• 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*

ASSASSIN_NR_1 said:
Excuse me but which book are you looking in then? In the one I'm reading Chaos Warriors are almost identical to Saurus Warriors in 8th edition Warhammer Fantasy; They have the same movement, Strength, Toughness, Wounds, Attacks and LD and armor save (sure some of these are standard for infantry); This means that they only differ statwise in WS and Initiative (and BS but the stat is useless to them.). How is that not similar?
Going a bit further to special rules: We have Cold Blooded and Predatory Fighter and they have some champion challenge thing, so we come out on top there.

If we'are talking AOS then I would agree that they differ a lot.
Click to expand...

It was primarily in the equipment and int 1 really, really sucked. Marks + halberds was no slouch. Equipment defined a lot of what made troops "elite" in WHFB, but it's been a really long time since i've played 8th edition and I honestly haven't really thought much about it much since it got squated. Maybe the difference wasn't as big as I remember it.

Either way, with the proliferation of 2wound infantry in AoS, I could see a situation where they become 2 wound characters. I just don't think it's supported by their past existence anymore than them being a 1 wound better-than-average warrior is.
 
Dracorex said:
On their page in the core book, it says something like “Saurus are in every way equal to the chaos warriors they fight.” Seraphon(especially Saurus) aren’t anything like how they play on tabletop. They’re sort of a “tell don’t show” army.

Also in the Warhammer tv Lahmian medium video, they said that if you water down a paint too much it will appear bland or patchy. Speaking of mediums, would the contrast medium allow you to turn a base or layer paint into a contrast paint like lahmian medium with a shade or is it just for thinning contrast paint?
Click to expand...
Only one way to find out..... here's 20$ report back in one week :P
 
Putzfrau said:
It was primarily in the equipment and int 1 really, really sucked. Marks + halberds was no slouch. Equipment defined a lot of what made troops "elite" in WHFB, but it's been a really long time since i've played 8th edition and I honestly haven't really thought much about it much since it got squated. Maybe the difference wasn't as big as I remember it.

Either way, with the proliferation of 2wound infantry in AoS, I could see a situation where they become 2 wound characters. I just don't think it's supported by their past existence anymore than them being a 1 wound better-than-average warrior is.
Click to expand...

If upgraded they Chaos Warriors are certainly more powerful than Saurus Warriors, but then they kind of enter a league of their own. I guess it also comes down to ones individual perception of what is elite and where the barrier of entry lies.

Personally I certainly see them as quite elite in WHFB, but not as elite as the lore portrayed them, and in AOS not much has been said about them in any detail (that I recall anyway). Still if you come from Fantasy they are weaker now in AOS (not counting any supporting elements) than they were in comparison the their fantasy counterparts, when compared to the other factions's options of infantry; that does bother me a bit, as I like when the lore is well reflected in the rules. It's always a bit of a downer to read about a model, then read the rules and find out that the rules are nothing like what the lore just described.

Anyway, guess I rode the Saurus Train long enough :p
 
Side note, this is probably a reason why they should have kept strength/toughness - gives you more sliders to play around with when defining how much staying power a model has.
 
GreenyRepublic said:
Side note, this is probably a reason why they should have kept strength/toughness - gives you more sliders to play around with when defining how much staying power a model has.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the difference between the two, but I think adding more things like that would make AoS more complicated and confusing.
 
Dracorex said:
I don’t know the difference between the two, but I think adding more things like that would make AoS more complicated and confusing.
Click to expand...

I just think the point is that the more parameters you have, the more options you have for balancing, and can make units more distinct.
Yes it would make it more complicated and possibly more confusing, but the potential for depth would be greater; generally I'd say the more parameters you have, the more depth you can have (I'll emphasize 'Can have' cause it's not a guarantee), it does get more difficult to take everything into account though, and if the system is not made for a lot of parameters to begin with, it might just break and be a mess.
 
In general complexity and simplicity in games is a really fine line to tread. Now I’m going to cite battletech as an example and compare it to warhammer fantasy battles. So I, and ADHD minor was able to learn the rules of 2nd edition battletech and could use them relatively effectively. However with battletech as time progressed you start to see more and more rules tacked on, and in some extreme cases I have found supplementary books with hundreds of pages. From what I have seen something similar happened with WHFB where more and more complexity was added. Veterans knew it well enough to play easily but new people would just look at it and promptly give up. On the flip side is to little rules, and then you just get boring games. In all honesty AOS is a bit shallow but it could be worse.
 
ASSASSIN_NR_1 said:
I just think the point is that the more parameters you have, the more options you have for balancing, and can make units more distinct.
Yes it would make it more complicated and possibly more confusing, but the potential for depth would be greater; generally I'd say the more parameters you have, the more depth you can have (I'll emphasize 'Can have' cause it's not a guarantee), it does get more difficult to take everything into account though, and if the system is not made for a lot of parameters to begin with, it might just break and be a mess.
Click to expand...
Lizerd said:
In general complexity and simplicity in games is a really fine line to tread. Now I’m going to cite battletech as an example and compare it to warhammer fantasy battles. So I, and ADHD minor was able to learn the rules of 2nd edition battletech and could use them relatively effectively. However with battletech as time progressed you start to see more and more rules tacked on, and in some extreme cases I have found supplementary books with hundreds of pages. From what I have seen something similar happened with WHFB where more and more complexity was added. Veterans knew it well enough to play easily but new people would just look at it and promptly give up. On the flip side is to little rules, and then you just get boring games. In all honesty AOS is a bit shallow but it could be worse.
Click to expand...
Those are both good points
 
Xicohtencatl said:
Well yea, my point... it doesnt do that much detail from what i saw, does nice blending effects (thats why nurgle deamons look fine ) from what i saw...I feel like details still need to be done normally or?
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point of contrast paints. They are not meant to replace old painting techniques. It's meant to help those who want to quickly get paint onto models and more specifically people who normally don't paint at all.
 
:sorry:
Discussion about paint. New kind. No pictures of paint bottles. Or painted models.

:meh: :lurking:
 
GreenyRepublic said:
Side note, this is probably a reason why they should have kept strength/toughness - gives you more sliders to play around with when defining how much staying power a model has.
Click to expand...
Dracorex said:
I don’t know the difference between the two, but I think adding more things like that would make AoS more complicated and confusing.
Click to expand...
Lizerd said:
In general complexity and simplicity in games is a really fine line to tread. Now I’m going to cite battletech as an example and compare it to warhammer fantasy battles. So I, and ADHD minor was able to learn the rules of 2nd edition battletech and could use them relatively effectively. However with battletech as time progressed you start to see more and more rules tacked on, and in some extreme cases I have found supplementary books with hundreds of pages. From what I have seen something similar happened with WHFB where more and more complexity was added. Veterans knew it well enough to play easily but new people would just look at it and promptly give up. On the flip side is to little rules, and then you just get boring games. In all honesty AOS is a bit shallow but it could be worse.
Click to expand...

I don't think strength/thoughness is a very complicated and confusing mechanic though, or at least it doesn't need to be. It's fairly intuitive and as long as you use a simple scheme (like 40K currently does) and don't spread out the stats too much so you can see at a glance if something is "though".

It also has the very very important additional benefit of giving much clearer roles to units as you get genuine difference between anti-tank and anti-fodder weapons as well as making it a lot easier to make a "though" tanky unit that doesn't immeadiatly need to have a 10+ wounds a 3+ re-rollable save, nor do you then need to spam mortal wounds to deal with those tanks. Which is a lot better for the overall health of the game as it limits the need for an armsrace.

That said, you can obviously make it complicated if you want it to. I don't know if the lord of the rings game still has it, but when I first started playing that (over a decade ago) it's strength/thoughness mechanic was a 10 by 10 table with specific values for each combination of strength/thoughness and even requiring multiple dice-rolls if the difference was large enough.
 
Womboski said:
I think you are missing the point of contrast paints. They are not meant to replace old painting techniques. It's meant to help those who want to quickly get paint onto models and more specifically people who normally don't paint at all.
Click to expand...

thats what i wrote in my first message " sure if you are a professional competitor (dont have to be you can be a hoarder also :D) and have a lot of armies this will make it easier to finished them all... seems like death guard and similar models look super but for me some armies and modes look not good at all...

So yea, i dont feel like them contrast paints have nice detailed results like some said... its made for quick paiting and getting out there and not using grey army :)
 
On the topic of the rumors about aelves, the forbidden power book has a bit where Teclis and Sigmar are talking about the state of things and the the armies of Hysh are brought up. With Teclis claiming that he doesn't see any need to move his forces yet and they're going to continue hanging out in Hysh being mysterious for a long time.

So story-wise there's apparently no reason for the aelves to actually start doing anything so I don't think those will be released next.
 
Caleb ex nihilo said:
Saw this points change rumor pop up on FB/discord

Thunder quake points up. EoTG points up. Some saurus points down.

Rumor... Obviously...
Click to expand...

Starseer dont need point changes, he need a rework
Same Kroak
Guards dont need point changes, they have to get stronger/ tougher ( Elite !!!! )
Kroxigors have to me more fearsome, like other 4-5 wound models
Thunderquake would be sad, especially i only can see this because other players are winning of the "unkillable" bastilodon.
 
40k's current system on strength/toughness is pretty easy to commit to memory, it goes something like this:

Strength >= 2 * toughness? 2+ to wound
Strength > Toughness? 3+ to wound
Strength = Toughness? 4+ to wound (50% chance)
Strength < Toughness? 5+ to wound
Strength <= 1/2 * Toughness? 6+ to wound

My biggest gripe with the lack of a strength/toughness system right now is that it means a goblin has the same chance to damage a big dragon as it does to damage another goblin. What we essentially have is a system where the difficulty of an action is defined entirely by a model's statistics, not as a function of the model's ability and the context in which the action is being made.
 
GreenyRepublic said:
40k's current system on strength/toughness is pretty easy to commit to memory, it goes something like this:

Strength >= 2 * toughness? 2+ to wound
Strength > Toughness? 3+ to wound
Strength = Toughness? 4+ to wound (50% chance)
Strength < Toughness? 5+ to wound
Strength <= 1/2 * Toughness? 6+ to wound

My biggest gripe with the lack of a strength/toughness system right now is that it means a goblin has the same chance to damage a big dragon as it does to damage another goblin. What we essentially have is a system where the difficulty of an action is defined entirely by a model's statistics, not as a function of the model's ability and the context in which the action is being made.
Click to expand...

i understand it, not sure if really needed. of course it would be much more flavour like, but if a block of 40 goblins spike into a dragon he can get some serious damage.
all i want is that units reflect what they are: Elite troops, infantry, skirmisher, sniper, cavallery, behemonths.
a goblin roll a 6 and kills a saurus guard instantly? i dont think so!
Skinks are faster than saurus knights? i dont think so!
saurus warriors are weaker then dwarfs? i dont think so!
 
Vexcor said:
i understand it, not sure if really needed. of course it would be much more flavour like, but if a block of 40 goblins spike into a dragon he can get some serious damage.
all i want is that units reflect what they are: Elite troops, infantry, skirmisher, sniper, cavallery, behemonths.
a goblin roll a 6 and kills a saurus guard instantly? i dont think so!
Skinks are faster than saurus knights? i dont think so!
saurus warriors are weaker then dwarfs? i dont think so!
Click to expand...
Strength/thoughness is a very easy way of distinguishing elite troops infantry etc.
E.g. a skirmisher would have a low strength weapon and low toughness armour, when compared to heavy infantry.

It also allows you to fiddle a bit more with certain weapons and tailor them to be good against specific targets (e.g. a high strength weapon with few attacks would be quite effective against a single though opponent, but with only a few attacks it would have difficulty cutting down a horde of weaker opponents as there's simply too many of em)

If you also make wounds not carrying over from model to model you'd be able to distinguish the roles even more.

Also it'd help with balance imho as there's less need for an armsrace as you don't need to go to the extremes and for example wouldn't need as many mortal wounds as we currently do to deal with all the re-rollable 2+ saves healing monsters with 10+ wounds.
 
@Dracorex Contrast Medium is for thinning Contrast paints, so that they keep their unique flow properties.
 
GreenyRepublic said:
40k's current system on strength/toughness is pretty easy to commit to memory, it goes something like this:

Strength >= 2 * toughness? 2+ to wound
Strength > Toughness? 3+ to wound
Strength = Toughness? 4+ to wound (50% chance)
Strength < Toughness? 5+ to wound
Strength <= 1/2 * Toughness? 6+ to wound

My biggest gripe with the lack of a strength/toughness system right now is that it means a goblin has the same chance to damage a big dragon as it does to damage another goblin. What we essentially have is a system where the difficulty of an action is defined entirely by a model's statistics, not as a function of the model's ability and the context in which the action is being made.
Click to expand...

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.

GreenyRepublic said:
What we essentially have is a system where the difficulty of an action is defined entirely by a model's statistics, not as a function of the model's ability and the context in which the action is being made.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top