• 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*

Tyranitar said:
While that's a possibility, reducing the overall table size doesn't necessarily mean armies start closer. They could keep the same distance between starting territories, you'd just have less space for deployment for example
Click to expand...

Canas said:
well that doesn't sound hopefull...
Click to expand...

@Tyranitar and @Nart are right, in 40k the table is now much smaller, but the initial distance between armies is unchanged.
That reduces A LOT the "camping shooting line" approaches, with tanks sitting in the rearlines and shooting you out of the table. That, and the new focus on objectives (which is already a thing well known in AoS)
 
Ah, I was thinking that everything just got smaller. So in 40K, do you basically just have to deploy all in a clump due to the smaller area? Now I don't really understand the reasoning behind smaller board sizes.
 
Kilvakar said:
Ah, I was thinking that everything just got smaller. So in 40K, do you basically just have to deploy all in a clump due to the smaller area? Now I don't really understand the reasoning behind smaller board sizes.
Click to expand...

yep its pretty lame
 
Kilvakar said:
Ah, I was thinking that everything just got smaller. So in 40K, do you basically just have to deploy all in a clump due to the smaller area? Now I don't really understand the reasoning behind smaller board sizes.
Click to expand...

I think the reasoning behind it was to make the game a little bit more approachable and fit on a standardised 8-seat table. But that's just my own theory :rolleyes:
 
Kilvakar said:
Ah, I was thinking that everything just got smaller. So in 40K, do you basically just have to deploy all in a clump due to the smaller area? Now I don't really understand the reasoning behind smaller board sizes.
Click to expand...

In 40k the smaller sizes was to prevent the super deep, shoot you from across the map type of deployment and strategy. At least that's what they said. Functionally, the new size is a multiple of the kill team board and can more easily fit into standardized GW boxes (or so i've heard).

40k has always suffered from "deploy in a clump behind a building" because the kill potential in that game is off the charts.
 
Putzfrau said:
In 40k the smaller sizes was to prevent the super deep, shoot you from across the map type of deployment and strategy. At least that's what they said. Functionally, the new size is a multiple of the kill team board and can more easily fit into standardized GW boxes (or so i've heard).
Click to expand...
I mean it might help more to not put guns with 60" ranges into the game if they want to prevent people from shooting across the map. A smaller board doesn't really fix that, it just means the melee troops can now need to run less far to reach whomever shooting them from the other side of the board.
 
My 2 cps.
there were 3 problems (among other ones) in 40k:
1) camping armies that shoot you from the other side of the table
2) crippling deep strikes
3) poor performance by melee armies

now i now that some of these issues seem to counter each other (you camp and shoot? i deep strike), but the reality was that these strategies were obnoxious.
shorter tables mean that:
1) you cannot put your gunline too far behind. it's a gamestyle that actually is far less playable
2) it's easier to negate deep strikes if you know what you're doing. the game is encouraging tactical placements when before there was little you could do.
3) brutal melee armies can shine more.

that said, i will stop here, as it's OT for the thread.
 
Canas said:
I mean it might help more to not put guns with 60" ranges into the game if they want to prevent people from shooting across the map. A smaller board doesn't really fix that, it just means the melee troops can now need to run less far to reach whomever shooting them from the other side of the board.
Click to expand...

I think we are saying the same thing. Your strategy can't be "deploy in a corner" because its not a functional strategy anymore.
 
Last edited:
Personally, when it comes to 40k, I find it more worthwhile to keep in mind that it's at best a skirmish game at battle sizes of up to 2000pts, and should be treated as such. Keeping in line with this, I can't see there being any reason why players could or should neglect their infantry complement, or load up on units that really only have a home in larger games (especially artillery, tank squadrons and lords of war, most of which requiring a lot more tablespace to properly function as advertised anyway).

Whilst the smaller board sizes (thus reducing the size of the deployment zones) could help play into this idea, there's no reason why it couldn't work on the original 4' × 6' board, especially when previous editions (even as late as 7th Ed if its Horus Heresy spin-off is any indication) had little issue with encouraging that mentality.
 
Well the community website reveal today was dissapointing for Kroak, everyone else make me think they are going to be good.

Kroaks- he's old and good at magic.. Well yeah that's the current case
 
Hmm, obviously Kragnos isn't going to get *all* of those 36 potential mortal wounds off on the charge, but holy cow, if that isn't insane!

The "Kroak's old and is good at magic" thing doesn't really disappoint me, that's always been his thing. I'm just hoping that he's a caster on par with or better than Teclis, because he should be. Especially if the rumors about everything being capped at a +/-1 modifier are true, as that basically makes Lumineth unstoppable when it comes to magic and makes everyone else more or less the same, as everyone is now sitting at a max of +1 to cast :(
 
Skained said:
I think kragnos will have the same ability as ogors, will roll the same number of dice as the result to charge and 4/5 + will do d3 mw, 12 * 3 = 36mw
Click to expand...

Ah, that sounds very likely
 
Kilvakar said:
as everyone is now sitting at a max of +1 to cast
Click to expand...

+1/-1 cap applies only to hit/wound modifiers. Absolutely not for casts, since it will render useless a lot of abilities, which give plain +2 or more (like Nagash, which haven't changed at all in new BT).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top