[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Anyone else notice that the rules now define terrain as terrain kits from GW for AoS?

I don't they meant that only "official" AoS, GW-made kits qualify as terrain, but ya never know.

I don't remember seeing anything about it having to be Citadel brand models terrain or even saw a Trademark or anything.  Just that it is Age of Sigmar terrain.  So as long as you declare all the terrain on the table as Age of Sigmar terrain, we should be fine.  Just don't go and call some of it Bolt Action, 40k terrain or some other game (which would be against the rules) and you should be fine.  If you are really worried about it, just write "Age of Sigmar terrain" on the piece.  So there isn't any doubt.

 

BTW, I am being both serious and comical dependent on how serious or comical someone takes this rule.

[General Lumineth Realm Lords Rules Discussion]

2 hours ago, KingKull said:

Not very familiar with AoS but a buddy's looking to getting into LRL and is rethinking it due to claims of OPedness.

Would anyone be so kind as to give me a quick summary of why LRL are considered OP? Much obliged in advance. 

I haven't quite yet discovered anything especially OP. Although, I also don't really go looking for it either.  Which as mentioned above could change with the beginning of a new core rules set. That said, there are a few things that get touted as OP and likely will regardless of anything less of making them absolutely for at least the next year as many people don't keep up the game, don't actually play the game, etc.

Number 1 on the list of most talked about OP units for the Lumineth is the Vanari Sentinels (the archers).  Largely due to being able to generate Mortal Wounds (MW) on hit rolls of 6 (5s with Power of Hysh) as well as their ability to shoot 30" and without needing Line of Sight (LoS).  As a biased Lumineth player, I haven't seen this supposed OP-ness show itself as each model has 1 attack (minus the Leader).  So actual MW output is only about 2-3 for 10 typically for 140 points.  It certainly can be an issue for the weakest of Hero types, but beyond that, I haven't found Sentinels in actual use allowing me to auto-win.  That said, I only run 20 and don't give them support.  Still, I can't help to think the complaints are largely from the idea of opponents taking long range MW and the inherent powerlessness of it regardless of its actual effect.

Next, it usually Teclis who has the ability to cast 1-4 spells automatically as if rolling 10 for 4 spells, 12 for 2 spells and a single spell that can't be unbound.  Along with knowing every spell in the Lumineth battletome and couple powerful spells only known by himself. I can't comment too much on Teclis as I haven't fielded him.  Looking at him he seems like a binary thing where he can be overwhelming (and at 660 point he should be doing something) for some armies and underwhelming for others.

Something also uncommonly mentioned is the Lumineth have a bunch of special faction abilities.  I personally think it is kinda flavorful that the Lumineth are overly complicated for not apparent reason.  However, I can also see that they are a faction that wants its opponents to be more familiar than average with their rules than most.  Otherwise, there can be a few gotchas as I do find it difficult to explain to everything the faction is capable before a game, let alone before it is too late for an opponent to accidentally fall into a some sort of trap.  I think the big ones are the Total Eclipse spell which doubles the cost of using Command Points (CP), Speed of Hysh which doubles the Movement of a unit, Lighting Reactions which allow them to activate 2 units for every 1 their opponent does in melee.

Since Bravery and Battleshock aren't usually an issue, this doesn't come up much, but Lumineth have a surprising number of ways to lower enemy units' Bravery.  Which can very much catch someone off guard.

 

A lot of me suspects the reason Lumineth get this reputation is much like Primaris space marines in 40k do.  On paper, they have all these rules, many of which seem to break the core rules of the game.  Because they have a lot of special abilities and such this must be their raw power or some secret combination of synergies make them a boogyman powerhouse.  That's added to the fact that since they are a magic faction they seem to have no shortage of generating Mortal Wounds (and much of it at range) which most factions just have to take. 

I have my reservations about the Lumineth being as OP as they are made out to be. The faction has a lot of draw backs.  I'm not sure if they get overlooked or not.  First off, the faction is composed of some points heavy units.  Doubley so if you consider how fragile most of them are (at least without magic).  They are also surprisingly slow save a few units or again use of magic.  This may have changed some with Wave 2 (I haven't really looked as I'm not ready to buy more models).  Finally, and something I find can be their biggest weakness is that the Lumineth are very vulnerable to battleshock.  To be sure, there a many things they can do to circumvent it, but it does feel to me that more resources have to be put in place to avoid it than most AoS factions.

 

Again, I am a Lumineth player.  So I will look at them in a favorable light.  I also don't spend much time rooting out the most power for any army I play.  I am just not that kind of player.  So I can very easily miss even obvious power combos.  Finally, only this last month have I managed to even start playing games again.  So I don't have much experience yet, and I specifically built a Ymetrica Alarith army.  I would have probably gone all in on Stone Guard if they didn't cost so much money.  Which turned out to have a silver lining as I don't think I could fit more than the 20 I do have in a list now, and it's not really worth it without the Alarith Temple Battalion.

[The Rumour Thread]

@Chikout Which is fine.  Even in previous editions I would be fine with a smaller table as it is completely understandable to the reasons.  I played 40k on a round dining room table that was maybe 4' in diameter.  You make due with the space you have.  That said, I don't understand giving up area when you have it available.  My current FLGS has a bunch of 6'x4' tables. So there isn't any need to go smaller.  At a store I used to play at, they had 8'x4' tables with side board cubbies.  Since the space was there, often games would make use of it.

 

It also seems to me that if space and/or new players entry are such a concern smaller point games would be a panacea.  I personally don't have any kind of attachment to playing 2000 point games for either AoS or 40k.  Quite the contrary, I find them to be a little too unwieldy.  As someone that started playing miniatures war games outside the walled garden of Games Workshop, I found that most games regardless of being squad or field army level work best when players are controlling about 8-14 individual units with extremes being as small as 6 and as big as 20.  Any less and the game goes swingy (which 40k knights often demonstrate) and any more and the game bogs down and/or becomes gamey (mostly in alternating activation games).

While both AoS and 40k can (and often do) fall with in that Goldilocks zone, it is also very easy for them to push to the extremes and beyond. With the rules peeks for AoS 3rd ed, I can easily see this becoming worst with an apparent increase in MSU.  At least at 2000 pts. Which after the reset, let's be honest; armies are going to get bigger from points re-balances.  With AoS 3rd ed likely placing about the same amount of models on the table (just different ones) as they do now.

Me, I like smaller points games.  I am always glad when a player suggests going down to 750, 850 or1000 points or anything in between that and 2000 points.  I enjoy it far more than going over 2000 points.  This is more 40k than AoS, but the larger the points the more the early game feels like a 1000-1500 pt game but somewhat randomized to what those 1000-1500 pts are.  Since huge chunks of your army are removed in trades from your opponent's army. I feel we might as well start there.

Thing is, it really isn't GW preventing me from playing smaller games.  It's players that see 2000 point games as the gold standard that you play lesser amounts only as you are building up your army to return to less you are playing someone else who is building up their army. 

And really 2000 points is just a number.  Most players want their army to be the size that 2000 points gets them +/- maybe a squad or two.  Any less, and I think they'll just move to 2250 or even 2500 points.  Which is how I suspect 40K and AoS by association got to where it is at. I think GW can tweek points about 10% but anymore and the players (mostly tournaments) will likely creep up the points total to compensate.

[The Rumour Thread]

10 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

I would agree if 40k wasnt a thing. They did make the table smaller for 40k first and tried increasing points but it didnt last and they reverted and reshuffled points costs there. There is even more rules and more horde armies then there used to be within 40k. 

Who knows...their plans could be vastly different  for AoS.

I for one find it more fun to have more stuff on the table. 

Games Workshop didn't make games smaller.  They just quantified what the smallest size table could be used before they felt the game wouldn't work.  It's the players (or as the cynical part of me would say: a U.S. major tournament organization (and play testers) that sells game mats and just so happened these new sizes mats) that decided minimum must mean recommended. 

I also don't buy the idea that the BRB doesn't list a maximum table size as there are some practical limits in place for that if the players don't want to play on the floor. I also don't think if GW just listed a maximum size without the minimum, tournaments (and thus many players) would suddenly chuck out the old 6'x4' and build new tables.

While it is clear that GW created the table size of their cardboard mats and likely didn't really check if games actually become unbearable at less square footage, I do find it odd the rush to bottom (home gaming where space is an issue aside) playing GW games in the smallest possible format before even the designers say that the game probably won't work any smaller.  I might even be okay with it if it were something like major league baseball where tables are going to be different sizes and players have to learn to play on all of them.  But I know the vast majority of tournament players loathe variation, especially uncontrolled variation.

[The Rumour Thread]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

Indeed, which is somewhat an odd choice considering GW is also pushing more model diversity per army right now with armies getting bigger and heck Stormcast have a huge problem with it. 

Perhaps only second to terrain type/density, game size is one of the aspects most under control by the players.  Players have far more control of the size of the game than Games Workshop does. I see so many online pleased that there is a points increase. (Which I think is far, far more an edition points reset that an honest attempt to make armies smaller.) Yet, they could easily just play at 1750 pts, and you will have a hard time convincing me that the unbalanced game that is AoS suddenly really goes off the rails a with a loss of about 12%.  Which is funny enough what a lot of people (not just here) seem to want. 

I don't think GW games are built with that much attention paid to the points limits of games.  Sure, they somewhat ranged in for about that size and any play testing is probably done there.  However, I have never felt that GW games really fall apart going +/-- 25% of this mystical gold standard almost everyone believes the game is meant to be placed at.

Truth is more likely that GW games have crept larger and larger as they mature and gain players with larger and larger collections.  When 40k 9thed was revealed, I knew more than a few players wanting to go to 2,500 points after hearing the points [s]increase[/s] reset.  I get that GW wants to recruit new blood and trying to not induce sticker shock is important to them.  I just don't think they have much control over game size as the internet wants to indicate.  If anything, major tournaments hold most of the control of it.

 

1 hour ago, pseudonyme said:

Yeah, as much as I love the changes we’ve seen so far (I asked for lots of them in their annual surveys), I guess GW turned their back against their ever evolving ruleset and revert back to editions. Note that I am not judging and have no idea if it is a bad thing, just that the original promise is not there

It's both really.  I know many people were conflating a "living rules set" as the last edition of 40k about 4 years ago.  That GW would just keep updating and updating 8th until the company finally closed its doors. The issue is a living rules set is more about monitoring the game and making updates and changes during its life cycle.  Which between regular/semi-constant FAQ/Erratas and Chapter Approved books it did.  There were even a couple of updated codices (Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines) and Psychic Awakening and Vigilis for practically all factions.  While not all factions did see new units/models more did that any point in 40k's history for the same amount of time (as far as I am aware).  Finally, via social media GW perpetually promoted 40k (to sell stuff, but that's why GW exists).  I am not commenting on the quality or method of these.  Just that they do meet a sort of minimum level of creating a living rules set.

I suppose the key is 'living' rules, not 'immortal' rules. I get some of the frustration.  However, I see it time and time again with GW fans/ex-fans.  While many are cynical, they still have a blinding hope from something they loved long ago that maybe this time GW can right itself into something they like or at least can tolerate to return at least a little bit back to what they did adore. 

I don't ever remember GW saying that they were never going to do editions again.  I do remember folks online saying that, and me remembering (perhaps even pointing it out) that isn't what was said.  So, I think this is more you're misremembering what others misinterpreting GW was saying more than what GW actually said. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

6 hours ago, Koala said:

In general i am a great proponent of "try it first, complain later or never".

And i can certainly see something interesring or understandable in most previewed changes.

 

But they DO seem to push AoS into the direction of 40k. ( Higher complexity, more "free rules", also rules/text overlap)

And quite frankly 9th Ed. has caused me and half my friends to stop playing 40k. 

To call me worried would be an understatement.

Agreed.  Save I either don't mind or even like many of the changes made to 40k.  It's probably due to me finally giving into Warhammer during 40k's 7th ed, but I have always viewed 40k as a very complicated, if often shallow game.  So I never really minded the dozens of CP per game, hundreds of stratagems and other laundry lists of things going on with the game.  I largely view them in the same vein of worrying about pistols or dozer blades.  I don't want AoS to be like that. I found few CP and fewer things to spend them on very refreshing.  I absolutely adore not having to ask my opponent (my group doesn't often play/pretty casual) what their unit's Toughness  is every other unit every turn.

To which point, what I think works or what I want in 40k isn't what I necessarily want is AoS. Take coherency, I think it works in 40k as the game has double the distance to work with, largely being shooting focused (or at least more so than AoS) and generally has smaller units of everything (it's uncommon/rare for a datasheet to allow more than 10 in a unit). One of the things I like about AoS is the larger units and don't want to be pushed to smaller/MSU units.  As much as it might balance the game, I kinda also don't want 40k terrain rules.  I like rattenkrieg in 40k, but prefer a much more open battlefield with AoS.  With AoS 2nd ed, I truly enjoyed the freedom of individual models played in a rank and file way.  I was ecstatic that Lumineth Vanari further encouraged that with Shining Companies.  See spoiler for a fairly common deployment of my army in terms of ranking up.

Spoiler

Which works fine early game even with the new coherency rules. However, once in combat I kinda need as much as I can get swinging their weapons as Chaos Warriors and Knights even buffed with Daemonic Power aren't exactly tearing through the enemy.  I have also had to use positioning of enveloping/encircling to either direct a Fall Back to a favorable direct or prevent it entirely while my evil dudes whittled them down since they are tough not strong.  And you know what? It wasn't the martial brutality I was hoping for with my army, but I came to enjoy this sort of control and attrition play style as it matched surprising well with actual rank and file games I had previously played.  I found despite not really putting much of a dent into my opponent's army, they'd often remove more of mine than I did theirs; I found I could still squeeze out  some wins through having a better plan and managing to execute it.

 

The more rules I see for AoS 3rd edition, the less interest I have. The rules seem to want to fundamentally take the game in a direction I don't really want to go.  I don't want MSU units to become prevalent.  I loathe the idea of AoS battleplans becoming the homogeneous mush that 40k 9th have become.  In short, I already play 40k, I don't really want to play 40k of Sigmar.  Which maybe AoS won't be.  But the rules shown aren't doing a good job of relieving my concern.  In fact, they seem to want me to move further away from how I want to play the game.

[The Rumour Thread]

2 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I mean, choosing to write a piece of fiction where the good guys do something that is fairly universally agreed to be unethical in the real world, but it's good in the fantasy world is not exactly a value neutral thing to do. It's not like the writers had no choice in the matter. On the contrary, writers are usually very careful about the message they want their works to convey. At least I think it would be insulting to pretend that the writers are just bumbling idiots who have no idea about the real world context of what they are putting to paper and the message it implicitly conveys.

Yeah, but it is kinda hard to have a war game without war.  I mean suppose we can have games where each players' army shows up to arrange peace, but I kinda just want to, "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."  Not worry about the ethics and morality of never ending war.

Oh, you meant the colonization stuff. Yeah, I think that is almost as bad as never ending war.

[The Rumour Thread]

3 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Interestingly the Iron Golems pictured have been painted with the Black Legion standard Warriors of Chaos scheme.

Spoiler

Finally, GW painted them in the appropriate color scheme.  I always knew the Warcry scheme was wrong. They probably aren't flesh golems like mine though.

[The Rumour Thread]

35 minutes ago, Acrozatarim said:

I'd assume Phoenix Guard etc get souped into Lumineth when Tyrion arrives, since he's supposed to be associated with the phoenix.

I wouldn't think so.  Any player with a large enough High Elf army would be better served to turn them into a count-as Lumineth army if CoS doesn't keep them.  Any Lumineth player isn't likely to want to bother with obviously old models that only tangent-ly match aesthetics unless they happen to be a power gamer and high elves offer more power.  This might have worked before the Lumineth wave 2 model release, but LRL aren't hurting for choices anymore. 

The only player this could work for is a hypothically displaced City of Sigmar player that likes the few high models they have but don't have enough for a full army, so they start now collecting Lumineth.  I don't see this working out well either as such a player is probably going to be pretty sore at losing their faction and forced to collect some of the most expensive, fiddly/fragile models GW produces.  And I say that as a Lumineth player.

[The Rumour Thread]

5 hours ago, chosen_of_khaine said:

Another hot take: The game is better *with* mortal wounds than without them, and having MW represent "non-physical" damage (i.e. magic, poisons, etc) that isn't mitigated by armor is in fact very fluffy.

Spoiler

I don't know what you mean by armor not protecting from Mortal Wound damage. Mine seems to be doing an excellent job to the point I say pile more MW into the game.  They're easier to save than Rend -2.

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

4 hours ago, stus67 said:

I really don't think these are deserving of kneejerk doom and gloom reactions honestly. The most atrocious part about it is GW showing off rules and abilities without any larger ruleset context that could make a lot of reactions look premature.

I will fully admit that a good portion of the rules sneak-peaks have me wondering if maybe I should shelve my AoS armies for a few years, and do something else.  I don't think I'm pulling a knee-****** reaction either.  The game appears to be moving further and further away from what I want. 

Strangely, it is becoming 40k where I don't want it, and staying away from 40k where I do.  I wanted AoS to go more of the 40k route for character protection and shooting in/while in combat route. Not exactly the same maybe, but something other than what we have that feels very weird to me in a fantasy game when its grimmer, darker counterpart doesn't even it despite all the carbines, SMGs and lack of concern for friendlies the lore claims.

Regardless of game, I am not a fan of players wanting to shrink the table when they don't need to. It seems crazy to me that many miniatures war games play with the same or larger tables at 20mm, 15mm or even 10mm scale yet GW games which can be argued to be more 32mm than even 28mm these days are going for smaller tables.  I only hope when my FLGS opens back up the players stick to the size the tables are rather than shrinking the game area down.

Everything above was mildly disappointing, but either understandable or within players hands to do.  However, unit cohesion has really tanked by enthusiasm.  First off, I think the same basic rules in 40k work fine, but 40k has 2", smaller units and typically less melee.  Age of Sigmar 3rd edition's new coherency rules cut into my armies in multiple places.  Both my armies are mostly 32mm based infantry.  Because I still treat AoS and a fluid rank and file game, my units at the start of games are formed in lines and columns almost as if they were of movement trays.  I like the spectacle of big units and rarely run minimum often shooing for maximum to really fill in that line infantry look.  What I like(d) about AoS was the game seemed to function really well moving units like they were on movement trays with the added benefit that the unit shape could conform to the terrain or enemy instead of being a big rectangle often leaning askew on some hill.  It makes the table look more like the chaos (small c) of the battle was occurring instead of constant orderly units smashing frontages.  The new coherency rules interfere some with this as infantry lines can't organically thin as it is depleted.  Nor can a bigger unit easily envelope or encircle a smaller one.  Which again felt more natural and possible with the fluidity allowed by individual models even if they were acting as if they were rank and file.

As someone that almost never runs cavalry at less than 10, I think it has already been demonstrated the table aesthetic breaking orientations such a unit has to placed in for best use.

 

Certainly, there are a lot of rules not revealed.  However, I find myself drifting to even care as what has been shown either shows no indication of addressing the few issues I had with AoS 2nd ed, or worse, seem to be moving even further away from what I would like.  And forcing me to put my models poorly looking shapes is a dealbreaker for me.  The only thing GW games have that continues to interest me is the pomp and circumstance that is the spectacle of the table.  Ruin that, I am walking away since I am convinced GW can't do better than an okay, functional game.  Which is exactly what GW seems to be doing now.

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

16 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

I don't know i can cram more models into my admech army then ever before.   So in my experience that's only true in 40k for the elite armies.  I do hope they shrink the armies down to mach the board. But i doubt it tough. They want to sell models afther all 

Games Workshop can't really control the size of armies.  Sure, they can make everything cost more points, but that's not going to stop players from playing bigger point limits.  Army size is almost always a player controlled issue.  My experience over several miniatures games from many companies has found that games will naturally move to the point where players don't feel like they have to compromise leaving out a type of unit or have a list with a deficiency/gap they have to work around.  Barring that, almost all miniatures war games I have played the points get bumped up to 25% after the group has been playing a while.  Even if the previous total was listed by the designers (rarely done) as the intended points limit. 

I also think it is incorrect to say that GW is increasing the points cost of things.  More likely, I suspect, they are just resetting a bunch of stuff back to the beginning of an edition points costs. As the edition continues, it sees points decreases to attempt to make weak units more viable.  As GW probably learned, "No nerf, only buff." keeps the players happier (yes, I know they do nerf things too).

If you want smaller games, talk to your opponent.  I already have to do this as my primary AoS opponent likes 2500 point games which I can accomplish with my S2D (barely), but not with my LRL army save fielding Teclis to use up a huge chunk of points.  Without him, I don't have 2500pts of LRL models as they were all about 20% more money than I was expecting, and I don't really have the available funds to get any Wave 2 stuff yet.

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

30 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:

On the other hand, that's their only trick for 140 points.

Well, 280 points for 20 Sentinels, but I largely agree with what you are saying.

After finally getting my Lumineth on the table, I wasn't overly impressed with my 20 Sentinels.  The no line of sight was a double-edged sword in my game as I first kept them completely hidden behind a centrally placed dense forest (no LoS).  All game they could only fire Aloft (30") as they were kinda boxed in and my opponent (Mawtribes with lots of Yhetees) had -1 to hit for most stuff. So hits were Mortal Wounds if I managed Power of Hysh (which I did not half the game).  Granted, my Sentintels were not supported in any way as I went heavy Alarith with both Alavenor and a Spirit of the Mountain (which were my MVPs).

I am not going to say Sentinels ain't nothin'.  They certainly can be all kinds of annoying to frustrating if they are supported and/or spike dice. At the same time, I don't think they are the boogymen they are made out to be all the time.  At least not if they aren't spammed.  Personally, I think Power of Hysh should work like Smite does in 40k with every attempt increasing the difficulty to cast.

I suppose it wouldn't hurt if they went up to 150pts for 10, maybe even 160pts, but there comes a point where they might become a burden to a Lumineth player not spamming and combo-ing everything they can into them.  Me, I still lean toward shooting being powerful and would prefer a more 40k approach as I think unit such as Sentinels should be screened and kinda screwed if they find themselves in melee.  However, I haven't experienced enough everything to know if such rules would mess over some factions.  I just know, it really wouldn't with Lumineth as they would have things to screen/counter getting stuck-in.

[What are you doing Pre-3.0?]

Spoiler

 

Slowly painting the part of my Lumineth collection I plan to use the most to at least a level I feel like they can be shown in public.

 

[The Rumour Thread]

Double Post

[The Rumour Thread]

1 hour ago, FFJump said:

I've seen mixed reactions to them. They're either you love them or you hate them. Personally, they're my favorite models from the set. I love how they look, but it might be my Chaos Dwarf bias. I'm a huge fan of their skin color too, I'm glad GW actually made a paint for them (Hobgrot Hide) because I'm painting them that way. I know the color looks like puke basically, but I like how distinct it is in a sea of green, while not being horribly out of place. It really points out hey, these aren't orruks or typical grots. I'm kind of hoping they have hobgrot wolf riders and a leader too so I could make a pure hobgrot army 

That might be true.  For me, Kruelboyz don't elicit any reaction, so I am rather neutral ("What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?").  There are very nice, detailed models.  I kinda feel they don't fit current AoS aesthetically, but I also think that as more is added/refreshed that will probably be less the case as these models are the clearest example of the new GW style and a long ways away from 2000-2010s GW style.  Just the same, nothing in Dominion sparks anything in me.

Which is fine (great really). I have a S2D and LRL which is plenty or armies for me.  Heck, I haven't even started collecting any Wave 2 Lumineth yet.  Point is, I know that not every faction is going to work for every person.  They don't have to.  They just have to work for enough people. I think the Kruelboyz do, and I am happy to see all manner of different factions/armies across the table from me.

[Hevy cavalary]

I don't think anyone can give you a particularly good answer at this point since you want to go competitive, and no one knows what full changes of Age of Sigmar 3rd edition are going to be.

I suspect that AoS 3rd ed may follow 40k 9th ed in many ways, including attempting to create well-rounded, take-all-comers lists. I say this since it is entirely possible that your choices might be:

• A pure cavalry list
• A competitive list

There may not be anything in the future that has both.  Since you seem to be newer to this forum and asking this question, I am going to assume you are new/new-ish to AoS. I don't know if I would suggest trying to go the competitive route if so.  Playing competitive GW games often means spending a lot of money to keep up with the meta.  It also tends to mean not being particularly loyal to an army, play style or faction as the meta changes.  And the meta changes really fast these days.  Even without a new edition around the corner, by the time you get your army all built and painted (and most competitive events require painted), the meta has moved on.  I think to some extent, AoS doesn't suffer from this as much as 40k, but as I suspect AoS is going to take some things from current 40k, I don't know how true that's going to be going forward.

So I can't give you the information you seek.  I do want to caution you in case you weren't aware of how Games Workshop and their games tend to work.  Especially if you want to chase-the-dragon that is 'competitive' play.

[The Rumour Thread]

There's got to be more to the getting 2CP for going second, or am I missing something?

When it comes to double-turns, I really only care about between Round 1 and 2.  So this new rule rewards me for taking the double-turn at the moment I want it most since later game things are usually engaged in combat or not there.  Heck, even if double-turns weren't there, I like going second as to draw out my opponent as my armies are slow and have no change of a charging otherwise.

I am just left utterly confused. I must be missing something.

[The Rumour Thread]

1 hour ago, Raptor_Jesues said:

something "changed". Now look out sir requires you to be less than 10 wounds instead of not a monster. I guess there are not many monsters that are 9 wound or less but there it is

My Chaos Lord on Karkadrak isn't going to be happy about that.

[New Board Size (44x60) - How will it impact AOS?]

2 hours ago, InSaint said:

• Overall pointage increase across ALL units - this is to counteract the effect of a smaller board to prevent overcrowding
• More close combat oriented as units get into glorious melee more quickly - traditional long range shooting armies becomes unplayable
• Huge base sizes have a harder time positioning - terrain and meatshields can easily crowd out hot combat zones
• Less opportunity to outflank/deepstrike - smaller board makes it easier for players to protect their rear and flanks

I see anything GW does with points as less a points increase and more a points reset. When it comes to 40k, many of the units are just being returned  to what they were at the start of 8th.  I fully expect many of these points cost to drop as the game is tweeked in the years to come.  I think the same will likely for Age of Sigmar.  Take Chaos Warriors which are 90? points right now.  I really do think the AoS designers want Warriors (and Liberators) to be a 100 pts and only shaved their costs in an attempt to balance them with where the game ended up.  The only true way less models are going to be placed on the table is if the players do it themselves.

 

Board size along really isn't going to affect speed of most units getting into combat.  No Man's Land (the area between two armies) hadn't really changed in 40k generally still being about 24" away.  My experience for both 40k and AoS is few close combat fights happen in a player's deployment zone.  Even less deep in the deployment zone.  And most are from units deep striking or flanking reserves in.  Both of which are kinda hard given it is much easier to prevent any areas that are 9" or more away.

 

Again, pure table size has some effect, but the active part of the table has always been No Man's Land which has largely seen minimal loss of square inches.  Terrain density (along with movement rules going through terrain) have a much bigger impact. My personal preference is always been for denser terrained tables. It's the WWII gamer that plays way too many rattenkrieg missions which I think lends itself very well to 40k.  At the same time, with AoS I want a more open table as I still imagine the game being a mass battle just not with models representing 1-for-1 all the time.

 

This has been the biggest effect I have in encountered in 40k with smaller table sizes followed by a distance second of artillery units being slightly more vulnerable.  At 2000 pts with lots of LoS blocking cover, it is very easy to screen out deep strikers to at least Turn 3.  Which combine to forlorn hope 9" charges has made combat deep striking very situational.  It is one smaller part why Genestealer Cults really don't work in 9th (though, they have much, much bigger issues than this).

 

Honestly, I don't see shrinking tables affecting AoS (or at very least my armies) nearly as much as it did in 40k.  A lot of times the area being cut out was dead space in terms of game use.  That said, I am opposed to it largely as I think it presents a poor looking aesthetic to the game with everything all bunched up.  Again, this is more a 40k issue than AoS.  It also just feels very off to me to have a company/platoon sized game on such a small area.  But maybe that's just me not liking change, or the fact that I have created enough themed terrain sets to easily fill a 6'x4' to a dense to very dense level and don't want that effort wasted.

[What would you like for AoS 3]

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.

[The Rumour Thread]

3 hours ago, King Under the Mountain said:

Looking back with hindsight, there always should of been a "Normal faction" (think Imperial Guard) to contrast all the weirdness.  

There is a 'normal' faction in AoS.  It's called Slaves to Darkness Ravagers using Marauders/Marauder Horsemen and possibly Warcry Cultists for flavor and good-looking models.

Remember, the forces of Order don't control anywhere the amount of territory that mortal Chaos does. I think a lot of people forget that the script as been flipped from WHFB.  Chaos controls most of the land,  and Order are the ones invading from the [s]north[/s] heavens.

[The Rumour Thread]

2 minutes ago, Rachmani said:

I have very high hopes of fitting the smaller size in my office gaming room!

What would be stopping you from doing it now? I mean it 40k is pretty much understood GW just threw out official minimum table sizes based on their Kill Team/Warcry boards. It isn't like GW themselves make use of it. I mean if that's the space you have, that's the space you have.  As a player I wouldn't be bothered by it as I understand the reason.  However, just making tables smaller because minimum numbers have been included now seems so odd to me.

I have been informed that Warhammer World still uses 6'x4' tables with people saying they are making more at the same size.  Table size like points is absolutely a player controlled issue. Games Workshop is forcing us to play 2000 points or 6'x'4 (or whatever the minimum recommend size) tables.  We are.  If anything, GW is resistant to that change. As it is also my understanding that games involving GW more closely were often 1750 or so while, at least in America, most spoke about 2000pt games.

I am not a fan of reducing the size of tables (for 40k or AoS) at all.  This coming from someone that loves the knife-fighting in a phone booth feel of Kill Team.  Fortunately, I have a group that doesn't like, or is indifferent, to smaller tables too.  I know that won't be the case if GW put numbers on it.  Which I feel it is necessary to remind people those minimum numbers aren't, 'the recommended size.' They are, 'the any smaller and the game will probably suffer size.' I don't know about others, but I don't want to be right on the cliff of this might not work out so well for my games.

Other than a place trying to squeeze a gaming table or two (which they still could have done before). I don't see much in upsides in making a 28mm to 32mm (or anything greater than 15-20mm really) platoon/company miniatures war game smaller than 6'x4'.  If anything, I would rather tables get bigger.  It seems so crazy to me that is what players are deciding to do to themselves.

[What would you like for AoS 3]

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.

[The Rumour Thread]

1 minute ago, Mattrulesok said:

They said official board size for AoS is being brought in line with 40K (60x44 from memory) for matched play. Larger boards are still ok and in reality we all play on whatever size table we have.

Yeah, that's the players' choice to make board sizes smaller.  Games Workshop is just printing what they think the smallest possible table size can be for a particular points size.  I haven't moved away from 6'x4' myself for 40k.  Don't see me doing it for AoS either.  I get that tournaments can squeeze in a few more tables, but I think with the number of models placed on the table at the points totals that are generally agreed upon, the table size can barely support it at 6'x4' now.  Going smaller, even if it is mostly depth, just makes it worse.