Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[Infeston]

27 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

It is infuriating, especially when buying online and you forget to order the extra round bases

Same, mate. Same! ? 

[Deadkitten]

5 hours ago, Naflem said:

Ugh, I've got a real fear I'll have guessed wrongly on some of my rebasing bases...  

Yeah, me too...  Hopefully TOs will be forgiving.

[syph0n]

I've literally just finished, in the last 10 minutes, rebasing my entire army. That's 2 dragons, 2 hydras, 25 drakespawn knights, 5 assassins, 2 sorceresses, drakespawn sorceress, dreadlord, drakespawn chariot, 2 bolt throwers... 

To be fair, I think the majority I'll have correct. I am worried my heroes, which I've chosen 32mm for may be wrong (though Tenebrael, Mistweaver and the made to order Dreadlord are all on 32mm) and possibly the chariot which I thought looked odd on 120mm like the hydra and dragons (it's on that size in the Anvilgard box). 

[Deadkitten]

3 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Are you sure?

I’m Starting to get the fealing that Gw wil be bringing a review for all factions 

Yes, I think a June 30 release is more and more likely so they'll need the content to string us along.  Any word from the weekend thing that's going on?

[Paladin of Khorne]

I just can’t wait to get this Knight foolishness out of the way so I can properly blow my money on the AoS releases!! It’s getting hard to resist the temptation of knights and shadespire ?

i seriously need some release date and price leaks soon so I can budget myself better. 

[Lemondish]

3 minutes ago, Paladin of Khorne said:

I just can’t wait to get this Knight foolishness out of the way so I can properly blow my money on the AoS releases!! It’s getting hard to resist the temptation of knights and shadespire ?

i seriously need some release date and price leaks soon so I can budget myself better. 

With the latest knight post today, it looks like it's mostly over for now. The named guy isn't coming just yet. 

[grungolah]

Reading the pile in rules,  it's clear the best choice for bases is puzzle pieces.   No need for separate movement trays. 

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

It's only a stigma because a lot of people want to maintain a consistent theme with their armies. They want to play say... Kharadrons, not Kharadrons AND Stormcast

I understand that desire. All I'm saying is that the irritation over "needing" to take allies to fill certain gaps is not something that people should pin on GW as a bad thing since they made the game to have allies serve this very role.

It's a design feature, not an oversight or a slight to those who opt to restrict themselves.

In the old days of Warhammer, it was a different story. Army Books were designed to be the full offering for an army, and the attempts to add in allies after the fact was bolted on and annoying to some, much more justifiably. 

[PlasticCraic]

9 hours ago, Furuzzolo said:

I think that, despite the poor Faction Focus, grots fans should be pretty happy!
Only battletome factions and factions with allegiance ability got a faction focus (3 or 4 missing, right now). Grots got no battletome nor allegiance ability.

That should tell us good news are on the way, no?

I thought the same thing last year, when GH17 gave Destruction very little attention: I incorrectly hoped that the absence of Allegiance Abilities for armies such as Moonclan and Gutbusters implied a book or two was on the horizon.  No dice.

Since GW have an (understandable) approach of only announcing good news in these Focuses, I would find it very strange if there were good news (such as Allegiance Abilities) that didn't make its way in.  A Battletome say 6 months down the track certainly can't be ruled out (as others have said, this wouldn't be the time or place to announce it), but I would have thought Allegiance Abilities for say Gitmob or Spiderfang would have fit right in here if they were happening.

In fact, I think this is the first Faction Focus not to promise anything good for the featured faction?  As far as I can remember, they have all promised points decreases, points-free summoning, new rules or a combination of the above? 

Shaving 10 points off Gargants is nice, but it's not Grots - and it's presumably just as relevant for Chaos as it is for Grots.

Anyway here's hoping that Battletome: Moonclan Grots does hit sooner than later...and that when it does, it's awesome!

[Chikout]

24 minutes ago, PlasticCraic said:

I thought the same thing last year, when GH17 gave Destruction very little attention: I incorrectly hoped that the absence of Allegiance Abilities for armies such as Moonclan and Gutbusters implied a book or two was on the horizon.  No dice.

Since GW have an (understandable) approach of only announcing good news in these Focuses, I would find it very strange if there were good news (such as Allegiance Abilities) that didn't make its way in.  A Battletome say 6 months down the track certainly can't be ruled out (as others have said, this wouldn't be the time or place to announce it), but I would have thought Allegiance Abilities for say Gitmob or Spiderfang would have fit right in here if they were happening.

In fact, I think this is the first Faction Focus not to promise anything good for the featured faction?  As far as I can remember, they have all promised points decreases, points-free summoning, new rules or a combination of the above? 

Shaving 10 points off Gargants is nice, but it's not Grots - and it's presumably just as relevant for Chaos as it is for Grots.

Anyway here's hoping that Battletome: Moonclan Grots does hit sooner than later...and that when it does, it's awesome!

I think it is highly likely that Moonclan will be the next battletome after Stormcast and nighthaunt. It makes sense that they would give them relatively little attention now, if they are planning a major overhaul for the near future. It is also possible that the battletome will not merely be Moonclan but might be a two in book like the chaos books. A September release with a first sneak peek at the AOS open day would be my guess. 

By the way it is rather infuriating that it looks like we are going to have to wait until literally the last day in June to get our hands on AOS 2. 

[Skabnoze]

They could have at least dropped the point costs for the Moonclan warbosses and then advertised that. I am rather perplexed at why they raised the cost of those heroes so much from GHB 16 to 17.  

[Jamopower]

27 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

They could have at least dropped the point costs for the Moonclan warbosses and then advertised that. I am rather perplexed at why they raised the cost of those heroes so much from GHB 16 to 17.  

It was because Destruction was so good in the last book, thus getting the classic double treatment of increased costs and nerfed rules.

[Bloodmaster]

11 hours ago, HorticulusTGA said:

So I was worried there would be another (third) week of Imperial Release : https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/06/03/pre-order-preview-march-of-the-warglaives/

But : "You’ll have to wait a wee bit longer for the last new release to go alongside the new codex. The valiant Freeblade Sir Hekhtur, and his Knight Preceptor steed Canis Rex, will be available later in the year".

So as expected, new edition preorder 16, release 23 ou 30 !

There is an interesting bit on here. Sounds like gw still has production capacity issues, resulting in the delay of the sc knight, although we had official pictures and a story about him, he is not included in this release. 

Another thought, am wondering how much release shuffling was caused by the cancelation of the aos open day. 

 

Both might explain why the release schedule feels both awfully crowded and surprisingly empty from time to time, sometimes even both. Id dragged for quite a while, knights do so too. At the same time we have aos minis, a codex and specialized game releases at the same weekend. Something is going on there that is not all according to plan. Stuff announced at the beginning of the year is still missing, which is unusual given gws strategy to show only what is coming in the next three months. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

47 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

They could have at least dropped the point costs for the Moonclan warbosses and then advertised that. I am rather perplexed at why they raised the cost of those heroes so much from GHB 16 to 17.  

He was really good but only down to a Battalion. A Battalion that could not be used. There was a lot of “feedback” about Destruction following GHB16 that may have not been entirely balanced  which resulted in some fairly draconian changes. 

The bits we have heard about the various Destruction faction in AoS2 are encouraging hopefully it’ll put things in a better place. 

Given how the Knight of Shrouds and and Lord Orndinator have been folded into new aspects of their Alliances I’d hope this will be continued with the Fungoid Cave Shaman. 

[DanielFM]

9 hours ago, Lemondish said:

Sounds like that's just a weakness of the army, which is fine. Factions should have weaknesses, right? If everyone could do all the same things the same way, it'd start to get boring. 

That's not to say that there needs to be that particular weakness. I hope the issue you have is resolved in the future, but I think until then allies is how you're going to need to fill it, if you want to fill it. 

My opinion: armies shouldn't have weaknesses, but different (yet equivalent) ways of solving the same problem. Asymmetric equality.

[Ollie Grimwood]

31 minutes ago, DanielFM said:

My opinion: armies shouldn't have weaknesses, but different (yet equivalent) ways of solving the same problem. Asymmetric equality.

Grand Alliance armies are supposed to provide this, great choice and variation at the cost of specialisation, Factions provide a narrower perspective. 

[Jamopower]

42 minutes ago, DanielFM said:

My opinion: armies shouldn't have weaknesses, but different (yet equivalent) ways of solving the same problem. Asymmetric equality.

Ideally yes, but it is nigh impossible in a game like this. Especially as there are 30+ factions. It works for example in Infinity, where everything is relatively same and the factions are differentiated by a higher stat here and a limited availability equipment or skill there. But it reduces the available "design space" quite much.

[blueshirtman]

2 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

Grand Alliance armies are supposed to provide this, great choice and variation at the cost of specialisation, Factions provide a narrower perspective. 

Ok, then why does tzeench or SC deal with stuff without taking ally. Why other factions even with ally don't really work. Let say BRC gets enough point drops to get a free firebelly comparing to the lists that exist now. Is it better then what BRC have now? Of course they get a free unit, ok so can the BRC now deal with other armies, even without the various 2.0 buffs? And the anwser is not really. This is a case of putting nitro in to a prius and a GT86. Both got upgraded, both are better, but in  no way in is the prius able to race.

 

2 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Ideally yes, but it is nigh impossible in a game like this.

Ok, I think everyone knows that perfection is unachivable. But with the rules shown, it looks like they sat down with SC, chaos and nagash legions, tweeked rules to give them new options, new ways to play. And left the bad factions with nothing. I just don't get the logic, shouldn't they first start to fix the factions that are weaker and aren't played as much, because of that? There is nothing bad in getting new stuff, it is welcome and good. But I don't get why something like legions get points drops, summoning , new realm interaction on top of what everyone else gets.

 

[Infeston]

3 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

He was really good but only down to a Battalion. A Battalion that could not be used. There was a lot of “feedback” about Destruction following GHB16 that may have not been entirely balanced  which resulted in some fairly draconian changes. 

Why do I very often have the feeling that GW only orients on "feedback" from people who play against us instead from the Destruction players themselves? Everytime a rule for Destruction gets changed or balanced it is often more because of an outcry from other players finding our units or models unfair. Whereas other factions get more changes based on feedback  coming from the players who play the faction. Tzeenth is unfair for a very long time now, but no rules for them got changed. But because of the outcry about the Stonehorn it got nerfed pretty quickly compared to other "unfair" units.

I think there is a certain bias at GW for certain factions, because the designers like them more or because only a few people like and play Destruction at GW. It very often seems to me that we are just the NPC faction. You can also recognize this in the storys written about the Mortal Realms. 

Most of the stories are written from the perspective of someone facing Destruction, but not from the Destruction perspective. And I think you can see this in other areas as well.  

[Trayanee]

3 hours ago, DanielFM said:

My opinion: armies shouldn't have weaknesses, but different (yet equivalent) ways of solving the same problem. Asymmetric equality.

And then someone will come and claim one's way of dealing with something is stronger than the other and demand it to be on the same level and then the cycle continues until you end up with two sides, black and white with the only difference being that white always starts...

[syph0n]

15 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

Ok, then why does tzeench or SC deal with stuff without taking ally. Why other factions even with ally don't really work. Let say BRC gets enough point drops to get a free firebelly comparing to the lists that exist now. Is it better then what BRC have now? Of course they get a free unit, ok so can the BRC now deal with other armies, even without the various 2.0 buffs? And the anwser is not really. This is a case of putting nitro in to a prius and a GT86. Both got upgraded, both are better, but in  no way in is the prius able to race.

 

Ok, I think everyone knows that perfection is unachivable. But with the rules shown, it looks like they sat down with SC, chaos and nagash legions, tweeked rules to give them new options, new ways to play. And left the bad factions with nothing. I just don't get the logic, shouldn't they first start to fix the factions that are weaker and aren't played as much, because of that? There is nothing bad in getting new stuff, it is welcome and good. But I don't get why something like legions get points drops, summoning , new realm interaction on top of what everyone else gets.

 

To be fair, Tzeentch is the army of a Chaos God - they're not a tribe of wandering animals or Ogors. Narratively at least, there's a reasonable explanation as to why the forces of Sigmar, Chaos Gods or Nagash are strong. They are, after all, the forces of actual Gods. 

I do feel your pain, but I think some acceptance of the imbalance of the world needs to happen. I have multiple combinations of Dark Aelves that I just can't use together since the faction splits and because of purchases in the past (I preferred Corsairs over Darkshards for example) I can't even field  the "best" traditional army of Darkling Covens (ie: actually has none GA artifacts or rules). I have, however, accepted that I prefer the aesthetics of Order Serpentis over many newer armies and that's more important to me than the game itself I guess (considering you can spend longer painting 200 points than playing a 2000 point game). 

Give it a bit of time, maybe there's stuff you've not considered, especially as the full rules aren't out or playable yet. I know no one likes getting beat every game they play.

[Jamopower]

7 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

Ok, I think everyone knows that perfection is unachivable. But with the rules shown, it looks like they sat down with SC, chaos and nagash legions, tweeked rules to give them new options, new ways to play. And left the bad factions with nothing. I just don't get the logic, shouldn't they first start to fix the factions that are weaker and aren't played as much, because of that? There is nothing bad in getting new stuff, it is welcome and good. But I don't get why something like legions get points drops, summoning , new realm interaction on top of what everyone else gets.

 

It's matter of the themes in factions. If magic, shooting, close combat, or what ever is good, then everyone should be given equal access to it. Or there needs to be a balance from total rules perspective that the different aspects are equally powerful, so that you can balance downsides in other fields to being better in others. Thus for example shooting or magic should be as good strategy as close combat, thus you can have armies that are bad at shooting and good at close combat and the other way around and keep it balanced. Of course this is not usually the case, and in many cases rightfully so.

 

Usually the bad factions are bad, because they have limited options for thematic reasons (this can also lead to powerful factions, if the theme happens to be a strong one like with Tzeentch or the Undead). Classic example was Dwarfs in the old fantasy battle, the game had strong emphasis on movement and magic, which they both lacked and tried to compensate it with shooting and good leadership, of which shooting was pretty boring and random and good leadership wasn't good enough when the realy good ones ignored the whole rule (Undead, Daemons).

 

Classically in Warhammer Chaos, Undead and to some degree Elves and Lizardmen have always been good as their focus happens to usually be in the strong abilities (Summoning, immunity to psychology, fear, magic, etc.), or they are designed so that they have all the options (Lizardmen, Elves to some degree). These aspects have carried over to AoS in many parts, but not all of them. 

[Elmir]

Well, this discussion is interesting... Mostly because I've been saying for a long time now that those "mini battletome subfactions" like Ironjawz, FEC, BCR, KO,... are not the best design to keep armies interesting. Larger battletomes that consolidate subfactions are the ones that stand the test of time. 

A Duardin book that allows you to pick a sub-allegiance (to benefit certain unit types from KO, Fyreslayers, dispossed,...) would be a lot more flexible, would still allow for very thematic lists, but it would not form too many constrictions with allies and would perform better competitively. 

Similarly, a orruk book that has a given clan leading the Waaaagh (bonesplitters, Ironjawz,...) as a sub-allegiance, could take away many restrictions (like shooting) while still allowing thematic mono-subfaction builds. 

But it sadly not the route GW chose to take. The allies system is quite clunky and restrictive, but it is what it is. 

[Bloodmaster]

Comparing Tzeentch to BCR is a bit like comparing apples to underripe tomatos and their place in a fruit salad. Yes both are fruits but that's it. Tzeentch is a fully developed Battletome, expanded with new minis. BCR is a quick write-up of existing units to get the most out of already published models, similar to FEC. Both are just remnants of old WHFB Armies, GW broke up into diffent fractured factions that are completely unbalanced and in parts barly functional on their own. The decision to brake the Factions up into smaller ones was in itself suboptimal, mildly put, but to give them Battletomes without expanding them with new kits (as seen wit DoK) was pure stupidity game play wise and a quick cash grab as seen far to often in early AoS/late Kirby days at GW.  Of cause BCR could be played on their own, but you are missing huge chunks of battlefield roles without allying with other forces. We might see an expansion of the line or a fusion with other oger factions, but I wouldn't bet on it in the near future.

 

 @blueshirtman I think everyone got your point by now, that BCR are treated unfair by GW and you are upset because you choose them, could we please move on now. If you be a bit patient I will seach for some of my old Ogers at my parents, next time I visit there. maybe we can work something out to bolster your force.

 

Sneaky Edit:

1 minute ago, Elmir said:

Well, this discussion is interesting... Mostly because I've been saying for a long time now that those "mini battletome subfactions" like Ironjawz, FEC, BCR, KO,... are not the best design to keep armies interesting. Larger battletomes that consolidate subfactions are the ones that stand the test of time. 

A Duardin book that allows you to pick a sub-allegiance (to benefit certain unit types from KO, Fyreslayers, dispossed,...) would be a lot more flexible, would still allow for very thematic lists, but it would not form too many constrictions with allies and would perform better competitively. 

Similarly, a orruk book that has a given clan leading the Waaaagh (bonesplitters, Ironjawz,...) as a sub-allegiance, could take away many restrictions (like shooting) while still allowing thematic mono-subfaction builds. 

But it sadly not the route GW chose to take. The allies system is quite clunky and restrictive, but it is what it is. 

To a certain degree I can agree with you. The mini-tomes are a bit lack luster, especially BCR and FEC (see above), while IJ and KO offer an expanded and slightly more balanced army, especially KO. But I don't see that consolidating big Battletomes could fix  all problems, at least for existing smaller factions. They rather need and/or deserve an expansion rather than a fusion. Where BCR and to a certain degree FEC are just fractured old factions FS and KO, for example, brought a new flavour and interesting concepts to AoS that should be expanded a bit more. 

It certainly will be interesting to see in which dirction GW will go and what the future hold.

[Elmir]

13 minutes ago, Bloodmaster said:

To a certain degree I can agree with you. The mini-tomes are a bit lack luster, especially BCR and FEC (see above), while IJ and KO offer an expanded and slightly more balanced army, especially KO. But I don't see that consolidating big Battletomes could fix  all problems, at least for existing smaller factions. They rather need and/or deserve an expansion rather than a fusion. Where BCR and to a certain degree FEC are just fractured old factions FS and KO, for example, brought a new flavour and interesting concepts to AoS that should be expanded a bit more. 

It certainly will be interesting to see in which dirction GW will go and what the future hold.

An expansion of said model ranges would be even better than consolidating books for smaller factions. I can definitely agree to that... It wouldn't be as feasible in the short term though. They would have had to start  it now to finish that 2 years from now. 

I'm sure designing a new book would be a faster solution to not keep many of those armies hanging for too long.