Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[Furuzzolo]

That was a glorious faction focus! 

Ironbreakers as battleline solve so many list building problem, not talkig about point reduction for all the elite units!  I'm super-happy about my dispossessed and eager to field them in 2.0 ?

[SaJeel]

5 minutes ago, Furuzzolo said:

That was a glorious faction focus! 

Ironbreakers as battleline solve so many list building problem, not talkig about point reduction for all the elite units!  I'm super-happy about my dispossessed and eager to field them in 2.0 ?

Indeed it was 

[HorticulusTGA]

On the new June White Dwarf product page, there is some more views on the maps of the Mortal Realms : 

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/White-Dwarf-jun-2018-eng-2018 

My eyes are ****** now. 

[oscisi]

23 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

Very likely.  From Shyish.  

Sorry names escaping me...

Purple Sun - Uglu
Banishment - Azyr
The wall - Hysh
The mouth - Ghur
The swords - Chamon
Burning head - Aqshy
Clock thing - Ghyran maybe?

I think that covers it so far.

 

I think the "clock thing", the Chronomantic Cogs, are inherent to Chamon, the realm of Metal. Tried to get it organised to get a better idea. This is what I came up with. Some of it is pure guessing though, and the drawings are just for fun.

[Gotrek]

Pffft. Wheres my faction focus for the mighty ironweld arsonal huh? When will my gyrocopters get made battleline? Help! Help! I'm being repressed! See the bigotry inherent in the system! (Yes mods, im joking. Though i would love for the arsonal to get a battleline troop...)

[blueshirtman]

6 hours ago, Lemondish said:

They showed a new spell (which I know everyone is ignoring because it requires an allied unit), some synergy with the realm specific artefacts stacking on a Stonehorn, and increased flexibility when choosing a battalion. 

I can tell that this is not enough for many, but to act like there's nothing there or resulting to what aboutism kind of sounds like nothing but a full overhaul would have satisfied many of you, and I'm sorry to say but I get the impression that was pretty unlikely. 

You know if BCR were a mid of the pack faction, then yeah maybe some added ally focus and a relic or two could be enough. But when your the worse faction in the game, the perspective is different. A bit won't change the fact that we will stay the worse faction, unless the points drops are really huge.

Also if we are playing with ally why put the wizards, relics etc in to a BCR list when you can achive the same or even better results running something different from destruction. So isn't much help for people who play destruction soup and are looking for new units to add, and it doesn't help epople who want to play BCR.

Compare what BCR with a full new magic system, more utilty from relics by share fact of not needing ally to cast spells, and more heros to give relics to and I feel the future looks bleak, unless GW went all smoke and mirrors, and hid most of the BCR stuff from us.

[blueshirtman]

1 hour ago, SaJeel said:

Its up now https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/06/02/june-2nd-faction-focus-dispossessedgw-homepage-post-3/ praise Grungni

Fun, the part when they say to get gunhuaulers made me actually laugh. The changes to some of the stuff seem very nice, battle line armored dudes are going to be very strong.

[heywoah_twitch]

The dispossessed faction focus was pretty exciting for me, actually. Longbeards are already great, so making them cheaper was a pleasant surprise. Getting those irondrakes, ironbreakers, hopefully hammerers down in cost will do much to breathe life into the army (they were just pure overpriced before). Ironbreaker battleline is nice, a unit getting a tad of a meta buff as the 5+ spellshield will be potentially more useful now. Runelords used to be just about your best unit, and now that 30" unbind at +2 puts them over the top. Running 3-4 of them might move from 'a bit much' to 'the baseline standard'.

As much as I roll my eyes when a faction focus tells you to ally in someone else from some other faction (because they couldn't be bothered to give your army enough variety/balance and it really is missing integral jobs - shoutouts to bcr, ironjawz), the KO mention is fair. 2 units of 6 skywardens sits at exactly 400pts and really is the bbq sauce in the dispossessed half-rack of ribs dinner. The cost reductions, allies, runelords, and of course the pickaxe on 30 longbeards might just put dispossessed into 'proper viable army tier'.

[Double Misfire]

57 minutes ago, Gotrek said:

Pffft. Wheres my faction focus for the mighty ironweld arsonal huh? When will my gyrocopters get made battleline? Help! Help! I'm being repressed! See the bigotry inherent in the system! (Yes mods, im joking. Though i would love for the arsonal to get a battleline troop...)

Never joke about Ironweld Arsenal neglect. The only reason we haven't had a faction focus yet is because we're long overdue a Battletome reveal.  

If we don't get battleline Organ Guns in the new GHB I'm driving a Steam Tank to Nottingham.

[MacDuff]

A battleline of Organ Guns would be a sight to behold! (As long as I was BEHIND them.)

[bsharitt]

33 minutes ago, Double Misfire said:

Never joke about Ironweld Arsenal neglect. The only reason we haven't had a faction focus yet is because we're long overdue a Battletome reveal.  

If we don't get battleline Organ Guns in the new GHB I'm driving a Steam Tank to Nottingham.

You joke, but of the various free people's, I think they're probably one of the best chances of getting a battletome and new units. They've been featured narratively with lots of stuff they don't actually have. I could see them become a fantasy Adepetis Mechanicus. The Kharadron Overlords has such a naval theme that there's plenty of room to have another fantasy steampunk army that's much different.

[Double Misfire]

Just now, bsharitt said:

You joke, but of the various free people's, I think they're probably one of the best chances of getting a battletome and new units. They've been featured narratively with lots of stuff they don't actually have. I could see them become a fantasy Adepetis Mechanicus. The Kharadron Overlords has such a naval theme that there's plenty of room to have another fantasy steampunk army that's much different.

All they really need is Thunderers and/or Outriders moved over from Dispossessed/Freeguild and made conditional battleline. They're never used over Quarrellers/Pistoliers anyway.

That and Cogforts. ?

[Enoby]

There's a common sentiment of armies without summoning getting points reduction, but I wonder how that'll affect Slaves to Darkness. Normally they can't summon, but if they become part of a god specific army then they gain the ability to summon. I know they're getting some reductions, but it'd be nice for that to be army wide as Slaves aren't in the best shape unless they take very specific battalions. 

[Brightstar]

9 hours ago, Asamu said:

Your suggestion falls under the idea of homogenizing scrolls to have more equivalency, which is something that I brought up in my previous post. It takes away interesting effects and removes many of the differences between armies/units in an attempt at balance.

Without an abstraction to evaluate units by (IE: points), how do you take into account for very different strengths between two single entity units? For example, it would be silly for a megaboss to be equivalent to a Grot warboss in terms of power level. That's all points are: an abstraction to allow for more gradation in the evaluation of units and to make it easier to compare units that are vastly different without taking away the things that make them unique or to make situations that don't make sense in order to achieve a reasonable balance. Wounds as the abstraction didn't work very well for obvious reasons, and the same applies to warscroll limits.

 

 

Internal balance and warscroll homogenization is a false equivalence.  The point system disproves that, i.e. Lord Cellestant has the same "intrinsic value" as a unit of liberators.  If it works with points it also works without points.  

Point systems creating less equivalences/homgenization is also false  - see Tree Revenants, Bestigors, Greatswords, Graveguard, as a quick example.   

I never said there would be no system of abstraction.  Wounds was a way of doing it.  We both agree it didn't work.  It is not the only way.  

You are the first person I have ever heard say that better internal balance  between units - i.e internal balance within a game  -  is the wrong way to go.

10 hours ago, Asamu said:

I can guarantee you that if the system your group uses for balance were adopted by GW and used by the majority of players, you'd still get just as many posts about things not being balanced as you get now. 

I admitted that any system used would not be perfect.  I am well aware of how asymmetric design works.  My point was GW had a chance to change the conversation after AOS 1, they didn't take it.  I am disappointed by that decision.

10 hours ago, Asamu said:

It's [internal balance ] something that is unreasonable to ask for. …those changes would have to be extremely limited and part of a major update like AoS 2 or be part of a new battletome for the respective faction.

  This has always been my point.  I would prefer GW to use the opportunity of AOS 2 to create a broader level of internal consistency in the game by readdressing core rules and  updating warscrolls.  They chose not to do that to the level I thought the game needs.  I am slightly disappointed by that.  

10 hours ago, Asamu said:

GW is a business, and changes to warscrolls invalidate existing products (battletomes, printed warscrolls, etc...) that they don't want players to have to replace without a new release. It would create a backlash that would be bad for them as a business.

This is a strawman.  It has nothing to do with any of my points about internal balance or the updates to scrolls.  If you'd like to discuss GW business practices I'd be happy to do so somewhere else.   Furthermore you are making an assumption that an update would yield less sales when it is also possible they may increase sales.  See sales figures after 40k 8th - which invalidated everything - causing a massive jump in sales.  Since they are both edition changes the comparison is valid.

10 hours ago, Asamu said:

Without an abstraction to evaluate units by (IE: points),  to compare units that are vastly different without taking away the things that make them unique or to make situations that don't make sense in order to achieve a reasonable balance.

And no, points are not why people debate over the validity of summoning costing or not costing points or whatever other method you're using to balance the game. That debate happens because there is a structure to balance the game at all, and summoning is an incredibly difficult mechanic to get right.

 

 Here you contradict yourself.  If reasonable balance is ONLY achievable by points then structural balance can only be achieved by points.  Therefore the difficulty to get summoning "right" is how it is expressed in points.  You can't have it both ways.  

10 hours ago, Asamu said:

What can they do to support the playstyle of people that don't use the material they produced? They already release campaign books that have options for set armies instead of points. 

 why should they cater to it when they've already made something to balance the game?

 This is another false equivalence.  To not use points does not mean a player's playstyle does not use the material GW produced.  The last time I checked there are 3 ways to play this game and as you originally stated, GW does not insist on its player base to use points.  In fact, in AOS core rules, there is no mention of points  at all.  The General's compendium, an expansion to AOS, adds point as an optional way to play.  

Armies with set lists is another way to play, but not all narrative gamers want to play that way either.  Again, there are many ways to play AOS.  

If GW should not "cater" to "my group", it should not "cater" to your group either.  Again, you can't have it both ways.

What  I am asking them to do is to continue to expand on their core rules and make it clearer/easier how to play this game without points.  I don't see why that's so troubling to you.  I never said delete the points mechanic. 

10 hours ago, Asamu said:

How does changing warscrolls instead of points values cater to players that don't use points, when those players currently have the freedom to adjust what they bring however they want to better balance their games?

 

In every way internal balance benefits all gamers who play games.  Better established patterns makes discrepancies between units easier to manage and makes the variance in power curves more negligible during game play.  This applies to both people who play with points and those who don't.   If you'd like some examples of how it specifically benefits non-point play, I'd happily PM them to you.  But again, posting them here would be off topic.

 

11 hours ago, Asamu said:

You seem to be asking for something official to use in the place of something official that already exists and accomplishes much the same thing. You can probably understand why I see that as odd. It appears to me that you do not like points because you dislike the more competitive side of the game (despite, and probably because, you are likely a person that gets competitive when building army lists and/or playing the game), and not because there is anything actually wrong with them as a method of balancing the game.

If you don't want to discuss something somewhere, then don't bring it up there in the first place.

No.  I was hoping we would get updates to all warscrolls - where they need them - in AOS 2.  We are for the most part not getting them.  Instead we are getting points changes.  

I said I was disappointed that GW could not have used their money/power/resources years ago to create something besides points to balance the game. They did not.  Instead they settled on giving us points.  Which is fine.  I just personally think they could have done more.  

I also said GW never did anything to really help players navigate playing the game without points.  Instead they gave us points.  I think GW could still do more to help players play without points.  They are still choosing not to do that and I would like to see them do that more in the future. 

I don't know why any of the above three statements seem odd to you since I am playing by the RAW as much as you are.

I don't see the need for the judgments on my character or the need to tell me what I can and can't bring up on a forum.  I've discussed "pointless play" to the extent  it relates to AOS 2.  I've offered to discuss how you can play AOS without points elsewhere.  You have yet to take me up on that offer.  I never said I wasn't going to talk about it.  I am following forum etiquette.   

 

[Brightstar]

15 hours ago, HorticulusTGA said:

Thx to our friend @Antipodean7  from AOS shorts : 

Love the cover art!  Sets the tone so well!

[Jamopower]

We played today a four side smash using the new rules as best we could. The shooting adjustments, increased dispel range and the new basic spells. In n environment of split unit 500 point armies in a four side smash, the new rules didn't have any impact. hardly a surprise for anyone... 

[christophe]

3 hours ago, bsharitt said:

You joke, but of the various free people's, I think they're probably one of the best chances of getting a battletome and new units. They've been featured narratively with lots of stuff they don't actually have. I could see them become a fantasy Adepetis Mechanicus. The Kharadron Overlords has such a naval theme that there's plenty of room to have another fantasy steampunk army that's much different.

I hope they give the Ad Mech role to the skaven who can bring a bigger twist to the steam punk theme

[Asamu]

1 hour ago, Brightstar said:

 This is another false equivalence.  To not use points does not mean a player's playstyle does not use the material GW produced.  The last time I checked there are 3 ways to play this game and as you originally stated, GW does not insist on its player base to use points.  In fact, in AOS core rules, there is no mention of points  at all.  The General's compendium, an expansion to AOS, adds point as an optional way to play.  

To not use points means to not use the system of structuring games that GW produced. To ask for a different method of structuring games means to ask for another method for matched play, as open play is defined by not having that structure, which is why they can't create anything more to support it. It would create a 4th way to play the game, not support any of the existing methods.

AOS core rules do mention using wound or warscroll counts to limit your armies though; either of which can be considered points. IE: Every warscroll = 1 point, or each wound = 1 point. Points are just a further abstraction to better differentiate between units.

1 hour ago, Brightstar said:

 Here you contradict yourself.  If reasonable balance is ONLY achievable by points then structural balance can only be achieved by points.  Therefore the difficulty to get summoning "right" is how it is expressed in points.  You can't have it both ways.  

It is not a contradiction. A reasonable balance is, IMO, only achievable with points, because you cannot assign values to two vastly different units, such as an Orruk Warboss and a Grot Warboss, without such an abstraction.

A structural balance could be achieved by making vastly different units equal to each other, which would not necessarily be good for the game, and certainly wouldn't follow the lore. Archaon should not be the same strength as a Chaos Lord on a Manticore.

1 hour ago, Brightstar said:

Internal balance and warscroll homogenization is a false equivalence.  The point system disproves that, i.e. Lord Cellestant has the same "intrinsic value" as a unit of liberators.  If it works with points it also works without points.  

In every way internal balance benefits all gamers who play games.  Better established patterns makes discrepancies between units easier to manage and makes the variance in power curves more negligible during game play.  This applies to both people who play with points and those who don't.   If you'd like some examples of how it specifically benefits non-point play, I'd happily PM them to you.  But again, posting them here would be off topic.

Internal balance typically refers to balance within a particular faction, which can be achieved without changing warscrolls unless absolutely necessary. If you mean "intrinsic balance", or warscrolls being more equivalent, so an abstract [points] comparison becomes unnecessary, that is absolutely going to result in homogenization of warscrolls.

A lord cellestant having the same point value as a unit of liberators does not mean warscroll homogenization would not be the result of creating "intrinsic" balance by making warscrolls more equivalent to each other/more easily comparable. Saurus warriors and Bloodletters are vastly different units with similar points values, but it is difficult to compare their value without an abstraction, and neither of them is easily comparable to a unit of Fulminators. Points are an abstraction that allow the value of those units to be compared at a glance without crunching any numbers yourself.

The value of a Lord Cellestant or a unit of liberators in a game is defined by their points value, which is defined by their strength on the table. They have no "intrinsic" game value that can be easily read, nor do they need one for open play.

1 hour ago, Brightstar said:

No.  I was hoping we would get updates to all warscrolls - where they need them - in AOS 2.  We are for the most part not getting them.  Instead we are getting points changes. 

It's just a matter of opinion as to what warscrolls need changes. The end result of most warscroll changes, as opposed to points changes, is the same. Where warscroll changes are absolutely necessary, they are happening.

1 hour ago, Brightstar said:

 You are the first person I have ever heard say that better internal balance  between units - i.e internal balance within a game  -  is the wrong way to go.

I never said better balance would be bad. Better balance can be achieved by adjusting points values. I said that better balance at the cost of losing some of the differences between units, in order to make single warscrolls more directly equivalent/easily comparable would be bad, especially because better balance is achievable without such drastic changes. I don't want a Grot Warboss to be equal to an Orruk Megaboss, or any of the similar cases throughout different factions.

 

We seem to agree that:

-  in order for a game like AoS to be balanced, an abstraction is necessary. Points are such an abstraction (any other abstraction can be converted to/considered points).

- better balance is good, and perfect balance is unattainable. Changes to points values are a method of achieving better balance.

Where we disagree is:

- GW needs/doesn't need to provide another structure for games that isn't points. (IMO, because an abstraction is necessary, why NOT points? any abstraction you make to assign a value to units can be considered points)

- Points changes vs Warscroll changes. (I think points changes are preferable, outside of very specific cases, because less work is involved on both ends, and it doesn't invalidate any existing products).

- individual warscrolls should/shouldn't be equal to each other. 

- What is open play?  (I consider it defined by a lack of structure; you want GW to provide a way to structure games outside of normal matched play so you don't have to use the same points used by the competitive community).

[Brightstar]

8 minutes ago, Asamu said:

To not use points means to not use the system of structuring games that GW produced. To ask for a different method of structuring games means to ask for another method for matched play, as open play is defined by not having that structure, which is why they can't create anything more to support it. It would create a 4th way to play the game, not support any of the existing methods.

AOS core rules do mention using wound or warscroll counts to limit your armies though; either of which can be considered points. IE: Every warscroll = 1 point, or each wound = 1 point. Points are just a further abstraction to better differentiate between units.

It is not a contradiction. A reasonable balance is, IMO, only achievable with points, because you cannot assign values to two vastly different units, such as an Orruk Warboss and a Grot Warboss, without such an abstraction.

A structural balance could be achieved by making vastly different units equal to each other, which would not necessarily be good for the game, and certainly wouldn't follow the lore. Archaon should not be the same strength as a Chaos Lord on a Manticore.

Internal balance typically refers to balance within a particular faction, which can be achieved without changing warscrolls unless absolutely necessary. If you mean "intrinsic balance", or warscrolls being more equivalent, so an abstract [points] comparison becomes unnecessary, that is absolutely going to result in homogenization of warscrolls.

A lord cellestant having the same point value as a unit of liberators does not mean warscroll homogenization would not be the result of creating "intrinsic" balance by making warscrolls more equivalent to each other/more easily comparable. Saurus warriors and Bloodletters are vastly different units with similar points values, but it is difficult to compare their value without an abstraction, and neither of them is easily comparable to a unit of Fulminators. Points are an abstraction that allow the value of those units to be compared at a glance without crunching any numbers yourself.

The value of a Lord Cellestant or a unit of liberators in a game is defined by their points value, which is defined by their strength on the table. They have no "intrinsic" game value that can be easily read, nor do they need one for open play.

It's just a matter of opinion as to what warscrolls need changes. The end result of most warscroll changes, as opposed to points changes, is the same. Where warscroll changes are absolutely necessary, they are happening.

I never said better balance would be bad. Better balance can be achieved by adjusting points values. I said that better balance at the cost of losing some of the differences between units, in order to make single warscrolls more directly equivalent/easily comparable would be bad, especially because better balance is achievable without such drastic changes. I don't want a Grot Warboss to be equal to an Orruk Megaboss, or any of the similar cases throughout different factions.

 

We seem to agree that:

-  in order for a game like AoS to be balanced, an abstraction is necessary. Points are such an abstraction (any other abstraction can be converted to/considered points).

- better balance is good, and perfect balance is unattainable. Changes to points values are a method of achieving better balance.

Where we disagree is:

- GW needs/doesn't need to provide another structure for games that isn't points. (IMO, because an abstraction is necessary, why NOT points? any abstraction you make to assign a value to units can be considered points)

- Points changes vs Warscroll changes. (I think points changes are preferable, outside of very specific cases, because less work is involved on both ends, and it doesn't invalidate any existing products).

- individual warscrolls should/shouldn't be equal to each other. 

- What is open play?  (I consider it defined by a lack of structure; you want GW to provide a way to structure games outside of normal matched play so you don't have to use the same points used by the competitive community).

Neat.  I am moving on and am not going to continue hijacking this thread for an off topic discussion. I have said all I need to say. If it is not enough for you, pm me.

Thanks.

[Lemondish]

5 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

You know if BCR were a mid of the pack faction, then yeah maybe some added ally focus and a relic or two could be enough. But when your the worse faction in the game, the perspective is different. A bit won't change the fact that we will stay the worse faction, unless the points drops are really huge.

Also if we are playing with ally why put the wizards, relics etc in to a BCR list when you can achive the same or even better results running something different from destruction. So isn't much help for people who play destruction soup and are looking for new units to add, and it doesn't help epople who want to play BCR.

Compare what BCR with a full new magic system, more utilty from relics by share fact of not needing ally to cast spells, and more heros to give relics to and I feel the future looks bleak, unless GW went all smoke and mirrors, and hid most of the BCR stuff from us.

I don't think I'll ever understand the issue with allies. Whatever it is, I think it's way too early to state anything definitively, so I'm personally going to remain positive. I'm sorry that you don't feel that way, unfortunately. I hope you give the edition and the changes a fair shake and look for positives in the relics, spells, and other new things that may make you less inclined to feel so much doom and gloom. 

[Bellfree]

5 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

You know if BCR were a mid of the pack faction, then yeah maybe some added ally focus and a relic or two could be enough. But when your the worse faction in the game, the perspective is different. A bit won't change the fact that we will stay the worse faction, unless the points drops are really huge.

Also if we are playing with ally why put the wizards, relics etc in to a BCR list when you can achive the same or even better results running something different from destruction. So isn't much help for people who play destruction soup and are looking for new units to add, and it doesn't help epople who want to play BCR.

Compare what BCR with a full new magic system, more utilty from relics by share fact of not needing ally to cast spells, and more heros to give relics to and I feel the future looks bleak, unless GW went all smoke and mirrors, and hid most of the BCR stuff from us.

You're not the worst faction in the game. I'm pretty sure you're not even the worst battle-tome army in the game. You'd have to fight it out with Ironjawz and FEC players to know that one though.

[Bellfree]

3 hours ago, Enoby said:

There's a common sentiment of armies without summoning getting points reduction, but I wonder how that'll affect Slaves to Darkness. Normally they can't summon, but if they become part of a god specific army then they gain the ability to summon. I know they're getting some reductions, but it'd be nice for that to be army wide as Slaves aren't in the best shape unless they take very specific battalions. 

Isn't it JUST sentiment though? I mean, it seems like all the points reductions they talked about was stuff that kinda needed it anyway. I never really saw anything that suggested they were adjusting other stuff for summoning, it mostly seems like that idea came outta 'well they gotta do somethin'!' rather than anything GW said.

[CaptainNippon]

5 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

Also if we are playing with ally why put the wizards, relics etc in to a BCR list when you can achive the same or even better results running something different from destruction.

Because not every player is primarily concerned with better results.

Also, they might want to use BCR-specific allegiance abilities .

[heywoah_twitch]

1 hour ago, Bellfree said:

You're not the worst faction in the game. I'm pretty sure you're not even the worst battle-tome army in the game. You'd have to fight it out with Ironjawz and FEC players to know that one though.

He's a tad down, but not wrong. General competitiveness along with results data puts BCR slightly lower than FEC, but both def bottom of the barrel even including playable non-battletome armies.  Wanderers, Gutbusters, Free Peoples, Skaven, even Dispossessed are above both, for instance. Ironjawz is better than both as well, esp with allies, but not in a great place in their own right either.

1 hour ago, CaptainNippon said:

Because not every player is primarily concerned with better results.

Also, they might want to use BCR-specific allegiance abilities .

Quite right, but I'm some kind of hopeful idealist who thinks that every army should have a fair shake at competitiveness if they build and play well.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Lemondish said:

I don't think I'll ever understand the issue with allies.

Agreed. The game, the current game, is designed with them in mind.

Left over Warhammer mental stuff creates the stigma.