Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[Rob Hawkins]

3 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

Soooo...

Am I missing something about Look Out Sir!?

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.

Don't forget– That-1 to hit rolls means that missile weapons which inflict extra attacks or mortal wounds on a 6+ won't be triggering their extra ability against most characters.  That in and of itself is a pretty big deal, and helpful to character survival.  They might target a different unit altogether so their super shooting doesn't go to waste.

1 hour ago, chord said:

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.

It really can't get any clearer than true LOS (Your model can see what it can actually see).  Units practically cannot block LOS to models behind them, because some part of the target model will almost always be visible through the gaps between models, over a model's shoulder, between their legs, or there will a part of the target that sticks up above the intervening unit.  You need something that's very large and completely solid, like a Great Unclean One to completely obscure a target from view.

I'm a fan of units blocking LOS to other units, but then they need to add in exceptions for size (small models don't block infantry, infantry don't block cavalry, cavalry don't block chariots, chariots don't block monsters, etc.).  I would even be okay with all units screening all other units, as an abstraction to represent the fog of war, dust kicked up on the battlefield, etc. but then you still need to throw in some kind of "large target" exception, and that's not a level of detail that they want to add into a game that's supposed to be "simple." 

True Line of Sight is as clear and simple as it gets.

 

[Dragobeth]

3 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. 

This, totally agree.

For me, a AoS player, this focuses serve as a way to show me armies and some sneak peaks of them in the new edition. The KO and Bonnerspliterz focuses helped me to try both armies in the next ed (I already have an eye on them and now I really wanna try them since those armies are different to the ones I already have)

[chord]

55 minutes ago, Rob Hawkins said:

Don't forget– That-1 to hit rolls means that missile weapons which inflict extra attacks or mortal wounds on a 6+ won't be triggering their extra ability against most characters.  That in and of itself is a pretty big deal, and helpful to character survival.  They might target a different unit altogether so their super shooting doesn't go to waste.

It really can't get any clearer than true LOS (Your model can see what it can actually see).  Units practically cannot block LOS to models behind them, because some part of the target model will almost always be visible through the gaps between models, over a model's shoulder, between their legs, or there will a part of the target that sticks up above the intervening unit.  You need something that's very large and completely solid, like a Great Unclean One to completely obscure a target from view.

I'm a fan of units blocking LOS to other units, but then they need to add in exceptions for size (small models don't block infantry, infantry don't block cavalry, cavalry don't block chariots, chariots don't block monsters, etc.).  I would even be okay with all units screening all other units, as an abstraction to represent the fog of war, dust kicked up on the battlefield, etc. but then you still need to throw in some kind of "large target" exception, and that's not a level of detail that they want to add into a game that's supposed to be "simple." 

True Line of Sight is as clear and simple as it gets.

 

LOS of sight should still be checked since there is a good chance one of the models can't see the other unit (especially multi-model unit targeting a single model unit) when aiming through another unit.  But people don't want to do that. 

[HorticulusTGA]

Didn't GW said at the UK Games expo that "for Nighthaunt news, check the Community website on Tuesday" ??

[TheOtherJosh]

49 minutes ago, Rob Hawkins said:

Don't forget– That-1 to hit rolls means that missile weapons which inflict extra attacks or mortal wounds on a 6+ won't be triggering their extra ability against most characters.

That specifically means that the brutality of units like Skyfires are blunted and that they require another mechanism to gain +1 to hit to get Mortal wounds back. (IE they will need to be within 9” of that friendly Shaman, as an example ... and their mortal wound efficiency just dropped from 1/3 to 1/6 when near that Shaman against HERO units that aren’t monsters.)

[Ahn-ket]

4 minutes ago, HorticulusTGA said:

Didn't GW said at the UK Games expo that "for Nighthaunt news, check the Community website on Tuesday" ??

I can't remember that but if it would be tomorrow to get this infos

[Waiyuren]

34 minutes ago, chord said:

LOS of sight should still be checked since there is a good chance one of the models can't see the other unit (especially multi-model unit targeting a single model unit) when aiming through another unit.  But people don't want to do that. 

Yip. I always actually check. You'd be surprised how often all you can see is a staff head or on oversized sword, and not the model's body. It's just fairer to play that way; if you want to use snipers, put them on a hill where they can see everything (and everything can see them).

[chord]

Just now, Waiyuren said:

Yip. I always actually check. You'd be surprised how often all you can see is a staff head or on oversized sword, and not the model's body. It's just fairer to play that way; if you want to use snipers, put them on a hill where they can see everything (and everything can see them).

Agreed me too.  People think I'm crazy .  

[Infeston]

26 minutes ago, Waiyuren said:

Yip. I always actually check. You'd be surprised how often all you can see is a staff head or on oversized sword, and not the model's body. It's just fairer to play that way; if you want to use snipers, put them on a hill where they can see everything (and everything can see them).

People will propably count this as seeing the model, even though I wouldn't agree with this. Tabletop games tend to simulate real-life interactions through rules. In reality I don't think damage to a sword or a staff would hurt the person. So everytime I measure LOS I always think about if the model would be realistically able to hit the target. 

[Enoby]

To chip into the line of sight debate, I do think it needs to be addressed. As seen even here, people have different options of what is fair for line of sight (e.g. does seeing the arm of a model count? What about its toe? What about the weapon?) and while confusion can be sorted out with the opponent, rules are useful to moderate this so discussions aren't needed. Even something like "a unit has line of sight if an uninterrupted line can be drawn from the base of the shooter to the target's base. Bases in the shooter's unit do not count when checking line of sight" would be simple enough and could be measured with a tape measure. I'm not sure if it's good idea as a rule, but something like it would help end any arguments or silly debates like "well I can see the model's hair, so I can get a clear shot", "well that's against the spirit of the rules", "who says it's against the spirit of the game? It's in the rules"; I've seen games get slowed down by this too much and it always ends with someone upset. 

[blueshirtman]

11 hours ago, Jamopower said:

It's matter of the themes in factions. If magic, shooting, close combat, or what ever is good, then everyone should be given equal access to it.

But with BCR it is not the case, they have nothing that is good, be it based ont their fluff or not. Am not asking for a 200pts nagash, but what does BCR do well? I understand that for army design if you take away magic from a faction and lets say number of models, then it has to have something to compensate Or am I seeing this wrong, and GW just makes some factions weak just because?

[Ollie Grimwood]

3 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

But with BCR it is not the case, they have nothing that is good, be it based ont their fluff or not. Am not asking for a 200pts nagash, but what does BCR do well? I understand that for army design if you take away magic from a faction and lets say number of models, then it has to have something to compensate Or am I seeing this wrong, and GW just makes some factions weak just because?

There’s a whole thread for BCR in the Destruction sub forums might be the best place to chat about them 

[blueshirtman]

6 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. 

If they are not ment for veterans, then I don't understand the BCR one. It says that to play them and have fun, all you need to do is buy 3 starter sets and a firebelly. That is an outright lie, unless someones goes deep in to sophism with questions what "is" or "fun" means. If anything the article seems to be a trap for people who may think that they can get a low model count army, they will be able to play with. That or my understanding of english is even worse then I thought, which is well possible,

[Kramer]

3 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

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.

How is it different than the dispossessed faction focus for example? If there are no new rules for that faction incoming there is very little to talk about except some comparisons to the new rules and points changes. On of the first 'rules' in marketing communication if that you should focus on one target audience and they clearly did. Sadly not to us more veteran gamers  but still think most veteran gamers will still buy the new rules and will not leave the fold so I don't think they will see it as a marketing fail. 

On a more personal note, I have a lot of armies but still lacking anything green and the bonesplitterz got me a little bit excited. So even there it's not a complete waste for me. 

[blueshirtman]

10 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

There’s a whole thread for BCR in the Destruction sub forums might be the best place to chat about them 

No one posts there, at the same time I would like to understand what ideas make stuff work at GW, because I do not understand what they are doing or planning to do with my faction. I don't get how they can give extra stuff to already popular factions that are played by a lot of people, and at the same time give nothing to the bad ones, or tell their players to take ally. Which is as good as telling them all to switch armies.

Quote

 If there are no new rules for that faction incoming there is very little to talk about except some comparisons to the new rules and points changes.

But this would make no sense. If you add another layer of depth to the game, and give most rule use only to armies that are already doing well, the gap would just get larger. If anything the first batch of rules in a new edition should come up for the factions that are struggling. It would be pointless to play a weaker faction, if the rules updates would go to popular armies first.

[Sheriff]

5 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

If they are not ment for veterans, then I don't understand the BCR one. It says that to play them and have fun, all you need to do is buy 3 starter sets and a firebelly. That is an outright lie, unless someones goes deep in to sophism with questions what "is" or "fun" means. If anything the article seems to be a trap for people who may think that they can get a low model count army, they will be able to play with. That or my understanding of english is even worse then I thought, which is well possible,

I fell for this trap as a new player last year. Its REALLY annoying wasting days painting a model that turns out to be complete trash in battle. 

[blueshirtman]

That is what am trying to understand. GW is a company not a charity, they want to make money. Each bad army some dude buys, is not just one dude less buying their stuff, but also one very vocal person at a FLGS that got burned by their products. If enough people like that pop up at a store, GW products can get some really bad rep, and am sure it would lower the sales too. Also considering this is the age when people can check stuff online, if a new person sees enough bad reviews, they will just not pick up an army they wanted. And I don't think everyone who is sad about his dream army being bad, automaticly goes to buy tzeench or stormcats. There is a good chance they will not buy any models at all. And the gaming community loses one potential player.

[Lousy Beatnik]

6 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

No one posts there

Exactly! It's a dull topic and nobody really wants to talk about it ?

[Carnelian]

@bluemanshirt please let's move the topic omwards and let the rest of the discussion breathe. Your point has been made!

[Drofnum]

2 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

That is what am trying to understand. GW is a company not a charity, they want to make money. Each bad army some dude buys, is not just one dude less buying their stuff, but also one very vocal person at a FLGS that got burned by their products. If enough people like that pop up at a store, GW products can get some really bad rep, and am sure it would lower the sales too. Also considering this is the age when people can check stuff online, if a new person sees enough bad reviews, they will just not pick up an army they wanted. And I don't think everyone who is sad about his dream army being bad, automaticly goes to buy tzeench or stormcats. There is a good chance they will not buy any models at all. And the gaming community loses one potential player.

And maybe they made a mistake with the way they changed BCR in the last GHB, realize that and that its costing them sales and they will change it going forward.  To make more money off that army.  Literally all you are doing is focusing on how bad BCR is now and no matter what anyone here says you refuse to believe that it may improve. You're just going to have to wait and see what happens with the rest of us.

[blueshirtman]

2 minutes ago, Lousy Beatnik said:

Exactly! It's a dull topic and nobody really wants to talk about it ?

I want to talk about it, or at least someone to explain to me why GW is doing such stuff. BCR is my army, and the last 6 months everyone was telling me to wait for rules updates that they will fix the army problems.

[Lousy Beatnik]

Pendulum thingy looks rad, though.

All of these crazy spells will probably cost a fortune though (not a whinge, just being realistic). As much as I love the idea of models as spells, I think it might be a fun project to scratch build a few first. I'd hate to buy and paint up a spell, only to end up using it just once or twice.

[blueshirtman]

Just now, Drofnum said:

Literally all you are doing is focusing on how bad BCR is now and no matter what anyone here says you refuse to believe that it may improve.

Which of their rules from the articles makes improves them? Everyone is getting points drops or summoning which is more or less the same. So armies get bigger model wise, but stuff stays the same as it did before. BCR could ally in, and did, ogor casters. Butchers were run, by many people. It did not improve the army comparing to how improved the new battle tome armies were. You say people tell me they improve, but no one told me where they improved? I have no access to leaks, and I don't know anyone who does playtesting. So I would like to know, if am to wait another 6 months and get another batch of changes like in the 2017 GH.

[Drofnum]

10 minutes ago, Lousy Beatnik said:

Pendulum thingy looks rad, though.

All of these crazy spells will probably cost a fortune though (not a whinge, just being realistic). As much as I love the idea of models as spells, I think it might be a fun project to scratch build a few first. I'd hate to buy and paint up a spell, only to end up using it just once or twice.

From the podcast it sounded like they were doing all 13 models in a box.  Maybe bundling them all together on the same sprue could make them cheaper though?

[Drofnum]

8 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

Which of their rules from the articles makes improves them? Everyone is getting points drops or summoning which is more or less the same. So armies get bigger model wise, but stuff stays the same as it did before. BCR could ally in, and did, ogor casters. Butchers were run, by many people. It did not improve the army comparing to how improved the new battle tome armies were. You say people tell me they improve, but no one told me where they improved? I have no access to leaks, and I don't know anyone who does playtesting. So I would like to know, if am to wait another 6 months and get another batch of changes like in the 2017 GH.

Wait a month.