Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Sounds a lot like fantasy battle of old, where each sorcerer generates some dice to use (depends on his level), then if you want to launch a spell, you just say how many dices of your pool you use. Same for dispell.
  3. I just hope the spearhead scrolls aren't radically different. I want to play both 'normal mode' and 'spearhead mode' without massively different versions of the same units. I'm fine with a simple "don't use abilities of type x" and "add ability y to this unit for spearhead" or "add ability z (magic lite) to this unit for spearhead" - but if they come out of the gate with different stats and things like that, it's gone to frustrate me a lot. I don't want to have to remember that clanrats for AoS are Health 1 and clanrats in spearhead are Health 2 or some other analogue for this.
  4. If Spearhead uses plain core rules they can't add nothing, because that addition should carry on when putting modules in, in this case magic one, so wizards will have "magic ability" plus spells and or one of those is weak or the model is going to be overpowered.
  5. Yeah, the balance is the crucial point. If Spearhead does indeed use the normal warscrolls, I'm not sure they'd make two different warscrolls for wizards. What I could see instead is "magic points" that each player gets (even if playing Khorne), which you can use to launch spells, empower your wizards base [MAGIC] abilities, dispell opponents spells, enact prayers, or convert to Command Points; stuff like that. There could even be play with special objectives or terrain pieces "empower the negation sphere", "tap the power of the spring of life", stuff like that
  6. In the frist article of this week, in the video, they talked about prayers coming in the indexes
  7. Presumably either all priests just have warscroll abilities and there's no bespoke prayer system or (more ideally) spells and prayers are now operating under the same broad ruleset and are both classed as 'magic.' Might get a little messy for factions with both spell and prayer lores, but I'm sure they can figure something out. In AoS in particular this makes a good deal of thematic sense, I think, where we know that deities are not infinitely powerful, like, what's the material difference between a slaaneshi priest or a slaaneshi wizard if they're both basically drawing from the same source?
  8. Care to elaborate? Kruleboyz haven't exactly been tearing up the scene this edition.
  9. Prayers can shove off. They're just tarted-up magic. I can't see why they can't just stop wasting everyone's time and just function as spells.
  10. Today
  11. Hello, I am actually going to dive into AoS for fourth edition. I collected and painted FS, KO and SE for a long time but now I am getting interested in actually playing. I play Horus Heresy, 40k and OW. I have mostly finished my armies for these systems and want to start a new project for this year. Currently working on my Fyreslayers but with the new edition coming I will use the Skaven for my OW army and reinforce my Stormcast from Dominion. Looking forward to showing off my naked dorfs and learning to play!
  12. If they reduce wizard's unique spell effects to unit abilities that'd kinda suck. Also I just realised they've been talking about magic but nothing has been mentioned about prayers yet I don't think? Sidenote, I wonder if the swampcalla will pay for his sins during this edition come the new index rules lol
  13. I would like if our army changed to "To stubborn to die". Unless a unit is wiped out, casualties are only removed at the end of the controlling players turn.
  14. This actually makes sense and ties in with the 'Declare and Effect' nature of how abilities work now. It would be very hard to properly points balance units that loose the thing that they do (magic, in this case) due to a modular rule set being taken out. However, if each wizard model is given a special ability (Boneshaper, Swampcaller, etc) that they always have access to, then magic really can become modular, provided none of the wizard abilities are treated as unique spells. The spell lore is simply tacked on, and only wizard-keyword units can cast them. For balance purposes, they may have to make a Swampcaller choice, where they can either use their ability or cast a spell, but not both. How good this modular system actually is will depend a lot on how they've approached warscrolls and abilities for this edition. There's plenty of room for error, but they demonstrated in 3rd that they have the capacity to write goodvrules and keep things fairly well balanced. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until we have more than wild speculation and a defunct edition to go off of.
  15. Uh, yeah. That is a good point, but they can leave them prepared and scheduled. The Book 6 cannot be delayed too much.
  16. If they manage to make the GHB truly an optional module, that sounds like a big improvement IMO. I have said in the past that I think it is kind of sad that no "non-seasonal" version of 3rd ed exists. Battle plans, tactics and grand strats are too closely tied to the themes of the season to play them outside of that. I'd love to play some "basic" 3rd ed, but you kind of need to homebrew it. Core book only just has too little going on.
  17. It's a bank holiday/Easter weekend in the UK today, not sure whether or not that'll affect WarCom output.
  18. It isn't just the hyper-competitive people who enjoy playing "the right way" but new players not wanting to end up playing a game no one plays. Modularity is great for when you already understand the game and introducing AoS to someone who is brand new to tabletop gaming (taking it one step at a time). Overall, I am not expecting this to blow our minds. Looks good as a presentation but the format is very familiar. For example, you can already choose not to use the GHB and stick the matched play rules only. Ultimately, even the most casual gamers enjoy games which are as fair as possible. That doesn't happen when playing open rules. That said, if the rules are presented in a more practical and clearer way everyone's a winner.
  19. What do you expect from today's Dawnbringers story? We gotta have to enter into Chaos territory pretty soon. I am expecting a story about either Khorne, Varanguard or Darkoaths.
  20. Wow! They look so good! :0 fantastic paint job all round and I can’t believe how many models you’ve managed to get through. Takes me ages to get through one. Do u mind if I ask what’s the paint scheme for the skin? I had a look at mengel’s and it seemed quite complicated - was wondering if u had made any adjustments? Thanks, Yousuf
  21. Just for the record, most people who play this game regularly, including what is often described here as 'competitive' players, will not refuse you a game if you only want to play with the core rules. That is particularly the case if you're learning the game. That's what this is designed for after all, and more people in the playing community is a great thing. Generally we're all mums and dads, so someone new will always be taken under a wing and looked out for. That said, if you have been playing regularly for years, and know the full ruleset, you will know that by playing only the core rules you run the risk of gaining an unfair advantage. So if your opponent is playing tzeentch or seraphon, and you suddenly decide you don't want to play with magic, even though you know perfectly well how magic works and know that your opponent's army relies on magic, that would probably be seen as a bit of a d**k move. Similarly if you decide to play without faction terrain rules into Sylvaneth, or command abilities into OBR. Or if you have just four mega gargants and you only want to play the primary, the opponent won't be scoring at all without secondary battle tactics. This will totally be fine if you're learning the game, and most opponents will laugh it off and give you a pat on the back for winning. But you see how the full version of the game will likely be the standard at events. I won't say it'll be 100% balanced, but it'll likely be the most balanced version of the game.
  22. 2000p to do until the 20of april the goal is battel redy and ewery thing abow that is a bonus
  23. 1) I can carve my expensive models into pieces alone at my hobby desk, whereas I need another person to play a game. 2) this requires an agreement on which version of the game to play 3) in my anecdotal experience, it's much easier to find a game playing what is (right or wrong) considered the standard way to play
  24. I think there will always be a small set of people who insist that there's only one way to play. I've already heard arguments for it online and we're not even into the edition yet. It's usually the hyper competitive crowd. Which is fine, they can like whatever they want--as long as they aren't trying to force other people to play their way. As for me. I look forward to experimenting with different modules.
  25. I'm exasperated by how much everyone is getting exasperated! Firstly I think there's a misunderstanding of what modular means. Imagine a 3x4 piece modular gaming board. It's not infinitely flexible. The corner pieces still need to go in the corner. The pieces still need to line with each other. You can leave the centre pieces out and build a 2x2 board, but you can't leave off one of the corner pieces. So in the AoS example you can play with just the core rules but that model is essential for every other version of the game and every subsequent module has to refer back to the core. You can play with just the core rules and commands, presumably coming from your general or something but you can't add the command models module unless you already have the comnand module. There's a weird problem in Warhammer. People largely treat the rules as sacronscant, but will happily carve expensive models into pieces. I've always found this weird. There have been lots of complaints about blizzard in the most recent ghb but few events leave the spell out. Comp is a dirty word in the community. GW have tried numerous times to tell players to do what they want with their rules but there's still a blind insistence to follow the full rules of a new GHB. I think gw is emphasising modularity in order to try and break that habit. Why does everyone just use the new GHB in every event? It would be a bit like the Halo team having just one playlist that everyone has to play for the next year. Creating a system that encourages player choice is a good thing even if most people just end up playing the most popular mode. The idea is that a new GHB isn't just an update to how the game plays but includes optional methods of play that can be added to the game or substituted for existing parts of the game. A GHB could introduce a new magic module that can be used instead of the previous one but doesn't replace it. How is this good for us? We'll have to see how it turns out in practice but in theory it lets them be more experimental with seasonal rules. They can add new modules that experiment with ways to play without forcing players to use them. I really hope TOs don't just blindly use everything in the next edition.
  26. The rules should 100% be free... But also I do not trust GW to operate a good online framework containing rules ie. Wahapedia given their track record. If they just released the army rules sections from the battletomes in printable pdf format? Golden. And they can still print battletomes that way, they'll just have to put the work in and write new fluff content and get new art instead of repeating the same book from the previous edition. THW rob made a good point in a video of his a little while back about free rules selling more models, in theory it's in GW's interests to do this, but I expect some old fashioned corporate heads are pushing for physical paper books for everything.
  27. I just wish they would get with the times and put the rules and unit rules and all of that stuff up online, free to access and commit to a regular update in that one place like nearly all of their decent competitors do (and have for a long time) - then we wouldn't even be worrying about if they're going to functionally paywall significant errata. CB's Infinity is 40K's "girl-next-door" for this and always has been. I know it's been this way forever, I've been playing for a long time through many systems. I think I own a whole forest worth of GW's damn books. I know it's part of their business model... I just wish it wasn't... and yeah, I know... don't buy the books, wahapedia, yada yada... but imagine an officially maintained version without the time lag 🤩.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...