What would you like for AoS 3

[Sarouan]

7 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

More rules = more outplay opportunities = more fun because you can be more creative about your tactic than just shove models up the board and roll dice

Only true if you have a competitive mindset. I don't need to have more rules to have fun, personnally.

But I guess they need to add more than before to justify a new edition, don't they ?

That's why I'm waiting to see the actual rules before getting really hyped about new edition.

[Phasteon]

4 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Only true if you have a competitive mindset. I don't need to have more rules to have fun, personnally.

But I guess they need to add more than before to justify a new edition, don't they ?

That's why I'm waiting to see the actual rules before getting really hyped about new edition.

Sure, if you dont care about depth of a game AoS 1.0 was the best version of the game. 

I enjoyed that as well, but I like rules that allow tactical decisions to win the game. Thats what I define as competitive. 

Make strategy great again, nerf the supremacy of „the better list“ 👍🏻

[Sarouan]

6 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Sure, if you dont care about depth of a game AoS 1.0 was the best version of the game. 

I enjoyed that as well, but I like rules that allow tactical decisions to win the game. Thats what I define as competitive. 

Make strategy great again, nerf the supremacy of „the better list“ 👍🏻

Come on, you know game balance is shifted everytime a new battletome comes out. New edition won't change that at all - especially when old competitive battletomes are still competitive, if not more, because the new toys don't change a thing to how they play or simply empower them more.

What I like in AoS is its relative simplicity in core rules. Which is why I'm suspicious of introducing more rules into them. After all, for special rules, we have the unit warscrolls and army traits already.

I just want to still play a game, not having to do my homework just to remember what to play when all the time like in 40k V9 and its horrible mess with special rules everywhere.

Doesn't mean I think 1st edition was the best version of the game.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Sarouan

[Mcthew]

38 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

I don't know, honestly. The few flipped pages look like they wrote it "more technical", a bit like they did with 40k V9. It feels like it's more competitive oriented.

What I'm afraid of is that they add a bit too many "toys" in the core rules like the heroic actions (I really do hope they were just talking about more "core" command abilities rather than actual new mechanism for heroes only, like in Lord of the Ring) or the monsters tricks during the charge phase. Same for "reactive" command abilities.

I don't want to have a headache trying to remember all my army rules during the hero phase like in 40k V9.

I mean, I'm a casual player, not a competitive one. I like to read rules, but I have my limit - and so do my game partners.

Endless Spells moving during each hero phase...meh. That's not their problem. The problem is that the opponent can move them even if you bought the spell for your army. So I'm waiting to see WHO can move them at each hero phase before getting hyped about this.

Waiting to see what the player choosing second for initiative really gain as advantages. For that, I'm actually curious to see the battleplans and their victory conditions. I'd like they use more the way AoS alternate turns between players into how they score points, so that choosing to play second is a strategic choice and not just a way to gain more command points.

 

I'll be honest, I'm more interested to see what they'll do with narrative play.

Gotta admit the 8 things about the rules left me a bit cold (and annoyed again by presentation - no, GW these were not an amazing 8 things at all). The main things have been leaked already, the other stuff is hardly revolutionary. So nothing about better terrain  rules, no improve LoS for shooting, but we have a potential where you have a heavy monsters army; or no monsters/no 500 points+ heroes just lots of level 1 or 2 heroes with hordes.

Not that interesting, but again more might be revealed.

I liked the new orcs though. Like others have said, more LotR less comic. SCE are ok, but again only a handful of complete units, unless 3 is the new 5?

More likely to get Dominion than not.

But hardly blown away as GW thinks I should be even with upcoming models.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Mcthew

[Phasteon]

Great Reveal though, I‘m completely hyped! 

The Models are next level again, the videos were nicely done and the „8 things“ tackled some really great changes. 

Can‘t wait to get my hand on the dominion box.

So eager to restart my SCE collection (which I sold off 2 years ago) 

But new = better am I right? 😉

[PraetorDragoon]

13 hours ago, Mcthew said:

So after the Dominion unboxing, anyone feel blown away or hyped by the new set and rules?

Neither Stormcast nor these new Orruks are my cup of tea, so the set gets a resounding "meh" from me.

There also weren't enough rules shown off to really base my opinion of. So I will wait and see, though I'm close to having to take a break from the AoS rules.

[Greybeard86]

I like the new orcs, but not enough to buy them.

I understand the commercial value of having an easy to paint model line of superheroes, but I won't be buying them. I am sad, though, that all gryphon like creatures are tied to them, besides the old demi-gryphs in cities.

Finally, I'll wait for the full rules to evaluate the new edition. I really want battalions to be re-worked.

[yukishiro1]

LOTR orcs seem out of step with the rest of the setting and the orcs they already have. Weirdly understated for what the AOS aesthetic has developed into. Seems like another example of a game that still doesn't know quite what it's supposed to be. They'd be great models...in a different game. 

The faction name is also downright cringeworthy, there's no other way I can put it. That bit is 100% AOS, but in the worst possible, self-caricaturing way. 

Edited May 30, 2021 by yukishiro1

[JustAsPlanned]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

LOTR orcs seem out of step with the rest of the setting and the orcs they already have. Weirdly understated for what the AOS aesthetic has developed into. Seems like another example of a game that still doesn't know quite what it's supposed to be. They'd be great models...in a different game. 

The faction name is also downright cringeworthy, there's no other way I can put it. That bit is 100% AOS, but in the worst possible, self-caricaturing way. 

In what way is the name “Kruelboyz” cringeworthy? If that’s cringeworthy, then the majority of other faction names in AOS are cringeworthy as well.

[yukishiro1]

Taste is personal, I don't think it makes sense to get into an argument about it, any more than it makes sense to get into an argument about whether a particular shade of red is ugly or not.

That said, to me, it sounds like caricature of GW's usual Copyrightable Doubleword (TM, R, All Rights Reserved). At their best, those can be atmospheric and catchy, even if they're faintly ridiculous. See Ossiarch Bonereapers as a good example of of this. While arguably a bit silly, this name matches the faction: it conjures up an image in your mind of ornate, risen skeletons who collect bones. It's flavorful and atmospheric. It fits. 

What do you get from Kruleboyz? It's...some orcs, and they're...cruel? Um, ok? It'd like be calling Idoneth Deepkin Desperate Aelfkin. Or Gloomspite Gitz Wackie Gobbos. It has the worst kind of Saturday Morning Kid's Cartoon feel to it, rather than the best kind. 

Edited May 30, 2021 by yukishiro1

[RedemptionUK]

4 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Taste is personal, I don't think it makes sense to get into an argument about it, any more than it makes sense to get into an argument about whether a particular shade of red is ugly or not.

That said, to me, it sounds like caricature of GW's usual Copyrightable Doubleword (TM, R, All Rights Reserved). At their best, those can be atmospheric and catchy, even if they're faintly ridiculous. See Ossiarch Bonereapers as a good example of of this. While arguably a bit silly, this name matches the faction: it conjures up an image in your mind of ornate, risen skeletons who collect bones. It's flavorful and atmospheric. It fits. 

What do you get from Kruleboyz? It's...some orcs, and they're...cruel? Um, ok? It'd like be calling Idoneth Deepkin Desperate Aelfkin. Or Gloomspite Gitz Wackie Gobbos. It has the worst kind of Saturday Morning Kid's Cartoon feel to it, rather than the best kind. 

I'd absolutely buy the Wacky Gobbos.

[stickybluetoffee]

Well, my main interest is in the new Path to Glory rule set and how that enhances narrative play.

I don’t have any issue if the rules become more “technically” written. As a rule set I think they did a good job of making 9th Ed 40K fairly clear, not that the current AoS rule set has any particular problems (the fact that 3 years after it was released they’ve not had to put out a single errata for the core rules is testament to how well they were written - despite having just complemented 40K rules I think they lasted 2 weeks without an errata.)

I expect this will be an unpopular opinion but what I would be dissapointed to see is a move towards multi-level progressive scoring in narrative missions. Almost all 9th Ed 40K missions including the so-called “narrative” missions are progressive and many of them really shouldn’t be. I don’t want to have to “take notes” during games and this is impossible in 40K as it stands. There is no longer any truly casual beer and pretzels way to play 40K and I’d hate to see AoS go the same way.

Edited May 31, 2021 by stickybluetoffee

[EMMachine]

On 5/29/2021 at 8:23 PM, stratigo said:

I know people who like bretonians that are starting to get quite upset that every time they mention the army they liked people go "LULUL but they are ghoulkings. LULZ"

 

On 5/29/2021 at 8:38 PM, Neverchosen said:

Sorry I meant no offence 😕
I love Bretonnians and truly want them back. I have listed on this site many times how I much I would want them to return. However, I do also really think it is a fascinating idea that the Flesh Eater Courts are linked to Bretonnians and are not a replacement for the army but kind of their dark reflection. They are their cursed kin and they could be enemies of a new Bretonnian order. I think a Bretonnian themed army fighting against the Flesh Eaters is like a dream come true for me... 

I also really hoped it would come across as a joke as I think there are better parallels to Bretonnian's chivalry within the game in the SCE and Cities of Sigmar. Although a truly new take on Bretonnia would be much more welcome from me. 

On 5/29/2021 at 8:54 PM, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

There's always Chaos mortals too for Bretonian styled knights. I really feel with Chaos controlling so much of the Mortal Realms it would make sense that Chaos Lords would set up evil kingdoms with equally twisted nobles and knights that serve them.  I also think just so the kingdom can function some sort of rules of honor (that can be ignored when one won't be caught) might be established to prevent the kingdom from decending back into anarchy.

Make more sense that Chaos mortals still acting like northern invaders like in WHFB all the time.

Yeah, I would say that Chaos partly fits the Knighty Order Type as well (Order of the Fly, except that their are no Maggotkin Models with Horses only the regular Chaos Knights)

I really would hope that GW wouldn't make an "One Trick Pony" Faction like the Bretonians were the other variant were peasant spam, that basicly had stats like zombies (maybe this is where Flesh-Eater Courts Knight Delution is coming from).

It would make more sense to give Freeguild more room after the Knightly Orders in AoS Lore are Part of the Freeguilds, but their could be a specific Set of Allegiance Abilities for Knight Orders.

22 hours ago, Mcthew said:

Gotta admit the 8 things about the rules left me a bit cold (and annoyed again by presentation - no, GW these were not an amazing 8 things at all). The main things have been leaked already, the other stuff is hardly revolutionary. So nothing about better terrain  rules, no improve LoS for shooting, but we have a potential where you have a heavy monsters army; or no monsters/no 500 points+ heroes just lots of level 1 or 2 heroes with hordes.

Sadly the 8 things haven't get that much information about the game.

23 hours ago, Sarouan said:

Endless Spells moving during each hero phase...meh. That's not their problem. The problem is that the opponent can move them even if you bought the spell for your army. So I'm waiting to see WHO can move them at each hero phase before getting hyped about this.

Maybe it is "The active player moves them".

[Kadeton]

15 hours ago, JustAsPlanned said:

In what way is the name “Kruelboyz” cringeworthy? If that’s cringeworthy, then the majority of other faction names in AOS are cringeworthy as well.

Yes, I'd say that's accurate. Lumineth Realm-Lords, Nighthaunt, Soulblight Gravelords, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Fyreslayers, and Stormcast Eternals are all seriously cringeworthy names, IMO. "Kruleboyz" still takes the Cringe Crown above all of them, though.

[mojojojo101]

29 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

.Maybe it is "The active player moves them".

I'd assumed the opposite was true. If its not your turn, you move endless spells. Or maybe you just get to pick first, then you switch for any further predatory spells.

[Greybeard86]

22 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Yes, I'd say that's accurate. Lumineth Realm-Lords, Nighthaunt, Soulblight Gravelords, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Fyreslayers, and Stormcast Eternals are all seriously cringeworthy names, IMO. "Kruleboyz" still takes the Cringe Crown above all of them, though.

I do like Gloomspite Gitz or dispossessed. The rest are meh meh. Also, fire is for chorfs, slayers have no business with it.

[EMMachine]

3 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

I'd assumed the opposite was true. If its not your turn, you move endless spells. Or maybe you just get to pick first, then you switch for any further predatory spells.

The thing is, we still know next to nothing, except "move every Herophase"

I would have liked the idea (in the case that start of the round would have stayed) that each player would have rolled a dice for their own endless spells if they have control, and on a roll of 1 the opponent would have control that rould.

This would have fitted the random nature that you can lose control but not that you lose control of 50% of your spells or all if only one was played everytime.

[Sarouan]

Honestly, I wish the Endless Spells were all working like Seraphon Bound Endless Spells or the "Endless Prayers".

I never liked the "every player chooses one Endless Spell once it's their turn" mechanism. Would rather have wizards taking control of the spell by, I don't know, using a special action during the Hero Phase instead of casting a spell and beating the casting value to "dominate and control it".

That's why predatory spells are considered not worth it. Because you pay for it, you bother casting it and yet it can still be turned against you simply because the way rules work. If that's still the case in 3rd edition, I don't think people will keep buying predatory spells more than in the 2nd.

 

On 5/31/2021 at 10:49 AM, Kadeton said:

"Kruleboyz" still takes the Cringe Crown above all of them, though.

When I first saw that name, I was wondering "who is that Krule guy anyway ?".

So since then, I see them as "the boyz of Krule". Not that cringy in the end.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Sarouan

[Skreech Verminking]

On 5/31/2021 at 11:12 AM, Greybeard86 said:

I do like Gloomspite Gitz or dispossessed. The rest are meh meh. Also, fire is for chorfs, slayers have no business with it.

I fully agree with you.

nothing is greater the a true armored dwarf (or rat in disguise)

[Redmanphill]

Give me terrain that works.... 40k has a good system now and I'd love to simply imported wholesale from there. Currently terrain is relegated to being table dressing. The rules for it aren't intuitive and don't reflect the piece that is actually on the table. If anything changes let it be that!

Edited June 1, 2021 by Redmanphill

[zilberfrid]

6 hours ago, Sarouan said:

When I first saw that name, I was wondering "who is that Krule guy anyway ?".

So since then, I see them as "the boyz of Krule". Not that cringy in the end.

You have my headcanon, where a big orc called Krule lends his name to the faction, and the overgrown centaur doesn't have anythong to do with it.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

10 hours ago, Sarouan said:

Honestly, I wish the Endless Spells were all working like Seraphon Bound Endless Spells or the "Endless Prayers".

I never liked the "every player chooses one Endless Spell once it's their turn" mechanism. Would rather have wizards taking control of the spell by, I don't know, using a special action during the Hero Phase instead of casting a spell and beating the casting value to "dominate and control it".

That's why predatory spells are considered not worth it. Because you pay for it, you bother casting it and yet it can still be turned against you simply because the way rules work. If that's still the case in 3rd edition, I don't think people will keep buying predatory spells more than in the 2nd.

I completely agree. A couple of games ago I was playing my S2D army and included Darkfire Daemonrift because I thought I did a pretty good job painting it (spoiler below if anyone wants to see it).  I basically cast it the spell first turn and succeeded.  Bottom of turn, my opponent dispelled it.  Which as was basically best case scenario as it was far more likely to cause damage to me than effect my opponent.

Spoiler

 

As for terrain, I just don't play AoS enough to want to bother making use of terrain effects. Or which Realm the game is taking place to be perfectly honest (though I like the idea of those rules more).  For the terrain effects, they kinda force terrain be a certain size (which creates unnatural looking tables), often have no affect to the game or can in rare cases really skew games.  Add the fact that I don't play very often making them a little hard to remember, they just seem like a pain to me.  I would rather those effects be like a general wizard spell that can be cast on certain terrain to create the effect rather than like 8 peices randomly get assigned effects.

As for adding more 40k 9th edition terrain effects.  I suppose I am for it. I still view Age of Sigmar as more of a classic fantasy battle game where armies (most games I view models as representing larger numbers) largely fight in open areas (which is still very possible with 40k terrain rules).  However, I also would enjoy occasional each model is 1-for-1 skirmish in denser 40k level terrain.  In fact, my last game was like that as I set the table for 40k or AoS not knowing which I would be playing. 

I suppose what I am getting at is, I don't want the amount of 40k terrain I think is needed for that game to be the norm for AoS.  with 40k being a much more shooty game it makes sense, but I don't like the idea of AoS being less of a melee game where that much cover/concealment is considered normal.  I am not sure if anyone knows what I mean.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Saturmorn Carvilli

[Bosskelot]

The idea of counter command abilities is something I actually suggested either in this thread or another one as a way to deal with the problematic nature of the double turn, specifically how it increases downtime.

I'll be curious to see how it pans out but even then, it still feels like GW is wedded to their IGOUGO system too much and is putting increasing amounts of bandaids on it in order to fix what is fundamentally broken. Spending resources to do counter abilities that disrupt the normal flow of gameplay works great in LOTR.... but that's also because LOTR is alternating phases.

The lack of any information about terrain changes is also pretty concerning, but it wouldn't be the first time GW has underestimated or misunderstood how big of a deal the changes they make can be. Drukhari got hardly any rules previews in the run up to their release but they're currently the strongest army in 40k currently, with all the strongest rules interactions and units being stuff that had 0 marketing or hype behind it.

[stratigo]

On 5/30/2021 at 5:32 AM, Phasteon said:

Sure, if you dont care about depth of a game AoS 1.0 was the best version of the game. 

I enjoyed that as well, but I like rules that allow tactical decisions to win the game. Thats what I define as competitive. 

Make strategy great again, nerf the supremacy of „the better list“ 👍🏻

more rules DO NOT lead to more competitive games.

 

Adding more rules is actually one of the issues AoS is having, a strong example being all the bespoke teleport or deep strike tricks factions are getting. Cutting away movement decisions through adding those rules to units has a direct negative effect on balance. It is easier to balance a tighter ruleset. Rules right now are being tossed almost adhoc without a lot of thought of effect.

[Grotbag Scuttlers When]

On 5/31/2021 at 10:49 AM, Kadeton said:

Yes, I'd say that's accurate. Lumineth Realm-Lords, Nighthaunt, Soulblight Gravelords, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Fyreslayers, and Stormcast Eternals are all seriously cringeworthy names, IMO. "Kruleboyz" still takes the Cringe Crown above all of them, though

Maybe it's because English it's not my native language, and it gives an aura of "coolness" to everything, but I don't find any of that cringeworthy. Maybe Fyreslayers and Kruleboyz, a bit.

22 hours ago, Sarouan said:

When I first saw that name, I was wondering "who is that Krule guy anyway ?".

So since then, I see them as "the boyz of Krule". Not that cringy in the end.

Well, in 40k the Land Raider is named like that because it was discovered by Magos Land, soooo... maybe we will get a hero model named Krule, sooner or later.