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

GHB2019 Hopes & Expectations

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Gecktron said:

Not really. Thats just not what GW is about anymore. You can get Tolkien dwarfs everywhere. Age of Sigmar/GW needs a unique selling point to generate interessant and to establish their own universe. 

Sure, the dwarfs had their own quirks but there isn't much interesting stuff left in their line without slayers and machines. 
You can't build a new release around "more of the same". Gloomspite gitz worked because Night Goblins and squigs, in this form, were unique to begin with, Dwarfs in mountains with heavy armor and axes are not. 

Grudges????????????????????????????????????? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Grudges????????????????????????????????????? 

Im all for making grudges more important, but at it is now they aren't much more than a minor background quirk for all the Duardin factions (Kharadrons have them as a rule, Fyreslayers have it in the lore). The only model representation they got was on one special character. 

Adding a new hero that carries a book of grudges, or adding books to new units would be something to make them more unique on the field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion kind of went narrative vs matched again (like it always does) with a sprinkling of hating the double turn (which it always does) and so I may have missed if someone already said this.

I'd like the GHB to do a little more with scenery and board building.  Maybe it's in there somewhere but it would be nice to have a reference to size of scenery, type of scenery and such.  Or an official-ish way to randomize where it goes.

Also, some generic rules for scenery like "Building" or "pond".  Stuff us rubes may use and own.  

A BYO-hero would be very fun.  I'd love to have a system where you had one guy you could really customize (kind of like the kharadron build your own house, but not suck).  I think done correctly, it could work for matched and narrative but the obvious easy thing would be narrative. 

I know they kind of have that now, but it doesn't really scratch the itch like a real hero builder would.  Heck, with some clever planning, you could even release "bits" that fit into a universal system so you have an armature of sorts that you could customize exactly the way you wanted.  This is way off topic obviously.  Maybe GHB 2022 or "malign forgery" 😂

Also I think we should only have matched play, give the person who went second a +4 to their initiative roll, split all the books into their own separate books (1 for realm rules, one for realm spells, 1 for artifacts, one for points, one for lore etc.) and each of these needs to be refreshed twice a year, increase points for all units made before January 2018, give new battletomes to every army I don't play then retire them all and include a link to privateer press games at the bottom of every warscroll. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

The discussion kind of went narrative vs matched again (like it always does) with a sprinkling of hating the double turn (which it always does) and so I may have missed if someone already said this.

I'd like the GHB to do a little more with scenery and board building.  Maybe it's in there somewhere but it would be nice to have a reference to size of scenery, type of scenery and such.  Or an official-ish way to randomize where it goes.

Also, some generic rules for scenery like "Building" or "pond".  Stuff us rubes may use and own.  

A BYO-hero would be very fun.  I'd love to have a system where you had one guy you could really customize (kind of like the kharadron build your own house, but not suck).  I think done correctly, it could work for matched and narrative but the obvious easy thing would be narrative. 

I know they kind of have that now, but it doesn't really scratch the itch like a real hero builder would.  Heck, with some clever planning, you could even release "bits" that fit into a universal system so you have an armature of sorts that you could customize exactly the way you wanted.  This is way off topic obviously.  Maybe GHB 2022 or "malign forgery" 😂

Also I think we should only have matched play, give the person who went second a +4 to their initiative roll, split all the books into their own separate books (1 for realm rules, one for realm spells, 1 for artifacts, one for points, one for lore etc.) and each of these needs to be refreshed twice a year, increase points for all units made before January 2018, give new battletomes to every army I don't play then retire them all and include a link to privateer press games at the bottom of every warscroll. 

love it. Order is restored  to the nerdosphere.

In all honesty the game is what we make of it.  The GHB gives us a framework to work with, and it's pretty clear that we all see a different agenda as to how things should go and what should be done.

However, I do think AoS is in a good place, and we as players along with it.

All the while we let the mothership know constructively what we need and want, they'll listen.   If we just rant a them they'll close the door.  it's what they allways did and the y always will.  They want us to keep spending, and in order to keep us spending they worked out that they need to talk to us and listen in return.

I'm sure that in time we'll have different ages of the game as we did back in fantasy - hordehammer, herohammer, horsehammer, spellhammer .. kfchammer.

and I can't see AoS being any different.  BUT, taking the glasshalf full view, we have it for only a year, not four - and that's huge.

Sure last years cheese is going to be this years nerf, and last year's I've never lost a game is this years I've never won a game and it's a rubbish now, but we've got a channel to feed everything back and a year to hopefully see changes.

We're not seeing retconned storylines anymore with every editions armybook regurgitating the same thing, we're seeing campaigns to move the living world forward and it's the right thing to do in my opinion.  That way everyone gets written in and involved. not like how it was.  Vigilus, Malign portents etc. just great ways to push the story forward and the GHB tweaks here and there till the next big core rules land.

Sure my slaves to darkness are not 'meta' but it's my choice to still play them as opposed to putting wall to wall eels on the table.  Sure there's armies I hate playing against, but to be frank - its not the army - it's the way the guy pushing it across the table is with it.  You can have a "broken" army and still make the game fun for the guy your facing, or you could be the guy who makes everyone you play resent and hate everyone who shows up with that faction.

But that's not the army, it's not GW, it's the player.

I'm contemplating sacrosanct chamber at some point and kharadron overlords.

Actually if I've got one thing I'd like to see in GHB2019 it would be Forgeworld and GW mothership team talking a bit more.

Putting their base sizes in on the FAQ is a start, but it would be nice to see the AoS team helping their FW bredrin out on some of the more mundane housekeeping tasks such as allies tables and the like.

I know it's coming across as a bit of a fanboy post but honestly, I did a lot more moaning in fantasy than I've done in AoS and for an old longbeard like me that can only be a good thing. :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Not really. Thats just not what GW is about anymore. You can get Tolkien dwarfs everywhere. Age of Sigmar/GW needs a unique selling point to generate interessant and to establish their own universe. 

Sure, the dwarfs had their own quirks but there isn't much interesting stuff left in their line without slayers and machines. 
You can't build a new release around "more of the same". Gloomspite gitz worked because Night Goblins and squigs, in this form, were unique to begin with, Dwarfs in mountains with heavy armor and axes are not. 

this is true, so very true.

Now, personally however, it's also an easy answer for someone like GW to give.

But if, just if, despite putting them to the back of the shelves and the webstore with not much fanfare in the hope that people won't buy them - but sales still persist, then your sales figures are saying, this is still liked, it's still popular.

 

In that instance someone  should ask the question:

"Dwarfs in mountains with heavy armor and axes are not. - so what do we need to do to make them so?"

stepping back, you look at the goblins and realise that half your army range already exists, so someone asked the what if question of them.

The final release of dwarves during fantasy took a very different aesthetic direction.  Ironbreakers and irondrakes are more AoS than fantasy battle, and it's stuff like this, little clues that tell me that these armies are not going to die but the models were styled with something greater in mind.   We said the same thing when the chariot, warshrine, wrathmongers and blightkings came out for chaos - all aesthetically AoS models, but at the time looked a bit garish and alien compared to what was around.

I'm putting money on anything that came out during end times or the last year of fantasy is here to stay.

@Skreech Verminking I fully expect your thanquol and boneripper to return to your rat infested holes very soon :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take the aspects of "Dwarfs in mountains"  and turn it up to 10,    make the mountain holds the size  continents and give them "super runes" that mantifest physically on the battlefield like endless spells.(according to the malign sorcery book,  runes are a form of magic, but they are not spells)  Also give them different kinds of golems, like stone golems, iron golems etc.    Give them a Grungni  model to lead them.

Now you have Age of Sigmar Tolkien Dwarfs.

Edited by xking
  • Like 7
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not sure how giving Duardin a way to give their Anscestors a way to live on in stone constructs is just a lazy version of Stormcast.  If anything they would be like magical versions of Dreadnoughts from 40k (or more sentient Wraith constructs).  A few giant Troggoth-sized constructs is not an army of perfect beings with a magical answer to everything.

It seems very Dwarf-like to honor their anscestors and the knowledge of old by giving them a way to be like living libraries.  Make mountain Duardin the opposite of KO, where instead of innovation, they found a way to keep information from being lost with it's teachers, as they stick around to keep teaching and enforce Grudges.

The tragic part would be that when they are called to defend their Holds, when they are destroyed that's it- no get out of jail reforging like Stormcast.  Or maybe Grungni trumped Sigmar, in that while no new 'Living Anscestors' can be made, because they are all a relic from the Time of Legends, they also don't lose a part of themselves when their master rune is collected from the battlefield and struck into a new empty body which is waiting in a limited stockpile deep in the Holds, all of which were stored away in the Time of Legends.  Collecting them from fallen constructs would be a main drive of Mountain Duardin to go to war with a vengeance.

Maybe many were lost during the wars with Chaos and they are now trying to track them down, alongside recapturing their fallen Holds.

 

Edited by Aegisgrimm
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Still not sure how giving Duardin a way to give their Anscestors a way to live on in stone constructs is just a lazy version of Stormcast.  If anything they would be like magical versions of Dreadnoughts from 40k (or more sentient Wraith constructs).  A few giant Troggoth-sized constructs is not an army of perfect beings with a magical answer to everything.

It seems very Dwarf-like to honor their anscestors and the knowledge of old by giving them a way to be like living libraries.  Make mountain Duardin the opposite of KO, where instead of innovation, they found a way to keep information from being lost with it's teachers, as they stick around to keep teaching and enforce Grudges.

The tragic part would be that when they are called to defend their Holds, when they are destroyed that's it- no get out of jail reforging like Stormcast.  Or maybe Grungni trumped Sigmar, in that while no new 'Living Anscestors' can be made, because they are all a relic from the Time of Legends, they also don't lose a part of themselves when their master rune is collected from the battlefield and struck into a new empty body which is waiting in a limited stockpile deep in the Holds, all of which were stored away in the Time of Legends.  Collecting them from fallen constructs would be a main drive of Mountain Duardin to go to war with a vengeance.

 

They should not be "Anscestors in constructs", just make golems.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only thought about Anscestors to give a tragic element to them being destroyed on the battlefield, really.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see them as tragic, but as realising there is a civilisation ther for them to reclaim, a rebirth to greatness.

I don't see the ancestors as real spirits per se, more of a channel for a collective emotional desire to venerate and honour the past, and for them whether they realise it or not, there's their magic, they believe that it's an ancestors spirit but in reality it's their stubborn resistance and determination to honour, oath and duty that rune magic latches onto and harnesses.

So its not like great uncle Gruntingbag ever lives on as a ghost in a machine or construct, but the will and venerated honour his descendents and bloodline venerate him with infuses into the statue of him or his favourite cave bear and animates in times of greatest need.

I suppose a dwarven equivalent to a person with latent telekenesis where it only comes out when they're scared or angry.

But they believe it to be their ancestors watching over them,  and this alone is enough to give them the grit to carry on.

Share this post


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

Still not sure how giving Duardin a way to give their Anscestors a way to live on in stone constructs is just a lazy version of Stormcast.  If anything they would be like magical versions of Dreadnoughts from 40k (or more sentient Wraith constructs).  A few giant Troggoth-sized constructs is not an army of perfect beings with a magical answer to everything.

It seems very Dwarf-like to honor their anscestors and the knowledge of old by giving them a way to be like living libraries.  Make mountain Duardin the opposite of KO, where instead of innovation, they found a way to keep information from being lost with it's teachers, as they stick around to keep teaching and enforce Grudges.

The tragic part would be that when they are called to defend their Holds, when they are destroyed that's it- no get out of jail reforging like Stormcast.  Or maybe Grungni trumped Sigmar, in that while no new 'Living Anscestors' can be made, because they are all a relic from the Time of Legends, they also don't lose a part of themselves when their master rune is collected from the battlefield and struck into a new empty body which is waiting in a limited stockpile deep in the Holds, all of which were stored away in the Time of Legends.  Collecting them from fallen constructs would be a main drive of Mountain Duardin to go to war with a vengeance.

Maybe many were lost during the wars with Chaos and they are now trying to track them down, alongside recapturing their fallen Holds.

 

Doesn't that smack of Craftworld Aeldari though?? I hardly think the Dwarfs of old would want to be compared to the filthy Elgi

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vextol said:

I'd like the GHB to do a little more with scenery and board building.  Maybe it's in there somewhere but it would be nice to have a reference to size of scenery, type of scenery and such.  Or an official-ish way to randomize where it goes.

Also, some generic rules for scenery like "Building" or "pond".  Stuff us rubes may use and own.  

I agree with this.  Both 40k 8th Ed and AoS are a bit lacking when it comes to meaningful terrain rules.  They did a good job tweaking forests for AoS 2, but I feel that they could still do more.  The battlefield should have more of an impact than it tends to and very basic terrain rules seem to be the culprit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree with this.  Both 40k 8th Ed and AoS are a bit lacking when it comes to meaningful terrain rules.  They did a good job tweaking forests for AoS 2, but I feel that they could still do more.  The battlefield should have more of an impact than it tends to and very basic terrain rules seem to be the culprit.

Aye if there’s anywhere where Realm rules could shine without being so out-there it’s terrain surely. Malevolent swamps, firey chasms, Metallic boulder fields etc. One of the things I enjoy most in AOS is how things other than soldiers affect battles, be that objectives, wyldwoods, shrines etc. More of that to make areas on the battlefield either desirable to hold or manipulate, or somewhere where you really don’t want to fight. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, basic rules for Area Terrain made up of Difficult Terrain, Dangerous Terrain, etc. would be refreshingly old-fashioned.

Edited by Aegisgrimm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Aegisgrimm said:

Yeah, basic rules for Area Terrain made up of Difficult Terrain, Dangerous Terrain, etc. would be refreshingly old-fashioned.

Exactly.  Not everything old is bad.  Hell, the AoS team already knows this since they have been mining the old Fantasy world for interesting concepts for almost the whole of AoS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy with AoS as it is. Of course I expect them to rebalance the points and hope they come up with some cool new stuff in order for the book to be worth purchasing.  

The only thing I would like is for Battalions to be free, or at least cheap, so I could fit them in easier without having to keep some of the units off my list. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new Allegiance Ability that allows BCR to claim objectives, or an overall rule that moves away from the by-model format.

Edited by Kyriakin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 11:38 PM, rokapoke said:

I expect GW to continue pushing what they see as the three ways to play. In particular, they will be making matched play what they want it to be, which is very different from what some players seem to want. Tournament play is a matched play variant where the tournament organizer (not typically GW) makes adjustments such as restricting double turns or eliminating realm rules in the tournament pack. I’d like GW to stay out of that, personally. 

Yes, this.

Matched play exists at both the most casual (e.g. points save time, points make pick-up games easier, etc.) and most competitive (obviously) ends of the spectrum.

Someone not wanting to play a hard-edged, min-max game does not necessarily mean they want to play without points.

In my experience, it's usually quite the opposite. Building your own game is actually quite a hardcore gaming activity - just in a different way to hardcore tournament play.

Edited by Kyriakin
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

battalions for free? i dont think so. Formations were one of many things that destroyed 7th edition 40k, lets not repeat the sins of 40k please. 7th edition 40k is exactly why you pay for battalions, they learnt from that mistake

i do think they should be cheaper, but also should lose some of the bonuses (talking about things like the extra command point and artefacts) as they just inflate the cost. some battalions should also have different costs based on weather youve taken the minimum or maximum units allowed (Murderhost for example, is absolutely useless and overcosted if you arent running the full 8 units allowed),alternatively, battalions have a fixed composition and points cost but includes the cost of the units

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free battalions CAN WORK imo BUT they need to give very minor bonuses and be balanced carefully, something which is easy to get wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd rather see Battalions moved off the points system and onto something else. I just dislike the notion that I'm spending enough points for another block of troops and models on the table for a few bonuses to a portion of the army. Of course with points it means that most armies can only viably run one or two formations in any one 2K force and some formations are way way above and almost randomly priced (Morathi's Battalion comes with a huge cost).

If they limited all armies to one or two battalions from the start and then linked that to command points directly so that it was a trade off I think that would still work. Most are still going to be expensive in unit points alone so it shouldn't break the game. It might encourage wider use of them though so that would have to be taken into account. 

At present though I think AoS has things like command points and battalions all linked into the points system so that the games model load is artificially kept lower, even at 2K games. Compare the variety of models on the table for a 40K game and many AoS armies and there's a distinct difference. I'd wager we'll see AoS copy 40K steadily and expand up as the game matures and gamers have more models on average that they want to use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Overread said:

Personally I'd rather see Battalions moved off the points system and onto something else. I just dislike the notion that I'm spending enough points for another block of troops and models on the table for a few bonuses to a portion of the army. Of course with points it means that most armies can only viably run one or two formations in any one 2K force and some formations are way way above and almost randomly priced (Morathi's Battalion comes with a huge cost). 

If they limited all armies to one or two battalions from the start and then linked that to command points directly so that it was a trade off I think that would still work. Most are still going to be expensive in unit points alone so it shouldn't break the game. It might encourage wider use of them though so that would have to be taken into account. 

At present though I think AoS has things like command points and battalions all linked into the points system so that the games model load is artificially kept lower, even at 2K games. Compare the variety of models on the table for a 40K game and many AoS armies and there's a distinct difference. I'd wager we'll see AoS copy 40K steadily and expand up as the game matures and gamers have more models on average that they want to use. 

You mean like with the Stratagems and Artefacts of the 40k Campaign Book Vicilus, where you spend 1 command point to get a keyword and also get access to some special Stratagems and Artefacts?

I think the main problem is that in 40k there is a Command Point pool from the beginning where in AoS you only have command points at the beginning if you have a battalion or spend less points in your armylist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Kaleb Daark said:

putting wall to wall eels on the table. 

Why would I put them on the table when they can deepstrike? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

Why would I put them on the table when they can deepstrike? 

semantics. a turn of phrase.  replace wall of eels with whatever big slab of dirty spam is currently in fashion.

carry on :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the past of AOS showed us that free batallions was not a good thing?  Now we're wanting it back?

  • Like 1

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...