Sleboda

Gotta be new 40K, right?

Agreed. The mat I want is a UK import and would cost over $100 to get. I'd rather have a proper option from my local shop.

What did the Spire of Dawn rebox come with for bases?

Sorta. That's a natural consequence of all this. They could have stayed in squares, but they didn't. They are at the very lest implying a change is in the offing. The largest US event, one endorsed strongly by GW, has declared that rounds are required next year. GW is taking a soft approach, but the tea leaves say rounds are a comin". If that's the case, and their own events are going base to base, it's easy to add up that the game is moving to a "bases matter in some ways" state. If so, then yes, one should consider not ding anything too fancy with bases. Edit - 3rd ed reference was to WFB, bit 40K.

I would go a step further and say that of they require bases to base, they are obligated to mandate base sizes. @Auticus 3rd ed had mandated, listed bases for all models. It sucked when that went away. I would superlike this if I could.

Underdark Carrion Slug. New Death behemoth

@wayniac Isn't that what we have open play for?

I generally disagree as I like people not being able to squeeze every ... last ... drop out of things, but I do have a specific reason to support it. I bought two boxes of 10 sisters of slaughter. Two models I had painted just plain went missing at Adepticon. Now, even though I bought boxes, I have to play 2 sisters down. To replace them, I have to buy another box ... of 10.

Ah. It seems I cannot read. Sorry.

Just curious- How do you resolve debates over was is and is not 50% or 75%? Models don't tend to neatly divide up by area/volume.

I just had a thought on why this system works. I think the open nature and simplicity cover almost everything without the need for specific rules. We see it in things like flank and rear attack. At first, people lamented the loss of +1 or +2 to "combat rez" until they saw how the weapon reach and piling in mechanic allowed smart players to create the advantage though their play. Another example came up when I was talking about buildings with a new player. She wanted to get inside a house with a unit and claim cover. She could not since there are no rules for "buildings" in the game. We saw some war scrolls for things like chapels, but not for generic houses. After discussion, we realized that if the model had a removable roof, the AoS rules had us covered (pun intended). She could place the models inside the house by moving them through an open door if they fit, place the models physically where they needed to be, and then use the cover rules. Simple! And model-based. No need to invent or abstract. All there by treating all models on the table as models and applying the relevant bits of the 4-pager. It again comes down to selection of models - soldiers and terrain both.

Maybe this is why we haven't seen elves yet! They are trying to give them rules that capture their flitty nature while using the system they have produced. ?

The statement "forests block LoS" is indeed a complication and does in fact require additional clarification. It's good that you don't play infinitely tall, as that was a thing many people house ruled in days gone by. The things is, if you are saying shooters can see what they see over the trees, then you are still using the actual trees that are present to determine vertical LoS, but not for horizontal. Actually, you may be using some horizontal still. More questions come up. Two tall trees in this blocking forest. I cannot see between them straight ahead, but I can between the tippy tops? No? So the forest really is as tall as the tallest tree, requiring me to ignore what I see over a shorter one? No? Then where does the forest stop vertically across its entire horizontal-ness? I get that your group just sorta "knows" what the rule means, but a new player in your group would not. On the orher hand, we can all understand the true LoS in the 4-pager, even if some don't care for it. Another bit (mods - how do I add quotes in an edit?) "". Its that the concept of being able to shoot through forest after forest and into a group of guys to hit the hero is ludicrously stupid" To me, this thought perfectly highlights a point I made earlier. I think some players are making assumptions that are not present and not really needed. It's not shooting through forest after forest, not any more than a hut is somehow actually representing a collection of 9 buildings. It is what you see - a small wooded area, which is just a few trees. When we just play what we see instead of imagining something more grand, the rules fall into place much better. Oh! Curiosity! Do folks here (especially the old farts like me) imagine that our model soldier is actually 10 men? That old historical concept of unit scale that has not been in Warhamner since 4th ed? If so, that would explain a lot. Let me be clear since this is the internet - I'm not having a go at anyone. I'm just using a discussion forum to discuss. Nothing I have said here is in heat, irritation, or other combative tone.

Do you also rule they are infinitely tall? As tall as the tallest tree? Can you see over them from elevated positions? This feels like a step backward. Not trying to damn your group's choice, just pointing out that the invention of that rule requires answers to other questions, complicating a clean and clear rule set. Then there are the unintended consequences to deal with (for example, a swing in the direction of herohammer, or the change in style of game from action filled romp to slower, more calculated - and less exciting - hide and skeek), but that is a bit less precise of a conversation. I dunno. The responses here indicate to me that there is still a segment of our community that is clinging to the old days and trying, even if not as a deliberate goal, to make AoS into old Warhammer.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, that's not the game's problem, it's theirs. Folks are obviously fine to do as they please, but the system they own provides a lot of fun an interesting rules for terrain. Download the Scenery Warscrolls. They're neat! Failure to create and play with an interesting/challenging battlefield is entirely on the players.

Seeing Rings models in my opponent's AoS army would break immersion for me, reducing my enjoyment of the game. Not trying to be a ******, just giving you an opinion.

Define "row" in a skirmish game where models are perfectly fine in a cloud. Now do that in a sentence or two.

Well, dunno 'bout you, but I'm not arguing. I really couldn't see how one would be unable to track the position of a tree when it's right there to see. Now I see that you're not really trying to track the tree where it is, you are either trying to remember where it was before you moved it out trying to imagine how trees and soldiers can intermingle in the area of the woods. If we disagree, it's at a higher level. My position is that all the models in the game represent the thing you see, which makes all the rules in the 4-pager flow just as presented. Yours is that some models are what they are, but others are stand ins for something else, and thus there is a need to invent or change rules so that the visual in your mind can be accomodated. Totally fine, of course, but we're not really discussing the same game at that point.

Thanks. I'm still not seeing the issue, though. I can clearly see where the trees are in your photo. What is the difficulty being presented that I'm missing?

Real forest also don't come to life and attack real grots when real Lord Kroaks cast real spells next to them. Sorry, but the argument from reality has never worked for me as a justifucation for inventing rules. Edit: I'm messing up the quoting system, sorry. I want to add this as a comment on the idea of changing scale you mentioned. If a house in miniature works for you as a stand in for the same house in reality, why do you shift scale for hills and woods? Why not play them all the same? WYSIWYG in a way. Our tabletop woods really is three trees and our tabletop hill really is just a little higher rise in the earth. In miniature, what you world see to represent your reality-hill would be several feet tall (cool table!), so rather than imagine your table hill to be standing in for what you vizualize as a hill, adjust your visualizationto fit the scale of your tabletop hill. We're talking about a backyard, suburbian development hill, not a foothills of Pennsylvania hill. ?

Help me understand this. How is it difficult to track where the model is? You look at it and go "there it is."

That ignores the idea that you cannot simply remove terrain from the table. Would you, for example, remove two walls of a house to allow your models to move through it? Don't think of them as "trees." Think of them as "physical barriers to movement," which you already clearly do since you want to move them to allow movement! ☺ My treelord cannot move through his own Sylvaneth woods because the trees in the woods model prevent it - just like walls in a house or the pillars in an arcane ruins. Treating woods as some sort of abstracted area terrain that "actually" have lots of trees is old thinking, Warhammer thinking. In AoS, the models are the models are the models. That *is* one orruk. That *is* one rock. That *is* one tree. This leads us to the simple true line of sight rule. It's not "unclear" what you can and cannot shoot. Such is the beauty of the 4-pager. Economical rules can be taken at face value and played simply. You actually need to start making up stuff to deny the rules that are there. Things like asking (no offense to earlier poster) "would he get hurt by his spear or cloak being shot" require needless invention and assumption that your imagined "fluffy" justifucation to break the rule had more validity than both the actual rule and someone else's imagination. For instance, I could say that when that spear gets shot. The warrior takes a fragment of the shattered tip in the eye and falls down in agony, or that he has lost his weapon and some combat effectivess represented by the wound he's taken...or I could just apply the rule as printed and get on wirh a fun, clear, simple game. Having said that, I'd be in favor of a rule saying models never block line of sight to other models. It's how 98% of my opponents play anyway - even the ones I played at Adepticon - and it makes sense to me given the dynamic nature of the game. As to terrain, make bigger terrain. Also, removing terrain and thinking is ok because it had no effect on the game means you've skipped a cool section of the rules with all the terrain effects. Gah! One more thing. Don't use someone else being a dirty tool as justifucation to say the rules are in need of charge. Yes, one could model flying dudes low to the ground and keep their rules. Go ahead, see how many games you'd get against me if you did that.

I just thought of one based on convenience, experience, and style of the game. Rule that models never block line of sight to other models. If it's all supposed to be a constantly moving affair (thus allowing the various shooting/combat things), why not abstract to say shots are taken at a good moment? Also, at Adepticon I did not see one single instance of people checking LoS through models. It seems it's how people play.

Love the concept of the cards ... need better design for bigger fonts.

They did both, iirc. Shoot close and also save that clumsy ranger way over there. ☺ Not that LotR has to influence this game. It just seems to me that the design of this game, from the ground up, is cinematic and loose. Tightened/restricted systems are also fun, but there are lots of other games like that. Do we really need to remove some of the uniqueness of AoS just to make it more like so many others? Gimme my crazy fun here, and I'll play tighter games elsewhere.