Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[Dragobeth]

12 minutes ago, Turragor said:

I feel like there are a lot of unsubstantiated claims spreading at the moment. And a chunk of 'this is absolutely the most important thing that needs to change from AoS 1 to AoS 2' for good measure.

People's mileages have varied and continue to vary - see debates over shooting and double turn for instance.

Hopefully the new rules take a balanced approach based on an average of a lot of user feedback. Not isolated complaints from smaller excitable groups.

We don't want TGA to stand for The Grand Anecdote do we?

If they made changes for any minor cry on the internet we could be playing with square bases on the Old World, no Stormcast and of course no players (becouse no one played WHFB on my area in years) lol

They know how to read the feedback, at least now they know how to do it, I'm very calm about 2nd edition and the possible changes that it will bring. Of course all this comment comes from a player who finds AoS fun since the first year and plays non competitive/relaxed games so my opinion may not be the most important one.

 

[Ollie Grimwood]

6 hours ago, Dragobeth said:

. Of course all this comment comes from a player who finds AoS fun since the first year and plays non competitive/relaxed games so my opinion may not be the most important one.

 

I wouldn’t  sell yourself (or GW) short on that score. They have got as many of the narrative  event organisers as tournament ones on the Faithful play test teams.  The less tournament focused side of the hobby is definitely listened to as well 

[chord]

6 hours ago, Jamopower said:

What comes to 40k, my eperience is it that the new edition is even more an army building game than the previous versions, where often the game is decided before any dice rolls have been made just by the list building. I can see that some people greatly prefer this, but at least for me, that kind of gaming doesn't give anything.

Agreed,  not sure why so many people coming back to AoS want to turn it into a list building game.  If I wanted to play a list building game I'd play magic the gathering

[RuneBrush]

59 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I’m going to be disappointed if all shooting is stopped when in combat. Not being able to shoot a distant target when someone is trying to smash your head is fine* but not being able to shoot at the thing trying to smash your head in is just daft.   

The way it was worded over the weekend suggested it's not something that's simply going to be stopped.  I think the solution they implemented in 40k was a test to see if the same comments were raised (which they weren't) so I fully expect to see a rule whereby when picking a target if there is an enemy unit within 3" they are the only valid target (though written much more neatly than that )

[TheOtherJosh]

54 minutes ago, Dragobeth said:

Seeing the Command Dices... could be possible that we will get a system where you throw the dices and that determines what kind of CP you get that turn? [...]

They look to be almost identical to the 40K Command dice. In 40K they’re just tracking stuff ... But we’ll likely find out something in the next 45 days  

54 minutes ago, Dragobeth said:

[...]On the other hand, they can just be like the wound dices, to track things

(This is my personal bet.)

[PJetski]

I predict that you can spend command points to boost your turn order roll in some way. That seems "strategic" enough to me.

[AGPO]

Personally I like the way D&D 5th ed handles shooting in melee - you can do it, but you roll two dice instead of one and pick the lowest to determine whether you hit. It's much harder to hit anything due to y'know, things getting in your face and trying to stab you. 

Overall I hope that other than a couple of minor polishes to the rules the new edition is an excuse to give us a shiny new book, starter set and tidy up the rules/book creep a bit rather than any sweeping changes. The game as it is works well.

[Attackmack]

1 hour ago, hughwyeth said:

Nearly all units in 40k can shoot, so removing it from combat affects everyone equally. Most AoS units cannot shoot, so those few units who can (and who's points cost reflect that) may lose a lot of their purpose if the shooting rules are changed. 

For what its worth, if they change rules they can just as easily change point costs.

[AaronWilson]

I think the command dice will be similar to the 40k ones and fairly useless, one will be used to mark a unit that has "retreated", one for "advanced" etc. 

[CDM]

19 hours ago, lolwut said:

Hi,

Just getting started here... both on this forum and in AoS. 

I've been playing 40k for some time, competitively, with multiple armies. I see a lot of people commenting on the pros and cons and relating it back to 40k, so i figured i'd share my 2c. 

Shooting into combat, or shooting out of combat, make a game less tactical from my view. With how easy it is to gain line of sight, and very little in the way of terrain bonuses or penalties for an obscured target, it stands to reason this causes problems. I hope in the new edition that they take a page from 40k here and eliminate or alter how this works. For instance, I would be fine with people shooting into combat, if every miss was a hit against your own units, and you took a -1 to hit, as an example, so there's still tactical flexibility but some trade off in risk versus reward. It would also make the game more tactical if you could not shoot out of combat, or paid a penalty such as all hits in the following round against your unit are automatic. Otherwise it just makes things feel gamey, at least to me. 

And, in regards to charges and the sequencing of combat, i do like the alternating style of activation, it is a fundamentally different game so i'm fine with a different ruleset for combat. It does feel odd, but it makes the game less swingy, and slower units aren't automatically hosed. So, with this being, at its core, an entirely different game from 40k, an entirely different approach to melee combat makes perfect sense. Going with an initiative based system would *not* make sense, because that takes choices away from the players. 

In regards to wound tables,  strength versus toughness checks, and invulnerable saves - while these do make sense, a game based on a D6 dice already has very low granularity, and it plays much faster if there are simple to-hit and to-wound numbers represented on the character sheet. Toughness in 40k is one of the primary stats that drives durability, short of an invulnerable save, because it reduces your chances to be wounded in the first place. Custodes are the ultimate durable unit, bikes that can leave combat freely, have a high invulnerable save (3++), and high toughness, so most weapons wound them on rolls of 5. This is the opposite of the design you want in AoS. Invulnerable saves, and high toughness, just make the game frustrating at times. Throwing 5 shots from anti-tank weaponry, capable of felling a Titan, don't make a dent in a Custodes Bike Captain. It's not cinematic at all, and I would hate to see something like this in AoS. In essence if things are balanced they're not necessary. 

Damage overflow is great, by the way, a D6 weapon cleaving through 5 small guys makes sense, and also creates some solid balance. In 40k you have a dreadnought, capable of punching a titan to death, held in check for an entire game by a squad of conscripted 13 year olds with flashlights, because he can't punch his way out, or open fire into their faces with his machine guns. It's not cinematic, it's not immersive, and it leads to real balance problems. Meanwhile, in Sigmar, this guy would be killing something like 12 of these guys per battle round, before battleshock (morale), and free himself quickly. 

One thing AoS does very wrong, at least in my opinion, is the double turn. The idea of turns in AoS feels almost unnecessary anyway, considering every phase could be alternating activation of units. But, until that day comes, having a double turn can be a back breaker. And, the odds of seeing a double turn in even a 3 turn game is actually fairly high (75%).  With the hero phase being as powerful as it is, and shooting being strong, there's no reason for this. Going first is a benefit. But, as we saw in 40k with ITC, this can be solved with missions that feature progressive scoring. Despite first turn giving a "kill your opponent" advantage, in ITC going second actually had a higher winrate for some time after the mission updates, due to the nature of objective holding and end-of-game-turn scoring. Objective based games with a slight emphasis on killing leads to a more engaging style of play, anyway. 

As someone who likes casting spells and stabbing things, this looks to be a good edition. I'm very excited to see what they do with magic. The current version of Sigmar feels as though spellcasting has missed the mark just a bit. I'd like to see it have grander effects and really take center stage. 

Yes to this . Melee damage in 40k should carry over, not enough ccws have an ap value and there just isn't enough attacks. Melee gets stagnant quickly although I do like how you can use the phase tactically to tie people up. The whole melee phase needs a rework in 40k because there is no combat winner and no sweeping advance now. Also it needs to be the most destuctive phase so when enemies fall back its not as bad, you've done your damage. 

[Jamopower]

2 hours ago, Chikout said:

We will probably see some details of the new rules in a few hours so I will throw my hat into the prediction/ wish list ring now. 

A modified roll would not make the double turn any more strategic. What I would like to see is some form of sequence breaking action the player being double turned could take. For example if I choose to take the double turn the other player gets to take a number of  actions like moving a vulnerable unit out of harms way or shooting out of sequence. These could be tied to command points. If I choose not to take the double turn the other player does not get access to these actions. This would increase the risk/ reward of the double turn and also give the other player more involvement in the game during that time.

That's sort of the might points in Lord of the Rings, which happens to be IMO the best rules system that GW has ever produced based on my somewhat limited experience. More things to decide and plan for mid game is much preferred to more things to consider in the list building.

[Inqy]

2 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

Less cinematic for me. Ranged troopers getting desperate last second shots off tends to be a bit of feature in a lot of scenes.  Also quite a few ranged attacks aren’t necessarily mechanical, whips, bone tentacles, fire breath or vomit things you’d definitely still use in close 

Seems even more strange in 40K where almost everyone is packing some sort of automatic assault weapon. 

 

Additionally, I don't think a complete shooting ban in combat would mesh well with their desire to make most warscrolls continue to function under the new rules. A lot of the monsters in particular seem, to me, fairly obviously designed with the intention they'll be constantly firing all their ranged weapons while also in combat. (Something like the Terrorgheist or Zombie Dragon would need a massive points reduction if they couldn't use their ranged weapons at all while in combat.)

[NemoVonUtopia]

As far as I understand they have only mentioned no shooting out of combat unless I've missed something. I assume that until they say otherwise shooting within combat and into combat won't be changing. 

I wonder how complicated they will be willing to make the rules. If they do ban shooting within a combat would they make monsters exempt or make a new subtype of ranged attack to allow breath weapons or vomit ect while preventing artillery from shooting.

[Ollie Grimwood]

20 minutes ago, NemoVonUtopia said:

As far as I understand they have only mentioned no shooting out of combat unless I've missed something. I assume that until they say otherwise shooting within combat and into combat won't be changing. 

I wonder how complicated they will be willing to make the rules. If they do ban shooting within a combat would they make monsters exempt or make a new subtype of ranged attack to allow breath weapons or vomit ect while preventing artillery from shooting.

I think a line about having to direct your attacks against an enemy within 3” if there is one would cover shooting out of combat given that attacking has the same rules for shooting and combat. 

[tcrfelton]

On 5/14/2018 at 7:29 AM, Xasz said:

Aaaaaannnnnddd there is my Khorne-depression again

Guess it's time for a second army. I really hope the Nighthaunt rules are fun and there will be some casting/shooting for them. The models look awesome (the double scythe banshees are so cool)

Concerning  AoS 2.0,  I'm super stoked. Maybe there will be more of a scene in Germany and to an extend the rest of Europe afterwards (the Spanish community and the ETC was/is actively suppressing AoS). Usually we love tournaments/events but there never formed a scene for AoS. There are only local groups with varying activeness and a whole lot is still playing 8th, The Ninth Age or something similar. (Not judging them, but we are a conservative bunch concerning tabletops and boardgames and I'd really like more action...) 

For me at least, currently Nightaunt are a blast. Easily my favorite army to play. Not top tier, but really, really enjoyable. When I play in tourneys or serious games I run them as Grand Host of Nagash and bring lots of healing shenanigans and oodles of Dire Wolves to trip up opponents. But between the chain-ghost fella healing and the smaller ghost fellas I think they will be able to fill that shortcoming on their own in the new book. Make the plunge, go ghost or go....uh.....home? I guess?

[Xasz]

43 minutes ago, tcrfelton said:

For me at least, currently Nightaunt are a blast. Easily my favorite army to play. Not top tier, but really, really enjoyable. When I play in tourneys or serious games I run them as Grand Host of Nagash and bring lots of healing shenanigans and oodles of Dire Wolves to trip up opponents. But between the chain-ghost fella healing and the smaller ghost fellas I think they will be able to fill that shortcoming on their own in the new book. Make the plunge, go ghost or go....uh.....home? I guess?

After the wh-community sneak peak and their ironic punishment thing, I probably found my second army!

I just hope the Mortrach is awesome (model and rules) and they did not totally lose their universal deep strike.

[annarborhawk]

6 hours ago, Dragobeth said:

Seeing the Command Dices... could be possible that we will get a system where you throw the dices and that determines what kind of CP you get that turn?

I mean, the dices has 6 different icons (one with a feet, other with a sword iirc, I asume it has 6 different) It could be that you can use those CP to enhance that type of actions of your army, like you get 3 "movement CP", 2 "combat CP", 1 "shoot CP", 1 "general CP" and you can use them that turn (using the movement one to make a unit run the max distance posible without having to throw the dice ti see how much you run, the general one for general abilities, etc)

On the other hand, they can just be like the wound dices, to track things (I revised the images and they just have some numbers, a foot and some kind of wall, maybe to track if someone is in cover or something)

Probably not, but reminds me a bit of the "War of the Ring" board game, where you roll a number of action dice to determine what actions you can take in a turn.  

[Hounsou83]

I taught there would have been a magic phase but , seeing the new stormcast wizard warscroll it doesent seems so.

[Jamopower]

39 minutes ago, annarborhawk said:

Probably not, but reminds me a bit of the "War of the Ring" board game, where you roll a number of action dice to determine what actions you can take in a turn.  

Or Saga, which is my favourite game at the moment, but don't believe AoS eill go that route. I also believe that they are just marker dice. 

[Tailessine]

No more shooting out of combat will be an improvement imo; its more tactical: ranged units can be 'shut down' by fast units and will need guarding, if you can spare the resources

[Freejack02]

4 minutes ago, Tailessine said:

No more shooting out of combat will be an improvement imo; its more tactical: ranged units can be 'shut down' by fast units and will need guarding, if you can spare the resources

It's also going to warrant a points reduction for shooting units across the board - which makes them more feast/famine in general. Either they get protected and hit way above their point values, or they don't and get tied up / smashed. I'll wait and reserve judgement, but I'm hoping they consider every aspect of what they are changing...

[blueshirtman]

9 hours ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

It's just you. Since 2015, I have never lost a game to a double turn, nor have I ever won a game because of a double turn. It has given my opponent a huge advantage at times, and put me on the back foot, not because they got to go twice, but because I risked action(s) with units that I knew would backfire if I got double turned. And there's the key sentence. The double turn, as others have said, mimmicks the uncertainty and confusion of real warfare, and as a military officer for real, I personally love that aspect. 

If you fail to consider every action with your units, and fail to consider the second and third order effects of your decisions, you will have a bad time and you'll claim the double turn is OP. Whether or not you charge, or if you don't move, or what objectives are at risk for not one but two consecutive turns, and a myriad of other factors - has to be considered. It is this aspect of AoS that makes it, in some ways, deceptively complex compared to 40k and absolutely punishes players who do not factor in what happens if you lose the initiative and get double turned. With 40k it is pretty linear and pretty easy to work out how far things can move and how long it will take them to cover ground, how much damage you're likely to take from what unit, what you can hide or screen etc. With AoS you have a lot more to consider, and I personally like it a lot.

With the ability to lock down ranged units, the double turn is going to become even more important for ranged armies. Gunline armies that get engaged in the opponent's turn could spend their own turn falling back, and bank on a double turn to be able to move back further and unleash another hail of shots.

It can't just be me, we more then 40 people playing in events the last few years, and not all of them fairly new players like me.  As bidding or screening goes I play brc and we don't have units to do it, at least not against the armies being played here. 

[Drofnum]

12 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

I don't know if it is just us, but one of the orgenisers at our store did a check of how often people who get double turns win comparing to when they do not get double turns and it was way over 100%.

Not sure how you could get over 100% win rate.  My experience is that the people that play the game without accounting for or protecting against the double turn are the ones that get impacted the worst by a double turn.  The people that plan for it dont have the same problems.

If you have someone playing and planning for an aggressive double turn against someone who doesnt plan for it at all then you do tend to end up in one sided games where the person playing for double turns easily wins the game.  I ran in to this a lot with my KO, I would give the other person first turn and let them advance into my gun range.  If i got the double turn the game was generally over by my second shooting phase, but all you had to do to counter it was be aware of my ranges and either close so fast you get in to combat turn 1 or play it cagey and stay just out of range of my guns and hit me turn 2.  In melee my army would fold pretty quickly.

[PJetski]

28 minutes ago, Freejack02 said:

It's also going to warrant a points reduction for shooting units across the board 

I don't think that is true.

[Drofnum]

2 minutes ago, PJetski said:

I don't think that is true.

Right now they are pointed assuming they can use their guns to hit anything in their range at all times.  They're changing it to make it so they can use their guns to hit some things in range at some times.  It definitely is going to require some tweaking of point values to make them balanced.