Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[GeneralZero]

Rats at touille!

[Thomas Lyons]

Here are some 2.0 rumors/leaks that have come my way: 

• At the end of each turn, you will lose as many models as it takes to return that unit to coherency.  
• When a general dies mid game, you will select a new one.
• Confirmation that command abilities can be used more than once.
• Bale wind vortex adds +6" and one additional spell per round for the wizard on it.  Wizards on it cannot have a wounds characteristic more than 8 (thus no Morathi or Eidolon).  Enemies can banish it on a 6+ in their own hero phase, but they must be a wizard and it takes a casting attempt to do so.
• The six Matched Play scenarios in the core rulebook are those from the GHB2016.  This leads me to speculate that of the 12 in GHB2018, 6 will be those from GHB2017 and 6 will be new.
• Monsters and Warmachines over 8 wounds will no longer gain bonuses to saves from cover.

That's all I have right now.

[Returning]

Missus is getting me Soul Wars for me birthday, not sure what to do with the space marines er I mean Stormcast got lots of OLD destruction models for death to battle against.

 

[Thebiggesthat]

2 hours ago, Kramer said:

If I were a betting man I would say it's going to be roll off with +1 for the one who sets up first

Still makes the list I'm currently building a lot poorer.

 

I keep trying to get hyped by this release..

 

[TheOtherJosh]

20 minutes ago, Returning said:

Missus is getting me Soul Wars for me birthday, not sure what to do with the space marines er I mean Stormcast got lots of OLD destruction models for death to battle against.

Conversion opportunities. (Or see if you can trade them to one of your mates, or put them up on the trading forum here on TGA, or put them off to the side and have a think about them for a bit)

[Sheriff]

43 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Here are some 2.0 rumors/leaks that have come my way: 

• At the end of each turn, you will lose as many models as it takes to return that unit to coherency.  
• When a general dies mid game, you will select a new one.
• Confirmation that command abilities can be used more than once.
• Bale wind vortex adds +6" and one additional spell per round for the wizard on it.  Wizards on it cannot have a wounds characteristic more than 8 (thus no Morathi or Eidolon).  Enemies can banish it on a 6+ in their own hero phase, but they must be a wizard and it takes a casting attempt to do so.
• The six Matched Play scenarios in the core rulebook are those from the GHB2016.  This leads me to speculate that of the 12 in GHB2018, 6 will be those from GHB2017 and 6 will be new.
• Monsters and Warmachines over 8 wounds will no longer gain bonuses to saves from cover.

That's all I have right now.

On the same recipient unit, or must be used on separate units? 

[Kramer]

27 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Still makes the list I'm currently building a lot poorer.

 

I keep trying to get hyped by this release..

 

Whooohoooo three notifications.... oh no triple post. You got me excited man  
But to be critical, just to see if we can mitigate the risks, it sounds like you have very one trick list. Do you have discussion on it going in another thread?

[Returning]

Conversion well managed to glue my to a.. Er anyway that was many years ago can live in the back of the cupboard I case my lad wants to use em.

 

[Thebiggesthat]

1 minute ago, Kramer said:

Whooohoooo three notifications.... oh no triple post. You got me excited man  
But to be critical, just to see if we can mitigate the risks, it sounds like you have very one trick list. Do you have discussion on it going in another thread?

Posted to the Sylvaneth thread dude, I want to use the trees again. 

[Kramer]

Just now, Thebiggesthat said:

Posted to the Sylvaneth thread dude, I want to use the trees again. 

I want to start them, so no advice from me but l'll read along for some tips anyway   One of the most excited things about 2.0 might be the rebalancing to lower points. Means you can fit more cool stuff in a 1K side army  

[Karol]

2 hours ago, Mayple said:

What do you mean by low count armies? In the current edition, some armies delibaretly go for fewer drops to guarantee control of the turn order, which backfires on them if they don't get it (since they weakened themselves for the advantage)

Armies that have no choice but to go low-drop (who would that be?) shouldn't suffer as much. They're already bringing all they have; they bring their full strength to bear regardless of turn outcome.

I'm  badly arguing hypotheticals here, since I don't actually know what low-drop armies you're referring to Help!

 

Anyhow, I think the 'wins ties' makes sense, as @Skabnoze said. 

You know I was told to not talk about my own army right? Isn't baiting an offense here?

 

13 minutes ago, Sheriff said:

On the same recipient unit, or must be used on separate units? 

I hope it is on separate units and done by separate heros, otherwise some armies get crazy range or go full blender mode.  But then again who knows maybe everything gets rewriten in the general handbook.

[Thebiggesthat]

6 minutes ago, Karol said:

You know I was told to not talk about my own army right? Isn't baiting an offense here?

 

I hope it is on separate units and done by separate heros, otherwise some armies get crazy range or go full blender mode.  But then again who knows maybe everything gets rewriten in the general handbook.

He's not baiting you, he's trying to engage in dialogue and debate. Play the ball, not the man dude, and relax 

[Thebiggesthat]

11 minutes ago, Kramer said:

I want to start them, so no advice from me but l'll read along for some tips anyway   One of the most excited things about 2.0 might be the rebalancing to lower points. Means you can fit more cool stuff in a 1K side army  

It's just a natural worry anyone has that's built a kit a certain way to get a reward that might not now happen. 

 

I'll still enjoy painting them more that the Tree Revenants so it's all good I guess 

[Mayple]

29 minutes ago, Karol said:

You know I was told to not talk about my own army right? Isn't baiting an offense here?

No, I didn't know that you were told not to talk about your army  No worries, I'll stick by the potential faulty hypothetical argument I made earlier then. Feel free to poke holes in it

[Bellfree]

2 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Here are some 2.0 rumors/leaks that have come my way: 

• At the end of each turn, you will lose as many models as it takes to return that unit to coherency.  
• When a general dies mid game, you will select a new one.
• Confirmation that command abilities can be used more than once.
• Bale wind vortex adds +6" and one additional spell per round for the wizard on it.  Wizards on it cannot have a wounds characteristic more than 8 (thus no Morathi or Eidolon).  Enemies can banish it on a 6+ in their own hero phase, but they must be a wizard and it takes a casting attempt to do so.
• The six Matched Play scenarios in the core rulebook are those from the GHB2016.  This leads me to speculate that of the 12 in GHB2018, 6 will be those from GHB2017 and 6 will be new.
• Monsters and Warmachines over 8 wounds will no longer gain bonuses to saves from cover.

That's all I have right now.

The first one is...weird. Not sure about it. The second one makes killing the enemy general pointless(or in the case of armies that summon from their general, EXCEPTIONALLY dangerous.) The third one is the one most likely to be errata'd out or 'rule of 1'ed eventually. Morathi has a wound characteristic of 6. Balewind  slightly weaker(use it to snipe out their mages and it ends up being just as good in a lot of cases) and didn't monsters not get cover anyway?

I will say that anybody that said 'oh you can just kill the general' to stop summoning for LoN and the like should be feeling preeeeettttyyyyy silly about now.

[Requete]

1 hour ago, Bellfree said:

 Morathi has a wound characteristic of 6.

I think he meant "big" Morathi.

[Bellfree]

59 minutes ago, Requete said:

I think he meant "big" Morathi.

yeah, but that's not the one you want on a balewind anyway.

[Skabnoze]

5 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Here are some 2.0 rumors/leaks that have come my way: 

• At the end of each turn, you will lose as many models as it takes to return that unit to coherency. 

I heard this tidbit from a little bird recently also.  It seems like a very interesting change.

It is hard to tell how this will work out until playing, but it feels like this is a good change.  It means that people will have to think more about how they position the models in their units and how they resolve casualty removal.  For example, right now I can take a unit of 60 grots and string them single file across the table to form a line an opponent cannot move through.  Then when I take casualties I can cherry pick them across the unit and break coherency with little isssue but still maintain a large blocking wall until the unit loses a lot of models.  

But this rule change means that if you try to exploit casualty removal too much then you can end up causing a lot of casualties to the unit.  For example, if I do the above tactic and I remove casualties from the middle of the line and break coherency then I will end up killing half the unit.

It also means that chaining models in a unit in order to keep one in buff aura range is tougher to do.  This seems like a good change to me.

[Rintrah56]

6 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Here are some 2.0 rumors/leaks that have come my way: 

• [...] This leads me to speculate that of the 12 in GHB2018, 6 will be those from GHB2017 and 6 will be new.

This one is confirmed in White Dwarf - “modified for use with new edition and incorporating any FAQs”. I’m looking forward to seeing the new ones!

[Bellfree]

1 hour ago, Skabnoze said:

I heard this tidbit from a little bird recently also.  It seems like a very interesting change.

It is hard to tell how this will work out until playing, but it feels like this is a good change.  It means that people will have to think more about how they position the models in their units and how they resolve casualty removal.  For example, right now I can take a unit of 60 grots and string them single file across the table to form a line an opponent cannot move through.  Then when I take casualties I can cherry pick them across the unit and break coherency with little isssue but still maintain a large blocking wall until the unit loses a lot of models.  

But this rule change means that if you try to exploit casualty removal too much then you can end up causing a lot of casualties to the unit.  For example, if I do the above tactic and I remove casualties from the middle of the line and break coherency then I will end up killing half the unit.

It also means that chaining models in a unit in order to keep one in buff aura range is tougher to do.  This seems like a good change to me.

I mean...all of that is technically true, but like...were people really doing that that often? Most screening units I see people take casualties from the ends on the simple basis that a screening unit is really only a screening unit for a turn or two, getting use out of them beyond that requires them to be able to move and charge and stuff, generally. If you are taking random, coherency breaking models you'd probably want the whole unit dead at the end of the turn anyway just so that they're not underfoot. Also, daisy chains tend to be either teardrop or dumbbell shaped so taking models from the bulge-y parts seems like the better option most of the time anyway.

I think for the most part it's going to be irrelevant. It's such a small change to such a rare issue that I doubt it comes up often.

Honestly, the biggest application I can see is a TFG noticing that when you moved your unit you ended up with a model 1.13314" away from another model so now half the unit is dead. OOH or death players deliberately killing off extra models in a unit to for the whole unit to crumble so they can summon it back.

[Skabnoze]

That was an extreme example, but people do regularly block out zones and daisy chain stragglers to maintain buffs.  This new rule, if true, means that these tactics are still relevant but not as trivially easy.

The current rules prevent any movement within 3” of an enemy model and only force a coherency check when the unit moves.  As long as it sits still then it ignores coherency.

I rarely saw people running big long blocking lines - but it does happen occasionally.  More common is to hop an objective and body block a large area around it.  If you position right and remove casualties smart enough then you can hold a position even through a lot of casualties since a unit can end up with models out of coherency but still positioned so that nobody can thread the gaps due to the 3” rule.  You can still use units to area block, which is a valid tactic that I don’t want to see go away, but this new rule would make it less trivial to do than it currently is - which seems like a good thing to me.

I don’t think this rule is huge, but I am pretty positive that the reason behind it is what I mentioned.

[Thostos]

Another thing to consider with the new coherency rule is unit abilities that allow them to target any model within a unit.Removing a middle model in a battleline could be devistating and trying to close the gap with pile-in,though perhaps a bit easier now,still is not going to be reliable at all.

[stratigo]

Man I am hoping that "only wizards can dispel persistent spells" thing is NOT true. Making so dwarves simply can't dispel this stuff would be silly

[Richelieu]

2 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

That was an extreme example, but people do regularly block out zones and daisy chain stragglers to maintain buffs.  This new rule, if true, means that these tactics are still relevant but not as trivially easy.

Right.  I break coherency in basically every game I play.  A recent example would be a unit of 5 liberators strung out from an objective, intercepting the enemy unit while keeping one model within range of the objective.  The prime and one other model tangled with the enemy unit and casualties were removed starting with the two models in the middle of the line.  In this way I held the objective 3 turns against a unit of more than double the cost of the liberators.  

[Skabnoze]

33 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

Right.  I break coherency in basically every game I play.  A recent example would be a unit of 5 liberators strung out from an objective, intercepting the enemy unit while keeping one model within range of the objective.  The prime and one other model tangled with the enemy unit and casualties were removed starting with the two models in the middle of the line.  In this way I held the objective 3 turns against a unit of more than double the cost of the liberators.  

Exactly.  It is a perfectly valid tactic given the AoS v1 rules and I don't fault anyone for doing it.  It is neat to think of it thematically as a unit valiantly holding out against great odds.

But, I also like this rumored change mainly because I think the current way the rules are worded cheapens the concept of coherency.  I think they wrote the current rules with brevity as the main goal and so you got some weird loop-holes like this.  Coherency only mattering WHEN you move, and not when you remain stationary seems very much like an oversight.  It would make more sense if there had been a blurb in the movement section that stated that a unit HAD to try to end as close to coherency as possible at the end of it's movement phase.  But of course that is not what the current rule says.

This new rule accomplishes that same thing, but it can trigger in any battleshock phase.  That means it will effect how you pile in and remove casualties in melee combat as well.  In addition, it may make a big difference for units with mixed weapons & special equipment.  You will need to pay attention to where you position those weapons if you don't want to have to remove them as casualties to prevent extra coherency losses.