MotherGoose

2024-05-14T22:06:18Z

2 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:

Well that's stupid, sorry. AOS would allow them to try out semi-RNG maps with an open design space... allowing them to build off of their proven strengths while taking small risks for new mechanics. 40k is not going to fit into the Total War formula at all. it will either be too small of a scale or be 3 mediocre, buggy games in a trenchcoat.

Fantasy/historicals ALREADY have an issue with artillery (and flyers) giving you a huge advantage.

you'd need an entire cover system to ensure infantry can do ANYTHING at all, but people will also complain if the "big toys" that make infantry entirely obsolete aren't included.

CA took naval battles out of their games for a reason, but people will complain if there's not some kind of space combat.

The Imperium would either be a disappointing One Giant Tentpole Faction or a gamebreaking 3-4 linked factions, where it dictates the entirety of each game: an AI imperium isn't allying with Xenos, and certainly will get aggro at anyone allying with Xenos. And people WILL complain if their Imperium faction isn't in the game, so we're looking at a minimum of 4 (IG, SoB, SM, AM).

If they do one planet, it would have to awkwardly force whatever included factions into a small area like Dark Crusade did, but since that would also have to be an active warzone it leaves the game with no opportunities for non-conquest victory conditions and little design space for non-combat buildings/cities, let alone landmarks.

If they do a sector, they'd have to figure out how to make planetary invasions engaging, and they are STILL struggling with making sieges fun. And even after an invasion, do you have multiple land battles on a planet and THEN a siege? When do you even have the regular field battles that Total War is beloved for?

How does a city siege in 40k even work, with massive gun emplacements and massive vehicles? what is the scale here? what are your infantry even doing aside from being vaporized? Total War Towers are already OP without them being a scifi Maginot Line.

If they do the actual galaxy, at what point are they just peeking at Stellaris' homework to make their game? I don't play Total War for galactic combat, I play a 4X game for that.

I really think forcing 40k into the Total War formula is a horrible decision, but I guess we'll find out what CA wants after TWW3. I just hope there is something revealed for AOS games.

I'd love for a 40k TW game, if they can do it right. There's plenty of difficulties as you've gone into.

IMO it would be stupid to do AoS total war over 40k or almost any other one. I know AoS is really trying to be it's own thing and it's not fantasy... but its just going to be too similar to TWW for a lot of players (honestly probably myself included). It even has tons of the same units/characters. For a lot of people im sure it wouldn't feel like a new game at all. But maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe what would be cool to link the two or have a large scale DLC for TWW where the end times happens and we get AoS.

More importantly where are these ****** leaks for AoS 4

Friday at 07:19 AM

27 minutes ago, Lucentia said:

The Fly exception assumes that the flying unit is constantly floating up in the air, which always felt a little strange to me cos there aren't that many flying units which couldn't just land and take cover behind a wall. But I guess it covers for things like KO ships where they're just supposed to be airborne at all times.

I do wonder if there'll be a general reduction in handing out Fly to anything that can jump pretty high, its a very powerful keyword to be tossing around so freely.

Yea seems weird for things like Vampire Lords or the entire nighthaunt army to not get the -1 to hit. A boat flying around kinda makes sense but a vampire on foot that fan fly surely wouldn't just be floating up high all the time lol.

April 27

52 minutes ago, Hollow said:

To play devil's advocate, there are numerous examples of when orders from high command dictate that there is a high-priority target on the field. The eradication of said target would be seen as more of a victory regarding a larger war. The BT is simple and clear. Not sure why people would want to have it be needlessly complicated.

Yea if it was actually a high priority target I'd get that, but it can be any chaff unit really.

It's already needlessly complicated as is, just not thought out well.

April 27

The death battle tactic is just super lame imo - essentially pick a unit to kill. Prime example of the lack of ingenuity GW has with the system. They could be cool if implemented well, but I'm going to kill units anyway. In an actual battle my main goal would be to kill enemies, how does it become tactical to select one of them to kill when I want to kill them anyway?

April 27

I thought BTs were absolute rubbish the past two versions, so for me these are a step in the right direction. I'm hopeful there isn't any super easy ones to do like pick 3 units to jog on the spot in the first version, or move out of your deployment zone in the current version.

When we tried removing them completely the games were quicker and didn't feel as lame. Now we likely can't really do that as it's the main way they're trying to balance the double turn this edition. I always think we should try narrative games instead as everyone says they're really fun. What's the best way to do narrative whilst keeping some of the matched play stuff like points and how to build armies? I've never really looked into it tbh. Is it 'fair' and 'balanced' like matched play is?

They mentioned last week that they would be going into more detail on manifestations this week, I guess they got that wrong?

April 25

6 minutes ago, Mordeus said:

This is my main frustration with aos since the beginning and I've playing since 1st ed haha.

Tbh a lot of my frustrations with aos where solved by tow so I'm sure happy there.

I'm watching to see how fourth Ed plays to see if I'm play aos any time soon.

I don't know if others are doing this as well but I've reverted all my old world armies back to the old world and will focus on aos with pure aos armies which for me is kharadrons. Maybe they will be better optimized for aos.

I was going to attempt the movement tray converter style things for my soulblight as I also love them in AoS, but will definitely be building a wood elf army at some point! The games play so differently to one another it's great to have both systems (if you can)

April 25

Yea points for upgrades would have potentially fixed the ethereal 3+ Legion of blood VLoZD too rather than just increasing the models points cost which skews them in other subfactions.

I do think with just a 3+ or similar on a d6 for each roll there just isn't enough variance. It doesn't necessarily NEED to be S/T etc. - a similar system to MESBG would be great too and works well. The main downside to AoS is that it doesn't matter who/what you're fighting, your stats are the same. I just use fantasy style stats as an example as it fixes that issue and people know it better than other systems. I personally love how in TOW a human warrior or similar weak unit will have to get 5s to hit and 5s or higher to wound a vampire lord in combat, whereas it'll be easier vs other foot troops and things like goblins. In AoS its just 4+ 4+ vs everything, which greatly reduces flavour and the thematic feel IMO.

Maybe I'm in the minority but just my 2 cents. 40k for me does it really well where they've reduced the need for learning lots of stats/rules but kept the flavour. AoS is a step too far that removes that flavour almost completely.

On the flip side though AoS is the main game my group plays so it's gotta be doing something right.

April 24

I'll be a parrot again and say that whilst I want certain characters to be more impactful (vampire lord always pops up for me) I don't think it's possible with our rules.

A vampire lord could be completely different to a skaven warlord in the old world due to the statistics they possess. When you're rolling 2d6 and there's nothing to change your hit and wound profile or even any change depending what you're fighting, everything becomes sort of the same.

For instance, a vampire lord could be higher WS and S/T compared to a goblin lord, meaning that yes they would cost more, but they would also slap lesser 'mortals' in melee. They'd be harder to wound than your usual troops and would be harder to hit with higher WS. When it all boils down to 3+ 3+ you can't have too much difference. Doesn't matter if my 3000 year old vampire that's mastered all forms of combat and weapon is fighting a snail or kragnos himself, he hits and wounds on 3s. Elves used to be super high initiative and weapon skill to combat the low toughness, orcs used to be high strength and toughness to combat the low initiative etc. AoS simply isn't the game for this lore/racial standout sort of rules. It's harder to balance (I assume?), and I can't see it changing so drastically when they want it easy to learn and quick to play.

The game is awesome fun and the models are amazing, once I accepted that my vampire lords were just the generic foot lord reskinned as a vampire and that heroes are more for buffing, with the god and centrepiece models being the true powerhouses and lure of AoS, I was much happier playing. I used to wish and wish and wish for the racial/lore style differences to return and every single time a new book came out was disappointed again, its best to forget it and play the game for what it is.

I've been jumping back to the old world here and there especially whilst waiting for AoS 4.0 and its been great fun and scratches the itch of a more thematic 'battle' and lore based profiles perfectly for me. The two games are so different to one another it's great to play both - for those that haven't tried it and want powerful foot heroes I'd recommend it for sure.

What I really think AoS misses on is point based artefacts/traits/powers. You could easily have a generic vampire lord be what they are currently, then give us the option to add up to 100 points of something. An extra cast, bonus to cast, extra attacks on the charge, more wounds - something at least to make them more fun rather than just the +1 attack ability that just feels like we are playing a card game and placing a +1 attack card down on our turn.

April 24

8 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Personally I find that the first two turns of the game take 3 hours and the last 3 take 1.5 hours combined, so I am not so sure going to 4 turns will save that much time.

By turn 5 I usually have, like, three units left on the table

Similar to my games.

I find most of the time by turn 3 or 4 if someone gets the double go we can usually talk out turn 5 and be done with it and either start a new one or discuss the game with hindsight. I wonder if the new mechanics for having turn 2 will change that or make the games longer even.

April 20

14 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

I am not a Soulblight player in AoS, but I would love to see my StD Chaos Lord be a real melee threat in AoS. Currently he is just ignored by my opponents. So double the point cost if necessary, but make them worthwhile.

The trouble (in my opinion) is without drastically increasing wound profile in addition to attack damage they'd be too hard to balance and would potentially be a huge waste of points because (currently) foot heroes are so easy to snipe with magic and/or shooting, and extremely easy to kill in melee for the most part.

Again, might sound like a broken record, but without different stats and profiles it's too hard to do. If we had S vs T then your chaos lord could have high toughness so he doesn't necessarily have to worry about weaker units and can happily go into combat. When you're playing with just two d6 rolls to get attacks in and nothing to really change anything based on what you're fighting against, you end up with what we have now. A naked ghoul can slap your chaos lord just as easily as he can slap archaon, just as easily as he can slap a clanrat or zombie. There's no change for what he's fighting against which makes dealing 5 damage incredibly easy when you throw a few more ghouls in the mix. If this ghoul was wounding your chaos lord on 5s or 6s then suddenly the damage massively drops down, add in WS vs WS and it goes down even more.

This also adds to list building and more balanced armies as you generally have to take a variety of units with different 'jobs' like anti tank, anti horde, anti hero etc. etc.

I'm also an advocate for how AoS do it as its so easy especially for newer players, it's just a shame to have to lose out on the fluff of the units (especially heroes like we say). However I realised years ago that if beastly fluffy foot heroes is what you *really* want from the game, then AoS is simply just not that game. I now play 40k and ToW to scratch that itch, and AoS for quicker games with crazy magic and awesome models.

April 20

2 hours ago, Lucentia said:

Right, but you can kinda say that for everything, 'Oh, a slaughter queen is a chosen martial leader of the arisen blood goddess, she should be able to solo a slaughterpriest no problem,' 'An Abhorrent Archregent is a bloodthirsty monster swollen with unholy power, he should be able to kill 20 clanrats per combat!' Marrying the rules to fit the lore as much as possible is all well and good, but at some point you're just playing playground rules with whatever your pet factions happen to be.

Do I think melee foot heroes have historically been a weak spot in AoS? Yes, certainly, I think that's a fair assessment. Do I think the solution to that is to make every random priest or wizard with 'Blood' in its name into Conan the Barbarian? Probably not. Let's see what vampire lords actually look like before jumping to conclusions.

You also raise good points but IMO foot heroes in AoS are completely the opposite of what they should be. Not to say they should all be amazing, and it's impossible to differentiate them too much without more stats like WS and S/T profiles so it's just a bit of wishlisting.

Currently foot heroes work more like you're playing a buff in a card game. A vampire is a +1 attack buff being played on your grave guard for instance, rather than actually being a beast like they 'should' be. But when you're confined essentially to two d6 rolls on their combat effectiveness, they just can't be different enough to other heroes. I'd like a vampire to be stronger, faster, tougher than a human warrior lord or goblin warlord or even a skaven for instance, but those days are gone and now they're just generic 4 or 5 attacks 3s 3s r1 d2 or similar across the board, same hero different skin. Gone are the days of racial differences and matching lore to profiles etc. For better or for worse is a matter of opinion and what you personally prefer really.

April 19

54 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

Orruk or not, if nothing is changed for foot heroes compared to AoS 3 than it doesn't look good for foot heroes that want to join the melee combat.

Especially now his 16" d6 mortal prayer has become an ability and can only be used in combat, he sort of wants to go into combat but will die to a stiff breeze

April 19

1 hour ago, Tonhel said:

Yes, and my biggest problem with AoS was that heroes on foot are worthless. A Chaos Lord, Soulblight Vampire were nothing special in combat. All foot heroes have more or less the same stats. Only small variations. My Chaos Lord avoided combat.

The Weirdnob has more or less the same damage output 3/4/3/1/D3 vs 4/3/3/1/2 isn't a huge difference. In the shooting phase the Weirdnob can seriously weaken or kill the Slaughterpriest and than combat has to start.

As a priest of battle and blood it's best for him to avoide combat, if he don't want to die the second he enters combat. You can't force the enemy unit anymore to divide its attacks. So every foot hero with wounds between 5-6 is probably death the moment he/she enters combat.

Yea I'm with you there I miss the days of beastly vampire lords. At least we have ToW to scratch that itch.

AoS armies the last few years have always been sort of like different skins on the same things.

April 19

Just now, Ragest said:

I think is impossible to explain worse how prayers work

Yeah lol... my understanding is that to chant a prayer you make a chanting roll. If that roll isn't a 1 you get the roll in points, but if you roll over the required target for the prayer you're chanting you lose that many points and the chant is successful?

So let's say I roll a 5 when attempting the witchbane curse. I get 5 points but immediately 'spend' 4 of them so am left with 1.

April 19

1 hour ago, Tonhel said:

Looks good. It's a shame that the chosen lore has to be per army and not per wizard like in TOW.

Also, looking at that Slaughterpriest, I hoped for a bit more survivability for characters on foot, but it doesn't look promising. A Kroxigor only has to look at the Slaughterpriest and the Slaughterpriest is dead.

It seems that AoS 4th edition will be very, very lethal. Nothing will last long in melee combat.

Edit: The damage output of the Slaughterpriest is not really impressive compared to the Weirnob Shaman 😞 Sigh, He is a warrior priest of Khorne...

Aren't their combat stats both sort of similar to what they're current warscrolls are like? Slaughterpriest d6 mortals got nerfed to be only in combat but its also free no longer a prayer so I feel like he's way more scary to be in combat with than the weirdnob.

April 17

Going to be hell for nighthaunt who are hard enough to rank up currently with their tiny bases and awkward models. Similarly for boingrot bounders and some others I'd imagine too

February 20

20 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

I havent played whfb that much so im not that deep into the lore. I know about Throgg but i think we wont be seeing him back with the new Troggoth king we recently got. I dont feel any need to see any of the old O&G characters back. I like Gordrakk, Gobsprakk and Skragrott. Dont like Kragnos but i guess i dont need to like all Destruction characters. I hope we get to see some good new Gitmob, Spiderfang and Bonesplitterz characters 4th edition.

I know its the undead thing to be uhm... undead but i would like to see some more new characters enter the main stage and battle Nagash for the throne.

Huge missed opportunity with Ushoran for that last part. Not a fan of how they rewrote his lore.

In terms of characters returning, I'd just like to see magic focused vampires again. Mannfred used to be an incredible wizard, now he's 'just' a 2 caster with no buffs, same as all the other 2 caster wizards in the game, or worse. Necrarchs aren't represented whilst the other main bloodlines are. Vyrkos to some extent filled this niche with reroll casts, but they took that away.

My fear with AoS is they're focused too much on 'balance' and competetive play, all my armies (I have 4) have seen vast reductions in choice and variety to the point when I'm making armies I just have the same items and traits every single time. They've made unique characters incredibly hard locked (soulblight in particular) to the point you HAVE to use them in their subfaction. Traits and items have been cut in half or worse, magic choice is all disappearing.

Playing some Old World has really made me miss the customization and choice/variety even more tbh.

February 1

Have the prices for ushoran etc. Been leaked? I heard somewhere he will be £70, any credit to this rumour?

December 2, 2023

I'm gonna go with new sanguinary guard or priest for that rumour engine.

November 30, 2023

14 minutes ago, Vagard said:

I'm a bit afraid with the bats warscroll and the cost in points, it seems to be very powerful with all the buffs they can benefit

What's their scroll like? I've not seen much

November 20, 2023

2 hours ago, Neverchosen said:

How do the LOTR buildings scale with AOS? They look so good and that set will be tempting.

They're pretty tiny really. I've got the osgiliath terrain and it looks alright with zombies but absolutely tiny next to orcs, stormcast, even blood knights etc. The proportions just look too off

November 20, 2023

5 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

I know it is a bit of the "not releated yet but whising more" kind of conversation, but what else could FEC get? I've checked the current BT and there's not really more than one faction in terms of painting variations. It is all focused on FEC from different realms. Do we expect to have different lords apporting new units? And maybe the court being extended as well?

IMO they don't really have room for much else now that wouldn't be directly competing with units they already have. They've opened up the possibility for a mounted hero on a smaller style bat mount like the new cav, but to be honest they've got so many heroes now I'd rather just have new units. Fast skirmish unit to get into archers quick and disrupt charges etc. like dire wolves? Other than that I can't think of much that they 'need', but there's plenty of options for cool models still.

November 18, 2023

16 minutes ago, ScionOfOssia said:

So, what rumor engines have been cleared away?

I think ushoran has a skull in his fur that solves one I thought was already solved from the ghouls baboon thing.

The ghoul dude with the staff solves that one.

Varghulf foot I'm pretty sure is one too.

Probably more I've missed.

Edit: tomb king bone dragon solves the bone wing I think?

August 29, 2023

2 hours ago, Chikout said:

I hope so. We are now at 21 weeks without a solve. The problem is that there's nothing that looks like marines or Ironjawz. There's a bunch that are probably FeC which probably aren't being shown tomorrow and there are several which seem to be Kroot which also probably aren't being shown tomorrow.

Didn't the cities of sigmar hero with the little gremlin playing a flute solve a rumour engine? I seem to remember a hand on what looked like a flute or similar...might be completely wrong though

August 18, 2023

One thing I'd love from 10th 40k is the card system for setting up games, been really fun and different.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Store

Downloads

Blogs

Events

Posts posted by MotherGoose