• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS Second Edition

Ritual said:
Also in their announcement, it'll be "more strategic" - it's not going anywhere.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know. "More strategic" certainly sounds like it will not be like it is now. It might be replaced by something very different.
IIRC the FAQ is referring to the turn order, which is more than just the "double turn" as we call it.
 
Uhhh...
Good start but to be honest I had hoped for something more radical than that.
But the spells (and possibly other things) interacting with the double turn is interesting, I am curious how that will look like.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s a bit unfair actually because if your opponent has all the luck and keeps winning the roll off you need all the help you can get, and giving the previous turn winner the ability to choose in a tie makes it more difficult for you if you lost the roll before.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
I think it’s a bit unfair actually because if your opponent has all the luck and keeps winning the roll off you need all the help you can get, and giving the previous turn winner the ability to choose in a tie makes it more difficult for you if you lost the roll before.
Click to expand...
I didn't think you were such a big AoS player? You're dominating the AoS threads!
 
Yeah, no big chance, just the tie or I missing something ?
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
I didn't think you were such a big AoS player? You're dominating the AoS threads!
Click to expand...

Am I? I hadn’t noticed... :p

In all seriousness I actually haven’t even got really into AoS - I’m just stating my view on the new edition and hoping that it will be as close to what I hope it to be as possible before I consider starting. I just know a bit of the original rules and how it should be more like fantasy but it’s not and I just want to see if GW can properly get a balance between the two to make it awesome. I’m mostly an 8th Ed player as you all know but there’s nothing new and mysterious about 8th now that GW have stopped supporting it. Nothing about new factions coming out or new rules changes to get me excited like there were in the much-missed Golden Age (which ended up as rather disappointing for me in some ways because GW seemed to have an alien notion that Empire and Vampire Counts deserved to get their army books before Dwarfs and Lizardmen - completely preposterous), apart from my still-in-progress unofficial army book series.
 
Christopher said:
Here's some more information about the priority roll from the Community site.
Click to expand...

Somebody on Twitter pointed out an aspect of this article that I didn't notice on first read. They make absolutely no mention of how priority is determined in the first round.

Unless this line covers it (which it doesn't, at least not to my satisfaction):

"Previously, players would roll off to determine who gets to decide who gets the first turn in each battle round, with the winner getting to choose. This works in much the same way in the new edition..."
 
Aginor said:
As I understood it, it really stays the same only that the double turn is less likely.

...plus some other stuff.
Click to expand...
The only change I could see to first round priority determination is the elimination of the "whoever completes set up first" stuff in favor of a pure roll-off with the winner deciding who goes first. Which would change the way strategic deployment works now quite a bit I guess, what with the number of "drops" no longer being such a heavy concern for matched points players.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
I think it’s a bit unfair actually because if your opponent has all the luck and keeps winning the roll off you need all the help you can get, and giving the previous turn winner the ability to choose in a tie makes it more difficult for you if you lost the roll before.
Click to expand...
Ehhh wait, no. Maybe I don't get what you are saying or you got it wrong.

The thing is: being always first isn't stronger than being always second. Being second and then being first afterwards is what is called the "double turn" and THAT can change the game a lot.
(Which btw is one reason why I tend to give my opponent the first turn. If I go first I cannot get a double turn except if he gets one first)
Now the chance for a double turn is lower. As always you can only get the double turn if you went second. The person who went first wins ties.
 
Aginor said:
Now the chance for a double turn is lower. As always you can only get the double turn if you went second. The person who went first wins ties.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. Sorry I think I got mixed up. I’ve been preoccupied with revision stuff and have just got a lot on my mind.

Sorry about that.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
Ah, ok. Sorry I think I got mixed up. I’ve been preoccupied with revision stuff and have just got a lot on my mind.

Sorry about that.
Click to expand...
No problem, it _is_ a bit confusing after all, especially some implications it might have.

I wonder what other abilities there could be affecting (or being affected by) turn order. Things such as deployment not mattering that much anymore (Maybe only granting a bonus instead of how it is now) or for example an allegiance ability for an army that says "if you lose more than x points/units/whatever in one turn you get +x on the next initiative roll.
Or just a "if your opponent gets the double turn you get a spell more" or some other numerical bonus, maybe a defensive one.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
Am I? I hadn’t noticed... :p
Click to expand...
Only based on your sheer dominance and enthusiasm in the AoS thread. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
In all seriousness I actually haven’t even got really into AoS - I’m just stating my view on the new edition and hoping that it will be as close to what I hope it to be as possible before I consider starting. I just know a bit of the original rules and how it should be more like fantasy but it’s not and I just want to see if GW can properly get a balance between the two to make it awesome. I’m mostly an 8th Ed player as you all know but there’s nothing new and mysterious about 8th now that GW have stopped supporting it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough! That makes sense. :)

Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
Nothing about new factions coming out or new rules changes to get me excited like there were in the much-missed Golden Age (which ended up as rather disappointing for me in some ways because GW seemed to have an alien notion that Empire and Vampire Counts deserved to get their army books before Dwarfs and Lizardmen - completely preposterous)
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with getting your army book later. I wish Tomb Kings would have gotten their army book AFTER Vampire Counts. As it stands, Vampire Counts benefited from the hard learned lessons in the TK book. The biggest flaws in our book were corrected in theirs.

Only the Bretonnians, Beastmen and Skaven have a truly legitimate case for complaint. Especially the Bretonnians!
 
Aginor said:
I heard an interesting rumor about summoning:
In AoS2 summoning might not cost reinforcement points anymore, but spend "magic points" or something like that, which can be generated in some way.
Click to expand...
So basicly how nurgle's summoning works currently (or some variant thereof) but minus the reinforcement point nonsense? That'd be amazing and a much needed change to finally make summoning a proper summoning mechanic as opposed to a glorified thunderstrike.

The change to priority seems nice. It does limit the chances of a doubleturn which can very easily be devastating with shooting or magic/ability heavy armies. So I do like that.

I do hope they also remove the way drops matter for getting the first turn right now.. that method Always felt far too gamey and silly for me to be interesting.
 
Canas said:
So basicly how nurgle's summoning works currently (or some variant thereof) but minus the reinforcement point nonsense? That'd be amazing and a much needed change to finally make summoning a proper summoning mechanic as opposed to a glorified thunderstrike.
Click to expand...
That's basically how I understood it. But it is only a rumour, it might be totally wrong.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
Only based on your sheer dominance and enthusiasm in the AoS thread. Not that there is anything wrong with that.


Fair enough! That makes sense. :)


Nothing wrong with getting your army book later. I wish Tomb Kings would have gotten their army book AFTER Vampire Counts. As it stands, Vampire Counts benefited from the hard learned lessons in the TK book. The biggest flaws in our book were corrected in theirs.

Only the Bretonnians, Beastmen and Skaven have a truly legitimate case for complaint. Especially the Bretonnians!
Click to expand...

Bretonnians mainly because of the simple fact that they were stuck in 6th Edition, but apparently the Beastmen 7th Edition book was pretty bad. I think the main problem with Bretonnians is that their special characters were not only few in number but heavily overpriced, especially Louis Leoncoeur. Skaven did get at least get new stuff with the End Times and updated Thanquol and Verminlord.

I’m also very pleased with the Dwarf book despite its lateness - it shook all the cobwebs out of our army special rules and made many units better, which compensated for the lack of new releases. Furthermore, it brought back Ungrim and it gave King Belegar a profile and a mini for the first time. In addition, the other new character, Grimm Burlokson, was the son of a character who had a profile and possibly a mini in the ancient 4th Edition book, Burlok Damminson, and yet gave him a different dynamic to his dad - while Burlok was the Engineers’ Guildmaster of a Dwarf fortress, Grimm was an upstart young engineer setting out on his own path, and also a pretty shooty character compared to Burlok being quite primarily a melee character.
 
Aginor said:
As always you can only get the double turn if you went second. The person who went first wins ties.
Click to expand...


Yep, in this way there's just a small reduction of the chances to have double turns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top