• 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 NEW *rumor*

LordBaconBane said:
What I like about AoS is that it doesn't have a system like that (and I disagree with it being easy to commit to memory. Maybe after 10+ games, but a table like that is just another rule). There are people at the shop who play AoS simply because it doesn't have the layers upon layers that 40k does. They find it much easier to hop into AoS because it's streamlined and easy.

I like it that I can look at a model (Kroxigor) and be: 4 wounds, 4+ save, 8 movement, 10 bravery. Done. The individual abilities of this particular unit show it's good for smashing big things and even has some anti-horde capabilities. Is it kind of silly that a goblin has the same chance to injure a kroxigor as it does a temple guard? Sure. But can a Temple guard can smash it's moon hammer against 10 dirty gobbo's, go toe-to-toe with other big guys? Nope. But 10 Temple guard can.



These are actually the same thing. "a function of the model's ability" is defined by it's stats and inherit abilities. Using my Kroxigor example, if I'm facing a horde of dirty rats, I'm likely to bring Kroxigors or a Stegadon to help with the hordes due to abilities it already has. A strength/toughness table doesn't change any of it except making my Stegadon a little more durable when facing rats. And if I'm concerned about who it's facing, I'll just cast mystic shield on it before entering battle, or give it some saurus/skink/kroxigor backup.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm really picky on new rules to AoS. I love the fact it's very simplified and easy to pick up. It's a big reason why I play and others play at my local shop.
Click to expand...
what! you mean you play it because its NOT 40K... NO WAY!!!
 
LordBaconBane said:
What I like about AoS is that it doesn't have a system like that (and I disagree with it being easy to commit to memory. Maybe after 10+ games, but a table like that is just another rule). There are people at the shop who play AoS simply because it doesn't have the layers upon layers that 40k does. They find it much easier to hop into AoS because it's streamlined and easy.

I like it that I can look at a model (Kroxigor) and be: 4 wounds, 4+ save, 8 movement, 10 bravery. Done. The individual abilities of this particular unit show it's good for smashing big things and even has some anti-horde capabilities. Is it kind of silly that a goblin has the same chance to injure a kroxigor as it does a temple guard? Sure. But can a Temple guard can smash it's moon hammer against 10 dirty gobbo's, go toe-to-toe with other big guys? Nope. But 10 Temple guard can.



These are actually the same thing. "a function of the model's ability" is defined by it's stats and inherit abilities. Using my Kroxigor example, if I'm facing a horde of dirty rats, I'm likely to bring Kroxigors or a Stegadon to help with the hordes due to abilities it already has. A strength/toughness table doesn't change any of it except making my Stegadon a little more durable when facing rats. And if I'm concerned about who it's facing, I'll just cast mystic shield on it before entering battle, or give it some saurus/skink/kroxigor backup.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm really picky on new rules to AoS. I love the fact it's very simplified and easy to pick up. It's a big reason why I play and others play at my local shop.
Click to expand...
To each their own. AOS benefits by having very little in the way of weapon options per unit, whereas 40k gives you entire arsenals to play with.

Horus Heresy is the better option in my opinion though.
 
LordBaconBane said:
What I like about AoS is that it doesn't have a system like that (and I disagree with it being easy to commit to memory. Maybe after 10+ games, but a table like that is just another rule). There are people at the shop who play AoS simply because it doesn't have the layers upon layers that 40k does. They find it much easier to hop into AoS because it's streamlined and easy.

I like it that I can look at a model (Kroxigor) and be: 4 wounds, 4+ save, 8 movement, 10 bravery. Done. The individual abilities of this particular unit show it's good for smashing big things and even has some anti-horde capabilities. Is it kind of silly that a goblin has the same chance to injure a kroxigor as it does a temple guard? Sure. But can a Temple guard can smash it's moon hammer against 10 dirty gobbo's, go toe-to-toe with other big guys? Nope. But 10 Temple guard can.
Click to expand...
The simplicity is nice, but this simplicity also creates a considerable amount of balance problems. The greater complexity of a strength/thoughness mechanic means that you simply have more variables that can be used to tune a unit. Which in turn means you don't end up with every tanky model having a 3+ re-rollable save and every anti-tank attack having rend and near guaranteed hit and wound rolls to deal with that. It also helps with stopping units with powerfull attacks from just wiping fodder units out as well. As an example take the new keeper of secrets, every single attack has rend, and the "worst" hit and wound roll is a 3+. Anything less than re-rollable 3+ save nonsense isn't going to stand up to that, which leads to weird situations where a sturdier units like our saurus would barely survive longer than our squishiest skink.

There are of course other possibilities to achieve the same result which don't require an extra table but would just be part of a unit's warscroll. For example, a lot of the newer factions have both a save and a ward save on a lot of their units even fodder to make them a bit sturdier. Undeath factions have a lot of healing build in to keep their units from being melted. You could also introduce more mechanics like summon starlight as baseline abilities to make a tanky character that doesn't rely on a 3+ base save. Doing it this way would be "simpler" in so much that you'l never have to consult more than your warscroll. However, it would also mean that for each and every unit you'd have to learn their specific defensive quirks & would be considerably more difficult to balance (you're going to get to a point where say a healing faction gets utterly trounced cuz an opponent just bursts them down, or alternativly where they're effectivly immortal cuz they heal quicker than anyone can damager them).

Ultimatly I'd say a strength/thoughness mechanic is by far the simplest and most elegant option to introduce rules that help distinguish heavily armoured units from their squishier counterparts. It helps with maintaining balance & helps avoid an arms-race. And I don't think it'd make the game (significantly) more complex.
 
Thread semi derailed, but honestly I just love our discussion and obviously we are in a stale spot armywise.

Playing both 40k and AoS and WHFB. I don't think adding additional rules = better balance. In fact I think it makes it harder to balance the game, sure you could probably get it closer to perfect, but it would be a lot harder to do when messing with more nobs.

Also in regards to armsrace, str/tough doesn't do anything to change that. People are going to always grab competitive picks for competitive situations(outside a couple brave and honorable souls). Examples 40k rule of 3, can only grab 3 of a warscroll, cuz people were just spamming 1 or 2 types of units. Tau can only take 1 suit commander per detachment(again spamming a unit). Every other army having loyal 32 in it.(really cheap battalion that gives lots of CPs and cannon fodder)

I actually stopped playing 40k because it felt too 1 sided to me. I honestly think AoS has better balance then 40k. Games I've experienced in AoS can go back and forth were 40k it's usually pretty clear who is going to win either before deployment or 1-2rounds in.
 
Womboski said:
I actually stopped playing 40k because it felt too 1 sided to me. I honestly think AoS has better balance then 40k. Games I've experienced in AoS can go back and forth were 40k it's usually pretty clear who is going to win either before deployment or 1-2rounds in.
Click to expand...

I both agree and disagree. AoS has better balance, but I don't think it's "usually pretty clear" whos going to win in 40k unless you're playing wildly unbalanced lists.
 
Womboski said:
T
Also in regards to armsrace, str/tough doesn't do anything to change that. People are going to always grab competitive picks for competitive situations(outside a couple brave and honorable souls). Examples 40k rule of 3, can only grab 3 of a warscroll, cuz people were just spamming 1 or 2 types of units. Tau can only take 1 suit commander per detachment(again spamming a unit). Every other army having loyal 32 in it.(really cheap battalion that gives lots of CPs and cannon fodder)
Click to expand...
Of course people will pick whatever is best, especially in competitions. And in that sense an arms-race will remain. However, I was refering specificly to the fact that AoS currently keeps introducing higher saves and ward saves to deal with all the mortal wound spam while also introducing more mortal wounds & high rend attacks to deal with all the better saves. A str/though mechanic removes (some of) the need to do.

Womboski said:
Playing both 40k and AoS and WHFB. I don't think adding additional rules = better balance. In fact I think it makes it harder to balance the game, sure you could probably get it closer to perfect, but it would be a lot harder to do when messing with more nobs.
Click to expand...
True, you have to be carefull with that and introducing rules for the sake of rules would be bad. However, in this case I'd say there's some good arguments to at least try it and see where it gets you with some playtesting :p

Also, str/thoughness mechanics seem to be fairly common across these kinda games. Given it's prevelance there's bound to be some value to it :p
 
The General’s Handbook is on the way next Saturday, meaning they’re still having trouble getting the Sylvaneth blockage out of the product release pipes. Typical.

An interesting side note is that according to the Warhammer Community Sunday preview, there will be expanded rules for Ironjawz, Seraphon, Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Free Peoples, Slaves to Darkness and Dispossessed, meaning it’s unlikely Seraphon will be getting a Battletome this year, along with Dispossessed :( and surprisingly Slaves to Darkness, despite them being featured as one of the four Malign Portents armies, unless Darkoath are in line to become a separate army entirely.

Note that Ogres weren’t part of this list, so they must be getting a tome this year, along with any other armies that featured in the 2018 handbook allegiance rules, aren’t in this list and haven’t already got a tome (Skaven and Slaanesh have).
 
Womboski said:
I actually stopped playing 40k because it felt too 1 sided to me. I honestly think AoS has better balance then 40k. Games I've experienced in AoS can go back and forth were 40k it's usually pretty clear who is going to win either before deployment or 1-2rounds in.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the trainwreck that is Imperial Knights completely biasing the game toward the Imperium. They are one of the many reasons 7th and 8th Edition are just so bad it hurts. 5th and 6th Editions are the best, full stop.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
The General’s Handbook is on the way next Saturday, meaning they’re still having trouble getting the Sylvaneth blockage out of the product release pipes. Typical.

An interesting side note is that according to the Warhammer Community Sunday preview, there will be expanded rules for Ironjawz, Seraphon, Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Free Peoples, Slaves to Darkness and Dispossessed, meaning it’s unlikely Seraphon will be getting a Battletome this year, along with...
Click to expand...

It will likely be allegiance, traits, and items that get changed, making the battletome that was originally released utterly usess. I mean, every single warscroll in the book is technically out of date.
 
LordBaconBane said:
It will likely be allegiance, traits, and items that get changed, making the battletome that was originally released utterly usess. I mean, every single warscroll in the book is technically out of date.
Click to expand...

And also that because they’re taking the time to putting these updated rules in, it’s becoming less likely they’ll do an all-out tome, otherwise they would have just left the rules as they were until the new tome was completed, as they seem to have done for Ogres.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
And also that because they’re taking the time to putting these updated rules in, it’s becoming less likely they’ll do an all-out tome, otherwise they would have just left the rules as they were until the new tome was completed.
Click to expand...

I'm still holding out hope. Fyreslayers got an update in the June 2018 general handbook and got a faction update only a few months ago.

That being said all factions are getting an update. This includes endless spells and terrain. It was already confirmed by GW and i linked it earlier in this thread. So, there is still hope.
 
Or they just want to buff seraphon a bit before their tome comes out. Clearly the update pipeline has been a bit clogged since the sylvaneth release got put on hold. There's been multiple rumors showing scaly skin and they've said they're updating their factions.

Honestly this this forum topic became less fun to read when everyone kept getting frustrated and despairing. You're getting a rules update, rejoice while the skins unclog the canals.
 
LordBaconBane said:
I'm still holding out hope. Fyreslayers got an update in the June 2018 general handbook and got a faction update only a few months ago.
Click to expand...

What I meant is that it’s unlikely Seraphon will get and update this year, i.e. 2019, but the tome might come along in early 2020 before the General’s Handbook for that year comes out - the Fyreslayers tome followed this example.

LordBaconBane said:
That being said all factions are getting an update. This includes endless spells and terrain. It was already confirmed by GW and i linked it earlier in this thread. So, there is still hope.
Click to expand...

I do agree that it is likely that GW will update Seraphon at some point - it’s more a matter of when rather than if - I was just saying that with this mention of updated rules in the General’s Handbook for Seraphon and other factions, it looks more likely that they’ll be updated later rather than earlier, as it looks like GW have obviously made these significant changes in preparation for a longer period without a tome.
 
Acrocanth said:
Or they just want to buff seraphon a bit before their tome comes out. Clearly the update pipeline has been a bit clogged since the sylvaneth release got put on hold. There's been multiple rumors showing scaly skin and they've said they're updating their factions.

Honestly this this forum topic became less fun to read when everyone kept getting frustrated and despairing. You're getting a rules update, rejoice while the skins unclog the canals.
Click to expand...

I wasn’t despairing, I was just providing anyone with a possible update - it’s up to everyone else on how to react to this, whether despairing or still hopeful.

As usual, the Sylvaneth are spoiling things for everyone else :vomit:
 
YOu think it's good new or bad news for Gutbusters? They could be being phased out right?
 
GHB means nothing. Beast of chaos got new battletome like in 3-4 months after GHB. At least, I remember it being very soon.

Looking forward for new rules in GHB. I hope, there will be more than just CnP from eariler book with some faq updates, and they are giving us at least some kind of magic lore/rites/new WTs.
 
Womboski said:
I actually stopped playing 40k because it felt too 1 sided to me. I honestly think AoS has better balance then 40k. Games I've experienced in AoS can go back and forth were 40k it's usually pretty clear who is going to win either before deployment or 1-2rounds in.
Click to expand...

I feel your pain.
The amount of shooting means that who go first, usually gains a solid advantage.
Things as the nerf to deep strike and the stratagem to put your army in cover , mitigate this... but there's still a long way to go.

But AoS is not so much better... the balance is bad, and i rarely see matches that are truly uncertain in the final result.
It takes more time, but at turn 2 you can already see who's ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top