Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
AlphaKennyThing

Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

Recommended Posts

Yeah, GW might not be famous for great ruleswriting but I feel sorry for them sometimes when I read rules discussions sometimes...

Baffling how some people wouldnt mind seeing a game become completely ruined and unplayable as long as they get to win.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those discussions should be happening with this massive rules committee of competitive players they have.

 

Unless it's all a hollow ploy to make people in influencing positions feel important enough to bias their opinions of product!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Command Dice.. I can only hope they're better than the 40k ones, those were a massive letdown for me. Not good to roll (hard to see from a distance) and the icons were unclear and from a past edition though now that I look on the website they've added a description for them.

Hoping they take a few pages from 40k, namely shooting into combat or at characters but the addition to magic sounds interesting.  Adding the command point/stratagems is really cool if that's how it going to work out. This is exciting, definitely look forward to AoS 2.0!.. 3.0.. version 4, however you wanna look at it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those dice look like they have a charge, retreat and run facing. I don’t see them as being that useful, not sure what the other three are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chord said:

There will still be multi page FAQ's since the community at large is awkward trying to twist the rules for an advantage

Mainly because GW designers have always been poor at writing rules that are clear, concise, and unambiguous.  They like their flowery descriptions too much.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chord said:

There will still be multi page FAQ's since the community at large is awkward trying to twist the rules for an advantage

Or, you know, playing with the rules using the words of which they are made.

Not everyone who wants to play by the rules is trying to "twist" them.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Attackmack said:

 

Baffling how some people wouldnt mind seeing a game become completely ruined and unplayable as long as they get to win.

Equally baffling, to me, is how some people think it's reasonable to tell someone who is happily playing along by the rules that unless they change, mid-game, to some other "personal interpretation of what the authors meant to say" the person playing by the rules is ruining the game.

 

This is why FAQs and errata exist. To give clarity on what the rules should be versus what the authors wrote. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

Have taken lots of notes and generally absorbed loads of information.  Will pop up a report on what I've found out for AoS on Monday once in back (a whole second day to go!)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FRoper said:

always more as highly competitive players will try and twist the rules to give them an advantage, when sometimes it is very plainly clear.

I don't think it is the case of twisting, GW seems to not have a developed a game language alongside its fluff, which is shocking considering the company is 40 years old. I am rather new to the game myself, but I have already found rules which technicly work the same, but are for some ununderstandable reason worded in a different way. Sprinkle non rules talk in rule sections and you get people having to ask themself what was GW thinking while writing a rule, and that is not good for anygame. I hope that with 2.0 they fix this, because the way how offten they have to faq or errata their battle tomes, it makes them a bad buy as far as rules go.

 

38 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

This is why FAQs and errata exist. To give clarity on what the rules should be versus what the authors wrote. 

It would be also nice, if they gave some in depth explanation to why they think a rule or rule interaction should work like X. Because as you said it, everyone can say that they think the rules writer thought this or that, and it should be played the way I want it. I have never heard about a game system that went down, because it had clear rules system. Plus when rules are writen that way people don't feel the need to buy them. And if they pirate the rules, they soon start doing the same with models, and from there on we enter a slipper slope.

 

But in general am all exited about all the stuff. I haven't invested much money in to the game, so I don't lose much if they nerf my stuff. But because most nonthing I have is OP, I feel rather safe. Better yet, there maybe some fixs or buffs. I just really hope they tighten the way they write rules. Some hickups in year one of a game is to be expected, but in year 3 it really shouldn't happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Equally baffling, to me, is how some people think it's reasonable to tell someone who is happily playing along by the rules that unless they change, mid-game, to some other "personal interpretation of what the authors meant to say" the person playing by the rules is ruining the game.

 

This is why FAQs and errata exist. To give clarity on what the rules should be versus what the authors wrote. 

I dont know if you somehow felt insulted or targeted by what I wrote but the situation you describe is absolutely not what I was talking about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love AoS because it's simple rules. Launch 40k 8th was great for the same reasons, It's now becoming bloated like some great unclean one, with the huge number of strategems they've got. I really, really hope AoS 2 is as simple as AoS 1. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Or, you know, playing with the rules using the words of which they are made.

Not everyone who wants to play by the rules is trying to "twist" them.

the only person with any idea of the intention of rules which arent clearly written is the writer. 

it literally takes 3 seconds to explain the intention of rules, it has been done in 40k so there is president, a short explanation can solve alot of FAQ questions before they even arise. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hughwyeth said:

I love AoS because it's simple rules. Launch 40k 8th was great for the same reasons, It's now becoming bloated like some great unclean one, with the huge number of strategems they've got. I really, really hope AoS 2 is as simple as AoS 1. 

I have been playing a lot more 40k lately and I think I found that at first but it actually only takes a few games to get used to all your own strategy cards and I'm quickly picking up on ones I need to look out for from my regular opponents.

I think the difficulty with all tabletop games is that the rules quickly start to exist in multiple locations as expansions, source books and FAQs are released.

I don't have an issue with the complexity of either game but it sounds like the AoS 2 rules, Malign Sorcery rules and Generals Handbook will be 3 different releases which can be confusing for new players. 

I like the sound of everything I have heard so far but I do have to say that I am in no way fed up with the GH2017 missions yet. I haven't even tried the narrative or open play sections yet. And then there is the malign portents stuff - I have only played 3 games with those rules so far!!

I feel  a bit like the waiter is taking my plate away and giving me the dessert menu when I'm only half finished my main course...

Its great GW are releasing so much stuff but I honestly can't keep up! 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Requete said:

Are they Golden Pantaloons?

Not anymore :/ 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me or those new big spells resemble representations of the Realms? You have Hysh + Ulgu with Morathi (waiting for Teclis), a big Beast spell of Ghur with the Orruk, Flaming Skull of Ashy with the new Stormcast Wizard, a big Shyish ball of Death and the last one could be... Ghyran? Chamon? 

WHfestLiveBlog-Post2-Sorceries3hcd.jpg

WHfestLiveBlog-Post2-Sorceries6vb.jpg

WHfestLiveBlog-Post2-Sorceries5feg.jpg

WHfestLiveBlog-Post2-Sorceries7qkv.jpg

WHfestLiveBlog-Post2-Sorceries4jvd.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Karol said:

I don't think it is the case of twisting, GW seems to not have a developed a game language alongside its fluff, which is shocking considering the company is 40 years old. I am rather new to the game myself, but I have already found rules which technicly work the same, but are for some ununderstandable reason worded in a different way. Sprinkle non rules talk in rule sections and you get people having to ask themself what was GW thinking while writing a rule, and that is not good for anygame. I hope that with 2.0 they fix this, because the way how offten they have to faq or errata their battle tomes, it makes them a bad buy as far as rules go.

 

It would be also nice, if they gave some in depth explanation to why they think a rule or rule interaction should work like X. Because as you said it, everyone can say that they think the rules writer thought this or that, and it should be played the way I want it. I have never heard about a game system that went down, because it had clear rules system. Plus when rules are writen that way people don't feel the need to buy them. And if they pirate the rules, they soon start doing the same with models, and from there on we enter a slipper slope.

 

But in general am all exited about all the stuff. I haven't invested much money in to the game, so I don't lose much if they nerf my stuff. But because most nonthing I have is OP, I feel rather safe. Better yet, there maybe some fixs or buffs. I just really hope they tighten the way they write rules. Some hickups in year one of a game is to be expected, but in year 3 it really shouldn't happen.

There's some twisting, but the biggest problem is always going to be GW's complete disdain for consistent terminology.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

Mainly because GW designers have always been poor at writing rules that are clear, concise, and unambiguous.  They like their flowery descriptions too much.

Yeah still waiting for the 2+ invulnerable Grey Knights and Ogryns to get Nerfed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Condottiero Magno said:

Flowery?!? Rackham had flowery rules, due to a literal translator, while GW 's are painful to read due to the grammar and syntax, but it wasn't always so: the old guard responsible for 3rd Edition contained some English majors, IIRC.

I say flowery because they have always liked to add descriptive flavor text in the same text blurbs that contain rules.  Ideally they should separate flavor text into unit descriptions and keep the rules portion concise and just for rule mechanic texts.  It is often the mixing of these two things that has got them into trouble in the past.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope since FW have completely forgotten about their AoS lines, that GW actually have a paragraph about Tamurkhan and the Chaos Dwarfs as well as Fimir ahaha

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FERRUMITE said:

I hope since FW have completely forgotten about their AoS lines, that GW actually have a paragraph about Tamurkhan and the Chaos Dwarfs as well as Fimir ahaha

I'd rather they just give Chaos Dwarfs over to GW to handle from this point and let FW focus on expanding existing armies, be it via upgrade packs or new models. It made sense back in WHFB when GW played somewhat conservatively with their releases (and to a degree they still do in 40k) but now they're willing to take some major risks and evoke unique designs  with AoS, I say just bring 'em over with a fresh lick of paint. 

Bring the Skin Wolf models with them and give me my Chaos (or Destruction?) Not!Werewolf army whilst they're at it. Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully if there's a Darkoath faction on the horizon the skin wolves will get thrown in with them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spells look really interesting, that death spiked ball is enormous! Detail on them is more on par with their terrain kitd though, hope they are not their cheap chinese plastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spell things look awesome and such a cool addition to the game. The beast one is amazing, fire one pretty cool, death one neat. The lightning-ish one looks a bit cheap and the Idoneth one looks really bad, but I'm not sure if that's just a bad paint job.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

I say flowery because they have always liked to add descriptive flavor text in the same text blurbs that contain rules.  Ideally they should separate flavor text into unit descriptions and keep the rules portion concise and just for rule mechanic texts.  It is often the mixing of these two things that has got them into trouble in the past.

descriptive rules aren't the problem, some games have them, some do not. But and am not sure if this is our inhertitance of being occupied for almost 200years, we read the rules very attentivly, and in any syntax of any language of any language a switch of word or postioning can have drastic influence on the rules. Am not sure if others feel it that way, but to me the rules sometimes feel, as if they were writen down by multiple different people.

I don't have any feelings about the spell models, but I wonder if they are going to be required to play. It wouldn't be good if a non model spell was less powerful then the one that makes you buy a model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am extremely excited about the new edition. A new big book which brings all the lore together is exactly what people have been asking for. I hope they consulted @JReynolds.

The minis shown are astounding. The stormcast range just gets better and better over time and the nighthaunt are stunning. 

I usually avoid starter sets as I dislike one of the factions (khorne, Nurgle) but I definitely want to build both of these armies. 

I am looking forward to the rules and I have faith they will be great. I really thing the influence of Ben Johnson has helped Aos massively, so as long as he is still at the helm, I am confident we will have a very fun game next month. 

Best of all this should help the community to grow which will give us all more people to play against.

Exciting times.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...