Yeah, hear you there. Guess this just doesn't feel like a "for the sake of it" situation to me, but as you said to each their own. We all draw the line of how much GW crap we can take somewhere hahaha.
Honestly the coherency rules are probably the last thing we need to worry about on the Stormdrake warscroll. 285 points for 18 wounds on a 3+ save, 4+ magic ignore that can move and spit fire in the hero phase? They kind of seem like a very strong option. A lot of people are crying OP already but I'll need to see how they play first.
They seem very, very powerful. Typical for a new model, though. While they don't do it for every single model ever made, most of the time GW's strategy is "release something OP so people will buy it, then nerf it 6 months later to force them to buy something else now that their list doesn't dominate anymore." Codex Creep in 40k 9e has been horrible, I don't doubt that we'll see the same trend in AoS 3.
Would suck to see AoS go in the direction of 9th ed. 40k. As an AdMech player it's been quite frustrating not being able to play my army without feeling guilty.
Well, they are certainly OP, as they bring to the table something that should cost more than 285 pts, and i think that's a undeniable fact. but OP is not broken so it's not that big of an issue. 40k power creep is embarassing.... a pity, because 9th ed is much better than 8th. As AdMech player i feel you 110% luckily, lately i play against DE...
So the latest White Dwarf says that next issue will be thousand sons and Seraphon. What do you think they are going to be giving us? I would love a model refresh on salamanders and saurus knights but I know that is too much. Maybe a priest lore for our chief and engine.
Because the core needs to be consistent. That's kind of the first lesson you need to learn to design a good set of rules for anything whatsoever. A set of rules that's filled with exceptions is kind of useless, and generally somewhat annoying to use, regardless of what you use those rules for. Every exception is an extra thing people need to memorize and take into account. So the more solid and consistent the core, the easier it is for people to actually use the ruleset in practise. Essentially tl;dr for this entire discussion: A good set of core-rules does not need exceptions. If your core-rules does need exceptions to streamline the process in certain cases then you need to make better core-rules. But GW for some reason seems to be incapable of writing a rule-set without immediately introducing exceptions to it, which is a shame and also kinda funny given how consistently they seem to write inconsistent rulesets.
Exceptions are okay as long as what they introduce improved something. That's kind of thr whole point. There's always exceptions, always. No game of this complexity never breaks their core rules with any mechanics. As mentioned before, something as benign as ignoring battleshock is "an exception to the core rules." Almost every interesting mechanic in this game is. There's no world where aos is as dynamic and varied as it is while also never changing the core rules across 900 warscrolls. And in this specific example the "easier to remember" argument is nonsensical. Making a unit do mortals on 5s instead of rolling double the dice and doing mortals on 6s is easier for everyone involved and the increased memorization difficulty is nonexistent because it's written right on the scroll. It's the same difficulty as remember the number of attacks. It's the equivalent of giving a unit reroll charges or ignoring battleshock. Am I to believe those mechanics are equally as problematic? We can't introduce any mechanics outside of the core rules because of memorization issues? I'm fine looking at this scenario and saying we have different design philosophies and won't see eye to eye. But the argument that "core rules need to be consistent" just because or because it reduces the need for memorization in a game with over 900 warscrolls is just not gonna hold water for me. It just doesn't feel like an argument grounded in age of sigmar and isn't at all reflective of the actual realities of game design. Games with this many moving pieces always break (sometimes intelligently and sometimes not) tenants set up in the core rules because it keeps things interesting and varied across the many factions and units. Your argument would make more sense if we were talking about a much smaller, more contained product. I brought up kings of war before and it's still the perfect example. The game, at least in my opinion, is boring as shit because of how standardized everything is. I'd be very interested in your take of the game because it seems to fit right in your game design wheelhouse.
Yeah wonder if it's a little upgrade pack like we've seen with giants and slaves or if it's more hobby or something else related.
Honestly even if it’s just the path to glory rules upgrades I’m excited, there’s been some creative stuff they’ve been doing with them. a mount upgrade system like the stormcast have would be really cool, since basically every hero we have can also come mounted on a behemoth
Mount traits would be amazing! Still makes no sense that Orruks and Idoneth have them and we don't...