Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[lolwut]

I'm unclear why they nerfed arcane bolt. It gets cast 1 time per turn. Big deal...

[lolwut]

12 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Shedload of points, LoC for 300pt doesn't feel that much IMO. But maybe it will cost more.

But almost regardless of points is this really going to be playable in matched play. Nagash throwing units around with banishment just to pick the spell we have seen seems very... hmm strong. But we haven't seen all yet so we might have missed something.

Call me crazy, but isn't Nagash pretty weak in his current form relative to his cost? 

[Andreas]

1 minute ago, lolwut said:

Call me crazy, but isn't Nagash pretty weak in his current form relative to his cost? 

You crazy ?

[Rogue Explorator]

Something interesting:

The magic article states that the new realm lores are dependant on the realm the game is played in. So likely not planable.

The Tzeentch article states endless spells can be "grabbed", so actively chosen. That implies they are not part of the lores.

Endless spells being a players choice makes sense to me, you need a miniature to use them, buying and painting those those without knowing wether they come into play sound not very enjoyable.

[Tittliewinks22]

1 minute ago, lolwut said:

Call me crazy, but isn't Nagash pretty weak in his current form relative to his cost? 

He got buffed to be able to use all 8 of his spells in the most recent legion book as long as you bring one other wizard.  Now with the loss of mystic shield for Nagash he can only use 6 spells solo, needing two other wizards to cast 8.

Granted this is assuming he has no access to any endless or realm spells (which he likely will have access too).

On top of being a beast in combat and having the ability to recover wounds via a few spells and in a particular batallion be able to pass off wounds/mortal wounds. 

Currently there is no revealed way to get him back to his 2+ rerollable save due to the changes to mystic shield.

Prior to LoN book I would say he wasn't worth his points. But now with the point reduction to 800 and access to a plethora of spells, he is much more worthy.

I do not think he is worth 900 points if they decide to increase his points cost.

[BURF1]

23 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Shedload of points, LoC for 300pt doesn't feel that much IMO. But maybe it will cost more.

But almost regardless of points is this really going to be playable in matched play. Nagash throwing units around with banishment just to pick the spell we have seen seems very... hmm strong. But we haven't seen all yet so we might have missed something.

As long as the spell lores are tied to the different realms they won't be playable in matched play without houserules.

[Cookiez]

Don't get your hopes high. The new spells, as stated many times by people, if tied to relams, won't be playable in matched. And the dispell range change is really bad. Huge buff to already amazing armies - Nagash, Tzeentch, Khorne (Flesh Hounds). Nurgle, for example, won't be even able to cast ANY of his crucial spells against those three. I belive 24" could have been so much better.

[Skabnoze]

18 minutes ago, BURF1 said:

As long as the spell lores are tied to the different realms they won't be playable in matched play without houserules.

Why would they not be playable?  Simply roll a die to see what realm the battle takes place in - so people know what spells they have access to.   Or you could simply agree with the opponent (dice roll for when people don't agree).  And hopefully organized events will take the initiative and plan specific realms for specific tables.

I used to play the Wizarding Hat in 8th edition Fantasy on my goblin general fairly often - so I am used to totally random spell lores.  It was actually a whole lot of fun.  I think my favorite was getting the comet spell that hit on a random turn after casting and would blow up a huge radius.  I would just trap people in combat with humongous units of 70-100 goblins and then drop the comet right on top of everyone - although the General usually had enough smarts to stand outside of the blast radius.  Cowardice is the better part of valor...

[PJetski]

Do you guys even read the rules? Even the 1.0 rules say you are supposed to play in a realm and how to pick it.

[lolwut]

35 minutes ago, Tittliewinks22 said:

He got buffed to be able to use all 8 of his spells in the most recent legion book as long as you bring one other wizard.  Now with the loss of mystic shield for Nagash he can only use 6 spells solo, needing two other wizards to cast 8.

Granted this is assuming he has no access to any endless or realm spells (which he likely will have access too).

On top of being a beast in combat and having the ability to recover wounds via a few spells and in a particular batallion be able to pass off wounds/mortal wounds. 

Currently there is no revealed way to get him back to his 2+ rerollable save due to the changes to mystic shield.

Prior to LoN book I would say he wasn't worth his points. But now with the point reduction to 800 and access to a plethora of spells, he is much more worthy.

I do not think he is worth 900 points if they decide to increase his points cost.

I understand the benefits you're speaking of....

Except in order to pass off wounds, you're talking about a substantial investment. Over 1000 points to have Nagash and just his bodyguard. He doesn't put out enough damage to justify that kind of cost, at least in my opinion. 

Of course, if Endless and Realm spells become a part of *matched* play then that's a different story, because it'll give him access to other things, but right now, i'd say he is *not* worth his points, based on what i've seen in 2nd edition so far. His arcane bolt is less effective. Mystic Shield is dead for Nagash, unless his command ability changes. 

Perhaps I'll need to see more information released. But right now, this seems like a significant nerf to Nagash and the LoN. I do play that faction, so i guess i'll just wait and see. Maybe there's a way to run Nagash as a part of Nighthaunt in the new codex, and get access to new spells. Who knows, we'll see. 

Personally i'd rather see him lose his melee almost completely but drop in cost to like 500 points, and just be a kickass wizard. 

[Gotrek]

Nagash still isnt worth 800 points. Mainly because those 800 points are better spent on getting a vampire on zombie dragon, 2 necros and a vampire on foot. Less spells and no bonus to cast/unbind sure but you regenerate so much better and regeneration is the real engine of the army

[chord]

45 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Do you guys even read the rules? Even the 1.0 rules say you are supposed to play in a realm and how to pick it.

Nope, that's also the reason people never measure how many models can see past other units in an army for shooting..

 

[BURF1]

51 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

Why would they not be playable?  Simply roll a die to see what realm the battle takes place in - so people know what spells they have access to.   Or you could simply agree with the opponent (dice roll for when people don't agree).  And hopefully organized events will take the initiative and plan specific realms for specific tables.

I used to play the Wizarding Hat in 8th edition Fantasy on my goblin general fairly often - so I am used to totally random spell lores.  It was actually a whole lot of fun.  I think my favorite was getting the comet spell that hit on a random turn after casting and would blow up a huge radius.  I would just trap people in combat with humongous units of 70-100 goblins and then drop the comet right on top of everyone - although the General usually had enough smarts to stand outside of the blast radius.  Cowardice is the better part of valor...

Because you don't do any of that in matched play, what you are suggesting are hourse-rules, which I did mention.  Just based off of the one spell we've seen I wouldn't want to play against the new spell lores anyway, 'Tzeentch and nagash get to permanently remove one of your units from the game' just doesn't sound like a very balanced spell to me.

(Side bar: a pretty good rule of thumb is that the phrase 'agree with your opponent' generally excludes things from at least organized matched play.)

[BURF1]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

Do you guys even read the rules? Even the 1.0 rules say you are supposed to play in a realm and how to pick it.

The 1.0 rules also say that if you have a third more models than your opponent, he can choose a sudden death victory conditions. No one uses those either.

[Jamopower]

I guess 'tournaments' on place of matched play would be more accurate. Which again includes practice games etc. But in a regular pick-up matched club game, if both agree, why not? Then again, is it still matched or does. It go over the fence to the narrative side, hard to tell ?

[BURF1]

13 minutes ago, chord said:

Nope, that's also the reason people never measure how many models can see past other units in an army for shooting..

 

That's because the answer is always 'every model'. It's almost impossible to block LoS of an entire unit with a unit.

[chord]

10 minutes ago, BURF1 said:

That's because the answer is always 'every model'. It's almost impossible to block LoS of an entire unit with a unit.

Not in my experience

[chord]

12 minutes ago, BURF1 said:

The 1.0 rules also say that if you have a third more models than your opponent, he can choose a sudden death victory conditions. No one uses those either.

Almost every battleplan tells you to ignore that. 

[Skabnoze]

20 minutes ago, BURF1 said:

Because you don't do any of that in matched play, what you are suggesting are hourse-rules, which I did mention. 

Why do you not do any of that in matched play?  Page 1 of the core rules, 3rd paragraph under the section "The Battlefield" specifies that you pick a realm to play in with your opponent and if you cannot agree then you roll off and the winner decides.  Does the GHB 2017 say to ignore that section?  I don't remember it doing so, but it is possible.

[TheOtherJosh]

21 minutes ago, chord said:

35 minutes ago, BURF1 said:

The 1.0 rules also say that if you have a third more models than your opponent, he can choose a sudden death victory conditions. No one uses those either.

Almost every battleplan tells you to ignore that. 

And ... all the open war cards have completely different victory conditions.

14 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

Why do you not do any of that in matched play?

Likely for the same reason that most folks only play the minimal battleplans in the GHB, don’t tend to play the battleplans in the Battletomes, don’t use open war cards, and also don’t use the Mysterious Terrain battlefield rule when playing.

“It makes the game too random.”

This ... while playing a game that requires rolling dice ... ?

[lolwut]

There is a difference here in what should be used (opinion) versus what is used (fact). 

Whether or not what should be used aligns with what is used is irrelevant for the purposes of this specific discussion. What is used, is used, and that defines the quality of the units. 

 

Edit - sorry some posts have elapsed.. i'm referencing realms of battle.

[PJetski]

I always find it funny that the people who complain AOS does not have enough depth tend to be the same people who choose not to use time of battle realmscapes and mysterious terrain.

Now GW is expanding those features and people are saying they still won't use them? None of this makes any sense to me. It's like playing Smash Bros 1v1 on final destination with no items and complaining that the game doesn't have enough variety.

[Karol]

21 minutes ago, PJetski said:

time of battle realmscapes and mysterious terrain.

Aren't both considered an abomination on to Nuggan?

I like the changes a lot. My army doesn't have magic, totems and priests don't seem nerfed, Magic is easier to counter, or at least a lot of the choices that seemed too situational seems more valid. At the same time, I understand though that people that are in the middle as magic goes, can be worried. I just hope that summoning won't be countered, in some way.

[Burf]

2 hours ago, PJetski said:

I always find it funny that the people who complain AOS does not have enough depth tend to be the same people who choose not to use time of battle realmscapes and mysterious terrain.

Now GW is expanding those features and people are saying they still won't use them? None of this makes any sense to me. It's like playing Smash Bros 1v1 on final destination with no items and complaining that the game doesn't have enough variety.

Those don't add depth, they add book-keeping and RNG. Get the wrong combination of those things and you can end a game in deployment. They just aren't well thought out enough for matched play, except for mystical terrain but that mostly gets overlooked for being tedious without adding much to the overall game.

Example, I'm playing any not-death army, You're playing LoN. We roll Shyish. I shake your hand and go get lunch.

Aqshy on a low terrain table, I've go 9 units of judicators, 2 units of longstrikes and knight azyros

[Balloon Dwarf]

1 hour ago, Karol said:

Aren't both considered an abomination on to Nuggan?

I like the changes a lot. My army doesn't have magic, totems and priests don't seem nerfed, Magic is easier to counter, or at least a lot of the choices that seemed too situational seems more valid. At the same time, I understand though that people that are in the middle as magic goes, can be worried. I just hope that summoning won't be countered, in some way.

Let's be fair, everything is an abomination unto Nuggan. 

I'm in the midst of building my KO army and I think it'll be nice to see the rise of the navigator. Most lists seem to exclude him in favour of the Khemist so I'm interested. I did get royally murdered by a Tzeentch army the other day so some unbinds might be a help.