Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[Yoshiya]

2 hours ago, chord said:

It's a very large FAQ for something that is just releasing.   Was it rushed through play testing?

Some of these base sizes are just really odd.  The community base guide here on TGA is much better.

Seriously the Idoneth point increase got reversed?  Is one of the playtesters a huge fan?

Considering my planned idoneth list just went up 140pts because of 4 units getting point increases I (or rather not receiving the planned decreases) Ican say it's definitely not because they wanted to buff them. Only the leviadon and aspect of storm were planned for point increases and whilst they admittedly were very weird given that they are arguably already overcosted it seems even weirder to reverse such a decision.

I mean from a player new to wargaming looking at idoneth and who has been told that the points are in the ghb they may end up planning and buying an army that isn't legal based on an errata they may not know exists (I can't ever remember seeing anywhere in the books telling people to check online for errata so it's either not obvious or not there). Not a great introduction to an expensive hobby like this where start up costs are high...

[Mordeus]

Gutbuster bases are really weird, got a  whole army based on forty mil... Fifty seems too big. 

[Gauche]

As someone still on the fence about coming back to AoS the FAQs were a put off. The game continues to feel completely cobbled together. Coming from 40K where a new edition meant a completely clean slate, that's what I feel AoS needed. The FAQ for the rulebook is also the size of the parent document on release!

Still interested in where the meta goes and so on but so far little has been done to draw me in. Knowing that Undead and Stormcast books are on the horizons is even less exciting when there are so many armies that need an update.

[GeneralZero]

I just based yesterday my cairnwraith and tomb banshee in 25mm round (the base was even delivered in the GW box!!!) 

[Gecktron]

13 minutes ago, Gauche said:

As someone still on the fence about coming back to AoS the FAQs were a put off. The game continues to feel completely cobbled together. Coming from 40K where a new edition meant a completely clean slate, that's what I feel AoS needed. The FAQ for the rulebook is also the size of the parent document on release!

Still interested in where the meta goes and so on but so far little has been done to draw me in. Knowing that Undead and Stormcast books are on the horizons is even less exciting when there are so many armies that need an update.

Most of the FAQ is really basic stuff that most players will already know.  But its good to have it in writting and all in one place. 

Your comment about armies needing an update feels weird. We've basically got a new Battletome every month so far in 2018. (Nurgle, Legions of Nagash, Daughters of Khaine, Idoneth Deepkin, Stormcasts/Nighthaunts) And half of them (Daughters of Khaine, Legions of Nagash and the Nighthaunts) were updates to already existing armies. 

[Arkiham]

28 minutes ago, Gauche said:

As someone still on the fence about coming back to AoS the FAQs were a put off. The game continues to feel completely cobbled together. Coming from 40K where a new edition meant a completely clean slate, that's what I feel AoS needed. The FAQ for the rulebook is also the size of the parent document on release!

Still interested in where the meta goes and so on but so far little has been done to draw me in. Knowing that Undead and Stormcast books are on the horizons is even less exciting when there are so many armies that need an update.

well tzeentch is going to be new for many people now, 

its gone from daemon spam to tzaangor. 

i hope people like fighting 50+ tzaangor, as thats what youll see 

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, syph0n said:

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_base_sizes_en.pdf

Here's the link for anyone else interested. 

Some daft decisions. Darkling Covens dragon on 100mm round, but the same dragon with Dreadlord on the 105 oval (smaller than the Chariot) in Order Serpentis. 

The High Elf dragon has similar issues between their different factions as well. I think they all just go on a 120mm best otherwise they're unbalanced or so big off their base you struggle to get bade to base contact. 

All characters on 25mm, but Made to Order Dreadlord came on 32mm, which suits characters so much more. Look at Tenebrael and Mistweaver too. Understandable however, when you look at the Daughters of Khaine Hag I guess. 

Think I'll be leaving my dragons on 120mm bases, but will have to re-base my Assassins, Fleetmaster and Sorceress I guess... 

Yeah, strange. Looks like I'll be continuing to use whatever bases seem right for me.

If it's a requirement at a tournament, I'll have cardboard chits to tac the models into temporarily.

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Infeston said:

Jeah. Nice... Now I have to rebase all my Ogor bases, because I oriented on the base guide which was on TGA before...

Sorry. At this moment I am out. I already had to rebase everything after the change to AoS and there is no way I am doing this again. 

1. That was a community suggested list, but GW.

2. You don't have to rebase at all.  Just stick with what you like and have now.

[Infeston]

6 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

1. That was a community suggested list, but GW.

2. You don't have to rebase at all.  Just stick with what you like and have now.

1. Jeah. It costed me a lot of effort to rebase all my Ogors according to the base sizes before. Now I don't want to invest time to rebase everything again. And I think most Ogor players play their normal Ogors, Ironguts and Leadbelchers with 40mm bases. 

2. I know that I don't have to. But I also felt the need to communicate that I am not happy with the "official" base size and that I don't think this was done with the interest of the community in mind.

[Jgroover]

I just got my General's handbook and was expecting to find a rule limiting the use of command abilities by the same hero, but it looks like there is none. I did not see any in the core rules or the FAQ either so is it just going to be free reign on stacking abilities? What am I missing? 

[Rumblefish]

They seem to be changing the wording of the relevant command abilities to not be usable on the same unit more than once in the same turn.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, Gauche said:

The game continues to feel completely cobbled together

Not to sound negative, but I kinda have to agree. There is a very strong "um, yeah, oh... And this!" vibe going on here.

I really think Matched Play is the reason. I know, I know. I hear ya.

I'm just saying that it seems to me that almost every gripe is related to it. AoS, upon release, was a huge breath of fresh air. It really shook things up and brought the "fun" back into the hobby. Most changes since have felt like reverses to appease the hard core competitive crowd, and even though it sells more, I believe (my opinion) is that the sheer hobby luvin' has taken a big hit.

[stratigo]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Not to sound negative, but I kinda have to agree. There is a very strong "um, yeah, oh... And this!" vibe going on here.

I really think Matched Play is the reason. I know, I know. I hear ya.

I'm just saying that it seems to me that almost every gripe is related to it. AoS, upon release, was a huge breath of fresh air. It really shook things up and brought the "fun" back into the hobby. Most changes since have felt like reverses to appease the hard core competitive crowd, and even though it sells more, I believe (my opinion) is that the sheer hobby luvin' has taken a big hit.

I know of pretty much no one who had any interest whatsoever in AoS when it first released sans points. Pretty much everyone who I know who plays AoS now (and its a large community) got interested after they introduced the first GHB. The original drop of AoS floundered.

[Chikout]

Well, I've just sent my email in regarding the base size guide. It really does feel like the biggest miss for GW so far with AoS 2. I urge others to do the same.

The vast majority of the FAQ is just updating things to bring them into line with aos2 so I'm not bothered by that.

[Sleboda]

13 hours ago, stratigo said:

I know of pretty much no one who had any interest whatsoever in AoS when it first released sans points. Pretty much everyone who I know who plays AoS now (and its a large community) got interested after they introduced the first GHB. The original drop of AoS floundered.

I acknowledge that.

It was not the case for me or for many I knew, as we embraced a new thing, but for some, the ideas of just focusing on the hobby and cooperating to make an enjoyable experience was refreshing in the extreme.  It's how the game was designed, and at long last GW had put its money where its mouth was, so to speak. Clearly, sales were not as strong as they needed, so they shifted gears, and it feels to me like everything since has been a difficult attempt to wedge in bits and tack on parts to make a game designed to not be points-based into that.

[AaronWilson]

Doesn't seem too many core rule changes, though it seems to confirm rule of one is overridden by warscrolls.

Plaguetouched / Fatesworn Warband is dead, whoever deploys first does choose. 

More erratas to Tzeentch, ouchie. 

[Tip4Tap]

Regarding books, when 40k was released they dropped Index books for each ‘grand alliance’ as it were. These indexes were used for a time (and for some armies still are used) until books were brought out for the respective armies. I think the same should have been done for AoS 2. I feel like they should have given each grand alliance and index which contained new rules for each specific faction. Then released new battletomes at the same rate as 40k. 

While I know GW have released books like DoK and Deepkin recently, other armies need some love just to stay relevant. This would also solve the issue for armies they will never release a battletome for.  They could have put all these sub factions into one alliance book. 

I dunno maybe I’m talking rubbish but it just feels to me they did a better job book wise with 40k.

[PlasticCraic]

11 hours ago, Infeston said:

Also wasn't it mentioned somewhere that the Thundertusk can now run and shoot? Maybe I have misheard this.

Yes Ben said that on Stormcast, but he was wrong. 

He was probably thinking of the Blood Vulture because that does not have a Missile Weapon profile, it is a pure Ability that happens to trigger in the Shooting Phase.  There is nothing stopping you using an Ability in the shooting phase, even if you ran.

Whereas the Frost Wreathed Ice attack does have a Missile Weapon profile - it is a Missile Weapon that also happens to have an Ability.  But that doesn't stop it being a Missile Weapon.

The definition of shooting is using Missile Weapons (see Page 5 of the Core Rules).  You cannot use that Missile Weapon (i.e. shoot) whether or not that Missile Weapon happens to have any special Abilities of its own, because there is nothing there to override the Core Rules - unless you have another Ability that specifically says you can run and shoot, in which case the Warscroll would indeed override the Core Rules.

So that's the distinction.  They really should have checked in preparation before the show / fact checked and edited before transmission, because I've heard a lot of people repeat that in confusion.  

[RuneBrush]

6 minutes ago, Tip4Tap said:

Regarding books, when 40k was released they dropped Index books for each ‘grand alliance’ as it were. These indexes were used for a time (and for some armies still are used) until books were brought out for the respective armies. I think the same should have been done for AoS 2. I feel like they should have given each grand alliance and index which contained new rules for each specific faction. Then released new battletomes at the same rate as 40k. 

While I know GW have released books like DoK and Deepkin recently, other armies need some love just to stay relevant. This would also solve the issue for armies they will never release a battletome for.  They could have put all these sub factions into one alliance book. 

I dunno maybe I’m talking rubbish but it just feels to me they did a better job book wise with 40k.

GW did this when the original AoS dropped in the form of the four Grand Alliance books - of which 3 are still valid books.

I do think that a rapid fire release of battletomes would be amazing, but I feel the reason this worked for 40k is because each army already has a pretty comprehensive background to pull on - in some cases decades of background lore.  The index books were also in some cases superseded within a few months which did wind up a lot of players.

For AoS I actually think what they've done is a more elegant solution, all of the warscrolls are free and we've allegiance abilities/rules within the Generals Handbook.  That means if there isn't a battletome (or it's not one of the ones released this year) then you only need to buy one book to give you the extra rules you need to run your faction.  In theory I could decide I wanted to collect a Freeguild army and have everything I need to play one without buying anything other than models

[Killax]

Speaking of Freeguild.

Since this edition seems to actually focus and give a damn about Order and Death.

What's to play next? @RuneBrush 

56 minutes ago, Tip4Tap said:

I dunno maybe I’m talking rubbish but it just feels to me they did a better job book wise with 40k.

Well at least they got the bases right, right? It all starts from the ground up.

Whoever finished the AoS2 core rules did a great job. The crew who made the points show bias royally. The crew who made these official base size documents and errata/designer notes splits seems to be completely new to AoS and model sales history. 

[Vanger]

43 minutes ago, Killax said:

Speaking of Freeguild.

Since this edition seems to actually focus and give a damn about Order and Death.

What's to play next? @RuneBrush 

Well at least they got the bases right, right? It all starts from the ground up.

Whoever finished the AoS2 core rules did a great job. The crew who made the points show bias royally. The crew who made these official base size documents and errata/designer notes splits seems to be completely new to AoS and model sales history. 

To be fair, the 40K devs get a lot of feedback from the various tournaments and their organizers, who also act as testers. And the last year was not without their missteps. They had to nerf Fliers, Characters, Smite spam, the deep strike alpha meta. Transports are useless currently. There was no point cost correction for units after the "Rule of 3" was introduced. Some armies have internal balance issues.
40K has the larger community going for them and the fast paced codex release.  If AoS people could count on the fact that their faction gets a battletome in the next 1-1,5 years it would be much better.

I personally feel that after the mess that was the release of Age of Sigmar,  the GHB was a stopgap solution and a guinea pig how a "living ruleset" can work. After the release of 40K 8th ed did they implement all that they learned and promised us a structure of errata-FAQ-GHB/CA. I think they will also implement everything they learned from 40K 8th in AoS2. Or at least I hope so.

[Killax]

5 minutes ago, Vanger said:

To be fair, the 40K devs get a lot of feedback from the various tournaments and their organizers, who also act as testers. And the last year was not without their missteps. They had to nerf Fliers, Characters, Smite spam, the deep strike alpha meta. Transports are useless currently. There was no point cost correction for units after the "Rule of 3" was introduced. Some armies have internal balance issues.
40K has the larger community going for them and the fast paced codex release.  If AoS people could count on the fact that their faction gets a battletome in the next 1-1,5 years it would be much better.

I personally feel that after the mess that was the release of Age of Sigmar,  the GHB was a stopgap solution and a guinea pig how a "living ruleset" can work. After the release of 40K 8th ed did they implement all that they learned and promised us a structure of errata-FAQ-GHB/CA. I think they will also implement everything they learned from 40K 8th in AoS2. Or at least I hope so.

Certainly agree with you there. Tons of missteps and corrections there also. However the way I see it is that because of that you would think that AoS would come out as a better product. Assuming the same design teams are working on both projects.

I really like the Core Rules for AoS2 but for the life of me don't know what is actually going on with many factions. I'm not even that upset where Khorne is at, really other factions went in way stranger directions. Now to top that of the fact that GW isn't even able to list the bases of the products they sell correctly just makes it all look incredibly clunky.

I too like a living rulesset. However if I were to go for a new edition the first thing I would do is basically include everything that was in the Errata and have it so that you don't have to deal with Errata's anymore. Instead GW chose to split the documents in Errata and Designer Nores, which only adds to the unclearity as there are even more documents to go through.

To me it shouldn't have to be this hard to understand the game in it's forms. If you understand what I mean.
A new edition should be open to new players, not drown them in 16+ Errata documents. That even contain new 'mistakes'? 

[ledha]

the problem is making lot of change rule that are changed again when in matched play. It's lot of back-and-forth between possible and unpossibe things that confuse everyone

[Tip4Tap]

I think the thing that worries/gets me the most is not knowing what is and what’s not going to be supported going forward. In 40k I know I can buy into most armies because they will 100% get new books/models going forward. 

I feel (this is just my opinion) that AoS is all over the place with releases. Yes people want to see new models and new armies and I think GW are doing an amazing job with the new ranges. However, people also want older factions to be fleshed out.

Do we really need yet another storm cast chamber? 

I like everyone else wants to know if I spend money on an army it’s going to get some love going forward. I don’t want to wait 2 years for a new release etc. It almost seems to me if you want guaranteed stuff go Stormcast or just wait.

 

[Vanger]

8 minutes ago, Killax said:

Certainly agree with you there. Tons of missteps and corrections there also. However the way I see it is that because of that you would think that AoS would come out as a better product. Assuming the same design teams are working on both projects.

I really like the Core Rules for AoS2 but for the life of me don't know what is actually going on with many factions. I'm not even that upset where Khorne is at, really other factions went in way stranger directions. Now to top that of the fact that GW isn't even able to list the bases of the products they sell correctly just makes it all look incredibly clunky.

I too like a living rulesset. However if I were to go for a new edition the first thing I would do is basically include everything that was in the Errata and have it so that you don't have to deal with Errata's anymore. Instead GW chose to split the documents in Errata and Designer Nores, which only adds to the unclearity as there are even more documents to go through.

To me it shouldn't have to be this hard to understand the game in it's forms. If you understand what I mean.
A new edition should be open to new players, not drown them in 16+ Errata documents. That even contain new 'mistakes'? 

It's not the same design team. And communication between teams definitely needs improvement, just look at how GW and how Forge World designs unit profiles, rules and point costs.

What I would definitely love is a statement from GW what their plan is with AoS factions. Leave them fragmented and publish "Legion" battletomes or once again rework them into more cohesive armies. But that would be a commitment and I don't know if the AoS guys are ready for that.