Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[AaronWilson]

Just now, RuneBrush said:

Nothing from GW (technically the game isn't even out yet), however they have confirmed that we'll be getting an FAQ a couple of weeks after the release so I would be very surprised if it weren't addressed in there.

My hero! Awesome, thanks man, locally we're playing it as RaW but I'm a stickler for rules and want to be playing it correctly. Like you said I'm sure the FAQ will address this

[Enoby]

53 minutes ago, AaronWIlson said:

So have we had any word on GW in regards to the first turn roll off? It's kind of bizarre right now, Miniwargaming are playing as deploy first go first, GMG are playing you roll for the first turn due that being  the RaW. Has GW put a statement, even a FB post confirming it one way or the other yet?

 

Iirc, a recent Miniwargaming video said that GW clarified that it was deployment first. That said, they didn't give a source for their statement (so I don't know if it was GW emailing them personally, or if it was something they read on the community site).

[AaronWilson]

14 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Iirc, a recent Miniwargaming video said that GW clarified that it was deployment first. That said, they didn't give a source for their statement (so I don't know if it was GW emailing them personally, or if it was something they read on the community site).

Yeah I have also heard this and I've also heard a lot of people saying "GW have said this until they're blue in the face" but I'm yet to be linked to a FAQ, Errata, or even a screenshot of a FB post made by the AoS team confirming that.

I'm not trying to be ****** or annoying but I tend to play RaW unless something is obviously being loopholed/abused but in this case it genuinely could be one way or the other. I'm sure GW will address it in the FAQ, I just found the situation funny as two of the biggest AoS content creators out there are currently playing it two different ways. 

[RuneBrush]

12 minutes ago, AaronWIlson said:

Yeah I have also heard this and I've also heard a lot of people saying "GW have said this until they're blue in the face" but I'm yet to be linked to a FAQ, Errata, or even a screenshot of a FB post made by the AoS team confirming that.

I'm not trying to be ****** or annoying but I tend to play RaW unless something is obviously being loopholed/abused but in this case it genuinely could be one way or the other. I'm sure GW will address it in the FAQ, I just found the situation funny as two of the biggest AoS content creators out there are currently playing it two different ways. 

At the moment it's been said by Ben Johnson & Martin Morrin on Twitch and Martin again on Twitter which some people have taken as an official GW response.  I'm playing it in the same manner as you and waiting until we get something released in an FAQ

[GeneralZero]

Question: do you think  it is worth getting 2 starter sets to build an army? (and resell the other half you don't need) The question goes for SCE and same question for NH. I you resell what you don't need, the SCE and NH halves  become super cheap.

[Killax]

23 hours ago, michu said:

Hey, you have Skull Cannon (looks at the warscroll), ok, never mind....  

I guess were your both better off adding allies and such to make armies count.

Granted I do still think that the AoS2 rules are great but the faction balance is far apart. 

Though will finish what I have before looking elsewere. Getting not playing competitively at all isnt too bad. It just still strikes me as GW showing specified interest in AoS. I too think that Duaradin/Dwarfs in general should have more anti Magic tools aswell.

On the positive side, all can come eventually. Just wish they fixed some errors while at it. 

22 hours ago, stratigo said:

 

they just made shooting worse

Not all, just for small char sniping. Sure if they reach your unit asap youre worse off, though little reason to have it get that far

[Killax]

1 hour ago, GeneralZero said:

Question: do you think  it is worth getting 2 starter sets to build an army? (and resell the other half you don't need) The question goes for SCE and same question for NH. I you resell what you don't need, the SCE and NH halves  become super cheap.

Its a good start if you like the visual appareance. All new is solid in AoS2, its a constant unfortunatly taken over from WFB still.

[AaronWilson]

1 hour ago, GeneralZero said:

Question: do you think  it is worth getting 2 starter sets to build an army? (and resell the other half you don't need) The question goes for SCE and same question for NH. I you resell what you don't need, the SCE and NH halves  become super cheap.

Yeah this seems sensible, especially as they're both getting new battletomes. Like WFB, you literally can't go wrong if you pick up a new release in both terms of quality of models and power level. 

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, GeneralZero said:

Question: do you think  it is worth getting 2 starter sets to build an army? (and resell the other half you don't need) The question goes for SCE and same question for NH. I you resell what you don't need, the SCE and NH halves  become super cheap.

My own feeling is that I'd say "probably not worth it".  Although you get some amazing value, I think both armies will hugely benefit from units that aren't in the starter box.  If you're looking to run a Pitched Battle army, the starter box has units in some "funny" sizes - e.g. only 4 Grimghast Reapers when the minimum Pitched Battle size is 10.

It's also worth pointing out that the market is going to be heavily flooded by people selling off half of the models in the starter set, so you might not get quite as good value as it it looks like on the surface.

That all said, if you want to get an army up together quickly and for a reasonable cost, then go for it!  You've enough models to do some really nice character conversions for example.

[GeneralZero]

The problem is effectively  the size of the units. With 2 boxes, this problem kinda dispears for less than buying individual unit compliments.

The second interesting thing is that we got many heros in this starter set (on both sides SCE NH). And the ballista, just need more ballista;-)

Too bad we don't have the points, the other new units (and their scrolls) and the official unit min size. 

 

59 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

It's also worth pointing out that the market is going to be heavily flooded

I don't think that there will be a mass market flooding. There will always be far fewer offers than demand when it comes to cheap minis. And the starter sets are super cheap. The only problem will rely on the quality of the NH army (does the people fancy the NH? is it an efficient army ? etc...)

[sal4m4nd3r]

4 hours ago, AaronWIlson said:

So have we had any word on GW in regards to the first turn roll off? It's kind of bizarre right now, Miniwargaming are playing as deploy first go first, GMG are playing you roll for the first turn due that being  the RaW. Has GW put a statement, even a FB post confirming it one way or the other yet?

Secondly, how are people summoning understrength units like 5 plaguebearers, I thought the contagion points first thing was for 10 plaguebearers? 

Is this a thing? Like people cant read a sentence.. how is there debate.  All turn rolls are a roll off. Turns 2-5 tie goes to the player who had first turn in the previous battle round. This obviously isnt possible on turn 1, so tie goes to who finished dropping first. Its crystal clear LOL

[RuneBrush]

Just now, sal4m4nd3r said:

Is this a thing? Like people cant read a sentence.. how is there debate.  All turn rolls are a roll off. Turns 2-5 tie goes to the player who had first turn in the previous battle round. This obviously isnt possible on turn 1, so tie goes to who finished dropping first. Its crystal clear LOL

As the past dozen of pages has attested to, it's not completely clear.  The rules are saying one thing but a number of other sources (Twitch, Twitter, How to play videos) are saying something different.

As I've said on three or four occasions we need to wait for the official FAQ to come out to clear this up.

[christophe]

2 hours ago, GeneralZero said:

Question: do you think  it is worth getting 2 starter sets to build an army? (and resell the other half you don't need) The question goes for SCE and same question for NH. I you resell what you don't need, the SCE and NH halves  become super cheap.

I would guess no, better wait to see all the models and warscrolls release, especially the probable mini soulwar box which should be very good value as well. You would get a lot of heroes in double, selling stuff take times, you would still not get the good number of guys to complete your units and may regret the purchase after they release new models (same units but better sculpts or different units better for your armies). And you can always wait and decide later...One box if already a lot of building and painting to do 

[sal4m4nd3r]

19 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

As the past dozen of pages has attested to, it's not completely clear.  The rules are saying one thing but a number of other sources (Twitch, Twitter, How to play videos) are saying something different.

As I've said on three or four occasions we need to wait for the official FAQ to come out to clear this up.

Respectfully, I REALLY dont see how there is even a question. Lets look at the rule and you tell me how you can interpret this as ANYTHING BUT a roll-off...

Quote

At the start of each battle round, the players must roll off, and the winner decides who takes the first turn. If the roll-off is a tie, then the player who went first in the last battle round can choose who goes first in this one, but if it is the first battle round, the player that finished setting up their army first chooses who has the first turn.

At the start of each battle round, the players must roll off, and the winner decides who takes the first turn.

It doesn't get much more clear than this lol.  And then if the roll is a tie....... (read the whole thing as one sentence.. because it is)

If the roll-off is a tie, then the player who went first in the last battle round can choose who goes first in this one, but if it is the first battle round, the player that finished setting up their army first chooses who has the first turn.

[Infeston]

@sal4m4nd3r I think many people agree with you. The rules as written sound pretty clear. The confusion just comes from a few videos were GW employees talked about this topic and said that the person who finishes deploying first also gets the first turn.

If you take the rules as written I would agree with you. It is just the conflicting information between the videos and the official rules. 

So we have to wait until GW clears things up and tells us how the rules are intended to work. I for myself also play the rules as written. I would also hope that it works this way and not the old way, but we will see what GW tells us about the rules.

But maybe someone could link the posts or the videos + minute marks were the first turn deployment was confirmed by the GW staff? Because I often read that GW confirmed this, but I haven't read the actual twitters or posts were this was mentioned. Can someone maybe post those links?

I only know the "How to Play" Video: 

But also if I am honest, even in this video she directly mentions it after the "tie roll" and I think even in this video it can still be interpreted as choosing to go first in case of a tie. 

She doesn't directly say "in case of a tie", but she also says "however", which can also be interpreted as connected to the sentence before about the rolloff.

The thing she says can still be interpreted both ways. It is more the way she says this instead of what she says that make it seem like the person who finishes deploying first also gets to go first.

But it could also mean "however considering the event of a tie, which I mentioned in my last sentence the player who rolls a tie and deployed first can choose who goes first". Or don't you think this can be interpreted this way even in the video?

If you only look at her sentence structure it can still be interpeted the other way. It is just the way she emphasizes certain aspects and the way where she stops talking which make it seem like it is the old way.

[hughwyeth]

13 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

If the roll-off is a tie, then the player who went first in the last battle round can choose who goes first in this one, but if it is the first battle round, the player that finished setting up their army first chooses who has the first turn.

But to be fair it could mean two things:

A-Roll for first turn every round- in case of ties, previous first player goes first,  if it's the first turn, you still roll off,  but whoever finished deployment first gets to choose in case of a tie. So in this case, finishing deployment only gives you advantage in a tie in the turn order roll off.

or

B-Roll for turns for round 2-5 and in first round, the person who finished deployment automatically gets to choose, no dice roll first.

Looking at the phrasing, as you've highlighted, the rules would seem to suggest A, but knowing GW isn't it completely possible that they actually meant B? I'm really inclined to agree that RAW is pretty clear because GW seem to have improved a lot with the core rules they've released in terms of clarity, but their history is really really bad in clear rules writing. 

[GeneralZero]

I've just recieved my tomb banshee: it is delivered with a 20mm square base. What should be the round base size?

[The Wanderer]

11 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

I've just recieved my tomb banshee: it is delivered with a 20mm square base. What should be the round base size?

Check out the chart in the last pinned thread in this forum section. Should be 32mm I would think.

[PJetski]

24 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

I've just recieved my tomb banshee: it is delivered with a 20mm square base. What should be the round base size?

GW will be putting out an official base size chart soon

[GeneralZero]

TY The wanderer....Unfortunately, the thread is kinda dead. The last post is dated 05/22 and...it was me asking with no answer. 

More of this, the linked file tell is should be a 32mm round base (as best fit). But, the cairn wraith (also 32mm recommanded) is delivered is the NH tormented Spirit  box with an  additional 25mm round base (added to it moulded 20mm square base).

It is really confused as we have now officially to put the correct round base... (For this, GW does a big mess: look at the last  "Warhammer Age of Sigmar – What Should I Pick Up?" article in the WH community: most of heros are squared base. WTF GW??? )

 

[AaronWilson]

Also the people from MWG who have claimed to be told by GW are playing it as deploy first go first. I don't want to start another 4 page topic about it though. We just need to wait for a official FAQ/Errata as @RuneBrush stated

[AverageBoss]

57 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

I've just recieved my tomb banshee: it is delivered with a 20mm square base. What should be the round base size?

 

45 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Check out the chart in the last pinned thread in this forum section. Should be 32mm I would think.

25mm is what it should be on.

[Kamose]

1 hour ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

Is this a thing? Like people cant read a sentence.. how is there debate.  All turn rolls are a roll off. Turns 2-5 tie goes to the player who had first turn in the previous battle round. This obviously isnt possible on turn 1, so tie goes to who finished dropping first. Its crystal clear LOL

I'ma be honest, I agree with you.  Nearly everyone agrees with you and most people who don't agree with you still wish your interpretation was correct.  But here's the problem,  This is the internet and we're discussing something unimportant.  People will debate anything ad nauseam.  

I've watched gamers online debate the definition of the word "a" when used as an article.  Some claimed it meant "one of something" and some claimed it meant "more than one of something".  The definition of the article "a" is "one" (period; hard stop; end of sentence) yet the debate couldn't be settled.

Frankly, debating anything on the internet is like counting sand grains.  It never ends, it achieves nothing, and its a waste of time.

[AverageBoss]

6 minutes ago, AaronWIlson said:

Also the people from MWG who have claimed to be told by GW are playing it as deploy first go first. I don't want to start another 4 page topic about it though. We just need to wait for a official FAQ/Errata as @RuneBrush stated

There was a reply from GW posted on the AoS group on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/posts/822383804625081?comment_id=822653171264811&notif_id=1529662738310667&notif_t=feed_comment_reply

 

[AverageBoss]

For those who can't view facebook, the response they gave was:

"The player who finishes setting up their army first will take the first turn in the new edition. We've heard everyone's feedback on the wording of this rule and we've passed it on - it'll be covered in a companion document that we'll be releasing next weekend.

For now, for further clarification we'd recommend checking out the How to Play video here: https://youtu.be/fGOWPzoNRuQ"