All Activity

BTs are arguably (imo) a bad way to implement secondary scoring into the game. There’s better ways to get secondary scoring. I don’t like winning based on kills either, a mix is needed. BTs feel like playing Yu-Gi-Oh with one hand while the other is playing AoS, yet for some reason the Yu-Gi-Oh game is more important.

Some ogors with orc / Ork heads, playing with poses a bit and adding some greenstuff fur and horns to the helmets. Lots of painting work to go on these! They are v. rough at the moment, but I like adding variety. The characters also need some work, pics another time.

To me the key to know if Malerion is coming or not is how DoK are treated during this edition. It is pretty likely a top 3 armies in terms of needing a release. If it is only receiving its classic hero, then Malerion is coming. If it receives something else I see complicate that we will see Malerion early 5th edition as I agree, Malerion and DoK will be one.

Ok so keep in mind that we had 8 editions of Warhammer Fantasy and 2 editions of sigmar where battle tactics weren't really a thing. What we learned from those editions is that if you make a game solely about killing power, lists become homogenized as the most lethal/survivable units become clear and the rest of the units fall to the wayside. An "ideal list" becomes obvious quite quickly. Its why we have objectives and secondaries now. The BT system is meant to reward preparation and strategy in addition to raw killing power. You can argue that the secondary system is not good, but arguing that secondaries themselves are bad for the game is a bold argument and goes against like 20+ years of game development. I have played game systems where you just push forward and fight and whoever gets the most kills wins. That's essentially what TOW is now (with a bit more nuisance of course). But IMHO its not what AOS is meant to be.

That’s what I mean by BTs warping AoS. All of third hasn’t really been about the models or the battles. BTs are what the whole game is about, there’s zero immersion left. There‘s so much potential how BTs and terrain could be woven into the gane: BTs: granting a buff for performing something flavorful (a ritual?) Terrain: Fighting over terrain to control the battlefield instead of objectives. Terrain granting buffs in addition to Victory points. instead it’s just a layer of abstraction, a side game besides AoS that has little to do with AoS as a whole.

I dont doubt Malerions coming. I also dont think the Silent People will be a full faction. More likely a Warcry or Underworlds Warband. I also think Malerion and DOK will come together as one. Im no fan of soup but that faction, to me, needs souping.

That's interesting. I wonder if this card's format will be kept or if the following General's Handbooks will be shorter.

I usually play once a week and my games usually last about 2 hours. If we want it to end quickly we can do it in under an hour if we bet everything on the double turn and finish the game on turn 2..................... Of course I may not be the best example since my Old World games last 30 minutes lol. Right now the game has a strange combo of being too long and short in the wrong spots. A heavy spell army takes forever to play, but with how fast everything dies combat is over in seconds. The changes look fun so far and based off of how quick 10ed is (about 2 hours) it will take a lot less time to play.

I see Silent People as almost impossible to come, and kinda unfair if they do. We know Chorfs are coming after Chorfs presumably Malerion at either the end of the ed or the beginning of the 5th edition. If any other faction comes before Malerion the poor guy will be a walking meme for AoS.

I never played a game, but just the idea of it lasting 2:30 hours or more than 3 hours makes my head explode. It is not too appealing for someone that didn't play a single game yet.

Not to mention hints of Fyreslayers Wave 2 and Ogors refresh!! If we get Fyreslayers, Ogors and Silent People in 4.0 Ill be a very satisfied Man. Ogor. Man Ogor.

I think the problems is that GW won’t rewrite army rules or warscrolls to an extent that would boost an underperforming army (See past examples of NH, Gitz, and Kruleboyz). They can only do things like adding minor things in like Battle tactics, rewording stuff a bit or supplements like AoR its really the flaw of there written rules in book format but it profitable and they are willing to stick with it for the foreseeable future.

Just as they require you to build your army a certain way they also hurt armies that can't be built that way. BT selection always takes people out of the game in my experience, and people can take a while to decide. Sure it might just be a minute or two, but it feels like an interruption. The more I play at events the less I like BTs. If you stick to a single army the effect is way worse. I played Big Waaagh! for a couple, literally every game the same 5 in the same order, and I would often go 5/5 even if I got tabled. Played Kruleboyz for a few, same 5-6 every game, roughly the same order. Yes, you do need to plan for BTs, but my issue is that its a solvable system. You'll optimize your play and do the same plan every game. "I'm going first? I'll plan for a t1 magical dominance and a t2 surround and destroy, then save intimidate for t4/t5" Then you do that (with that army) nearly every game you play until a new GHB drops. Usually the way BTs get denied is by your opponent (mostly) tabling you anyways so they can't score any. in my opinion the problem is the skill ceiling for BTs is way too low, while the complexity tax is too high. Either raise the skill ceiling or make it simpler. I also really hate the narrative of a lot of them. Magical dominance sounds cool, but the play is to hide a wizard in a corner and cast a spell that probably can't reach anyone useful. Reprisal? Yeah the optimal strategy is to get my general killed so I can score more points. I get there's a desire to not have the game just be about killing stuff, but its a wargame. taking the table is the game, optimizing for damage/defense is how you take and hold objectives. Forcing people to play suboptimally, or bring bad units, to score points is just taxing victory. You go from playing with 2000 points, to playing with 1600 points and 400 points of junk to score points. Just shrink the armies at that point. Honestly having BTs being stuff you want to do anyways isn't even bad design, it forces you to communicate a plan to your opponent, which lets them burn what resources they can to try to deny it. The system might be better that way, it would certainly fix the narrative issues.

+1 I see games not managing to finish the full 5 turns in 3 hours in tournaments around here all the time. At the club it goes for much longer than that (one of the reasons why I don't like AoS in "casual" settings)

I 100% agree. There are a lot of diferent games without SvsT or WSvsWS, and still they have unique and lore-friensly characters. That's another thing that I really want to see. I'm not talking about TOW customization, but at least the option to buy (with points) upgrades for characters.

I don't know which of our experiences is the atypical one, but I have heard a lot of complaints of games going over 3 hours online, especially with the seasonal GHB rules. I don't think games going longer than 3 hours is that weird. That's why I am pretty excited about the changes in 4th. The game looks like it will play a lot faster.

Oh it absolutely is probably the worst way to go around balancing, but it makes for a good looking reports

Which is the absolute worst way to balance the game. "Have free victory points" feels good for nobody. The player doesn't feel like their army is any stronger, and the opponent feels like they're being cheated.

The Horus Heresy Prime IP was lost in the Strife. A brave last stand for the Single HH employee left. Shame because they were just about to do the 50th Weapon Set for SoH.

There are more issues. You are forced to build an army with BTs in mind, as some of them can only be achieved with very specific resources. They also effectively prolong the game - this may not be true for experienced players, but for casuals it certainly is.

I mean if you are playing against guys that only play a few times a year or are new then that is completely understandable, but for a typical matched play game among adults that is crazy to me. In the matched play games that run at my FLGS, 90% of games finish within 2.5 hours. Maybe some pickup games will run to 3 hours if the guys are goofing around and chatting. I don't mean to yuck your yum, but that is definitely not my experience within the hobby.

🤯

That Spider Incarnate is going to appear sooner or later in one form or another purely for prestige. Imagine they don't release it and in seven years it is there still pending as RE. It is not good for them.

Yeah, I think that's accurate. I have been playing games with a timer recently, and 3 hours usually gets us to mid to late round 3. I get a whole game done in 3 hours occasionally, but only against opponents who are really familiar with their lists. AoS just takes really long. Especially for synergy armies.

Tyrion, please. No more flying squirrels, seahorses or giant cows. Give us the real god of the Lumineth, not this pyjama nerd.