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

January 2019 White Dwarf "overwrites" Skirmish book from 2017?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Greyshadow said:

easy-to-get-into variant for Age of Sigmar

And this is my favourite thing about skirmish. 😉

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/2/2019 at 8:22 AM, eekamouse said:

Ya. I need to play it, but it already at least "smells" better than what we had before.

I never paid much attention but the paper used for White Dwarf magazines is different than the paper used for the game books.  The ink is probably different also.  So that probably accounts for the olfactory difference.

Edited by Skabnoze
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I never pid much attention but the paper used for White Dwarf magazines is different than the paper used for the game books.  The ink is probably different also.  So that probably accounts for the olfactory difference.

Hahah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, to answer the original posters question (and my own!), the skirmish expansion in White Dwarf is self contained. No need to have the original book(let).

P.S. Wow the new White Dwarf looks fantastic! Very interesting that the WD team are part of the design studio. If you haven't got it yet, go get it, it's great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got my copy and I'm similarly impressed!

While I would've liked a bigger Skirmish update, and I think it's a shame we have to wait until next month for the campaign rules (an integral part of skirmish games, to me), the new rules seem solid enough to me, with a couple of smart changes and some cool scenarios. 

One thing that annoyed me is, despite specifically referring to this issue in the rules, it's still left maddeningly unclear how you determine how many special weapons you can have in a warband. E.g. if Sequitors can have two Greatmaces per five Sequitors, how many can I have if I have three Sequitors in my waband? Two? None?

My reading of the intent of the rules would be that I could make my first two Sequitors have Greatmaces, as long as my warband never has more than two for each five Sequitors, which would seem to make sense given you pay points for them now, but it's unclear enough that it's bound to cause disputes, especially in pick-up games. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, robinlvalentine said:

Just got my copy and I'm similarly impressed!

While I would've liked a bigger Skirmish update, and I think it's a shame we have to wait until next month for the campaign rules (an integral part of skirmish games, to me), the new rules seem solid enough to me, with a couple of smart changes and some cool scenarios. 

One thing that annoyed me is, despite specifically referring to this issue in the rules, it's still left maddeningly unclear how you determine how many special weapons you can have in a warband. E.g. if Sequitors can have two Greatmaces per five Sequitors, how many can I have if I have three Sequitors in my waband? Two? None?

My reading of the intent of the rules would be that I could make my first two Sequitors have Greatmaces, as long as my warband never has more than two for each five Sequitors, which would seem to make sense given you pay points for them now, but it's unclear enough that it's bound to cause disputes, especially in pick-up games. 

That's how I read it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the way the rules have come out. Lets hope, that GW uses the more informal format of a magazine release to be a first step for a coming book in some form. I also find the that the rules are pretty tight set of rules - especially compared to other rules I've read for general war-games published in magazine.  As a sidenote; Magazine published wargames are very common outside the miniatures world.

One thing confuses me. Do I really need a copy of the Generals Handbook??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I echo all the comments above! Looks great as a whole, rules for Skirmish seems solid. 

Regarding @robinlvalentine's comment, I disagree. It says it as a rule and the example seems overly clear. 'In addition you must adhere to any limitations on weapon options stated on the warscroll' & 'For example, no more than 1 in 5 Orruk Brutes in your warband can be armed with a massive gore-choppa, regardless of the weapon combination of the other models from the same warscroll'. So the limits for weapons that count as upgrades still exist in Skirmish. EDIT: page 26, middle colum, 4th paragraph. 

So your example 2 maces per 5 sequitors. So if you have 5 only 2. But number 6 en 7 you can give the maces again.

@eekamouse it really does 😂

 

Edited by Kramer
edit, page reference
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I echo all the comments above! Looks great as a whole, rules for Skirmish seems solid. 

Regarding @robinlvalentine's comment, I disagree. It says it as a rule and the example seems overly clear. 'In addition you must adhere to any limitations on weapon options stated on the warscroll' & 'For example, no more than 1 in 5 Orruk Brutes in your warband can be armed with a massive gore-choppa, regardless of the weapon combination of the other models from the same warscroll'. So the limits for weapons that count as upgrades still exist in Skirmish. EDIT: page 26, middle colum, 4th paragraph. 

So your example 2 maces per 5 sequitors. So if you have 5 only 2. But number 6 en 7 you can give the maces again.

@eekamouse it really does 😂

 

The limits definitely exist, but it's how they're implemented that's up for debate. If you have three brutes and one has a gore-choppa, that's 1 in 3 - technically speaking that's *more* than 1 in 5. One interpretation of the rules would be that you can't have a gore-choppa unless it's your fifth brute.

I'm not saying that's how I interpret it, but it's still ambiguous enough to leave room for confusion and disputes IMO. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, robinlvalentine said:

The limits definitely exist, but it's how they're implemented that's up for debate. If you have three brutes and one has a gore-choppa, that's 1 in 3 - technically speaking that's *more* than 1 in 5. One interpretation of the rules would be that you can't have a gore-choppa unless it's your fifth brute.

I'm not saying that's how I interpret it, but it's still ambiguous enough to leave room for confusion and disputes IMO. 

well maybe it's in the translation then or maybe it's me. Because in my head/and in Dutch 1 in 5 leaves no ambiguity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having to run a full five just to get the one specialist (that you still have to pay more points for anyway) is less fun (objectively?). And everyone gets to do it anyway.

Smaller more elite models on the table is what skirmish is designed for I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just to weigh in, the rules about limitations on special weapons are unchanged from the book. I am not sure about whether it is more fun but I think the most sensible interpretation is you need to take five models to get a one in five limited weapon option.

In terms of points, if you allow one special weapon when taking one model you are giving yourself an advantage, sometimes quite a significant advantage. You are essentially getting the weapon at an 80% points discount. Not taking the weapon you are paying 20% more than you should which is not perfect but much fairer. 

Edited by Greyshadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Greyshadow said:

Just to weigh in, the rules about limitations on special weapons are unchanged from the book. I am not sure about whether it is more fun but I think the most sensible interpretation is you need to take five models to get a one in five limited weapon option.

In terms of points, if you allow one special weapon when taking one model you are giving yourself an advantage, sometimes quite a significant advantage. You are essentially getting the weapon at an 80% points discount. Not taking the weapon you are paying 20% more than you should which is not perfect but much fairer. 

Ya but everyone can do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Pariah said:

Knight-Incantor cannot be in the game. I played him in skirmish, and his spell is simply to overpowered. It'll be interesting to see if GW resolves that. 

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Downloads//ENG_Knight_Incantor_Stormcast_2018.pdf

I'd say stuff like that should be made to fall under the "Formation" rule. So it would only affect units within 6 inches.

Basically anything that isn't a direct target should just be shrunk to 6 inches I think.

/shrug

 

-edit-

Actually, the Incantor is pointed in such a way that I think her warscroll is fine as is I expect.

Edited by eekamouse
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if @scrollbuilderdude, (the absolute legend that he is), is working on adding the new renown points to Warscroll Builder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think it's entirely fair to have 1-per-"X" special weapons require there to be "X" models present (including the special model) as well as an added cost.  The added cost is to represent it's better combat value, and the number restriction is to stop people from fielding an entire warband of just the special models from each warscroll they put in the warband, even if that makes them spend more points due to the added renown of such models.

From a newbie's perspective (correct me if I am getting something wrong, as I am just getting into AoS, especially skirmish), the interesting part if when you have a warband like Duardin Dispossessed, where things like Irondrakes and Iron Breakers don't have "specialist" models, but simply say that any of the models can be armed with any of the ranged weapon options in the kit, so all your choices of Irondrake in a warband could have Torpedoes or braces of pistols for no extra cost, when you would think that's more of a specialist upgrade. 

Edited by Aegisgrimm

Share this post


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

I wonder if @scrollbuilderdude, (the absolute legend that he is), is working on adding the new renown points to Warscroll Builder?

I wouldn’t be surprised if that goes up within a week but I bet it might take a couple weeks in reality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think it's entirely fair to have 1-per-"X" special weapons require there to be "X" models present (including the special model) as well as an added cost.  The added cost is to represent it's better combat value, and the number restriction is to stop people from fielding an entire warband of just the special models from each warscroll they put in the warband, even if that makes them spend more points due to the added renown of such models.

From a newbie's perspective (correct me if I am getting something wrong, as I am just getting into AoS, especially skirmish), the interesting part if when you have a warband like Duardin Dispossessed, where things like Irondrakes and Iron Breakers don't have "specialist" models, but simply say that any of the models can be armed with any of the ranged weapon options in the kit, so all your choices of Irondrake in a warband could have Torpedoes or braces of pistols for no extra cost, when you would think that's more of a specialist upgrade. 

I honestly could see both approaches if you’re talking matched play. As long as everyone is using the same understanding it’s good either way.

Both could exist as independent formats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Greyshadow said:

Just to weigh in, the rules about limitations on special weapons are unchanged from the book. I am not sure about whether it is more fun but I think the most sensible interpretation is you need to take five models to get a one in five limited weapon option.

In terms of points, if you allow one special weapon when taking one model you are giving yourself an advantage, sometimes quite a significant advantage. You are essentially getting the weapon at an 80% points discount. Not taking the weapon you are paying 20% more than you should which is not perfect but much fairer. 

So what happens if the restriction is, for example, 2 in 5? Is your fourth model allowed an upgrade? 

The rule's unchanged, but the rule's always been ambiguous/up for debate. Obviously it's not a huge issue but it's an oversight for them not to have clarified it IMO. 

Edited by robinlvalentine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Aegisgrimm said:

 From a newbie's perspective (correct me if I am getting something wrong, as I am just getting into AoS, especially skirmish), the interesting part if when you have a warband like Duardin Dispossessed, where things like Irondrakes and Iron Breakers don't have "specialist" models, but simply say that any of the models can be armed with any of the ranged weapon options in the kit, so all your choices of Irondrake in a warband could have Torpedoes or braces of pistols for no extra cost, when you would think that's more of a specialist upgrade. 

Torpedoes are limited to the champion, and you can only take on champion per warscroll, and only one of each warscroll in your warband. So in that specific example: No

But to this: 

6 hours ago, Aegisgrimm said:

I think it's entirely fair to have 1-per-"X" special weapons require there to be "X" models present (including the special model) as well as an added cost.  The added cost is to represent it's better combat value, and the number restriction is to stop people from fielding an entire warband of just the special models from each warscroll they put in the warband, even if that makes them spend more points due to the added renown of such models.

 

As I read it, 1 in 5 doesn't mean you first need 5 to get the 1. But again that might be a language thing. Looking at the essense i'm with @eekamouse. Lot's of specialist makes it more fun (in my mind). 

looking at the set up for campaigns in the previous set up compared to the advised matched play points, I assume next months campaign rules are going to suggest playing with less points and then building up. That would make it even harder to get specialists in. Plus all same models to get that specialist in... feels like a shame. 

9 hours ago, Pariah said:

Knight-Incantor cannot be in the game. I played him in skirmish, and his spell is simply to overpowered. It'll be interesting to see if GW resolves that. 

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Downloads//ENG_Knight_Incantor_Stormcast_2018.pdf

I'm with you, the knight Incantor spell is clearly not designed for Skirmish. Agains some armies it's fine, but if your bringing one wound units... 1 mortal wound for everything in 18" is no fun as a gameplay mechanic. Even if it's 140 pts, the spell, decent melee attacks, and the spirit flasks. Not to forget an automatic unbind makes it very very powerful. 

All that being said, you can easily houserule it, and GW designs the models for AoS not Skirmish, so weird things will crop up. 'shrugs'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kramer said:

All that being said, you can easily houserule it, and GW designs the models for AoS not Skirmish, so weird things will crop up. 'shrugs'

That`s what I just wanted to say. If someone is making the game no fun for another participant, then the player is the problem. "Never be an ****** and simply make it fun for everybody" is what I go by.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Kramer said:

Torpedoes are limited to the champion, and you can only take on champion per warscroll, and only one of each warscroll in your warband. So in that specific example: No

Whoops!  I'm just in the beginning stages of building a Dispossessed warband as well as just starting the game, and now that I reread the warscroll I'm not sure why I was thinking that, thanks for the correction.  Must be I was thinking the pistol/bomb or brace of pistols was the Champion weapons option.

As for limits on specialist weapons, it probably makes more sense than 1-in-5 simply means you have to have more than 5 to have 2 of such a weapon.  Still not worried about the double-cost of renown plus numbers restriction.

Edited by Aegisgrimm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well... This does not really fix any of the balancing problems the game has, but I do like the changes there has been made. It is still very much a "gentlemans game" in the sense that aI could name the first four warscrolls that break this game completely. Thats my main concern as I play in a four way campaign right now and it has pretty much boiled down to an endless discission on what okay to bring to the table and whats not. I was hoping the update would fix that but alas...

Edited by Urbanus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Still seems to me that Hinterlands and Forgotten Heroes still balanced the game better than even the latest release of Skirmish.  Forgotten Heroes having a limit of 30 renown (old renown numbers) made sense, even though the Knight Incantor is on there despite such a small game-breaking spell.

Also the Hinterland two Rules of Three look like a great balancing factor, where no model can affect more than three enemies in a turn, and only ever do three mortal wounds in a turn (the rest being turned into normal wounds).  At least that would limit a Knight Incantor to three models getting mortal wounds, and the rest just taking normal wounds, even though 18" is a gigantic area in small games, and could feasibly encompass an entire warband.

Edited by Aegisgrimm
  • Like 2

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...