AoS Maybe this isn't the "end" of WHF

This is the age of Sigmar, but I recall some rumours suggesting that there will be more ages. If I recall correctly, something like the age of steel.

So maybe later, we will get a proper 9th edition.

Here's hoping

 

I think there is a potential in this game. Since you can't but new army book it means everything will be on the warscrolls. But why those doesn't have point values?
In game like warhammer or AoS the balance system can't be covered by some algorithm and statistics of models so you need totally abstract system and point value is really good for this. If Age of Steell or something appears it will be unballanced like AoS appears to be, or with the point value being calculated right now.

Since you can field every unit you want, making really balanced system is impossible so I'm really frightened what comes in the future..

 

No... we still have 8th edition. There is no reason to give it up for a product that is a shadow of its former self just because it is new and shiny.

 

I fully agree with you, Nightbringer. We shouldn't abandon 8th + ET just for the new guy on the block as that will still be the more enjoyable game system in the present. AoS could be a good system with some tinkering, points system and some playtesting but its simply not there yet. Maybe in the Age of Steel?

 

Even with those things... what would make it better than 8th edition? Sure AoS can be improved, but can it be improved to the level where it is superior to 8th edition?

 

Not that I can see in the near future. I'd rather play an ET game with the new magic phase first since I love the idea of having 64 spells to give a certain 6000 point Clans Pestilence army a run for its money.

 

I don't.

I have an 8th ed. rulebook but I don't have a collection of all the FAQ docs. And they pulled them. No support.
So, I could play 8th edition out of the box no errattas.

 

I downloaded all the FAQs a couple days ago. I'm sure there will be a way to find a .zip file of them online fairly soon... ;-)

 

My impressions:

Some "enhancements" going 8th to AoS
The combat and shooting system is cleaned up. To hit is about the attacker. To save is about the defender. No tables (this is the main thing I would have changed if I was simplifying eighth ed combat. Also, initiative is about the general (scope for game winning or losing choices if you are not on the ball.)

Square bases are never coming back. Even if there is a proper tactical 9th Edition we are going to have this pile-in-to-fight mechanic forever, and round bases allow more models to nest together for combat.

Cannons use a to hit roll! Organ guns are more likely to fail if they do multiple shots! Warmachines are less efficient if you kill some crew!

About Gamesworkshop: They were a lot gentler than they could have been, even considering that they shat all over everything game wise.

• If we forget Chaos Dwarfs, all factions still "exist" even if we are actually "the Seraphon". They even put "Lizardmen" on the cover, so we wouldn't get confused. Expect the LM name to disappear in future updates.
• They supported all current models (even weird ones like Great Taurus and Lammasu from Storm of Magic) Even unloved special characters play the rules of a generic equivalent. It would have been so easy for them to add rules for Chaos Dwarfs into the WoC book, but hey, the CD community will have already amended that.
• The door is open to a properly conceived / balanced 9th edition in future - but I bet that doesn't happen anytime soon unless this is a sales flop.
• It will probably be a flop initially because everyone is going to proxy the Mahrlect out of everything because it is not realistic for people to own every possible model or buy to buy a unit "because it might work". Even beginners will borrow models from friends rather than buy until they settle on a themed army they like (this is the disadvantage of giving people too many choices)
• GW will put out some narrative campaigns soon which will stipulate which warscrolls can be used. These will be "balanced" (but not with any insight into the formula they use)

Now the important stuff: Fluff

The fluff landscape in 8th was a desert because there was this mandatory bloody-equilibrium which prevented any world redefining outcome from a story or battle.

The End of Times fluff was so awful, I never even finished Nagash.

Is there official fluff about these new realms? It is such a disaster at the moment that I can't even find a frame of reference to do a cartoon about, let alone write a story.

I'll be writing into the 8th ed universe for a long time to come.

But what are we going to call the BRB now? The FFPP (Flimsy Four Page Printout)?

 

That is sweet. More kinds of stunties to kill.

 

I have them all and the file sizes are very small. I'd by happy to email them to you if you wanted.

I get that this is obviously a much simpler system... but did it have to be? Were the tables so bad? I don't know any experienced (or even semi-experienced) player that ever had to refer to them.

The old system was far more realistic, which strongly prefer. Let's say I give you a stick, and you hit a squirrel with it. Under 8th you would wound it on a 2+ while under AoS you will wound it on let's assume a 3+. Now you hit an Elephant with it, under AoS you would still wound it on a 3+, while under 8th you would need a 6+. 8th edition makes sense, it is more difficult to wound an Elephant than a squirrel. The same is true for the to hit roll.

The new system is ever so slightly faster in semi-experienced hands, but it has lost a great deal of its realism and finesse.

I agree... and I suspect that AoS will continue with the same type of flavour that End Times gave us.

I had a completely different word in mind for that first "F" in FFPP

 

Here you go...

 

I agree with you a million times, on all points. I am not defending AoS over 8th. It is more of an intriguing disaster from my point of view.

But OK. Now give me the stick. I will attempt 1000 strikes at a squirrel and then 1000 strikes at an elephant. I am far less likely to hit the squirrel but when I do, that stick will do a total of x damage. I will hit the elephant 1000 times and do a total of x damage. My skill and my weapon averages to have the same damage output against both targets. The elephant has more wounds and better saves than the squirrel. The squirrel also has an inherent save due to it's speed. When the elephant has its turn I will be made into blue paste. When the squirrel fights back, I will protect my nuts. (a mortal wound?)

The more wounds and better saves will factor in the mass, armour and skill of the target. (in a balanced well thought out system - should I just shut up now?) If we assume that GW has got that balance right what was I thinking? If we assume that we will come up with a points balancing system in the future, it will go a lot better than the 8th ed points thing because things like initiative can make you a god, until the cannon fires, or no amount of poison can penetrate heavy armour and a ward save, but it eliminates high toughness - the value of either of those commodities is variable and situational.

And yes, army selection and manoeuvre to maximise value for points were the core skills in 8th. (match ups being measured in "got their points back" or "didn't get their points back" What the core skills are in AoS, I have no idea.

And nothing says realism like a ward save.

 

I'd say a ward save makes sense in terms of the context of the fictional setting.

 

My army is real, bro.

 

Oddly enough, Matt Ward can no longer be blamed for the worst fluff writing now. we need a new scapegoat from the GW writing department .

 

It's a bit strange that GW kept both the "to hit" and "to wound" rolls. You could cut the length of the combat phase by 33% by just having a "to wound" roll and a "to save" roll. Assuming there are no 1+ rolls, rolling twice gives you an x / 25 chance of hitting and wounding ... which is a little more granular than just rolling 1/6.

What's interesting is there really isn't a difference between having a 3+ to hit and a 4+ to wound or a 4+ to hit and a 3+ to wound. Having two rolls allows you to manipulate things with "each hit = d6 hits" or "each wound = d6 wounds" but even that could be collapsed into a single roll.

GW could have been gutsy like Apple was with their 1 USB Mac and have reduced combat to just 2 rolls: 1 to hit, 1 to save. And kept rending as the replacement for Strength and Wounds as the replacement for Toughness.

Or they could have been *really* gutsy and changed over to a d20 system!

Rolling dice twice in the combat phase seems like an obvious target of simplification that was overlooked.