Ferban
-
Posts
125 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Ferban
-
-
27 minutes ago, Mutton said:
At least KO's battle traits are more interesting than the Gloompsite, which equates to: "Flip a coin and maybe you'll get 1 moderate buff if you're standing in the right places!" I hate the Badmoon rules so much. Boring, unthematic, non-interactive.
I'm not sure I agree with "unthematic" but I agree on the rest. The badmoon should just be omni-present rather than a roving and random thing that only grants buffs to part of the battlefield. But if it must be random and require you to be in the right place at the right time, the buffs should be far more substantial.
-
4
-
-
I like the idea of faction terrain being destroyable. But I'm assuming it works like "Smash to Rubble" does now. The physical terrain piece remains on the board, but it loses it's faction rules.
So it might still block LOS or have other generic terrain properties, but it won't give your Saurus a bonus to bite rolls or allow your Slaanesh hero to make a sacrifice.
I'd re-evaluate my thoughts if it removed the faction terrain from the battlefield entirely.
-
1 hour ago, ScionOfOssia said:
I think “Behind” equals “Draw a line between you and them and if it crosses over it, they’re behind it”
I would love for that to be the rule. I'm not a huge fan of "true" line of sight. The models are on bases. Let's use them.
-
It's been a while since we had news, but today is all about terrain.
Overall, I'm really positive on the terrain. AoS has always lacked a solid system of terrain rules. This fixes that, but also keeps things relatively simple. Just a few major keywords and simple abilities. No worries about "difficult" terrain halving movement or some kind of "anti-charge" terrain. Just a cohesive system that should still be relatively effective.
One thing I really like is that units benefit from cover if they are behind the terrain at any distance. No more needing to be within 1" of the thing to get the benefit. Of course, they didn't discuss what "behind" means, so that remains to be seen. But overall, I think this is a hugely positive change for AoS.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Grunbag said:
Didn’t they mentioned that shooting will have shorter range in V4 ?
I thought they did, too. Maybe they will, but we certainly haven't seen much evidence for that on the warscrolls so far.
-
18 minutes ago, Sarouan said:
If everything is fair and symetrical, and no matter what you obtain you have to be "balanced" to your opponent's own army, thus limiting your own gains / losses ...what's the point in telling your own story if it doesn't match what happened in your games ?
I generally agree. While I'd like the games to at least approach an equal likelihood of victory, I think narrative games should ditch symmetry altogether. Maps where we are all equidistant from the objectives and have a similar starting territory and interact with the objectives and rules the same are great for Matched Play. When you want as level a playing field as possible. But for narrative play, I'd much prefer asymmetrical battleplans, Ones where my goal is distinctly different from yours.
The leveling up of heroes and units is fine, I guess. That's not what really inspires me. Instead, I want to see epic moments on the tabletop. I love the games where I'm able to say, "On the last battle round, my army dealt the final blow to the cauldron of Varanite and Archaeon's army lost that vital resource!" Rather than, "And then I totally stood in a circle more than the other guy did!"
For me, Narrative Play is going to rise and fall on how well supported it is in terms of battle plans. If we see narrative supplements, I'll be there all day. If we get six plans in the Core book and one (maybe two) in your battle tome? That's just not enough over the course of a whole edition.
-
2
-
1
-
-
This week its all about Path to Glory. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that changed from the current system. For me, it feels like Warhammer but also homework afterward. That's just not what I'm interested in. I know some people love the leveling up aspect and I'm happy its staying for you, but it's not my thing.
They say the Core book will have 6 battle plans - same as third edition. What I was really hoping for was an announcement of ongoing support. New narrative campaigns, new narrative battleplans as the edition continued. But no such luck. Maybe that will still happen, but for now there are no commitment.
I did like that each tome is getting an Anvil of Apotheosis. Again, not really my thing but I know several players who really missed that in Third Edition. So I'm happy for them that it will be back.
On the whole, PtG seems a little disappointing. But maybe that's on me. I was hoping for something better and its really kind of the same as last edition. At least the preview makes it seem that way.
-
1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
It would be nice to have different game modes that appeal to different player types, instead of everyone playing Matched and Narrative/Open existing in name only.
Completely agree. I think some players are going to gravitate more toward Matched Play, or Spearhead, or PtG. Why not make all three really solid so that everyone can enjoy the game (and buy your models)?
I feel like in third edition, most of the focus was on Matched Play. PtG got minimal support. And Open Play was almost an afterthought. Which is a shame. Because Open Play could have been attractive with a little help. And PtG needed a little something (maybe even just a set of new battleplans each year) to really make it enjoyable. Hopefully we'll see more focus on these new modes of play so everyone can get what they want from AoS.
-
3
-
-
28 minutes ago, EntMan said:
They've done an article which had stuff about faction terrain. Have they said there's a specific terrain module?
Yep. It's module II.
-
1
-
-
Maybe. But they haven't done any rules preview on their new terrain module, yet.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Ejecutor said:
Don't you feel like Spearhead is starting to steep in Warcry's toes? Maybe the rumour about a Mordheim like game is true in the end.
Warcry vs. Spearhead (or Combat Patrol) will have very different feels. Skirmish vs. Units. So I think people will enjoy (or hate) both. Spearhead certainly doesn't replace Warcry.
That said, if we look at the Venn Diagram, there's more overlap between Warcry and Spearhead (time to play, amount of painting, table space, complexity of rules, etc.) than between Warcry and full AoS.
-
4
-
-
More Spearhead today. Now we get a look at the cards.
Love. Love this. So much. I really like splitting the choice between commands and tactics. For a short game, that will likely provide a real choice in how you play. Also, love the twists. Twists work great in Warcry and I see Spearhead as filling a different, but similar space. I'm not sure I'd love a changing twist based on luck of the draw in a full 2k point game. But for a Spearhead? Seems really fun.
I'm sure this system will work better in the smaller format, but it's a bit of a bummer that battle tactics (the only real miss of 4th edition so far) were improved - or at least changed - only for Spearhead.
-
5
-
-
Today's preview is Spearhead.
High level: it's combat patrol for AoS. However, a couple of good points. The units all have re-balanced warscrolls and armies even have different abilities. They note that something with a lot of small units might have the ability to revive. And armies with power hitters (like the Annihilators) have restrictions on when they can come into the battle. That's a touch heavier than in combat patrol and probably for the better.
Also, they show off spellcasting. Since the Magic Module won't be used, spells are basically just warscroll spells. Roll 2d6 and get an effect if you pass the target number. There doesn't appear to be any unbinding. That seems fine for the condensed Spearhead game.
More interesting, they say that the launch box will include Spearhead cards (not explained in the article, sadly) and terrain. As well as the Core Rulebook. We already know that the launch box will also include the first season GHB. And with the number of models anticipated, that's a beefy box. Of course, I'm sure it will come with an even beefier price, but getting so much of the game in one place is really enticing.
-
2 minutes ago, The Red King said:
Also can't be certain but there's a real chance khorne can't ignore endless spells now because what would that rule look like?
I think it would be pretty easy to craft such a rule. Look at the prosecutors who have a 4+ chance to ignore any non-CORE ability. You could do the same thing saying Khorne units have a 4+ (or whatever number) chance to ignore any abilities, including fight abilities, from endless spells.
-
Endless spells and faction terrain this time.
Overall, really like the changes. I've been advocating that endless spells shouldn't cost points (or cost waaay less) for a long time. So I'm glad to see that. Breaking it into lores means each army will get a few that they can bring. So we'll get more use out of our models which is always good.
Also, they will be much more like units on the battlefield. So they can be charged, fought, damaged, and killed. Love this change. If you bring an army with no or few wizards, the only way to deal with an endless spell before was to try to kill the controlling wizard and then move the spell on your turn. Eh. But now, it can be killed. So a melee focused army has a way to deal with endless spells. I like it.
Same with faction terrain. They are units that can be attacked and destroyed. Which is interesting. It'll make many armies want to keep their terrain in the back away from enemy attacks. Which may or may not be good given the terrain's powers. Some terrain (like Seraphon zaps or Ogor heals) often want to be closer to the battle to have a greater effect. I like this change, too.
Overall, super positive about this preview. The actual warscrolls for the spells and terrain is going to be very important, and they only showed off a few. But assuming those scrolls are decent, I think this is a great system.
-
5
-
-
I subscribe. The amount of content vs price was always a little questionable. But I really like the animations - even the 40k ones although I don't play 40k much. However, in the last year(ish), it feels like the animations have really slowed down. And that was the best part of the service, to me.
In the beginning, the total content was small, but it seemed like we were getting new shows fairly frequently. Blood Angels, Interrogator, and a bunch of others. As long as they continued to come out, I was OK with subscribing. But it seems like the content has gotten shorter and shorter, and there are more and more long breaks with nothing new. At least my kid likes the battle reports. Loremasters also used to be better. It doesn't seem like they could run out of interesting topics with the lore as vast as it is, but the new episodes do seem to be on the decline.
I'm subscribed through August, but I have serious doubts that I'll continue subscribing without some increase in content.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Mutton said:
I'm now waiting for the article that tells me how I can modularly delete Battle Tactics from my games.
Both Spearhead and PtG games don't use battle tactics. Matched Play is great and I get a ton of those games in. But I typically enjoy the more narrative focused games more anyway. I want my goal to be "Kill that general" or "desecrate their walls" or "protect the artifact" or "Escape before you're killed." Those always bring more fun moments than just seeing who can stand in circles better.
Speaking of PtG, I wasn't a huge fan of the 3.0 system. After playing about 30 games, it sort of felt like Warhammer with additional homework. Meh. But I very much enjoyed the more narrative battles. Would love to see more support for those in the next edition.
-
2
-
-
Battle tactics article today. A disappointment, but not nearly as bad as it could have been.
Essentially, the 3.0 system of tactics is staying. You pick one each turn, you have one turn to do it. You get points. So, I imagine some of the current criticisms will stay. For me, the biggest is that it can start to make games feel homogenous if you build a list and just do the same five tactics every game. In the same order. That makes the game feel samey even across very different battle plans. So, not ideal.
Looking on the bright side, though, this system has some modest improvements over 3.0's system. Yes, tactics are staying. But they are getting rid of book tactics. I disliked those not only because of the disparity in difficulty (there were haves and have-nots), but also because GW used them as a balancing tool. Army underperforming? Here's an easy battle tactic. It's lazy and artificially inflates the data without addressing the underlying weaknesses or problems of the army. And if you're playing PtG, it does nothing to help the army. They stay just as bad as they ever were.
The GHB will also add two per grand alliance. Maybe that's good? But I worry if games started to feel samey with the battle tactics that lasted one season, how samey will it feel with battle tactics that last an entire edition?
On balance, this is the biggest disappointment. But I think its unlikely to be much worse than the current edition. So it doesn't stop me wanting to play 4.0 (there have been so many huge improvements announced). I think overall 4.0 will be better. It's just disappointing this one area of complaint didn't see significant revision.
Also, losing out on 40% of the turn's points is going to be too much to recover from in most cases. Double turns are going to be far, far more rare.
-
4
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Beliman said:
It is weird that we talked about Magic, Commands, Movement, Fighting, Battle Traits & Formations and Battlepacks/Battleplans... but we still don't have any article about the Shooting Phase?
I think it is notable. But I'm taking it to mean that there are few changes in the Shooting Phase so the article wouldn't have much to say. Probably sticking with true line of sight, etc.
Maybe they'll do an article on the new terrain module and shooting will get covered within that. If they talk about "Obscuring" or "Covering" terrain, that might be the needed hook to talk about the (presumably) minor changes to shooting.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Gutsu17 said:
You are looking at it wrong, faction tactics *are* the balancing tool, a faction has a very low winrate? give them a super easy secondary, they are winning too much? give them a harder one
Oof. This reminds me of the "Hunter and Hunted" battle scroll where they straight up just gave extra points to the low performing armies. Yes, maybe this meant they got more points and won more. But it didn't address the substantive reasons for the low performance. Rather than look at addressing warscrolls, battle traits, and the like - the things that would make the army play better and be more enjoyable - they simply tacked on a few extra points to artificially skew the win rates. Even while the army had the same underlying struggle.
I would much rather see balance applied to armies and units directly rather than simply tossing a few extra points (in the form of easy tactics) on low performers to artificially boost numbers.
-
5
-
-
Today's article is up and all about battle plans.
Basically .... they are the same as now. Even the scoring stays the same points for one objective, points for two, points for more than opponent, and points for battle tactics. All points have doubled so that you can get 10 in a round. Apparently to make tournaments easier to score.
Good. I like that scoring system and I'm glad its staying. However, I'm a little disappointed battle tactics seem to be staying in about their same incarnation. We'll get a further article on battle tactics later this week (probably Friday), but that wasn't the best news.
Also, if battle tactics are worth 40% of your potential points in a turn, then missing out on a tactic is a HUUUUGE disincentive to take the double. Sure, there may be games where it still makes sense. But I think this game is going to be I Go You Go the majority of the time.
They did mention better terrain rules, but no details. So I'll reserve judgment there, but I'm glad we're getting some real rules. Terrain in AoS has always been lackluster and ad hoc.
Lastly, they seem to indicate that the General's Handbook is a relatively light touch. They imply that it just adds one rule - the Honor Guard rule. Giving a buff to one unit is interesting and maybe some battle plans will focus on that. But its certainly much less impactful than Bounty Hunters or Primal Dice. Probably a good thing. The GHBs were so heavy that they often greatly changed the usefulness of units, which then changed their points, which then impacted people playing non-GHB games negatively. So a lighter touch is quite welcome.
-
2
-
-
I mentioned this in the other thread, but the preview makes no mention of the magic "module." So is this the "module" you use with PtG and Matched Play and the Core rules have no magic system? Or is this the core system and there is some other "module" we'll be using for PtG and Matched Play?
-
Magic rules are up. Casting and unbinding are basically the same as 3.0. Prayers work a little differently. Instead of single chant roll, the model can do one per turn and accumulate chant points. Some prayers have bonus powers if chanted with a greater number of points. It's an interesting idea. And I like that a priest will have something to do in that first turn. Most of their prayers might be out of range, but at least they can still warm up the chanting engines.
One disappointment, though. I was hoping we'd learn how spells function as a "module." I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) that there would be a basic spellcasting system for the core rules and then a "module" that would make changes to it. Almost like the way Andtor changes spellcasting by adding primal dice and whatnot. But the article didn't make any such distinction. So either this is the "module" and the core rules have no magic system. Or this is the core system and the "module" we'll be using for matched play and PtG is something else entirely. In which case, I'd want to know about that.
I liked what I saw today, but I'm disappointed that the most pertinent question (to me) wasn't answered.
-
3 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:
You can’t leave combat by piling in towards another unit. It says you need to remain within combat range of any units you are already in combat range of, so you could pull away and make it harder for the enemy to get in range with the full unit, but you can’t escape combat.
Yeah, I don't think it spares the "pinned" unit from receiving any attacks. They are going to get hit with basically everything. Same as before. I think the change is that the "pinned" unit can focus all its attacks on one enemy unit.
Previously, you attack from two sides. And the "pinned" unit has to split attacks between the two adversaries because it can't pile. Splitting attacks that way generally makes the unit less effective. Now, the "pinned" unit can simply pile towards one side and get all (or nearly all) of its attacks in. So "pinning" a unit is far, far less effective. Maybe it'll be positive on balance, but it does seem to remove some significant tactical play.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I agree that it will be some time before any other faction is fully squatted. At least 3 years (no squats before the next edition) and likely longer.
However, it's good to remember that GW is a business first. If there comes a time when an army isn't selling, and it is no longer profitable to maintain the shelf-space. I could easily see them squatting that army in order to make way for something that has a chance to sell better.