have enough time to outrage if in the end we will get no new Moonclan Grots, no updates on Gutbusters and no other real updates rather than just Ironjawz.  But now let us remain optimistic. 

But considering they did such a huge Death release I am still hoping that they will do something close to this for Destruction. Or maybe a later expansion which is similar to this. But I think I would be disappointed if they won't release a new Destruction faction this year.

[Skreech Verminking]

18 minutes ago, Furuzzolo said:

I think that, despite the poor Faction Focus, grots fans should be pretty happy!
Only battletome factions and factions with allegiance ability got a faction focus (3 or 4 missing, right now). Grots got no battletome nor allegiance ability.

That should tell us good news are on the way, no?

Are you sure?

I’m Starting to get the fealing that Gw wil be bringing a review for all factions 

[Infeston]

5 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Are you sure?

I’m Starting to get the fealing that Gw wil be bringing a review for all factions 

Jeah and they made it very easy for factions like Skaven or Grots by putting them all together and mention how they use the new abilities which everyone can use. It seems a little bit low effort for me. But maybe I am wrong? What do you guys think?

[Skreech Verminking]

5 minutes ago, Infeston said:

Jeah and they made it very easy for factions like Skaven or Grots by putting them all together and mention how they use the new abilities which everyone can use. It seems a little bit low effort for me. But maybe I am wrong? What do you guys think?

Well I’m not too happy about the skaven and grots faction review.

but, hey who knows, maybe the new edition will be a fun way of playing them.

hope is the best thing we can hold onto right now.

 

[Gotrek]

1 hour ago, Lardidar said:

So...whats changed?

EDIT - that sounded aggressive, its not I'm just confused

Used to be once you hit base to base (distance from target = 0) you couldnt pile that guy in anymore because you had to end CLOSER to the model. Now the rule is you cant end up FURTHER AWAY. So it lets you "dance" models around monsters/huge bases. While still in base contact

[The Golem]

33 minutes ago, Infeston said:

Now I am considered that all the Moonclan rumours might also be just hot air.

I think it's just too early for GW to tease any new moonclan grot. Remember that before we see new moonclan grots, GW has to release and sell the next box "Soul War" + Nighthaunt battletome & new minis + Stormcast battletome & new minis. It is only logical that they won't reveal any new grot before that.

[Clan's Cynic]

17 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Agreed. The game, the current game, is designed with them in mind.

 Left over Warhammer mental stuff creates the stigma.

It's only a stigma because a lot of people want to maintain a consistent theme with their armies. They want to play say... Kharadrons, not Kharadrons AND Stormcast.

Hell, people here like to hark on a lot about the importance of pushing narrative armies over tournament and you don't get much more WAAC than Soup armies. Bit of cognitive dissonance I see around that topic here.  I want my force to represent an Admiral's excursion out for Aether-Gold, not a Kharadron fleet... with Stormcast because, uhhhh, well they needed a wizard.

It's the same reason I don't bring Space Marine allies in my Imperial Guard. Space Marines are rare in the fluff. I just want my army to represent that rather common military force you're far more likely to see on the frontlines than the galaxy's greatest warriors stomping around every game, the exact same reason I'll never ally in Stormcast when I get my Free Guild started.

[blueshirtman]

I like to think that the destruction write ups were kind of a meh, because GW is planing to drop some battletomes in mid future.

[Lardidar]

16 minutes ago, Gotrek said:

Used to be once you hit base to base (distance from target = 0) you couldnt pile that guy in anymore because you had to end CLOSER to the model. Now the rule is you cant end up FURTHER AWAY. So it lets you "dance" models around monsters/huge bases. While still in base contact

Excellent, Thank you.

[Lardidar]

1 minute ago, blueshirtman said:

I like to think that the destruction write ups were kind of a meh, because GW is planing to drop some battletomes in mid future.

I'm tempted to agree. Plastic squigs are basically printed money!

[Skabnoze]

That Grot faction focus got me a bit down I have to admit.  I guess it is better to kill the anticipation early rather than when the full update comes and there is just about nothing in it.  I have played all Goblins since 5th edition, and to be honest I have never played them because they were the best army around.  I played them because they were fun, had some really fun units, there is fun modeling potential, and I love how they look.

With that in mind my main current complaint about grots in general is that the fun abilities are either gone or they trigger infrequently enough that they may as well not exist (all of the squig units rules for doubles on charges...).

I was hoping for a preview of maybe some grot allegiance abilities, or maybe an overhaul of the general destruction to have some synergy abilities like the ‘16 one had.

Oh well, guess we have to put our hopes into the rumored Moonclan battletome.

[Lemondish]

28 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

It's only a stigma because a lot of people want to maintain a consistent theme with their armies. They want to play say... Kharadrons, not Kharadrons AND Stormcast.

Hell, people here like to hark on a lot about the importance of pushing narrative armies over tournament and you don't get much more WAAC than Soup armies. Bit of cognitive dissonance I see around that topic here.  I want my force to represent an Admiral's excursion out for Aether-Gold, not a Kharadron fleet... with Stormcast because, uhhhh, well they needed a wizard.

It's the same reason I don't bring Space Marine allies in my Imperial Guard. Space Marines are rare in the fluff. I just want my army to represent that rather common military force you're far more likely to see on the frontlines than the galaxy's greatest warriors stomping around every game, the exact same reason I'll never ally in Stormcast when I get my Free Guild started.

But you can just keep that visual theme by modifying a KO model to serve as your "stormcast" ally, if what you want is a narrative option. 

On the other hand, if you're trying to win competitively, and that's what you prioritize, then I'm not sure allies should bother you.

It sounds like you want to play in a tournament style competitive sense but keep your army as "pure" as possible. I'm not sure those feelings can be reconciled in a game where armies should have weaknesses that can be filled with tradeoffs. 

[blueshirtman]

14 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

But you can just keep that visual theme by modifying a KO model to serve as your "stormcast" ally, if what you want is a narrative option. 

Not everyone can or want to do that. It is not about visuals by the way. Its like trying to be a club X fan, while wearing club Y colours. It just doesn't work.

 

16 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

It sounds like you want to play in a tournament style competitive sense but keep your army as "pure" as possible.

Yeah those BCR players are after those sweet sweet top 4 tournament tables?

[Greyshadow]

Not unexpected but nice that measuring base to base is in the new core rules. Great we have an official recommended base size chart in coming too. I am working on some Screamings of Tzeentch that are on 40 mm round rather than the slightly smaller flying stand bases. I like that I am not breaking the rules for making nice looking base.

[DanielFM]

Trying to disguise allies as your own Faction usually won't work. Those models still won't have the same keywords, thus they won't benefit from the abilities and synergies. If they don't play as Kharadron (for example), they won't feel as Kharadron, regardless of how good your conversions/kitbashes are.

[Lemondish]

25 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

Not everyone can or want to do that. It is not about visuals by the way. Its like trying to be a club X fan, while wearing club Y colours. It just doesn't work.

 

Yeah those BCR players are after those sweet sweet top 4 tournament tables?

Can't find a way to be all that sympathetic here. If you can't paint the models, then proxying is an option, especially in a narrative sense. I'm not sure what to say about not wanting to convert, though. It's like the easiest way to deal with your issue - if you don't want to do it, then I'm not really sure what to say. It's super weird that there's always some kind of reason why the solution isn't viable. The game has a structure, and if you don't like it that's okay, you can change it if your opponent agrees too. But if you're interested in following the rules to the letter in a competitive sense, while kneecapping yourself with thematic narrative style rules placed on your list, then all I can say is good luck, have fun. 

To your second statement, that's exactly my point. If you want top 4 tournament tables, then you should probably not be hamstringing yourself intentionally at any point.

Just my perspective. Don't think I'll be able to wrap my head around why this is such a huge blocker, but thanks for the insight

[Lemondish]

19 minutes ago, DanielFM said:

Trying to disguise allies as your own Faction usually won't work. Those models still won't have the same keywords, thus they won't benefit from the abilities and synergies. If they don't play as Kharadron (for example), they won't feel as Kharadron, regardless of how good your conversions/kitbashes are.

Sounds like that's just a weakness of the army, which is fine. Factions should have weaknesses, right? If everyone could do all the same things the same way, it'd start to get boring. 

That's not to say that there needs to be that particular weakness. I hope the issue you have is resolved in the future, but I think until then allies is how you're going to need to fill it, if you want to fill it. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

I’m feeling there’s a bit disingenuous argument going on. If the a strong belief in the narrative of a faction is preventing the taking of allies surely it would break the narrative more for those factions to be given wizards.   

Also GA armies are not the same a 40K soup lists.  Breaking faction Alliegence often has consequence across your army. Taking multiple detachments in 40K does not 

[Ollie Grimwood]

2 hours ago, Infeston said:

I really really hope GW will include the appropriate bases with each old model that still has square bases. I would find it a bit cheap if they would just sell all the old models with square bases instead and not include round bases.

 

It is infuriating, especially when buying online and you forget to order the extra round bases