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

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Verminlord said:

Well there was a big rumor post on Warhammer community that hinted at the return of bugman. I wonder if there is a booze focused army/warband based around valaya goddess of hearth, healing and brewing who has also been mentioned in lore and is the only unrepresented dwarf god. Maybe even some fem dwarfs?

Screenshot_20200730-110522.jpg

Edit: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/05/15/mysteries-of-the-mortal-realmsgw-homepage-post-1/

Well it would be great to see him and his rangers back in some form, a warcry war band of them would be perfect along with a clam pack of the great award himself. I'd love to see the dwarfs out on their own, not a fan of the dispossessed staying under human roofs- they need their own fortresses again. 

Share this post


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

Perhaps in a way, but to compare it to 8e 40k, rend is AP (works exactly the same as well). I think strength and toughness are different because they offer an extra layer of defence against troops specifically, and an extra layer of offence against troops. For example, a daemonette has the same chance of causing wounds to an ungor (with shield) compared to a cygor - the rend helps bring them both down equally. If strength and toughness existed, then maybe the daemonette would wound ungors on a 4, but cygors on a 5 or 6, meaning the cygor would have that extra layer before a wound was lost. So rend is an equal interaction between warscrolls, whereas S and T are more focused on small model vs medium models vs big models.

While you could argue that more wounds replace toughness (the ungor will miss one wound more than the cygor will), when we look at hordes of models then the hordes have more wounds overall. As in, it's just as easy to take down 14 wounds of ungor vs 14 wounds of cygor no matter who you are, and the ungor will probably have 6 extra wounds (if points are equal). By the same reasoning, cygors find it just as easy to wound Archaon as they do a goblin with their horns. 

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be too hard to introduce strength and toughness into AoS without major revisions and it may not be worth it in the end (adding complexity and probably more balance issues), but like I said I'd like to see monsters gain extra protection against hordes because currently greater daemons etc (while usually very strong) feel like they last a few seconds on the battlefield against some regular blokes with swords charging them. For me I think the issue is the narrative of it; when I play Chaos Knights in 40k I feel like they take a lot to take down unless the opponent has weapons designed against them. The only monster I feel in AoS that's tough to take down is buffed Archaon. It feels like these godly creatures aren't capable of taking a few hits from something that comes up to their knee. 

Count me in.

I was very sad when the strength-toughness disappeared from WHF.

Warriors of chaos felt like a real army because of this feature. It just feels weird how super strong guys dish out the exact damage as weaklings

because everyone has the same armor save and rend

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll like to see battlefield roles expanded a little. Things like:

Infantry: always counts as more models for claiming an objective if the enemy is a non infantry. 

Calvery: blanket does more damage on the charge, gives enemy infanty a minus on their bravery if the cav charge the infantry. 

Monsters: give them back thunderstomp and a - 1 to wound vs infantry and non charging calvery. 

Give each a battlefield role. Infanty to hold the line and objectives, cav as the shook troops and monsters as killing machines. 

  • Like 4
  • LOVE IT! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Verminlord said:

Well there was a big rumor post on Warhammer community that hinted at the return of bugman. I wonder if there is a booze focused army/warband based around valaya goddess of hearth, healing and brewing who has also been mentioned in lore and is the only unrepresented dwarf god. Maybe even some fem dwarfs?

Screenshot_20200730-110522.jpg

Edit: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/05/15/mysteries-of-the-mortal-realmsgw-homepage-post-1/

The Kharadron Battletome mentions a charter company named Bugmans Brew, famous for its great beer and secrecy about their recipe.

Share this post


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

Calvery: blanket does more damage on the charge, gives enemy infanty a minus on their bravery if the cav charge the infantry. 

I know a lot of cavalry units get some kind of bonus when they’ve charged, which makes sense, but I’d  change it up more.

I say cavalry should all basically have some equivalent of the ‘Fly’ keyword JUST WHEN THEY CHARGE that allows them to move through units, causing x wounds as they do so and then ****** off.

basically like hex wraiths and indeed Squig Hoppers.

Makes a lot more sense for me that cavalry units should hit fast, smash through enemy units, cause havoc (like mortal wounds and a bravery debuff for any tests that round, after all having several tonnes of beast flesh scythe through your unit would be genuinely ****** terrifying) & ideally then be out of reach and off.

As a counterpoint to that you then make it so that some of them are then less effective in normal melee combat. After all if your cavalry units gets bogged down and caught up in static fighting then they lose all advantage and they’re at much greater risk of being pulled down and swamped by foot slogging peasants.

make it so they are absolutely devastating on the charge but you have to really position and play them well to make the most of them. As you don’t have to worry about things like which way they’re facing and deal with ****** like wheeling now that’s not making it too complicated it’s just positioning them for the charge.

implemented well this also opens up space for making troops with things like spears & pokes more interesting as they become dedicated anti-cav units. Any unit with melee weapons with more than a 1” range could do x MWs to cavalry charges or something.

Edited by JPjr
  • Like 2
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ogregut said:

I'll like to see battlefield roles expanded a little. Things like:

Infantry: always counts as more models for claiming an objective if the enemy is a non infantry. 

Calvery: blanket does more damage on the charge, gives enemy infanty a minus on their bravery if the cav charge the infantry. 

Monsters: give them back thunderstomp and a - 1 to wound vs infantry and non charging calvery. 

Give each a battlefield role. Infanty to hold the line and objectives, cav as the shook troops and monsters as killing machines. 

The moment this is implemented is the moment every faction cries "we don't have any monster/cavalry/infantry units to hold up". 

Giving something so static so that every army becomes cookie cutter is not my ideal way to engage AOS. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JPjr that is a fantastic idea but I feel it suits heavy cavalry much more so than light cavalry. Maybe split the key words of the two and have light cavalry have the ability to fall back and charge?  Would this add additional confusion or be to overpowered?

 

Then you could have distinct battlefield roles for something like chaos knights smashing through a line and getting wedged into combat vs marauder horesmen disrupting a flank through speedy interference style attacks. I also could see chariots benefiting drastically from your rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 5:26 AM, Enoby said:

I know adding strength and toughness are a bit contentious in AoS, but I think some form of it would at least help monsters. In 40k, if your Imperial Knight gets hit by 60 grots, they'll all be wounding on 6s so it's not very scary for the knight (which I think is thematically and mechanically right). In AoS, if you surround a Maw Krusha with 60 grots, the Maw Krusha will take heavy damage if not outright die. 

While adding actual Strength and Toughness would be a lot of hard work outside of a new edition, and would probably require a lot of rebalancing, they could  add something like Toughness lite. For example, a general rule saying "Units without the Monster keyword have -1 to wound against units with the Monster Keyword". I know this wouldn't quite cover everything but I think it'd help the issue where monsters feel like they die to a stiff breeze.

The "everything can damage everything" theme works better in aos due to combat phase turn priorities. The Knight vs 60 grots that can barely touch it is fine in 40k.  In AoS, everything should be a threat, and how you decide to use your activations should matter. Should I activate my zombie dragon first to wipe out as much chaff as possible or do I take 2nd priority, try to win the other combat knowing my dragon might get bogged down by grots and reverse snowball to an early death because he took too many wounds too fast and was too weak to take them out efficiently? 

The other reason chaff needs to be competent in this game is because we lack the unit variety of 40k, where it's okay if the grots can't damage the Knight because i can shoot rockets at it with my other units and maneuver some power claws to close in as it clears out the chaf. In AOS, a lot of armies are 100% infantry. If i can't damage your hero with anything other than my hero we have a pretty silly game. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the strength and toughness  argument for monsters. I was essentially trying to reflect the same thing through my Ward Save against non and low rend attacks. Basically the idea is that small weapons don't really hurt monsters, and it takes truly powerful attacks to cause them damage.  A 4+ Ward save against no rend attacks  across the board for all Monster units would reflect the inability of basic infantry (like the grots mentioned above) to hurt monsters.

Vince Venturella of Warhammer Weekly coincidentally just released a video about this very topic. He basically said that monsters need to either be bullies (high damage output clearing enemies) or utility (like the Gothizzar Harvester, buffing units around it) to make them worthwhile. As it is most monsters are terrible and almost never worth taking, with a few exceptions.

You can watch his video on the topic here: 

 

Share this post


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

The "everything can damage everything" theme works better in aos due to combat phase turn priorities. The Knight vs 60 grots that can barely touch it is fine in 40k.  In AoS, everything should be a threat, and how you decide to use your activations should matter. Should I activate my zombie dragon first to wipe out as much chaff as possible or do I take 2nd priority, try to win the other combat knowing my dragon might get bogged down by grots and reverse snowball to an early death because he took too many wounds too fast and was too weak to take them out efficiently? 

The other reason chaff needs to be competent in this game is because we lack the unit variety of 40k, where it's okay if the grots can't damage the Knight because i can shoot rockets at it with my other units and maneuver some power claws to close in as it clears out the chaf. In AOS, a lot of armies are 100% infantry. If i can't damage your hero with anything other than my hero we have a pretty silly game. 

 

I think that you point to one of the greatest strengths of AOS: which is no matter how inefficient my build may be, it is still possible to be remotely viable. If I play Beasts of Chaos I may be at a disadvantage but I can build my army with Gors, Minotaurs or Dragon Ogres and still be able to play and impact the game. A Cities of Sigmar player can freely choose to play just Aelves, Duardin or Humans and still easily win a match or can mix them together and still easily win a match. Whereas I remember in Fantasy having a unit of chaos knights that could only be defeated through spells or artillery and thus required a direct counter. This limits people's ability to play what they want and build thematic lists to even be able to enjoy the game. True certain builds in AoS can and will dominate certain army lists and become the obvious choice for competitive meta players, but they are not a prerequisite for building an army (except for battleline). I am always surprised to see in AoS how many armies can function with limited to no magic but also how many can go pure magic without breaking the system. 

Edited by Neverchosen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Yeled said:

As it is most monsters are terrible and almost never worth taking, with a few exceptions.

Not every game is a cut throat tournament game. Sometimes you take cool stuff and your opponent does as well. Cuz they look neat.

Monsters are cool.

  • Like 5
  • LOVE IT! 3

Share this post


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

Not every game is a cut throat tournament game. Sometimes you take cool stuff and your opponent does as well. Cuz they look neat.

Monsters are cool.

Monsters are cool. True. Not every game is cut throat. Also true. Neither of these is an argument against monsters being made to actually act like monsters in the game.

Wouldn't monsters be cooler, even in casual games (which I exclusively play), if they were actually scary? Why does making monsters good make them less cool?

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 10:40 AM, Lich King said:

   I would get rid of the damage chart and sub in a “ last breathe” line where it states - “if this model had 3 wounds or less remaining, use these stats “. That way the monsters stay at peak strength for most of their lifespan while only decreasing once if it’s at its final wounds. 
    
I would also get rid of the horde discount for all units. This seems to be the simplest and most effective way to keep monsters somewhat threatening. 

 

5 minutes ago, Yeled said:

Monsters are cool. True. Not every game is cut throat. Also true. Neither of these is an argument against monsters being made to actually act like monsters in the game.

Wouldn't monsters be cooler, even in casual games (which I exclusively play), if they were actually scary? Why does making monsters good make them less cool?

 

So I disagree at bit on the problem with monsters. The core of the issue isn't necessarily the monsters themselves. Most consider degrading statlines to be a good thing for the game.  The current problems plaguing monsters is more to do with the battleshock phase being broken.

If battleshock was truly something to worry about, then monsters would be functioning as intended. Because while they do degrade in output as they take damage just like infantry would, they are exempt from any followup consequences. 

Right now battleshock immunity is too easily accessible to the armies where it matters most. If I had to truly worry about losing an additional 7 infantry after taking 10 wounds, then monsters would become A LOT more appealing. Yea I might take 10 wounds in the fight, but I don't have to worry about running away!

I think there is hope on this front though. Notice that in 40K battleshock was completely overhauled and  the auto-pass ability was limited to once per game.  When AOS 3.0 drops I imagine it will be a copy and paste. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Landohammer I really liked in Fantasy (at least in 6th ed.) how the unit would use the general's leadership value instead of their own. It gave reason for leadership being included in their profile and also made it something to consider in terms of inclusion for certain heroes. I feel like inspiring presence being changed to having a unit use the heroes' leadership value as opposed to an auto pass might be an interesting change? 

Although, I have a feeling it would rarely get used it is cost a CP...

At the very least it would make Skaven and Goblins seem more appropriately cowardly.

Edited by Neverchosen
  • Like 3
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JPjr said:

mplemented well this also opens up space for making troops with things like spears & pokes more interesting as they become dedicated anti-cav units. Any unit with melee weapons with more than a 1” range could do x MWs to cavalry charges or something

And three edition later we’re playing with flank charges, ranks and a rulebook that takes a masters degree to understand ;) 

On a serious note I do understand most cav is in a weird place right now. But I rather they take a step back and just fix it on the warscrolls. Even if all cav has the same line of text. 
but it could definitely do with being a keyword. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

@Landohammer I really liked in Fantasy (at least in 6th ed.) how the unit would use the general's leadership value instead of their own. It gave reason for leadership being included in their profile and also made it something to consider in terms of inclusion for certain heroes. I feel like inspiring presence being changed to having a unit use the heroes' leadership value as opposed to an auto pass might be an interesting change? 

Although, I have a feeling it would rarely get used it is cost a CP...

At the very least it would make Skaven and Goblins seem more appropriately cowardly.

This is what I've always been in favor for. It gives you some battleshock protection while ensuring you take part in it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40K fans must be loving life right now with all this content!! Cannot wait for AOS 3.0!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

40K fans must be loving life right now with all this content!!

LOL. You ever met one? Miserable ****** never happier than when they’re whining about one thing or another. Right now there’s large sections of the 40k community throwing a ******-fit because the intro text (all the blah blah blah emperor sits on his carrion throne blah blah blah) has been slightly modified and because they’ve been told that if they’re racists they might not be nice people. It’ll take more than a few community articles tickling their bellies to put a smile on their faces.

Edited by JPjr
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JPjr said:

LOL. You ever met one? Miserable ****** never happier than when they’re whining about one thing or another. Right now there’s large sections of the 40k community throwing a ******-fit because the intro text (all the blah blah blah emperor sits on his carrion throne blah blah blah) has been slightly modified and because they’ve been told that if they’re racists they might not be nice people. It’ll take more than a few community articles tickling their bellies to put a smile on their faces.

It must be a  global phenomenon, because 40k players here in Texas (USA) have the same stereotype that you just described, lol.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

LOL. You ever met one? Miserable ****** never happier than when they’re whining about one thing or another. Right now there’s large sections of the 40k community throwing a ******-fit because the intro text (all the blah blah blah emperor sits on his carrion throne blah blah blah) has been slightly modified and because they’ve been told that if they’re racists they might not be nice people. It’ll take more than a few community articles tickling their bellies to put a smile on their faces.

I've always had the assumption that 40K players were the grumpier of the 2 game systems back in WHFB but I had no idea they were as bad as this!! Is it because of the idoling of the Emperor and Space Marines? And killing all Heretics and Xenoooooo...oh yep I see it now.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

@Landohammer I really liked in Fantasy (at least in 6th ed.) how the unit would use the general's leadership value instead of their own. It gave reason for leadership being included in their profile and also made it something to consider in terms of inclusion for certain heroes. I feel like inspiring presence being changed to having a unit use the heroes' leadership value as opposed to an auto pass might be an interesting change? 

Although, I have a feeling it would rarely get used it is cost a CP...

At the very least it would make Skaven and Goblins seem more appropriately cowardly.

I think battleshock immunity should just go away entirely, except for in extremely conditional circumstances. Such as a Sylvaneth being near Alarielle in a forest in the realm of Ghyran lol.

But seriously, let support characters offer modifiers and rerolls. Never immunity. 

Note in that 40K battleshock is actually LESS important because the meta power armies generally run smaller squads. And they cracked down HARD on battleshock immunity in 9th. So this just leads me to believe that AOS 3.0 will be the same.

And with the insanely fast turnaround time of 8th to 9th I imagine AOS 3.0 isn't that far away. 

 

 

57 minutes ago, JPjr said:

LOL. You ever met one? Miserable ****** never happier than when they’re whining about one thing or another. Right now there’s large sections of the 40k community throwing a ******-fit because the intro text (all the blah blah blah emperor sits on his carrion throne blah blah blah) has been slightly modified and because they’ve been told that if they’re racists they might not be nice people. It’ll take more than a few community articles tickling their bellies to put a smile on their faces.

 

50 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:

It must be a  global phenomenon, because 40k players here in Texas (USA) have the same stereotype that you just described, lol.

I know that there is a bit of a cultural difference but most 40k players I know are great dudes and fun opponents. And in general they are even more involved in the fluff than AOS players are.  Don't let a minority of whiners on the internet ruin your opinion of 40k players in general! 

But I will say this.  40k has a larger community than AOS because 40k players show up to events. Or at least they did Pre Covid.

Its easy to pick on them because of their passion. But if AOS players got out of their hobby rooms more often we wouldn't have to worry about being overshadowed by 40k so much! 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

@Landohammer I really liked in Fantasy (at least in 6th ed.) how the unit would use the general's leadership value instead of their own. It gave reason for leadership being included in their profile and also made it something to consider in terms of inclusion for certain heroes. I feel like inspiring presence being changed to having a unit use the heroes' leadership value as opposed to an auto pass might be an interesting change? 

Although, I have a feeling it would rarely get used it is cost a CP...

At the very least it would make Skaven and Goblins seem more appropriately cowardly.

As a rules change it would be a MASSIVE shift to not have inspiring presence that would make some armies unplayable (gitz at least), it would hurt elite units more than cheap ones, since even losing one troll/ogor/brute to battleshock is a big loss, stuff like mournfang and skullcrushers might become unplayable because of the liability. The game would 100% shift to MSU screens instead of hordes, this would minimize battleshock losses since its tougher to target multiple units, encourage shooting, both to aid in positioning of the screens, and so they can contribute regardless of their positioning.

 

Hordes would be literally erased from viability due to all of the horde killing spells. As an example, the slann lore in seraphon has a spell that rolls a die for each model in a unit, and on a 5+ inflicts a mortal. Without inspiring presence that would kill 20 grots, and make 16-22 flee due to battleshock (around 240 points worth of grots), and it is  one of the weaker horde clearing spells since it is only a 5+.  Grot heroes have low bravery as well, so even if you did use this version of inspiring presence you would only save a couple more grots. This is almost feasible already for seraphon anyways, but at least they need to take a couple turns to nuke down the heroes first.

 

Something that might work would be to let the unit take the test at its unmodified bravery, but that would leave us in the same situation as before except stuff like grots and skaven will sometimes lose a few models.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

40K fans must be loving life right now with all this content!! Cannot wait for AOS 3.0!!

Definitely excited but personally I can wait. AoS2 is in a really good place right now and I think worth building off of for at least another year or two with more rule experiments like they did with Realmscapes.

Edition changes are hype but exploring what we have with continued updates is fun too and give them more time to cherry pick the best ideas to roll into a new edition for more efficient improvements and increasing the narrative possibilities in the realms. :)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to note that we get things wrong most often when we consider single changes out of context. Undoubtedly if GW decides to reduce or remove battleshock immunity it will have a large impact, but assertions that it will make certain units "unplayable" just don't make sense when we have no idea what other rules changes might be coming as well.

As a brief aside, the reason why I am so strident about this point (and you've seen me raise it again and again on this forum and in this thread) is that I've studied thinking and decision making quite a bit. Human thought is both aided by and plagued by systematic heuristics and biases. We do better at reaching an accurate analysis if we understand those heuristics and biases and then actively try to account for them in our thinking. One such heuristic is the "Anchoring and Adjustment" heuristic, in which we tend to "anchor" on an initial idea and then "adjust" from that anchor point. Where your anchor is placed really limits the likelihood that you will sufficiently adjust for new information if the initial anchor point is incorrect. By trying to analyze things with limited information we are willfully setting our anchor in the context of incomplete information, therefore increasing the likelihood that we will insufficiently adjust in the future when our information is more complete.

TL;DR: You're much more likely to reach a quality conclusion if your first impression is also high quality, so try not to make a first impression when you know your information is incomplete.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@swarmofseals I agree that any changes like the one I suggested to inspiring presence would require a more holistic reimagining of the battleshock phase as a whole. I was thinking if such a change were to occur it would be in an update from one edition to the next, in the hopes that Battleshock would not fundmentally upset the balance of the game making horde armies unplayable (especially as I am thinking of getting into Gitz). But I am still grateful to the responses showcasing why it would not work with our current battleshock system.

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...