Age of sigmar

[Tawg]

Legolas uses his bow in two ways in CC, a) using the actual bow as a weapon to hit with, catching people in the string etc and b) firing at point blank range. Sisters of Avelorn as I said have a firing at point blank range special rule so no problem there. Using your bow as a melee weapon, if there are archers that have bows with a melee profile, again, no problem there. But actually firing a bow, during the shooting phase, whilst the unit is engaged is engaged in close combat? That seems lacking in common sense.

THAT is my "silly" issue. Missile units being able to fire out of combat or at the unit that they're locked in combat with, in the shooting phase, whilst being locked in combat.

Yeah, I mean, you can claim logic on that, but I could cry "Crazy over the top fantasy!" and pretend it makes sense. But also, in a much more fluid representation, it doesn't mean they are standing still with a guy swinging axes in their face shooting. And Gods know the game is far more abstract now than ever.

I don't know if you play 40k, but it's similar in concept to how "Gargantuan/Super Heavy Walkers" do Stomp attacks, where they "Rampage" through the enemy army literally walking all over their forces. But the representation calls for you to place templates up to as far as, I think around 12" or so away from the model, at the farthest? And I mean, you could say "Uh your guy can't step on things all the way over there!" But the rule specifically states that it's simply a representation of the effect, and that though the model has not moved from it's position, we assume it had done so during the "Abstracted" events of the turn. So you could think of it like that.

As for my close combat quandry:
View attachment 56456

So the previous combat phase had seen L1 charge at the K-rath. The surviving L1 was where he was because that was the full charge range used up.

During his charge phase the Klord had come into combat, then L2 were in range after moving to charge into him in my subsequent phase.

So. Both Krath and Klord were in combat with L1. L2 were in combat with Klord.

Since it was my turn I opted to complete the L2 combat first. So my L2s hit, and I think take a wound or two off the Klord, nothing significant.

Now... here's where it gets messy. He gets to make his responding attacks after my L2s attack.

The Klord is in combat with BOTH L2 and L1. Since the Krath is also in combat with L1, he is under the impression that his Krath can make its 3" pile in to get into combat with the remaining L1. He can then opt to direct all the Krath's attacks against the L1, and then his Klords attacks against L2.

IMO he should only have been able to make his responding attacks with his Klord, THEN it would be my turn to resolve the final L1s attacks, THEN his Krath would get to respond and pile in.

Either way, it is unclear to me, and whichever way is the correct way, is still messy and not clear cut.

Ok, yeah no. Combat doesn't seem to follow that course of logic any more. It's no longer "this combat, then this one" it's simply taking turn attacking with units that are in combat across the board.

In this way, I charged with a unit of Dire Wolves (Ours, with +1 to wound on the charge), and I attacked with them first because the combat was similar to your example, with me having skeletons in a fight with Ogres and then the Dire Wovles charged both the Ogres and the Firebelly behind them. I didn't want the D-Wolves to die before they attacked the Firebelly, so I struck with them first. But then his Ogres were the obvious choice to attack with because they could kill skeletons before they had a chance to strike.

In fact, the Chaos in the starter set specifically have a special rule, I think called No Respite or something? Where if they are killed, they pile-in and attack in response. So even if you leave them to go last they can attack in a given combat. Or if you attack with them first, and they get killed by the retaliation, they get a second attack right before they die in the same turn!

But yea, I don't think your friend was wrong in how to play with AoS rules.

 

[Banat]

No repsite just means that Blood Warriors (and only Blood Warriors) get to make an attack even if they die before they've made an attack. If they've already made an attack then, as far as I believe, and the way it was played yesterday, they don't make a FURTHER attack.

Unlike the new Vanhels =P Pile in and attack TWICE in the same combat round.

 

[Tawg]

It's a fantasy world, it's cries for your imagination (especially considering all those tons of paint schemes and conversion variants). If you are a true hobbyist, you will put all your energy and efforts to make it look how you feel it should. Not to go somewhere else, it's not a game in the first place, and never was. It's a world with great plastic and metal warriors, waiting for you to shape them according to your desires and vision.

Incidentally, one thing I am less of a fan of with the newer AoS kits that have been shown thus far is some of the details. I know they are trying to make more strongly identifiably brand marketing, so I am worried some of the aesthetics are going to be a little off putting. Like, I don't mind the Sigmar guys, and I get the whole "Doubled headed Comet & Hammers" thing they have going on, but.. if I don't like Hammers, or what to have a visual "Flair" different than that, I'll have to work really hard to nix their iconography. And the Scroll-things hanging off them having pre-resessed runes for painting ease. Just encase I'd rather like, freehand my own icons or words even. But that can be filled I guess. It's good and bad, just a bit more work for me if I want to go out of my way.

But it shouldn't be too big of a deal.

 

[Tawg]

No repsite just means that Blood Warriors (and only Blood Warriors) get to make an attack even if they die before they've made an attack. If they've already made an attack then, as far as I believe, and the way it was played yesterday, they don't make a FURTHER attack.

Unlike the new Vanhels =P Pile in and attack TWICE in the same combat round.

Nope, I hope it's not giving away free rules to post this but:

"If a model from this unit is slain in the combat phase, you can make a pile in move and then attack with the model before it is removed."

Definitely able to attack twice, it's just a strike back for killing them :ghost:

But yeah, I knew that was only them. But I assume other units moving forward (Or golly gosh, formations I hope they bring the coolest rules!) could expand on that type of thing, allowing for really interesting interactions.

 

[Sception]

Sorry if I missed this - just got back from out of town - but what are people's thoughts on how access to the summoning spells work? Do death wizards only have the spells to summon units while those units are actually on the table (ie, no summoning a terrorgheist unless another terrorgheist is already on the table to confer the spell), or are those spells intended to be added to death wizards by default, and are only listed with particular units to keep things tidy?

From my reading, the intent feels to me to be the latter (though I'm not expecting any faq now or ever that might clarify this), but I can definitely see the case for the former, that death wizards only have those spells as long as such a unit is already on the table, and honestly, with as powerful as summoning already is (remember, an enemy wizard has to be in range to even try to dispel) and as many stacking bonuses to casting rolls as we can already get (Nagash, unwounded and within range of a lodestone corpse cart, a mortis engine with tome, and a morghast, has +6 to cast summoning spells and doubles the amount summoned, which means he auto succeeds at summoning any of the following:

From VC scrolls:

Spoiler

4 archai
4 harbingers
6 vargheists (needs 5 on 2d6 for 12 instead)
6 fell bats
40 zombies, which can immediately join any existing unit of zombies
10 dire wolves (needs 4 on 2d6 for 20 instead)
20 skeletons (needs 4 on 2d6 for 40 instead)
10 grave guard (needs 4 on 2d6 for 20 instead)
10 black knights (needs 4 on 2d6 for 20 instead)
20 ghouls (needs 4 on 2d6 for 40 instead)
6 crypt horrors (needs 5 on 2d6 for 12 instead)
2 varghulfs
2 wraiths
2 banshees
6 spirit hosts (needs 4 on 2d6 for 12 instead)
10 hex wraiths (needs 5 on 2d6 for 20 instead)

only needs 4 on 2d6 to summon 2 terrorgheists or zombie dragons, and its unclear whether those are supposed to be able to come with riders attached.

From TK scrolls:

Spoiler

20 skeletons (4 on 2d6 for 40)
20 skeleton archers (4 on 2d6 for 40)
10 skeleton horsemen (4 on 2d6 for 20)
10 skeleton horse archers (4 on 2d6 for 20)
10 tomb guard (4 on 2d6 for 20)
6 carrion
6 tomb swarms

And he can cast 8 spells a turn.

Now, granted, he's nagash, and he's properly nutty, but with +3 to cast from morghasts, corpse cart, and mortis engine, even basic necromancers auto-cast most of the basic summoning spells, and if they're more then 18" from the enemy they can do so without fear of getting dispelled by enemy wizards. even 2 necromancers with those buffs are putting out 20 free zombies a turn, guaranteed, with a solid chance of 30 or 40. Requiring that there already be zombies / skeleton archers / what have you already on the table seems like, if anything, an insufficient check on that potential.

 

[Undying Scourge]

Nope, I hope it's not giving away free rules to post this but:

"If a model from this unit is slain in the combat phase, you can make a pile in move and then attack with the model before it is removed."

Definitely able to attack twice, it's just a strike back for killing them :ghost:

But yeah, I knew that was only them. But I assume other units moving forward (Or golly gosh, formations I hope they bring the coolest rules!) could expand on that type of thing, allowing for really interesting interactions.

And they say AoS has no depth.

What I really like about it now is that the tactics and strategy are more organic and not rigidly enforced, like in deployment you can start deploying then they deploy one unit etc. But you can play mind games with your opponent, forcing them to deploy certain units and bluffing with them to draw out certain units, and the sudden death thing makes it so that you're always wondering who's going to stop first, and it makes you look at the table as you're both deploying and analyse the forces set up and whether you or they have the advantage, and then if you think you have the advantage you can stop and then they are forced to either stop also or continue and risk getting a sudden death condition brought into play.

 

[Tawg]

Sorry if I missed this - just got back from out of town - but what are people's thoughts on how access to the summoning spells work? Do death wizards only have the spells to summon units while those units are actually on the table (ie, no summoning a terrorgheist unless another terrorgheist is already on the table to confer the spell), or are those spells intended to be added to death wizards by default, and are only listed with particular units to keep things tidy?

From my reading, the intent feels to me to be the latter (though I'm not expecting any faq now or ever that might clarify this), but I can definitely see the case for the former, that death wizards only have those spells as long as such a unit is already on the table, and honestly, with as powerful as summoning already is (remember, an enemy wizard has to be in range to even try to dispel) and as many stacking bonuses to casting rolls as we can already get (Nagash, unwounded and within range of a lodestone corpse cart, a mortis engine with tome, and a morghast, has +6 to cast summoning spells and doubles the amount summoned, which means he auto succeeds at summoning any of the following:

From VC scrolls:

Spoiler

4 archai
4 harbingers
6 vargheists (needs 5 on 2d6 for 12 instead)
6 fell bats
40 zombies, which can immediately join any existing unit of zombies
10 dire wolves (needs 4 on 2d6 for 20 instead)
20 skeletons (needs 4 on 2d6 for 40 instead)
10 grave guard (needs 4 on 2d6 for 20 instead)
10 black knights (needs 4 on 2d6 for 20 instead)
20 ghouls (needs 4 on 2d6 for 40 instead)
6 crypt horrors (needs 5 on 2d6 for 12 instead)
2 varghulfs
2 wraiths
2 banshees
6 spirit hosts (needs 4 on 2d6 for 12 instead)
10 hex wraiths (needs 5 on 2d6 for 20 instead)

only needs 4 on 2d6 to summon 2 terrorgheists or zombie dragons, and its unclear whether those are supposed to be able to come with riders attached.

From TK scrolls:

Spoiler

20 skeletons (4 on 2d6 for 40)
20 skeleton archers (4 on 2d6 for 40)
10 skeleton horsemen (4 on 2d6 for 20)
10 skeleton horse archers (4 on 2d6 for 20)
10 tomb guard (4 on 2d6 for 20)
6 carrion
6 tomb swarms

And he can cast 8 spells a turn.

Now, granted, he's nagash, and he's properly nutty, but with +3 to cast from morghasts, corpse cart, and mortis engine, even basic necromancers auto-cast most of the basic summoning spells, and if they're more then 18" from the enemy they can do so without fear of getting dispelled by enemy wizards. even 2 necromancers with those buffs are putting out 20 free zombies a turn, guaranteed, with a solid chance of 30 or 40. Requiring that there already be zombies / skeleton archers / what have you already on the table seems like, if anything, an insufficient check on that potential.

As to fielding vs always having the spells, the limit would appear to be.. what you can actually table. So obviously a Terrorgeist only if you have the model, but I don't see why you would have to field one to summon one (Except to give more money to GW). And what you feel good about when you throw down on your opponent. But I mean if you're playing what would have been a 2k+ game previously, (So fairly large forces), then the summoning and everything is probably going to happen, for sure.

I don't know if they are planning on releasing further WarScrolls/Formations moving forward in the living rules, or if only the "Prior" models so you can plan with what you already have without struggle. Because if they aren't then bear in mind you'd have to purchase a model to even have the available WarScroll (Which I think will be the case? Not sure), and thus the summon, or field-able unit. I guess that doesn't really answer the question though. It would just depend on how strongly you want to restrict games.

I saw that advice given to GW managers trying to Demo the game/help players get on with the AoS in store, if they wanted to feel like there was "Composition" with the lack of points, they suggested restricting the game to like 5-6 WarScrolls each and no duplicate units. So that would hinder your ability to summon, I would say. But without adding in that restriction via scenario or house rule, I think you could reasonably summon anything you have a model to represent.

 

[Tawg]

And they say AoS has no depth.

What I really like about it now is that the tactics and strategy are more organic and not rigidly enforced, like in deployment you can start deploying then they deploy one unit etc. But you can play mind games with your opponent, forcing them to deploy certain units and bluffing with them to draw out certain units, and the sudden death thing makes it so that you're always wondering who's going to stop first, and it makes you look at the table as you're both deploying and analyse the forces set up and whether you or they have the advantage, and then if you think you have the advantage you can stop and then they are forced to either stop also or continue and risk getting a sudden death condition brought into play.

Ehhhhhh, yeah. I would feel more comfortable agreeing on forces before hand, at least limits like "No more than 10 units" or anything. Rather than "Wait, what, you're putting down every model you own, why did I stop?!"

I dunno. The game definitely needs structure, and I'm waiting with baited breath to see the Box Set, because I hear they have scenarios in the book that comes with it, so I'm hoping. But I am not thinking that the "playing chicken" aspect of set ups is a good thing. As far as "depth" or "tactics" are concerned.

It's like M:tG. It's not fun to play decks that are too good against weak decks, unless your trying to homebrew a counter deck or just test match ups so you know how to play against a better deck. But if you're sitting down to have fun with friends, playing your T1-kill is not going to fly vs a starter deck. And just the same, organizing and playing with friends will require the same efforts now for AoS.

 

[Menkeroth]

Incidentally, one thing I am less of a fan of with the newer AoS kits that have been shown thus far is some of the details. I know they are trying to make more strongly identifiably brand marketing, so I am worried some of the aesthetics are going to be a little off putting. Like, I don't mind the Sigmar guys, and I get the whole "Doubled headed Comet & Hammers" thing they have going on, but.. if I don't like Hammers, or what to have a visual "Flair" different than that, I'll have to work really hard to nix their iconography. And the Scroll-things hanging off them having pre-resessed runes for painting ease. Just encase I'd rather like, freehand my own icons or words even. But that can be filled I guess. It's good and bad, just a bit more work for me if I want to go out of my way.

But it shouldn't be too big of a deal.

Aye, I think so as well. I also don't like the new Sigmarites (not my style or army and too much Blood Angels Sanguinary Guard in them) but they are great in their own right, and it's starter minis anyway - they are always made this way. On the other hand, the new khornates are awesome and never were that dynamic. Let's just hope the new boxes for the other races will be this great and multi-part plastic kits.

 

[Zacharias]

Sorry if I missed this - just got back from out of town - but what are people's thoughts on how access to the summoning spells work? Do death wizards only have the spells to summon units while those units are actually on the table (ie, no summoning a terrorgheist unless another terrorgheist is already on the table to confer the spell), or are those spells intended to be added to death wizards by default, and are only listed with particular units to keep things tidy?

From my reading, the intent feels to me to be the latter (though I'm not expecting any faq now or ever that might clarify this), but I can definitely see the case for the former, that death wizards only have those spells as long as such a unit is already on the table, and honestly, with as powerful as summoning already is (remember, an enemy wizard has to be in range to even try to dispel) and as many stacking bonuses to casting rolls as we can already get (Nagash, unwounded and within range of a lodestone corpse cart, a mortis engine with tome, and a morghast, has +6 to cast summoning spells and doubles the amount summoned, which means he auto succeeds at summoning any of the following:

From VC scrolls:

Spoiler

4 archai
4 harbingers
6 vargheists (needs 5 on 2d6 for 12 instead)
6 fell bats
40 zombies, which can immediately join any existing unit of zombies
10 dire wolves (needs 4 on 2d6 for 20 instead)
20 skeletons (needs 4 on 2d6 for 40 instead)
10 grave guard (needs 4 on 2d6 for 20 instead)
10 black knights (needs 4 on 2d6 for 20 instead)
20 ghouls (needs 4 on 2d6 for 40 instead)
6 crypt horrors (needs 5 on 2d6 for 12 instead)
2 varghulfs
2 wraiths
2 banshees
6 spirit hosts (needs 4 on 2d6 for 12 instead)
10 hex wraiths (needs 5 on 2d6 for 20 instead)

only needs 4 on 2d6 to summon 2 terrorgheists or zombie dragons, and its unclear whether those are supposed to be able to come with riders attached.

From TK scrolls:

Spoiler

20 skeletons (4 on 2d6 for 40)
20 skeleton archers (4 on 2d6 for 40)
10 skeleton horsemen (4 on 2d6 for 20)
10 skeleton horse archers (4 on 2d6 for 20)
10 tomb guard (4 on 2d6 for 20)
6 carrion
6 tomb swarms

And he can cast 8 spells a turn.

Now, granted, he's nagash, and he's properly nutty, but with +3 to cast from morghasts, corpse cart, and mortis engine, even basic necromancers auto-cast most of the basic summoning spells, and if they're more then 18" from the enemy they can do so without fear of getting dispelled by enemy wizards. even 2 necromancers with those buffs are putting out 20 free zombies a turn, guaranteed, with a solid chance of 30 or 40. Requiring that there already be zombies / skeleton archers / what have you already on the table seems like, if anything, an insufficient check on that potential.

Love your way of thinking but if you owned all those models what is to stop you just putting them down on the table at the start instead of raising?

 

[Undying Scourge]

Love your way of thinking but if you owned all those models what is to stop you just putting them down on the table at the start instead of raising?

Honour, and respect for your opponent. But it's a valid argument nonetheless, some people will always try to do this.

 

[Zacharias]

Anyone know what the Mordant are, states in Necromancer rules for Van Hels

 

[Tawg]

@Banat Yeah, reading into it, look at Empire Gunners. They have the rule:

Steady Aim: You can add 1 to the hit rolls for an Empire Handgunner in your shooting phase so long as its unit did not move in the preceding movement phase and there are no enemy models within 3" of its unit.

The only way to be within 3" is being in combat. This directly implies the intent to shot while "engaged". I don't think it's a flaw in the game, I think it's just a mental hurdle for us to leap since we are use to the whole "But what if I shoot my friends?!" thing. The game is just more abstract.

 

[Zacharias]

Also guessing you can just agree with whomever your playing about combinations of armies, if you wanted to take the forces of the undead instead of just VC, don't want my TK VC conversions going to waste

 

[Tawg]

Anyone know what the Mordant are, states in Necromancer rules for Van Hels

It's a keyword applied to all the previously called "Ghoul" type units. Just a new keyword they thought up.

 

[Zacharias]

It's a keyword applied to all the previously called "Ghoul" type units. Just a new keyword they thought up.

Thanks, not sure how I missed that

 

[GDD]

I have three pages to read in this thread to catch up. BUT NEVER MIND THAT! http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-big-rulebook-on-the-way.html

LIST BUILDING.

I pray to any gods willing to listen that this is true.

 

[Infernal Skull]

There are already plastic blood knights on the market, I have 5

Do you have pics of those? Are they from GW, or another company?

1. there is nothing to say you can't still rank and file your units, I spoke to someone in the workshops and your own troops don't need to be a minimum distance from each other so you can still movement tray up as normal

I just played a game today and started with my models ranked on a tray. As soon as I got into combat, they needed to pile in and the unit ended up lapping out of the tray to engage the enemy and get every model as close as possible to maximize attacks. Units don't form up in any way after combats and, if it is a prolonged fight, they'll displace from their tray even further with subsequent pile-in moves.

Then the unit was a scattered mess, and unless I wanted to spend most of my next movement getting them back in order, they had to stay messed up. So, yes, you can use trays, but the models will wind up "skirmished" all over the general place where the tray is.

2. It makes no sense that you can take whatever you want, where would be the incentive to ever take certain unit types, surely a combination of troop types and wounds would make the most sense for balancing armies, for example: 10 lord wounds, 100 core wounds, 30 special unit wounds, 30 rare unit wounds (balanced without putting any thought into it)

Even counting wounds doesn't seem like it would "balance" out. Is a 1-wound Chaos Warrior equal to a 1-wound Zombie?

The Klord is in combat with BOTH L2 and L1. Since the Krath is also in combat with L1, he is under the impression that his Krath can make its 3" pile in to get into combat with the remaining L1. He can then opt to direct all the Krath's attacks against the L1, and then his Klords attacks against L2.

IMO he should only have been able to make his responding attacks with his Klord, THEN it would be my turn to resolve the final L1s attacks, THEN his Krath would get to respond and pile in.

Each player takes turns attacking with one of their units. The units don't have to be in any order and don't even have to be in the same combat. It can literally be any combat on the table.

So, in your example, if you attacked first with L2, then yes, your opponent could select the K-Rathto attack next. During his attack, if L1 is within 3", the K-Rath piles in and makes his attacks.Then you pick a unit that has not attacked yet. If L1 is killed by the K-Rath, then you have no more units to attack with, so he moves on to his K-Lord, who can pile in and make attacks.

 

[Infernal Skull]

I have three pages to read in this thread to catch up. BUT NEVER MIND THAT! http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-big-rulebook-on-the-way.html

LIST BUILDING.

I pray to any gods willing to listen that this is true.

I think I'm done with BOLS Warhammer rumors. Look where that's gotten us.

 

[Undying Scourge]

The blood knights he was referring to are chinese recasts.

Regarding rumours, I think listening to them is... not the best thing to do. Like you said Infernal, the rumours surrounding AoS were unreliable and untrustworthy, so I think that listening to them should be done with trepidation, as usual, if you listen to them at all.

However that being said that rumour is very interesting. A BRB would be quite nice I must admit. Let's wait and see.

 

[LordTobiothan]

Honour, and respect for your opponent. But it's a valid argument nonetheless, some people will always try to do this.

I think you need to show some more respect to your opponent and buy more models to play him.

Funny thing about whats considered unsportsmanlike, it tends to be just above or higher than whatever level of playing the guy calling unsportsmanship plays at.

If the new system is field whatever you want, I'd imagine you'd be the one considered a d**k, telling people to play at or below your preferred model count, which to you is the perfectly reasonable option, while you consider them the ahole for wanting to field their 10,000 model force vs your 3000 models, when he is also perfectly within the rules and intentions of them.

 

[Draykorinee]

Then the unit was a scattered mess, and unless I wanted to spend most of my next movement getting them back in order, they had to stay messed up. So, yes, you can use trays, but the models will wind up "skirmished" all over the general place where the tray is.

Is this true? I convinced my friend last night to give AoS a go and told him we can still do movement trays, he hated the skirmish movement I guess I'll find out this week.

 

[Emicrania]

Actually ALL the rumors about AoS where true: unbalanced ,pamphlet size rulebook,round base, no codex.

On the side note, the game have no structure, you can put it as you want,but the fact that WE must talk and agree how and when to balance it,is horsedung.
If you go to buy a burger,they don't give you the ingredients on a plate and let you assemble it as you want.

When and if they come out with some sort of structure,maybe I can try it,untill than, I'll keep on playing real games.

 

[Zacharias]

The blood knights he was referring to are chinese recasts.

Regarding rumours, I think listening to them is... not the best thing to do. Like you said Infernal, the rumours surrounding AoS were unreliable and untrustworthy, so I think that listening to them should be done with trepidation, as usual, if you listen to them at all.

However that being said that rumour is very interesting. A BRB would be quite nice I must admit. Let's wait and see.

Actually bought them in the games workshop, check the website, read the description.

 

[KhazModan]

Have you guyes read the new Chaos lord? On a 4+ each turn he can summon as many Chaos warriors as he wants to fight for him..... poor Nagash can be outdone by a Chaos lord when it comes to "summoning" :tongue: