[The Rumour Thread]

4 minutes ago, Mutton said:

Some of those tactics are impossible to achieve for a few factions. Having tactics that are literally unscorable is a huge disadvantage.

This was the same with sob before unfortunately 

[The Rumour Thread]

some GHB rumours collated

battle tactics:

1. more friendly units wholly outside your territory than friendly units within your territory
2. kill a unit that destroyed a friendly general earlier in the battle
3. pick a unit bonded to an endless spell or incarnate, succeeds if you kill the unit, make the incarnate wild, make the endless spell wild, make the endless spell controlled/ bound to a friendly unit
4. cast 1 or more spells and ensure NONE of your spells were unbound
5. kill a nominated unit with damage from a spell or endless spell
6. retreat with 2 or more units, charge with 2 or more units
7. make a charge with 1 or more friendly heroes and 1 or more friendly battleline and at least 1 of those units is still within 3" of an enemy unit at the end of the turn
8. pick 3 different friendly units on the battlefield, complete the tactic if each of those units is wholly within 6" of a different board edge and 2 or more of those units are wholly outside your territory

Geminids is gross again

No commands till end of turn

Unbind range is now done to spell portal not to hero for spellportal

 

primal dice:
Start of each turn both players roll a dice. For each 4+ rolled both players get a primal dice. (if both players roll a 4+ both get 2 dice). Then when casting after you have made the casting roll but before any rerolls (cant be used with a reroll) you can add a primal dice in to your CV and roll for the result. You can do this as many times as you like.

Then your opponent rolls their unbind and can do the same thing

if double 1 is rolled in any combination for the cast it does a big miscast which is

3+D3 to the caster and D3 to every other unit within 3. If 2 6s are rolled the spell cant be unbound and both players get another primal dice

[AoS 2 - Beasts of Chaos Discussion]

On 12/24/2022 at 12:36 PM, Maddpainting said:

Yeah with Taurus FYI bc we get Fight last with the new battalion that means if we make them also fight last then we in turn ... fight first! lol. 

In our turn yes. In their turn no

[First Tournament Tips]

Check out this blog it should be helpful https://aosshorts.com/tournament-play-tips-for-age-of-sigmar/

[Please don't sign up for Warhammer+]

58 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Personally I would not pay $5 a month for something I don't currently want in hopes that they eventually give me something I do want, but to each their own

But I do also currently want it 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Please don't sign up for Warhammer+]

For 4.99 I don’t care if it’s not the most amazing content at launch. I’m happy to support it to see what comes. 

All GW will do if no one supports it is to drop it entirely. I can’t see that happening though tbh. 

[The Rumour Thread]

8 hours ago, Grim Beasties said:

Still remember the early days, and still wish this rumour would have been true.

But honestly this thread is rad and I'm glad to be a part of it 

 It still might one day! I saw the sculpt. GW sit on stuff for years some times. 

[Custom Bonereapers Chessex Dice]

On 12/23/2019 at 11:09 AM, Sleboda said:

That's ok. 🙂

Don't worry too much about being exact with colors and quantities. I mean, it's helpful to give me an idea,  but in the end I'm going to order 500 to 1000 dice in a variety of colors and then come back here to let people know what I got in and take "orders" for them. I'm not planning a profit. I will take what I pay, add in shipping to wherever you are, and ship as people ask. When they are gone, they are gone, and if I'm stuck with 700 dice, oh well.

Did you order these in the end? I would also be keen on a set if available 

[The morghast problem.]

22 hours ago, Overread said:

One key aspect to remember is that Stalkers "can" have fly, but only if they make that 1 in 4 choice on that turn. Morghasts have fly all the time and don't have to "sacrifice" another boon choice to get it. So your stalker might work great using fly in an early turn when it won't make it into combat yet; or if its running away from something and thus you're hoping it won't need combat bonuses; but you won't be able to get its combat bonus and fly in the same turn. A Morghast can fly at any time so it can leap over an obstacle and right into combat with no loss of its combat effectiveness. 

 

I do agree that stalkers and morghasts do sit in a very similar spot within the army. Like a lot of things in the Ossiarch tome the differences are more subtle than large

Actually the stalkers ability is a command ability. But I agree Morghast have their place, the speed and fly is very useful for late game objective grabbing 

[Blood and Glory 2019 who's going.]

I’ve been every year since the start and hope to be going this year as well. It’s a great event for new and old players alike. 

Any questions ask away. 

[AoS Reminders - Tournament-ready reminders with 20+ Supported Factions, Endless Spells, Realmscapes, and more]

This is cool. Will you get Beasts of Chaos in there?

[AoS 2 - Fyreslayers Discussion]

5 hours ago, Malakithe said:

Another list. This would just be fun to see on the table as I like Magmadroths.

- Lodge: Lofnir
Auric Runefather on Magmadroth (280)
- General
- Trait: Explosize Charge 
- Artefact: Ignax's Scales 
- Magmadroth Trait: Coal-heart Ancient
Auric Runeson on Magmadroth (240)
- Artefact: Igneous Battle-throne 
- Magmadroth Trait: Ash-horn Ancient
Auric Runeson on Magmadroth (240)
- Magmadroth Trait: Lava-tongue Adult
Auric Runemaster (120)
Battlesmith (140)
30 x Hearthguard Berzerkers (600)
5 x Hearthguard Berzerkers (120)
5 x Hearthguard Berzerkers (120)
Lords of the Lodge (140)

Total: 2000 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 1
Wounds: 133
 

Yeah I think the best way to go is two runeson or none as the rerolls make a huge difference. That’s quite a good list actually I like it. Main worry is the struggle with bodies on objectives it could be worth going 15,10,10 or 20,10,5 even though you’d lose mileage from having 5 less models and not being in the battalion 

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

6 minutes ago, chord said:

Seems like from reading all the posts some want the game to be about list building, whereas others want it be more dynamic.  

There very much is two sides to this it seems. Realistically it makes sense to play the game GW have produced if it suits your tastes, rather than expecting tournaments to cut out the bits you don’t like. 

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

9 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

You mean the ones where TOs used to asked players to bring terrain? Because I've seen coverage from most major UK tournaments and I've seen maybe half? And that number has dropped as organizers pick up stuff from places like Dark Fantastic. 

To add to this, I worked for GW for roughly 8 years and even we used to make MDF terrain to supplement things like Games Day tables and store tables because GW wouldn't shell out for all GW terrain at the time. 

“Used to” there’s people with stores of the stuff now alongside the roll out gaming mats that you can hire for events all over the uk for a reasonable price. 

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

2 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

I've been to majors that GW supports (LVO, ACon, NOVA, and ATC) and I can tell you that even tournaments this big can't have tables of only GW. Its not remotely feasible given the cost of GW terrain. There is a reason MDF and 3D Printed terrain is the primary terrain you see at tournaments - its the only cost effective method to stock, in some cases, hundreds of tables. 

It certainly is feasible. There’s multiple large 100+ events in the UK that use majority of GW terrain on every table alongside non gw

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

1 minute ago, SwampHeart said:

Nah, that's GW's (very bad) suggested tournament ruleset. The idea that should be the standard is absolutely awful, oh you don't like to shake hands? You lose 2 points. Also I don't think every model in your army is shaded with highlights so you're down 15 points as well. GW tried to do a good thing but it fails miserably and I absolutely would refuse to attend a tournament that used it. Thankfully most every major TO already has a better tournament pack than that already. 

Firstly GW have made clarifications regarding those points, so what you’re saying is moot. GW have just introduced a recommended set of rules that most other tournaments are doing in some aspect anyway. Secondly let’s not derail, im sure there’s another thread just for this. 

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

1 minute ago, SwampHeart said:

You just have to park in an advantageous spot where you control its proximity. Its really not a big brain play to make sure that the monster you bring either doesn't impact the game at all or is all bonus for you. 

You make it sound so easy, I don’t think it really is. Considering the enemy manipulating your monster too.

my point is that it likely would have had very little overall impact if people had endorsed it, people would just adapt. But a few loud voices decide it’s not for them so therefore no one plays it. Which is a shame because it’s immensely fun and adds another dynamic to figure out. 

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

1 minute ago, SwampHeart said:

I've played with the Ghur realm rules, repeatedly. It doesn't backfire on you, ever, assuming you read the rules and bring a monster selection that allows you ensure the positioning you need. Effectively Ghur just rewards system mastery - do you know the available monsters better than your opponent? 

Well that’s your experience. 

But what about battleplans such as star strike, gifts from the gods, shifting objectives, relocation orb. Wherever you deploy your monster it has the potential to backfire as you don’t know where the objectives will be 

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

1 minute ago, SwampHeart said:

You say this understanding that for nearly 6 months after GW stated they were intended to be used that every major GT was using them right? It isn't like people didn't play them, there was a half year period of 'lets see how these work' and the consensus was they add very little given the massive amount of bloat they incur. 

I don’t remember every major GT using them at all, at least not in UK from what I saw. Maybe the GW ones for what they were at the time but they weren’t competitive tourneys. 

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

1 minute ago, wayniac said:

In my experience all the realm rules were written off day one.  I find way too much "but what if" rather than doing it.  "What if my opponent brings X monster".  Same sort of thing that was written off for pre-GHB AOS or Open Play.  "What if my opponent runs 10 Nagashes" "What if my opponent fields all monsters", "What if my opponent fills every inch of their side of the table with the most powerful units in the game".

Ghur is a weird place though because it A) requires you to have a monster and B) it gives you free reign to pick the most powerful monster.  That's not possible to be balanced.  It needed something else to not just open Pandora's box.

But the whole point of that realm is that the monsters aren’t part of your army. You pick a really powerful one it could end up backfiring!

The whole of AoS is a what if game, so much so that you can’t consider everything and you have to be good at reacting to situations on the fly. 

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

My issue with Ghur is that no one ever even gave it a chance. It was written off day one. Personally I think it’s great and people should try and play it at tourneys. 

[AoS monsters]

In general they’re not great for AoS as they struggle with objective play. Big monster heroes are fine as the provide other benefits but others struggle.

You just have to make the most of their combat ability as they can put out a lot of damage in to one small point which a unit can’t do. Make sure they’re screened well etc. 

I use two ghorgon in my BoC list and love them 

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

11 minutes ago, MrZakalwe said:

Problem for me with the realm rules is that they don't tend to create a novel tactical situation, they just tend to give one side or the other a massive buff. When they dropped we tested them for a while but didn't have positive results - including one game against Ironjawz with my ranged heavy Mixed Order force where we got a certain Ulgu result which was no fun for either player - so we dropped them. Realm spells and artefacts are nice, though. 

Random terrain rules were a similar experience - one side getting a bit of magical terrain at the front of their deployment while the other gets a big block of deadly just messed with a game that already has a shed load of RNG in it. 

I think if the random terrain was done symmetrically it could be awesome because they both players are trying to cope with something similar but that's a fair bit of bother during setup and AoS games already take longer than 40k with current bloat. 

Edit: but yeah at this stage you would have to ply realm spells and artefacts from our cold, dead hands. 

But that’s a problem with your lis building not anticipating that or having a contingency in case your shooting was turned off, there’s other things in the game that can limit shooting as well which would have a similar effect on an all ranged list, that not a fault with the game. 

And why does a wargame have to be exactly even both sides? That not how war works. Sometimes you end up in a bad location and have to use the tools you have to make the best of it. 

Odds are over the course of a a few games or tournament it evens out

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

3 minutes ago, soak314 said:

I'm of the same outlook: I think the aos core system is one of the farthest things from "ideal competitive wargame system" I've ever seen, but all the game-changing, randomized factors in scenario setup help push it more towards being a very interesting, much more compelling meta where you're tested on your ability to adapt and think on your feet instead of your list's ability to take toy soldiers off the table in the first couple of turns.

Exactly. A big thing about the competitive or balanced factor is that you have to consider what you are testing. If you’re testing the user at a tactical level with almost perfectly balanced forces (never happens in the real world) then you play chess. 

If you want to test  strategic and tactical skills in an relatively unknown environment (like real world) then AoS represents that really well. 

With unknown battlefield terrain, unknown turns and many other factors, the emphasis gets placed on the player reacting in the best possible way they can for that unique situation. Which is what a war game is all about IMO. 

[Matched Play: How "Optional" Should Terrain and Realm Rules Be?]

I’m of the mindset of including it all, mainly because it adds more to the tactical side of the game where players must react to novel situations and takes a bit away from the strategic list building aspect. 

I think it’s a real missed opportunity not using proper terrain rules and garrisoning etc. It can really change the dynamic of the game and the power levels of armies.

Although I do agree it can add extra time issues to the game and the old “fairness” issue will crop up if someone has bad luck with terrain etc. But these issues will always exist.