Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[Lemondish]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

My own interpretation is providing you're still in base to base with an enemy model you're fine.  When you move "the nearest enemy model" could change.

However, I'm sure that the videos (when they arrive) will cover this one

I'm not sure that makes sense. You have to move towards the nearest enemy model, which is determined before you move, not after you move. That would be silly, no?

[Ar-Pharazôn]

3 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Soooo...

Am I missing something about Look Out Sir!?

Whenever it is mentioned in the focuses or on the podcast, it is used in an "Isn't it awesome that your Heroes are INVINCIBLE now?"  context.  And then I have to go back and look at the actual rule and read it, turn it over to see if there's another extra rule written on the back of it, read it backwards looking for clues.

A most of the time (but not always) -1 to hit for enemy shooting.

Helpful.  Useful.  Adds a bit of resilience I suppose. Doesn't live up to the hype.  I don't know what I'm really saying here, other than it sticks out to me as uncharacteristic - in almost every other regard, things seem hyped in proportion (hey it's in-house marketing so everything is hyped, but most of the time the best stuff gets hyped more than the lesser stuff).  This one seeming relatively over-hyped compared to other things is weird.

I think that it's being hyped partially due to the strength shooting has had in Age of Sigmar, and when you consider all the armies that can teleport/redeploy ranged units, it can provide that extra bit of survival for a support hero. 

[Lemondish]

26 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Can I just point something out regarding the faction focuses?  They're not being written for "veteran" players with anything up to 3 years worth of experience and knowledge.  They're being done as a "look what this faction is about", for new players and players who want to collect a second army alongside the new rules.  As such why is anyone assuming that they're going to be cram packed with every change that's about to come out for a faction?

I know a number of people who have looked at the faction focus and gone "that sounds quite interesting to play" - which I think highlights the actual point of the articles. 

This is exactly right. I love these focuses because, as a prospective new player myself, it gives me a quick taste of the faction. They've managed to help a handful of my friends find the faction that they want to start as well. 

[amysrevenge]

4 minutes ago, Ar-Pharazôn said:

I think that it's being hyped partially due to the strength shooting has had in Age of Sigmar, and when you consider all the armies that can teleport/redeploy ranged units, it can provide that extra bit of survival for a support hero. 

Extra bit of survival against specialist teleport/shoot armies.  An excellent feature.  If you could take it as an artefact, you might consider it - but you'd probably take something else.  Fine, not bad, OK.  Relatively over-hyped.

[GeneralZero]

2 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

This is exactly right. I love these focuses because, as a prospective new player myself, it gives me a quick taste of the faction. They've managed to help a handful of my friends find the faction that they want to start as well. 

As far as I like them, I find them a bit misleading: their faction is often FAR from being an army, with so few entries. So, for beginner, my advice should be to turn to a battletomed faction. (and not even all of them  )

[novakai]

29 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Can I just point something out regarding the faction focuses?  They're not being written for "veteran" players with anything up to 3 years worth of experience and knowledge.  They're being done as a "look what this faction is about", for new players and players who want to collect a second army alongside the new rules.  As such why is anyone assuming that they're going to be cram packed with every change that's about to come out for a faction?

I know a number of people who have looked at the faction focus and gone "that sounds quite interesting to play" - which I think highlights the actual point of the articles. 

I think the dead give away that the FF are for new player is when they link their store page at the end of each article telling you how to start you faction

[Vanger]

30 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Can I just point something out regarding the faction focuses?  They're not being written for "veteran" players with anything up to 3 years worth of experience and knowledge.  They're being done as a "look what this faction is about", for new players and players who want to collect a second army alongside the new rules.  As such why is anyone assuming that they're going to be cram packed with every change that's about to come out for a faction?

I know a number of people who have looked at the faction focus and gone "that sounds quite interesting to play" - which I think highlights the actual point of the articles. 

Dunno if it's intentional, but it also shows kinda what bigger factions there are. Looking at the GW webshop right now, AoS is chaos. So many subfactions, some only have 4 models in it, that's madness. Without battletomes you couldn't even decide which factions would go together.

[RuneBrush]

10 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

I'm not sure that makes sense. You have to move towards the nearest enemy model, which is determined before you move, not after you move. That would be silly, no?

To be honest - I'm not sure it makes sense either, it's possible to justify it in both ways   The wording on the new rule doesn't mention towards anymore.  I'm looking forward to seeing the pile-in video to clear it up!

[Infeston]

1 minute ago, novakai said:

I think the dead give away that the FF are for new player is when they link their store page at the end of each article telling you how to start you faction

Ah. K. Didn't know that. Okay. For a preview they are pretty good. The BCR focus gave  good preview what he faction is about.

[Attackmack]

15 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

I'm not sure that makes sense. You have to move towards the nearest enemy model, which is determined before you move, not after you move. That would be silly, no?

Dont the new rule say you cannot move further away from closest enemy model, but you dont have to move closer to it.

if you are b2b with an enemy model you can thus move around the rim of the enemy base, just not away from it.

if you are ever b2b with two or more enemies though, any move along either enemy base takes you further away from the other and if both are considered equal this cant be an allowed move.

GW never did a good job clearing up exactly how pileins worked in aos1 so i doubt they will do it for 2nd but it wont be a problem in sure

[novakai]

44 minutes ago, Imperial said:

First death changes for new edition was in GHB2017, but Nighthaunt will release only after GHB2018.  We can wait 1-3 year before it happens

The models where at least confirm to be made or finished in design in their workshop so I can't be that long.

[TheOtherJosh]

3 minutes ago, Attackmack said:

If you are ever b2b with two or more enemies though, any move along either enemy base takes you further away from the other and if both are considered equal this cant be an allowed move.

In that case, unless you are perfectly in contact with both models, one unit may be closer to one unit than another (even if that is by millimeters ... or fractions of fractions of fractions of inches.)

If you’re having issues seeing down that close, make a judgment call as to which unit you’re “closer to” (or roll a dice or flip a coin) and then the model has to stay no further away than they started at the beginning of pile-in to that “nearest enemy unit”.

[amysrevenge]

What about vertical measurements?  Also base to base?  Makes sense for simplicity, and not caring about how tall models are...

[Ollie Grimwood]

4 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

What about vertical measurements?  Also base to base?  Makes sense for simplicity, and not caring about how tall models are...

And models can be out of range with something that is eye level 

[TheOtherJosh]

Interestingly enough ... the question might be, how does that affect units that are on flying stands? or units that have the fly keyword.

Will units that have the fly keyword receive any benefit for it? (Other than crazy movement.)

5 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

What about vertical measurements?  Also base to base?  Makes sense for simplicity, and not caring about how tall models are...

It does mean that Grots will be able to attack Archaon, and potentially the Kharadron Overlords flying ships ...

[GeneralZero]

16 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

What about vertical measurements?  Also base to base?  Makes sense for simplicity, and not caring about how tall models are...

AoS (and 40K) are 2D games with 3D toys.

[chord]

I really hope they make it very clear out line of sight works.  Too often people just assume every model in a unit can see through other units, when they should be checking each model.  

I would like to see a rule that says units can not see through other units for targeting.

[Redmanphill]

Well the Piling in is much more free than before. If I’m 3” away from the nearest enemy model I can pile in towards any model that’s would leave me within 3” of the closest. Once I close the distance in subsequent turns my choices become a lot less.

[Christopher Rowe]

33 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

AoS (and 40K) are 2D games with 3D toys.

Maybe--strike that--certainly as generally played, but not by the rules it's not (I'm speaking solely of AoS, I only have a glancing familiarity with the rules of 40K). Verticality is enshrined in the rules and in the FAQ as being measured for both movement and range. I believe ignoring the rules and FAQ in this case are an example of deliberately rejecting not just the rules, but also verisimilitude and rationality, in favor of "ease of play." Flyers definitely lose a lot of their efficacy, and some flying units' abilities are rendered nonsensical, when vertical distances are ignored. All that said, while the widespread practice of playing AoS as if it were a 2D game is a bit of a bête noire, for me, I've more or less resigned myself to letting it pass with a silent eye roll.

[Skabnoze]

8 hours ago, Infeston said:

Why do I very often have the feeling that GW only orients on "feedback" from people who play against us instead from the Destruction players themselves? Everytime a rule for Destruction gets changed or balanced it is often more because of an outcry from other players finding our units or models unfair. Whereas other factions get more changes based on feedback  coming from the players who play the faction. Tzeenth is unfair for a very long time now, but no rules for them got changed. But because of the outcry about the Stonehorn it got nerfed pretty quickly compared to other "unfair" units.

The Destruction faction focus articles so far have blunted my new edition excitement a bit as well.  I liked the one for Ironjawz because cheaper Maw Crushers is something to be very excited about.  The rest of them really have little to nothing to get excited about.  That said, I do expect that the generic updates (like Realm Items & Spells) will be fun toys to work with for Destruction - so it is not like we won't get anything to play with.

But, I wanted to comment on what you said here about nothing being nerfed or changed.  We don't know that at all.  One thing that I think we should all keep in mind is that all of these articles are designed as marketing tools for GW and the new edition.  They are specifically trying to build up hype to generate sales.  Telling people what might amount to "bad news" is not conducive to increasing sales and runs counter to what they are doing here.  That does not at all mean that nothing will be nerfed in an errata, that points costs will not increase for some things, and that allegiance abilities may end up altered and things removed.  I fully expect that these things will happen but that we won't know about them until either the GHB '18 releases or someone leaks out some of the contents of it.

So, just because they have not announced any "nerfs" does not at all mean those things are coming or not.  It just means that we are unlikely to find out about them in a marketing teaser and will have to wait for the actual book.

[Skabnoze]

2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Can I just point something out regarding the faction focuses?  They're not being written for "veteran" players with anything up to 3 years worth of experience and knowledge.  They're being done as a "look what this faction is about", for new players and players who want to collect a second army alongside the new rules.  As such why is anyone assuming that they're going to be cram packed with every change that's about to come out for a faction?

I know a number of people who have looked at the faction focus and gone "that sounds quite interesting to play" - which I think highlights the actual point of the articles. 

I don't expect every little change, but not tossing some tidbit for veteran players to get excited about is a bit of a marketing fail.  The ultimate point of these articles is to build hype and drive sales.  You can accomplish the feat of introducing new players to the faction and also tossing a bone to the veteran players.  I feel that so far most of the faction focus articles have done this rather well.  The Grots and Bonesplitterz faction focus failed pretty hard in that regard I think though.

[Carnelian]

1 minute ago, Skabnoze said:

not tossing some tidbit for veteran players to get excited about is a bit of a marketing fail. 

This is exactly correct - it is "a bit of a marketing fail" - nothing more, nothing less.

Now that is cleared up, can we move onto a different topic? 

For example, how cool was the new model that got previewed today? Answer: all the cool! A slicing pendulum right to the face - causes d6 mortal wounds but can only move in a straight line.

I think if that has to start off in base to base with the caster and moves 2d6" it will be really fun - will smash some face in the first turn and then remain a tactical nuisance (especially for big units) but able to avoid for the next few turns.

 

[Deadkitten]

2 hours ago, GeneralZero said:

Exactly what I wrote.

GW just copy/past the text, change the units names, change the pictures and TADA, new faction focus.

It's becoming just boring and we have another full week ahead of this boredom (aat least )

I'm not really reading them anymore.

[Ollie Grimwood]

18 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

This is exactly correct - it is "a bit of a marketing fail" - nothing more, nothing less.

Now that is cleared up, can we move onto a different topic? 

For example, how cool was the new model that got previewed today? Answer: all the cool! A slicing pendulum right to the face - causes d6 mortal wounds but can only move in a straight line.

I think if that has to start off in base to base with the caster and moves 2d6" it will be really fun - will smash some face in the first turn and then remain a tactical nuisance (especially for big units) but able to avoid for the next few turns.

 

To be honest I’ve yet to look at a persistent spell  not be seriously impressed, at this point I’m just lurching between nerdgasms

[Lemondish]

46 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

To be honest I’ve yet to look at a persistent spell  not be seriously impressed, at this point I’m just lurching between nerdgasms

Honestly, the thing that initially drew me to AoS were the models - they're the best of GW, hands down (in my humble opinion). Persistent spells just make this even cooler since they're super neat models that do super cool things. I absolutely cannot wait to get in a game with these spells, and I doubly cannot wait to start painting them!