Ganigumo
-
Posts
1,578 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Ganigumo
-
-
3 minutes ago, Luperci said:
Ah yeah that makes more sense, so there's:
Anti[keyword]
Crit
Charge
Companion
I think the remaining 3 could be
Critical wound (name is long though so I'm not sure, I feel like crit would be crit hit instead maybe)
Some equivalent to blast (bonus attack for each 5 models in the enemy unit)
Indirect fire? Ignore cover?
This is just going off of the 40k USRs though so who knows
I bet it won't be called critical wound, although calling it something like "Deadly" or "Grievous" or something could work.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Luperci said:
I expect to see anti monster too, not sure if anti fly or anti cavalry etc. will be too niche to be a keyword
I bet the keyword is just "Anti", so it can be "Anti-<keyword>". Like Kragnos might get Anti Dragon thrown in or whatever.
There's only 7 weapon USRs, but making those USRs modular feels like stretching that fact a bit.
We probably have a USR for critical wound as well. -
23 minutes ago, Mortal Wound said:
It's not, it is way easier to screen against because it now goes against the nearest unit, after movement is done but before charges. As a Slaves to Darkness player living in an environment oversaturated with CoS players that all love their fusiliers, this new command made me breathe a huge sigh of relief. Just put a chaff unit in front of my spiky lads and bam, no more getting shot off the table (or rather, no more getting shot off the table an additional time). Takes me back to Warhammer Fantasy days when the no1 rule of playing Chaos was 'you always put Warhounds in front of the Chaos Knights' 😄
I mostly agree with your other assessments, but felt I needed to point this out because I love this change.
Someone else pointed out the speed issue, which is a problem for some armies, but this also lets you shoot at things that aren't charging (like throwaway objective capturing units), and the range change makes it way easier to use this while safely behind a screen. You can be out of charge range and still get blasted now, plus stuff like impact hits can't lessen the effectiveness of the shooting.
36 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:I have seen designers say that they like to build games where being close to winning and losing look very similar, because it keeps the finale exciting. It's nice in theory, but I suspect different players respond to it differently.
If you design the game so games are close (only a few VPs off in AoS case) you need to be really careful about catchup mechanics so they don't become the optimal strategy. Losing so you can win is a wierd incentive.
In games with more decisive wins you can be way more lenient with catchup mechanics, since generally the safer option will always be to stay in the lead.5 minutes ago, Luperci said:Oh I missed that, the new aos weapon USRs seem a lot better than the 40k ones, much easier to comprehend at a glance. (The lack of strength vs toughness is also a factor I'll grant)
Edit: thinking about it now, do we think KB will just have all their weapons get Crit(mortals) and lose the poisoned blades faction ability
God I hope so. Maybe they can get an actual allegiance ability.
-
3 minutes ago, Cdance93 said:
I think the rally change is wonderful and a lot more flexible now since it can be used in single models as well.
also a great way to counter tactics
Its better than current Rally yes, but I wouldn't miss rally if it was gone entirely.
-
1
-
-
Opinions!
-
"These(CP) are a crucial resource in the new edition, and scarcer than before.*
- AKA unless you're OBR or KO you're now getting more than you used to ???
- Bonus CP to player with less VP seems like its better than the player going second, but it creates an incentive to sandbag the VP line to get those CP. This is already a problem in that one Battleplan where the losing player removes objectives.
- (edit) Everybody can issue commands, no more elite stuff, thank you. I never got why stuff like maw grunta gougers and troggs cant, but literal mindless undead like zombies can. (I know troggs are dumb as bricks but still)
- Covering Fire is WAY stronger than unleash hell, even unleash hell had to be nerfed from 9" to 6". This is probably going to be a problem. Somehow this makes kruleboyz worse since you can't hasty shot UH now though (pending warscroll rewrite).
- Rally - Just remove it, this is pretty complex, but it needs to be so it isn't broken I guess.
- Counter Charge: I like this. I hate that we have commands that cost different amounts of CP, Its not a lever they should play with IMO. The value of this is just as dependent on the quality of the unit using it as Covering Fire, so why is this 2CP and that 1CP. Just make them all 1CP and be done with it.
- Redeploy: Buffed, no nearby unit restriction, and less interruption after moving every unit. You just do it at the end of the phase. Good change to make it simpler, but now there's not really any counterplay to it.
- Magical Intervention: Seems fun, But I'm not looking forward to the 1 drop lumineth teclis castle giving away the first turn and still having shields up.
- Power Through: another ogor rule everybody gets "Can't have 💩in Ogor Mawtribes"
-
1
-
"These(CP) are a crucial resource in the new edition, and scarcer than before.*
-
23 minutes ago, Mutton said:
The only thing on the warscroll that I can't identify is the shading on the Save value. I'm wondering why the Save characteristic is green while nothing else on the stat wheel is colored?
green save good.
red save (5+) bad.-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, Luperci said:
Yeah no I'm fine with the change to health points, but nagash's ability should refer to the amount of health he has, rather than introducing a separate term where it isn't necessary
The only change here is the terminology. The game has always worked this way.
Damage points = Wounds allocated
Health = Wounds characteristic
models die when wounds Suffered are higher or equal to wounds characteristic.
Its why behemoth tables care about "wounds suffered" and not "wounds remaining"
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, GrimDork said:
Warscrolls look fine, bit easier to see what can be done in each phase.
Is it just me tho who finds it weird that they’ve changed wounds to health, but then on Nagash’s warscroll it mentions damage points? Wouldn’t it make more sense to reference his health?Its an attempt to linguistically differentiate between wounds characteristic(health), wound rolls, and allocated wounds (damage points).
It works the same as it does now.
You take damage, and it accrues (you count it up) and the unit is slain when its damage points (wounds taken) match or exceed its health (wounds characteristic).You don't actually count down wounds RAW, which is why behemoth damage tables always cared about wounds taken, not remaining wounds.
-
9 minutes ago, Chikout said:
It's here.
The article also says there are seven weapon ability USRs. I can only think of 4. Mortal wounds, exploding hits, auto wounds and ignore save modifiers. Anyone care to guess what they all are?
mortals on 6s to hit.
'x' Mortals in addition on 6s to hitMortals on 6s to wound
'x' Mortals in addition on 6s to wound
hit roll of 6 is 'x' hits
critical hits on (x) (i.e 5+)
critical wounds on (x)
-
8 minutes ago, Beliman said:
I feel that AoS only has one offensive stat. MW is just a hidden stat to increase damage output vs high saves and remove interation between players
pretty much the only armies that have a good distinction are kruleboyz and spiderfang. those units do nothing against high wound units, but shred elite high save stuff. should be more of that in the game, and less "good unit gets bonus mortals"
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Mortal Wound said:
Devastating Wounds are not autowounding hits. Devastating Wounds are wounds that do not allow a save of any kind, exactly like Mortal Wounds, but unlike Mortal Wounds, they do not spill over overkilled models as you explain.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about Mortal Wounds, Lethal Hits and Devastating Wounds in 40k in this discussion, but at the end of the day, it's really all moot anyway, since no one can make a definite prediction how Mortals will work in AoS4. For one, it's now called Mortal Damage instead of Mortal Wounds so we really can't make any assumptions.
Devastating wounds is a weapon ability that did mortal wounds at the start of the edition. I think The reason there is confusion is because of the errata. (I'm aware devastating wounds is wound rolls of 6).
I'd put my money on mortal wounds being exactly the same. I don't think they'll add damage spillover which is why 40k needs the extra complexity around that stuff.
8 minutes ago, ScionOfOssia said:Ah, then we’re stuck with the same godawful Mortal Wounds and Wards as 3rd Edition I guess. Shame, I hoped they’d be toned down substantially.
Mortal wounds are a necessary part of the game. Unkillable units are bad for the game, and make it drag to a standstill.
They have a natural counter in high wound, low save units, but the problem is that raw wounds tended to be overcosted in aos3, and most units that have mortal output also have good non-mortal damage output.
Like yeah mortals suck if your army is about save stacking, but have you ever played something like ironjawz or big waaagh! into that stuff? Your stuff bounces off. Just the other day I had a maw krusha do 0 damage, and multiple times at I've had pigs completely bounce off stuff like fulminators, stormdrakes, and immortis. There's a level of rock-paper-scissors to stuff, and unfortunately some armies are just rock or paper. -
3 minutes ago, ScionOfOssia said:
I think they might do the 10th Edition thing where it just autowounds.
The reason 40k changed their devastating wounds ability into autowounds is because mortals ignored the regular damage spill rules. It was changed to autowounds with no saves allowed.
It was mostly a problem on eldar since they had fate dice to cheat, but as an example, if you fire your damage 10 anti-tank gun at a unit of infantry with 1 wound each you can normally only kill a single model (no damage spillover). But if that same attack procced mortal wounds you would get the full damage spillover and kill 10 models. -
35 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:
Warscroll anatomy/breakdown for 4.0. Like the list building there's a fair bit of meat on the article.
Things I like:
- Color coding & icons for phases and meanings (even if I'll never remember it)
- putting when the ability works before the name/narrative
Things I'm neutral on:
- renaming wounds to health. Its nothing just an odd thing to change after so many years
- Control Stat, I don't think we needed this, the old system was good enough, but also I don't think it hurts anything. With objectives being so small in the new edition you'll be able to just cover the entire space with 20 grots or whatever anyway pending a consolidation move (we don't need a second pile-in)
- Removal of bravery, bravery sucked and it not mattering was a good thing because if it did we'd hate it, and if they removed it they'd try to put something else we'd hate in its place - (summary of heywoah opinion I agree with)
Things I don't like:
- USRs
I really want to talk about this part though, because I already see the game, and I hate it.
QuoteNagash’s warscroll (like everyone else’s) fits on one side of a card
So this is clearly a design constraint they've set for themselves right? This isn't a bad one either, it encourages them to try to limit complexity, and cut back on abilities that don't matter. I remember a similar design constraint for AoS 3, where they wanted to reduce the number of abilities on scrolls, particularly for battleline units who would have 1.
My issue with the new design constraint is USRs. They set a design constraint to limit complexity, and then at the same time added USRs so they could effectively cheat their own design constraint by referring to rules written elsewhere.
This isn't a new behavior for them either, the aformentioned AoS 3 design constraint somewhat ruined kruleboyz in my opinion. Venom Encrusted Weapons should've been a warscroll ability, but they moved it into the allegiance abilities to get more room on the warscrolls and there also seemed to be a limit on the number of battle traits armies got early on. The result was KB were "robbed" of an allegiance ability, sucked as allies, sucked in BW, and had one of the most boring allegiance abilities of all time that basically read "Your units are now allowed to deal damage" -
12 minutes ago, The Red King said:
I don't understand how only selling the miniatures in ToW could possibly generate more income than selling them in both when they're already going to keep producing the miniatures. Like again they gain the cost of one book in exchange for every BoC sale that might have gone to AoS as well as people like me (who are probably a minority) who are mad enough to stop buying from them entirely.
Like maybe you're just saying the AoS sales are so small it doesn't matter but again it's free money when you're already producing them.
If I understand correctly its not about the money exactly, but about tracking the metrics properly. Don't want to overinvest in old world based on AoS sales or vice versa.
Splitting up the ownership of the range between the teams is another factor.
They would probably actually make more money if they didn't split up the range, but this also forces players who play both systems to own 2 armies I guess.
For all this doom and gloom stuff over investors and profits I don't actually believe it. I think its just poor planning. Well run companies understand keeping customers happy is important over the long term. I can't remember the name, but there is a type of investor that will go hard into a company, push them to effectively burn through all their customer goodwill for short term profits, then bail before things blow up. I don't think GW is in that situation though, just mismanagement and planning issues.
A huge amount of their schedule is built around these new edition starter boxes, but I'm not sure they even really need to change much of the rules to make these things successful. Its a box, featuring completely new models for two armies, at a steep discount relative to the rest of their products, but they're unwilling to gamble on something this lucrative. -
1 minute ago, EntMan said:
Sylvaneth merger in Destruction?
There's narrative overlap, but its not exactly the same. Destruction is a wild force of nature, often described like a natural disaster.
Sylvaneth is ordered nature, they live with and control it. In a way you could view allarielle and the sylvaneth's influence on nature as foreign. -
59 minutes ago, Acrozatarim said:
I'm not going to condemn anyone right now who is feeling upset by any of these cuts. I think some of the Stormcast culling was definitely overdue, and some will be replaced with new equivalents, but that's little comfort to someone whose favourite lightning lad has begun the long walk towards the sunset.
I will note that I think Bonesplittaz has been a real millstone around GW's neck for some time, and I suspect that they tried to figure out if they could rehabilitate the line in some way before finally having to face the conclusion that they can't. Frankly, I'm amazed GW got away without being raked over the coals much more for the remaining savage orc stuff for so long, and I don't think there was ever going to be a viable route forwards for Bonesplittaz that didn't involve such a heavy reworking that they basically weren't Bonesplittaz anymore anyway, as we're seeing with the Ironjaw and Kruleboy 'inheritance' of their stuff via the Wrekkaz and Monsta Killerz.
To be honest I think they had the best narrative of any of the warclans.
A tribe of orruks who are permanently stuck in the state of high orruks only get during the thrill of battle, who are led by prophets instead of warlords, and believe the power of their god is trapped in the bones of the mighty beasts of the realms.
They're a really good take on what religious orruks would be like.
I know people might look at them as a stereotype or whatever, but its a pretty disingenuous take. The stone age wasn't exclusive to any culture.
A potential revamp would've definitely doubled down on bone weaponry though, since it fits the newer narrative way better.-
3
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, sandlemad said:
Separately, ogres have only received a handful of new minis since AoS started. Two characters, two terrain pieces and a Warcry unit. More than BoC but not by a huge amount, and less than the Sacrosanct chamber release.
I don’t think it’s actually super likely that they’ll be squatted and/or rolled into TOW… but I’m a lot less confident than I was yesterday.Ogors, and dark elves, are safe because they're not receiving old world support in terms of rules. The ogor rules are the equivalent of legends rules there.
Dark elves might get squatted with malerion releasing replacements though.-
1
-
-
I'm going to start by saying we're 9 years into this game. Its too late to be removing entire army ranges like this, and its a sign of bad planning. I know old world and AoS were splitting things up but still, not acceptable. You should've cut them 3 years ago with the rest of the AoS 2 stuff, or not given them an AoS 1 book at all.
I was actually talking to my brother on saturday about potential squatting, and I put the list like "Bonesplitterz, dispossessed, Spiderfang, Dark Elves, Beasts" (in that order). And I mentioned how I noticed beasts things were all being taken by StD lately, weird monsters from the warcry stuff like raptoryxs, and sphiranx, and the new darkoath thing, minotaur in ogroids, etc. The only thing BoC really still had was the brayherd and thunderscorn stuff. I'm a incredibly shocked dispossessed didn't make it to the list but BoC did.
This is two painted armies I own getting binned, and in my opinion, beasts of chaos was easily the most interesting battletome of 3rd edition.
5 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:GSG always get more than the normal faction treatment each edition. They're the spoiled privileged kids of Destruction (as these littke brats should), I wouldn't worry about the future of GSG. Except Spiderfang because the army is fundamentaly a gross racial stereotype.
I think this confirms a spiderfang update. Otherwise spider riders and the arachnarok would've been on the list. Also not to get too into the weeds, but I disagree that spiderfang are a bad racial stereotype. Pretty much the only thing on the models you could point to as evidence is the feathers. Literally everything else is pretty in line for any paleolithic society.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/neanderthals-in-summer--artwork-452428633-5b6f93b3c9e77c0050f00896-fbb91e2d595845d8bba2c697426fc8da.jpg)
-
6
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Ekrund Oath Splitters said:
What happens to gloomspite? How can Stabbas/Shootas, spiderfang/araknoroks, aleguzzler gargants exist in the AoS when they are also part of legal non legends ToW Orcs and Goblins. It's weird double standards throwing beastmen to ToW but not other ToW legal models. Savage orcs get the worst of it, they aren't even an army in legends or core ToW. It's a 1 in 1000pt upgrade for an Orc unit to get warpaint and frenzy....
We're probably getting a gitz update. They need to update the grots and the spiderfang stuff. Technically they're selling the older gargants for old world right?
I think the removal of the scuttleboss and nothing else from spiderfang is a bit telling. -
36 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Now that we know a bit more about the army building, do we expect a reduction in the cost of the units in terms of points as it happened in 40k?
IIRC they said armies were shrinking. Again.
Its as good a time as any to reset points creep I guess. I just hope they don't overtax raw wounds like they did in 3e. You had garbage with lots of wounds and pants saves running around nearly as expensive as stuff on 3+ saves. -
Just now, Lucentia said:
Also, 3 drops is not that outrageous in a system where 1 drops don't exist unless you can make a functioning army from literally five units, I'd imagine most lists will be looking at 2-3 drops, and that's if they're willing to run light on heroes.
Most armies being at the same number of drops defeats the entire purpose of the system. Its to give players a way to control priority that isn't just a dice roll. By making most armies fit into the same number of drops easily and not providing any incentive to not be low drop why even bother with the system in the first place? It just sorts armies into high and low drop based on how reliant they are on heroes, and how flexible their unit options in those regiments are. I guarantee they didn't balance the game around 'x' army controlling priority since its a 2 drop army, or 'y' army not controlling it since they're a 4 drop army. They wouldn't have had the time.
6 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:I hardly doubt that we would have a unit locked just behind one hero. I am pretty confident we would have more options to get the unit you want.
I'm kind of expecting exactly this to happen with at least stormcast. the range is too hero heavy.
-
1 minute ago, Sabush said:
But we don't know what the Regiments look like for each hero yet.
Maybe the Snatachaboss on Sludgeraker will allow Swampcalla Shaman in the regiment.
It's way too early to draw any sort of conclusion as to what this change might mean for certain armies.possibly, but I don't imagine they've spent any longer than a week designing any given army purely due to time constraints. I wouldn't expect stuff like that unless its a necessity or there's a strong lore reason i.e Gorechosen, Vyrkos (cursed city).
-
48 minutes ago, Someravella said:
This army creation certifies Orruk soup; otherwise, what can the non-hero units KB be? Only gutrippaz and hobgrotz
They'll be in the bin again.
Kruleboyz are notoriously hero heavy. even 3 drop might be a stretch.
Ironjawz will be in a similar spot unless they're less reliant on warchanters.
I bet the good armies next edition will be ones that can get by on like 2 heroes.
Its legitimately gonna suck when 60% of the meta at any event is 3 drops by necessity and most of your t1 priority is decided by dice roll. -
I think my ideal battalion system would be like the reverse of this.
Everything not in battalions are a single drop.
Each battalion is 1 drop and gives you a fun/powerful benefit.
Every army gets access to 1 drops, and the system tries to pull you away from it to get benefits.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Almost all good stuff this time, I only have nitpicks and not actual issues with the rules.