Ferban
-
Posts
123 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Ferban
-
-
Today's topic covers battle traits and battle formations. Battle traits are more or less as we would expect them to be. Rules that give a particular faction special abilities. And they show off one that requires a command point. I'm not sure I'm super in love with additional command point abilities for each army, but if they are limited to one per army, maybe it will be easy enough to share the one with your opponent before each game.
The battle formations (new subfactions) seem like a miss for me. I was excited that they would no longer be tied to lore or color schemes and would instead be based on how you want to play. But the ones they showed off aren't like that at all. They are tied to Stormcast chambers. They show off one for Warriors and one for Extremis. Both seem fairly bland. For me, that's really the first rules reveal that hasn't seemed like a dramatic improvement. If anything, it's a slight downgrade as it seems to have the same problem of focusing the player down one path (all Bladegheists get mortals!) while losing the fluff that at least gave you a narrative hook to play that style.
Oh well, they can't all be bangers.
-
1
-
-
Command points are up today. It looks like you get 4 per battle round with the one behind in points getting an extra. But that's it. no ability to get more. And no need to have a unit champion or hero nearby. Its sad to lose that fluff, but it rarely mattered in game anyway. So I think it's cleaner to just do away with that rule.
The command abilities are very reminiscent of 3.0. Although I really like the ability to charge in your opponent's charge phase. Not only will some armies absolutely love that, but I think it's powerful for nearly anyway. If someone makes a long bomb charge and barely toes in, they are often not yet grouped up on the target. Maybe one or two guys are there, and they plan to pile in the rest during combat. But if I can counter charge and hit those guys in the back with another unit, that will likely split their force and render the unit less effective. Like it!
Also, the ability to cast or pray in the opponent's turn is pretty neat. And I'm in favor of the change to Rally. It looks like it'll be a good way to heal a unit or rez a few chaff. But you won't have large models returning or 10 wounds of fighters. Probably for the best.
One hesitation is that Forward to Victory now apparently requires you to spend the command before rolling the charge. That's lame. I could see that command easily being the weakest of the bunch and rarely used.
Overall, though, a lot of good stuff here. If command points stay constrained (e.g. battletomes don't start introducing abilities to get more or have tons of army specific commands), I could see this being a really good system.
-
38 minutes ago, EntMan said:
Is there any lore on if Stormcast have to be killed to be upgraded to Thunderstrike armour? Or can they just take their old armour off and put on new?
I think they can theoretically take off their armor at any time. They aren't bolted in there or anything. That said, most stormcast aren't making a return trip to Azyr without being killed. And that's where the Thunderstrike armor is being made. So, from a practical perspective, I think most stormcast probably get their new armor after being reforged.
-
1
-
-
Today's article was light on rules but did show off the new warscrolls. While I like the updated formatting, there isn't a lot of change here. To hit, to wound, and rend are all present. As is save.
The only major difference is "Bravery" has been replaced by "Control." And "control" is how many points they count as when contesting objectives. It'll be interesting to see how (or if?) they include Morale in the game. Maybe you'll need to make tests once half your unit is killed or half your army (as in MESBG).
-
1 hour ago, Sarouan said:
Now, the question is if the "loss" of one command point is worth it or not.
I think the article said it was one "per round." So that could be a pretty major incentive. Especially if command points are rarer than in the current system. That said, we don't yet know the value of a command point in the new system, so we'll have to wait and see before we can evaluate that.
-
New update on Army Composition today.
It certainly seems like a good idea and addresses one major problem. Battle Regiment. It was so much more powerful than most of the other battalions that it was far and away the one to take. You'd sometimes see a sporadic Warlord or one of the GHBs. But it was like 90% Battle Reg. Glad that this system is doing drops by regiments (effectively one drop per hero) which should allow for a more interesting decision.
Units being tied to leaders is ... fine. I don't like or dislike it. I'll be interested to see whether there are further restrictions. Like a hero can only issue commands to their regiment. That might not be as good. I do like the elimination of reinforcement points. I didn't run up against that limit very often, but it was annoying when I did.
One possible area of concern, though, is the loss of a "battleline" tax. For experienced players, I don't think it'll be any issue. But with new players, they might gravitate toward monsters or heavy hitters. Those can be great, but you generally need something to just stand on an objective or screen out a potential deepstrike. The removal of the battleline requirement could be detrimental to those learning the game. But maybe there will be some heavy suggestions for new players in the core book.
Overall, this seems like it will be both freeing (you don't have to worry about Behemoth limits or battleline requirements) but also potentially constricting (if heroes only buff their own regiments). So we may have something here that is easy to learn but can provide a lot of nuance and strategy in the list-building phase.
Still need to know more about it, but I'm liking this change so far.
-
Today's article didn't provide much new info. The double turn is staying (which I'm in favor of). They do say that if you take the double, you can't score a battle tactic. That seems pretty punishing under the current system, but I think we'll need to learn more about battle tactics before we can evaluate how much of a disincentive that is in 4.0.
-
1
-
-
I think that's a legit concern. And probably at its worst when you're layering on whatever GHB changes there are. But I think PtG games and even standard Matched Play games are probably going to greatly benefit from the modular system. Time will tell.
-
This may be total hopium, but I'm strongly encouraged by the PtG system that looks to use all rules except battle tactics. While I love matched play, it does feel sorta samey. Your motivation is always just to stand in circles better than the other player (and hit the same BTs your army was built to hit every game).
But PtG battelplans have been really good. Storming castles, disrupting rituals, defacing monuments, running from or pursuing the other army, and so on. Those narrative battles really cleanse the pallet and have some of the funnest moments. I really hope they lean into that.
-
3
-
-
New article up today. Modular rules. Basically the core rules cover the basics - moving, combat, objectives, etc. Then there are add-ons that you can use including: commands, terrain, magic, army composition, command models, and battle tactics.
It's interesting that "battle tactics" are back. I hope they are implemented differently than the current system. I like the idea (in principle, at least) of a secondary scoring system. So I'll reserve judgment until we learn more about them.
But what I thought was most interesting is that there will be a "Terrain" system. AoS has long lacked a solid terrain rule system. And, at least as written, models could be all over the place and end turns half way up a sheer wall. Silly. Hopefully the terrain module will bring us a cohesive set of rules that can be used to enhance the game.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
In my personal experience, the coolest, biggest guys were always the one with the highest bravery. Underpowered units like grots, rats and normal humans were usually the ones that suffered. In fact, they got doubly hurt by both having worse bravery and losing higher numbers than elite units.
This is so true. I felt like Bravery was typically quite low on the units that were already taking more losses. Grots, rats, etc. Zombies or skeletons might die a lot, but with a 10 bravery, they didn't lose as much to battleshock. But a squig hopper has a bravery of 4. So when even one died, you were fairly likely to lose more wounds to battleshock. Which makes those units really underpowered. You are paying points for 20 wounds in a 10-man unit. But in reality, you're only absorbing about half that (or less) as many of your wounds run away without taking any damage.
I think nearly any change here would be positive.
-
2
-
-
So in today's article, WarCom mentions that objectives are now going to be 40mm markers and you count as contesting if you are within 3" of it. So more like 40k objectives than the current system.
I'm on board. I think a smaller capture area is probably a good thing. But more importantly, I love that in 40k, you have something (on a 40mm base) to represent the actual thing we're all fighting over. In current AoS, it's just a point on the ground. The 40k way is much more flavorful. So I'm calling that as a win for the new edition.
The do talk about changing everything (including spells) to an ability. I'm not sure I like the sound of that quite as much, but I'm reserving judgment until we know more.
-
2
-
-
At Adepticon, we got some high level insight into some of the new rules changes. Of course, we got little snippets in a vacuum. So, without more context it's hard to definitively say whether the changes are good or bad. But that doesn't stop us from having initial impressions and speculating!
My thought is that basically everything that got revealed has an 80% chance to be a massive improvement for the game, and a 20% chance to be a disaster.
Overhaul and Indices: On paper, I think this is a great idea. 3.0 - which I absolutely love - is a little bloated. There are a lot of systems, some of which are very similar but have slightly different rules on various units (like bodyguards). And, as it has built on prior editions, there's been an arms race with save, rend, mortals, and wards. It has gotten a little out of hand with the number of wards out there. A fresh start using what has been learned over the past 9 years could result in something amazing. And indices mean that every faction starts on an even playing field so you don't have to wait a year and a half using old rules before your battletome shows up. Of course, there's the risk that the factions could be terribly imbalanced or that new rules create a poor experience.
USRs: I love the idea of limited USRs. We already have "Fly." Adding "Champion", "Standard bearer", and a few others isn't a dealbreaker. As anyone who plays M:tG knows, USRs are ubiquitous and fairly easy to learn. But I think the key is to keep them limited. No more than about a dozen for the most common abilities and it'll be a net improvement. But have far more, scattered throughout the core rules, with a dozen on individual warscrolls and you have a problem.
Shorter Games without Loss in Tactics: If true, this is the best of both worlds. I'd love to see AoS cut down by about a third. But only if there isn't significant strategic or tactical loss. The marketing on this one sounds good. We'll see if they deliver.
No Melee Weapon Ranges: While I'm in favor of removing weapon ranges, I think this may not have been the best way to go about it. I really like 40k's system of either be in base-to-base or be in -base-to-base with something that is in base-to-base. That feels a little more constrained and is still easy to check. Still, measuring melee distances is one of the more cumbersome and boring aspects of the game and I think removing it is probably a net positive.
Priority Roll: I know this one is divisive, but I think the Priority Roll is good for the game. It adds some drama every round and makes for really memorable experiences. One of Combat Patrol's failings, I think, is that turn order never changes. So you always know the opponent will go before you. Bland. And I think they've done a better job with the recent general's handbooks of giving a bonus to the player going second in a Battle Round. I'm glad its staying, and also glad they are recognizing it has to be balanced.
Other: They mentioned a few other things here and there without enough detail to really evaluate. They mentioned card mechanics in relation to objectives. I hope they don't have a similar card draw as OPR's Age of Fantasy. In that game, you set up your army and then draw a card. If you have to contest the objective next to you, you win! If you have to contest the objective farthest from you, you lose! It really removes a lot of strategy. But if the cards were less controlling or changed rules (similar to Warcry's "Twists"), I could see this as a major benefit. They also mentioned the Spearhead play system, which is basically AoS's Combat Patrol. If that helps players jump in and get started, then I'm all for it.
More to come, I'm sure!
-
4
-
-
I really love the red borders and branding of 3rd edition. I'm happy to see it stay.
-
6
-
-
I could see the FOMO launch box for 5th being Slaanesh vs. Elves (Malerion, LRL, whatever). And then the starter sets swapping out the elves for Stormcast. That would be a lot of extra new models for the start of an edition, but I don't think its out of the realm of possibilities.
-
I love rumors. Love them. Even when they turn out to be false. It's fun to discuss the what ifs. It's basically a springboard for head cannon or fanfic.
But the 4chan rumor feels pretty much like a roundup of some of the more common speculation from this site. None of it seems new - with the exception of the male hero being released for DoK. I think that is unanticipated, and would be interesting to see (if only from a lore perspective). But the rest of it leaves not much to discuss because those ideas have been bouncing around here for quite some time.
-
8
-
-
In the video, they said that they wanted the battlescroll to "align with some upcoming releases." I wonder if it tweaks units in DB4 and, for that reason, won't come out until DB4 is released.
-
55 minutes ago, DinoJon said:
I would like some more units that match the Crone aesthetically especially if they're on the monstrous side. More ladies with feathered wings or even warlocks that resemble more of kenkus would be rad.
This would be a really cool way to visually distinguish the Morath DoK from the rebel DoK. Morathi side could be snakes, bat wings, and monstrous stuff. The rebel DoK could be feathered wings and have a separate aesthetic. I like the idea of pro-Morathi and anti-Morathi factions having their own distinct look.
-
4
-
-
30 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:
In a feverish haze last night, an idea came to me.
We know Stormcast are going to end up in the starter boxes because they're the poster-starter faction.
However,
What if the LAUNCH BOX had some new Cities unit(s) mixed in? Perhaps a new shrine unit and new flagellants or militia?
If it's Stormcast vs Skaven this could be an opportunity to use the 4e launch box as a combined Order force against Skaven saboteurs. (i'd also prefer not getting net-new Stormcast on top of redone oldies. just give us thunderstruck Warrior and Sacrosanct chambers!)
using new COS cult units alongside redone stormcast would be an extremely fluffy introduction to 4e, opening the gates for COS wave 2, and make the Stormcast refresh land better.
So this is just me wishcasting, but I'd love a "launch box" separate from a "starter box." In the past, they've done a launch box with a ton of minis, and then smaller starting sets that include various numbers of models. I would love to see the launch box as something more geared to existing players (and, hence, maybe SCE are not included), but then the starter boxes would feature SCE and whatever the new or updated faction for the release is. Maybe SCE and Skaven for the starter box, but the "launch" box features Skaven and 2nd Idoneth Wave. Or reimagined beastmen. Or whatever.
The launch box is a limited item only, so it makes sense that it would be more marketed to existing players than the "starter" sets would be. But, that isn't how they did it in 40k 10th and I have no reason to believe that's how AoS 4 will go.
-
1 hour ago, Tonhel said:
Exactly. Sometimes I add the Burning head to my list to round it off to 2000 points, but I don't remember ever casting it or getting it casted. Most of the times it's more interesting to cast a spell of your own lore, the spells on the wizard his warscroll or the core one that is always a good choice "Mystic Shield".
Our group exists out of 5 players and nobody really uses them. It doesn't add much to the game, be it flavour or game wise.
Other than my Tzeentch list (which gets and makes great use of an Umbral Spell Portal), I totally agree. My hope is that endless spells get their points lowered dramatically. They should be used just to get a few more points into a list that otherwise tops out at 1950 or 1960.
I would also, on average, power them up slightly. At least some of them. You can get a regular spell (or any other enhancement) for free. So since these cost points, they should be a little better. Some probably need the opposite treatment, though. Especially if points are reduced as I hope.
But, also, if they are removed entirely, I won't be too upset. Other than Tzeentch, they don't make it into many of my lists. And even when they do, I often forget to cast them.
-
1
-
-
I mostly love the new vamp model. Love the snake. Love the hat.
But I hate the placement of its right leg. I think it makes the model look pigeon-toed. Maybe it's just the angle of the photo. But that one element kills the whole thing for me.
-
With regard to AoS vs Old World for TV, I think AoS being less developed actually makes it easier for writers to insert their stories into it. Less lore or 'history' to get right.
That said, of course they'd go with Old World over AoS. The Total War series is very popular and so a lot of TW players who hear about a show set in the Total War setting will be interested. Whereas they may not be as interested in a successor setting they know little about.
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, Sception said:
I'd prefer year long GHB seasons with both narrative campaign and matched play rules in different sections of the same book, or separate books released together.
I couldn't agree more. Either in the GHB or separate (make it a Chronicler's Tome) would be fantastic. I think a lot of the time, "Narrative Play" just means warhammer with bookkeeping afterward. But I'd love to see a whole series of battleplans like the six in the Narrative section of the Core Rulebook. One plan had you trying to thwart (or complete) a ritual. One tried to get one army to run off the board before the other killed it. There were a few about defending or assaulting a strongpoint.
Some battleplans that are more than just standing on evenly spaced objectives would be very welcome.
-
I thought the shields were supposed to reflect the owner. One shield has an eyepatch and so does the owner.
-
5
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
OK. I've seen the reaction to switching up the Hallowed Knights as the default color scheme instead of the Hammers of Sigmar. So I know that this is an unpopular opinion. But am I the only one that prefers the golden boys?
The silver looks good too, don't get me wrong. But it feels sort of like ordinary knights in ordinary armor. Whereas the gold "sigmarite" armor felt otherworldly and rare - both evocative of the Stormcasts themselves. Plus, I never understood the hate for blue (capes) and gold (armor). Blue and gold isn't a totally unknown color pairing among sports teams.
Anyway, I'm OK being wrong on this one. I'm just hoping that there's at least one other person out there who likes the Hammers paint scheme.