Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[PJetski]

Just now, Infeston said:

Ehm. Okay. I never said that? Now you are making assumptions based on one sentence I wrote. 

I don't find this fear to be irrational. We are talking about a models which are underrepresented at events and have received no real update even before the GHB2017. Also GW did nothing to really fix some of the balance issues with these Destruction factions and most of the "updates" for Destruction factions (except Ironjawz) often felt kind of lazy. So I am only adding things up.

I also don't see myself as a victim. I am just stating what I fear might happen. And I don't see me harming myself in any way. ? Maybe tomorrow we will get a BCR faction focus. But the fact that every other faction received more than one focus and Destruction received only one makes me sceptical. And we as Destruction players are used to these kind of changes.

It seems I read too much into it. It's a viewpoint I see very often in AOS discussions, so perhaps I jumped the gun and made too many assumptions.

It's strange to me that people view themselves as "destruction players", and not as "Ironjawz players" or "beastclaw players". I don't think many people playing Wanderers considers themselves to be an "Order player", so it's strange that it's such a common sentiment among people who collect destruction.

[ageofpaddsmar]

Most of the faction focuses have been to do with the rules drops. So why am i still waiting for the seraphon one they should have been done with magic or summoning

[Infeston]

Just now, Chikout said:

The Ko article was a bit disappointing. A big drop to the gunhauler's price is one of the most obvious changes to make. I am surprised the haven't made thunderers battleline,  it would make the start collecting set a much more worthwhile purchase.

Regarding destruction,  it seems likely that we will get their faction focuses alongside the combat rules previews.

Jeah thats what I was also speculating on. Maybe a Beastclaw Raiders focus with the "chargers strike first" rule preview? ? 

Let's wait and see. ? 

[Infeston]

1 minute ago, PJetski said:

It seems I read too much into it. It's a viewpoint I see very often in AOS discussions, so perhaps I jumped the gun and made too many assumptions.

It's strange to me that people view themselves as "destruction players", and not as "Ironjawz players" or "beastclaw players". I don't think many people playing Wanderers considers themselves to be an "Order player", so it's strange that it's such a common sentiment among people who collect destruction.

Jeah. Maybe this is because we don't have as many minis than the other factions. If we would have such factions as Stormcast which have so many models we would propably also see ourselves as players of one faction.

But to have a diversity of models in Destruction you very often have to ally with other Destruction factions to get a cool and versatile army. Maybe we see ourselves as Destruction players, because of that. BCR only has a few models. Many lists combine Orruks with Grots or Ogors with Grots or Trolls. 

That might be why I would consider myself as a Destruction player.

[novakai]

I mean if you where a O&G Player or fan from WHF your pretty much a Destruction Player since they make up about 60-70% of the whole GA range

[Thomas Lyons]

 

25 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

"The Grundstok Gunhauler is now 160 points, 80 (!) less than its previous cost in 2017"

Is it enough to make this tiny yet pretty ship efficient/good choice? Point reduction for frigate can be interesting because of the transport ability, but the lilly ship on the other hand...? I'm not good enough on KO to say.

Can a KO player give some insight?

To further put a pin on this, compare the Gunhauler (now at 160) with the Allopex (140). 

 

Gunhaulers, with their adjusted point costs, make Allopexes look like a steal.

?

[GeneralZero]

...or the gunhauler is 140 because GW is saying 80 points than before (and it was 220 before)

[bsharitt]

Just got my KO army up to 2000 points, but it looks like I'll have room for allies again. Price drops for ships are nice and should make them viable, maybe not tournament winning lists, but they shouldn't feel as useless in even casual games. I was really hoping to see something for the arkanaut company like over watch or the thunderers fall back and shoot. Maybe they'll at least get cheaper. Being mediocre at shooting(and set to get worse) and mediocre at combat, poor save, awful bravery; 120 points makes them one of the more expensive battle line taxes. Sure you can make them better with buffs from heroes, but then instead of buffing good units to make the awesome, you've buffing mediocre units to make the sort of okayish. Of course a helpful thing would be a conditional battle line for one of the other units.

In any case I'll just have to consider the 360 points sunk costs(the 180 in zombies on my death army is much easier to swallow) and see what else I can do. I may get some more thunderers and a second gun hauler and see if a grundstock gun line might actually be viable now. Some grapnel armed endrinriggers to get behind enemy lines and mix things up while the arkanauts hopefully slow down the enemy for a turn while they die and run away.

[Furuzzolo]

I have a point against the "charge goes first" argument, now! No change to Thunderers retreat ability, so: before the opponent had to chose between start combat against thunderers or look at them run away. If charging you activate your units before me what the thunderer's ability point is?

That would be mean... 

[Skrekkugle]

I wonder if shooting units in general are going down in points.. Would kind of negate the Look Out Sir rule tho. More guns = more hits.

Totally agree that KO needs some major point drops. Mine are sitting half built collecting dust but this might get me motivated to paint them up. That Gunhauler still seems too pricy for what it does though.

Personally I can't wait for the new edition! Looks awesome so far!

[Carnelian]

Don't forget if the other boats are going down in points too you get more utility out of their escort rule and also that they are built into a v shooty faction that can still overwhelm with fire power 

[Thomas Lyons]

16 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

...or the gunhauler is 140 because GW is saying 80 points than before (and it was 220 before)

It's not.  Ben Johnson, the head of the design team, confirmed it is 160.  

  

Allopexes are still cheaper ?

[Hoseman]

But allopex does not have too much distance damage, I see them as different kind of units...

Btw I have a doubt with combat on flying units.... I read somewhere that a floor unit cant get in combat with flying units. So if I go Idoneth or nighthaunt with everything that can fly and I dont go combat with anybody means that anybody can charge or get on close combat with me?

[Thomas Lyons]

8 minutes ago, Hoseman said:

But allopex does not have too much distance damage, I see them as different kind of units...

Btw I have a doubt with combat on flying units.... I read somewhere that a floor unit cant get in combat with flying units. So if I go Idoneth or nighthaunt with everything that can fly and I dont go combat with anybody means that anybody can charge or get on close combat with me?

Allopexes have essentially the same damage at distance.  Gunhaulers don't get all of the attacks on their profile.  

On combat with flying units, we have nothing to suggest such a rules change.  We will only have to wait and see what comes in the core rules.

[Christopher Rowe]

6 minutes ago, Hoseman said:

But allopex does not have too much distance damage, I see them as different kind of units...

Btw I have a doubt with combat on flying units.... I read somewhere that a floor unit cant get in combat with flying units. So if I go Idoneth or nighthaunt with everything that can fly and I dont go combat with anybody means that anybody can charge or get on close combat with me?

Close combat between flying and grounded units depends upon some of the most widely ignored rules in the game as far as I can tell, or at least they're widely ignored in my area and in the games I've watched played on YouTube and Twitch. The rules are quite clear--and they're further clarified in a FAQ--that the two types of units still have to be in range of one another to use their melee weapons against one another. So if you have a Skink with a 1" range melee weapon base to base with a flying unit on top of an elevation pillar that's two or three inches high, the Skink simply can't attack the flying unit (and likewise, the flying unit probably can't attack the Skink). I've pointed out this rule, pointed out the FAQ, and argued logic until I'm blue in the face locally, but people just don't care. Base to base means close combat with all melee weapons regardless of range for many players. I find it frustrating, as it renders things like Rippderdactyl Riders' Swooping Dive ability essentially meaningless.

[Hoseman]

2 minutes ago, Christopher Rowe said:

Close combat between flying and grounded units depends upon some of the most widely ignored rules in the game as far as I can tell, or at least they're widely ignored in my area and in the games I've watched played on YouTube and Twitch. The rules are quite clear--and they're further clarified in a FAQ--that the two types of units still have to be in range of one another to use their melee weapons against one another. So if you have a Skink with a 1" range melee weapon base to base with a flying unit on top of an elevation pillar that's two or three inches high, the Skink simply can't attack the flying unit (and likewise, the flying unit probably can't attack the Skink). I've pointed out this rule, pointed out the FAQ, and argued logic until I'm blue in the face locally, but people just don't care. Base to base means close combat with all melee weapons regardless of range for many players. I find it frustrating, as it renders things like Rippderdactyl Riders' Swooping Dive ability essentially meaningless.

Thanks a lot for the answer. I like to follow the rules and that was a doubt I had because I'm making an Idoneth army.

Said this, I want that new box out because I wanna play with all the new rules and magic stuff... I want it now!

[Thomas Lyons]

2 minutes ago, Christopher Rowe said:

Close combat between flying and grounded units depends upon some of the most widely ignored rules in the game as far as I can tell, or at least they're widely ignored in my area and in the games I've watched played on YouTube and Twitch. The rules are quite clear--and they're further clarified in a FAQ--that the two types of units still have to be in range of one another to use their melee weapons against one another. So if you have a Skink with a 1" range melee weapon base to base with a flying unit on top of an elevation pillar that's two or three inches high, the Skink simply can't attack the flying unit (and likewise, the flying unit probably can't attack the Skink). I've pointed out this rule, pointed out the FAQ, and argued logic until I'm blue in the face locally, but people just don't care. Base to base means close combat with all melee weapons regardless of range for many players. I find it frustrating, as it renders things like Rippderdactyl Riders' Swooping Dive ability essentially meaningless.

Indeed Chris.  But GW themselves play base to base on Twitch and at their events and ignore this very rule.  I know the playtesters test the game assuming standard base to base rules.  I wouldn't be surprised if this disappears in the new edition.

[erasercrumbs]

A step in the right direction for KO ships. 

My biggest problem with KO in general is that they look scarier than they are.  You'd never know that Frigate looming overhead is so fragile and sparsely-armed. 

[Christopher Rowe]

23 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Indeed Chris.  But GW themselves play base to base on Twitch and at their events and ignore this very rule.  I know the playtesters test the game assuming standard base to base rules.  I wouldn't be surprised if this disappears in the new edition.

Oh, I understand and agree with the rationales put forward for taking measurements base to base when the opposing units are either both on the ground or both flying. I just don't think those same rationales make any sense for the interaction between flying and grounded units. It just doesn't make any sense to me. A goblin less than an inch high armed with a melee weapon with a one inch range is somehow able to engage in close combat with an enemy in the skies overhead? How does that work? And why, in tournament play, do vertical differences in position "count" when one model is standing on a piece of terrain and an opposing model is standing on the ground below, but vertical differences in position do not count when one of the models is flying? That element adds inconsistency to the already-present irrationality in the standard practice.

To keep this on-topic, my hope is that base to base measurement is enshrined in the rules for units that are on the same "plane" (flying or grounded). But not otherwise.

[ageofpaddsmar]

5 minutes ago, Christopher Rowe said:

Oh, I understand and agree with the rationales put forward for taking measurements base to base when the opposing units are either both on the ground or both flying. I just don't think those same rationales make any sense for the interaction between flying and grounded units. It just doesn't make any sense to me. A goblin less than an inch high armed with a melee weapon with a one inch range is somehow able to engage in close combat with an enemy in the skies overhead? How does that work? And why, in tournament play, do vertical differences in position "count" when one model is standing on a piece of terrain and an opposing model is standing on the ground below, but vertical differences in position do not count when one of the models is flying? That element adds inconsistency to the already-present irrationality in the standard practice.

To keep this on-topic, my hope is that base to base measurement is enshrined in the rules for units that are on the same "plane" (flying or grounded). But not otherwise.

The goblin simply strikes the flyer as it comes in low to attack the goblin. 

[Christopher Rowe]

3 minutes ago, ageofpaddsmar said:

The goblin simply strikes the flyer as it comes in low to attack the goblin. 

But that takes choice away from the flyer's player/general. What if the flyer wants to stay in the sky? And again, the existence of rules like the Ripperdactyl Riders' "Swooping Dive" ability indicates to me that flyers do not have to engage with grounded enemies, that, quite the opposite, the player/general has to actively make a decision--sometimes dependent on an ability--to engage at all.

[Carnelian]

13 minutes ago, Christopher Rowe said:

why, in tournament play, do vertical differences in position "count" when one model is standing on a piece of terrain and an opposing model is standing on the ground below, but vertical differences in position do not count when one of the models is flying? 

Because the vertical volume reaches down from the top of the model to the base

[Christopher Rowe]

2 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

Because the vertical volume reaches down from the top of the model to the base

But that measurement, between the two volumes, still has to constitute a distance no greater than the range of the attacking model's melee weapons, n'est-ce pas?

If one of the models is standing on a piece of terrain three or four inches above an enemy model that's standing on the ground, but is otherwise "adjacent," can the two models attack one other with melee weapons that have a range of 1 inch, assuming both models are, say, Saurus Warrior sized?

[Brightstar]

2 hours ago, Infeston said:

Jeah thats what I was also speculating on. Maybe a Beastclaw Raiders focus with the "chargers strike first" rule preview? ? 

Let's wait and see. ? 

I would rather have them fix the beast claw raiders then make this change to the core rules.  

[Brightstar]

1 hour ago, Thomas Lyons said:

 

To further put a pin on this, compare the Gunhauler (now at 160) with the Allopex (140). 

 

Gunhaulers, with their adjusted point costs, make Allopexes look like a steal.

?

I see your point here, but on paper the gunhauler has a lot of special rules that improve tactical flexibility and can cause mortal wounds. Gw may be pro-rating that a bit higher.  

When GW introduced points it allowed them to fix balance issues through points instead of profiles as GW has always done. That has never worked well for any game as points efficiency is what drives list building which in turn creates outrageous power curves between various armies - see netlists and list tiers. 

If they would focus instead on internal balance between profiles of  the same type - these two being  a prime example of that - they could establish a more consistent design throughout the entire game. 

That being said its a 20 point difference. I think in GW's design philosophy its a marginal difference that is,  "close enough to essentially be the same."

Now if that doesnt work for your perceived value of a gunhauler, I get it. Where as, if it had like a 4+ save, like the Allopex its value would be more attractive to you?