• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more here.

Age of Sigmar New edition hopes

Irisado

Ancient Vampire Lord
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
625
#2
A new edition already?! That's s slap in the face for all those who've spent a lot of money on rulebooks and expansions in the short time that this game has been on the market. I wish I could say that I am surprised, but I am not. I'm just glad that I haven't purchased any of the books.

As for changes, I agree El Syf. Shooting while in close combat has never felt right to me and ought to be addressed. I also think that they need to take a look at the relative fragility and vulnerability of heroes, notably for armies, such as ours, which depend on them to function.
 

El Syf

Crypt Horror
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
576
#3
Hopefully it won't invalidate everything, that always used to annoy me.
Good point about our heroes, even the named characters can be quite fragile.
It's not goin to happen but Blood Knights need some love, rules wise and model wise (I like the current models but having them in plastic would be good).
 

El Syf

Crypt Horror
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
576
#6
New nighthaunt stuff, black coach is looking good and there's some mystery character they didn't reveal.

 
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
463
#7
A new edition already?! That's s slap in the face for all those who've spent a lot of money on rulebooks and expansions in the short time that this game has been on the market. I wish I could say that I am surprised, but I am not.


IIRC, It was said that the release of new versions of General handbook would have been each year.
 

Count michael

The Undead Sparky
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
768
#8
So there is a Mortarch of Grief now, wonder who she will be and how awesome she looks. Never really got into AOS fully before maybe it was a good thing with a new edition out already soon, wonder how much will be changed with this new edition
 

Irisado

Ancient Vampire Lord
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
625
#9
Unas the slayer: I think that you are right, but that's not exactly the same thing as a new edition, at least not to my mind.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
463
#10
Unas the slayer: I think that you are right, but that's not exactly the same thing as a new edition, at least not to my mind.
Indeed, a new handbook is not exactly a new edition... but I doubt AoS will ever have a new "edition". The basic rules are still those 4 poor pages, and all the rest of the game comes out of the battletomes and the GHB. It's more a constant evolution... til now.


I'm still dubious about it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
173
#11
So the question then is will those 4 core pages get reworked and we still use the existing books, or is it something that will immediately invalidate the past three years material?
 

Irisado

Ancient Vampire Lord
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
625
#12
The four page rules are not a problem for me. It's the fact that it's very difficult to play any of the armies in any meaningful in-depth way without committing to purchasing the supplements that I find problematic, especially when a new edition comes so quickly.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
173
#13
That's always been the achilles heel of GW thought process. People are complaining about the idea of 2nd edition for xwing, but in retrospect they've been going for 6 years with the current rules. What's the longest WHFB or 40k has ever gone without "a new edition"
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,103
#14
I always felt aos was a mess on release, a bunch of ideas i liked in the game, but half baked execution. Many improvements have been made since then, both in the rules via the generals handbooks and in the setting info as the mortal realms have been fleshed out. The design philosophy of the faction rules have also evolved a lot, only recently getting to imo a good and consistent place.

So imo, now is a good time for a new edition, imo more a transition out of beta into a proper initial release. That has me pretty hopeful.

The few details weve heard so far are good, imo. No shooting out of combat was an obvious change needed since day one. All heroes being able to use command abilities could do enough to give wight kings and knights of shrouds new leases on unlife.

The only thing im bitter about is the removal of points values and matched play support from oldhammer armies. Hopefully the community can step in there the way they did when aos released without points at all
 

Menkeroth

A Knight of Blood
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
884
#15
The only thing im bitter about is the removal of points values and matched play support from oldhammer armies. Hopefully the community can step in there the way they did when aos released without points at all
actually, GW shouldn't have brought them back. Points are a lame and bad design method and never give you balance. They only let to that ETC nightmare in WHFB.
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,103
#17
actually, GW shouldn't have brought them back. Points are a lame and bad design method and never give you balance. They only let to that ETC nightmare in WHFB.
They dont give you balance, what they give you is a structure to play a game with, particularly pickup games. If you're just playing out a group storytelling session with your buddies in the basement using toy soldiers as a visual aid, then you don't need official points, and someone telling you what or how many models you can run in your army just gsts in the way. However, the same can be said for official unit profiles, core rules, scenarios, settings, factions, characters, and restricted model ranges.

Basement campaigns don't need any of that. Any bit of it they like they can borrow, but any bit they dont they can jettison. As far as that calvinball type of gaming is concerned, AoS is a model range, one of many, not a game, so it doesn't matter whether or not that game has points values.

But if you want to engage with age of sigmar AS a game, a game like risk or monopoly or parcheesy or yugioh, where each gameplay session is its own playfully competitive experience, a fame you can play with a stranger and use as an ice breaking activity tk make new friends rather than an activity that requires you to already be friends, then some sort of strucfute is needed. It doesn't have to be points.

In magic the gathering, its a minimum number of cards, maximum of each given card, and mana costs. That system isn't 'perfectly balanced' either, in that you can't grab cards at random, or purely for narrative reasons, and expect a deck that plays well as one that is deliberately constructed. Likewise, while there are a number of different faction-like themes you can base a deck on (colors, tribes, guilds, etc), those themes aren't perfectly balanced against each other, either. You can build a samurai deck, but such a deck isn't going to beat a competitive tournament deck built to win rather than evoke a theme. Even at the level of mana costs of individual cards the game isnt perfectly balanced.

From this perpective, MtG's balance is not only less than perfect, it's also no more balanced than any GW points system has ever been. BUT balance is only a secondary goal. Balance as good as possible while allowing the meta to shift and evolve so the game doesn't grow stale is desired and shoyld be aimed for even if attaining perfect balance is impossible, but the system is really there for structure. To enable games.

One area magic has a big leg up in is having diffetent formats. Sealed, draft, commander, standard, block, vintage, etc, with different restrictions leading to different play experiences. GW games are only just experimenting with this, but instead of different formats with different structures, we have matched play with some structure, and narrativa and open play with none at all. Skirmish and path to glory are much better examples of alternate formats, and i hope they continue to see refinement going forward.

Magic also had a more clearly defined gap between casual 'friday night magic' and tournament games, with local stores typically regularly running both. And games are shorter, so if your casual goblin deck gets smacked down by some hard core tournament deck, the game doesnt last long enough to get frustrating, you both have a laigh, and move on to other games against other players. GW games tend to last so long that a bad matchup can ruin your entire afternoon of gaming.

Magic also encourages collecting multiple decks, so the same player might be carrying casual and tournament decks, and can pull out whichever is appropriate for a given opponent.

Each warhammer army costs hundreds of dollars and work hours to collect, assemble, and paint, so that's not especially viable. Shardspire tries to be an alternative here, but that games a bit wonky, and the figures dont transition super well into regular armies. Skirmish is a better alternative here, and i almost wish gw would roll the skirmish rules into the free core rules and just make a revised version of skirmish the primary default 'way to play'.

Im rambling now, but in general my experience is that points, or something like them, are needed for AoS to work as a game, especially a pick up game. They do get in the way of basement battle campaigns, but those can just ditch points, along with any other game element that doesnt fit the players' vision.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
96
#18
AOS is designed around the old Warhammer fantasy battles of the 80's, the golden years of GW's rise to power. Allows for small skirmishes type battles and in the old book, allowed for players to build a warband of different "followers". Big battles was to be fought wit the armies book of rules. I see a lot of those ideas in AOS. Not saying thats good, i think a tad more balance for today's players are in order. War bands in the original books didn't rely on points, only army games, which is closer to what we still have.
 

Menkeroth

A Knight of Blood
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
884
#19
Exactly, that's my point. And besides, you can have whatever structure suits you and your missions, points are the worst method of anything really.
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,103
#20
Made up personal structure again only works for games against people you already know with whon you've already worked this stuff out. Official structure is required for pick up games.if not points than something else, but telling players to just work it out for themselves is abandoning the hardest and most important job of the rules writers. If the game isnt going to provide that, then the game might as well not exist at all. Just put out a figure line, and dont pretend to publish rules at all.

But games with pretty models and no game dont get played and dont get purchased, and i wonder how many times GW needs to be taught this lesson. This is exactly what killed Inquisitor in its crib, and it was killing AoS too until GW came to their senses and realized the only thing keeping the game on life support was the community efforts to write in their own points systems.

Points arent needed specifically, but if the game doesnt have them it needs to replace them with something else. You cant just pull points and say 'do whatever'. That would be like removing all of a person's bonez, then expecting them to thank you because now they can move however they want, igniring the fact that those bones were needed to move at all.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
96
#21
This is all true. The game has changed over the years. The warband ideas works great, but is made for small battles whether it is AOS or necromunda. Tourney games and any large games kinda have to have them to balance the game. Not to mention, players today have a hard time IMO with AOS' rules idea because lets face it, 30yrs ago when the warband rules worked, was before half of today's players were born ( ouch that hurt :0 ).
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,103
#23
Warband rules are a fine replacement for points, but:

1- they need to actually exist. AoS didn't even have those when it came out.

2- they don't need perfect balane, but they do need 'good enough' balance. When one player gets d6 clanrats and another gets a zombie dragon in the same slot, that isn't super fun.

3- they're generally structured around campaigns, which rewuire regular games against a regular pool of players. They don't work for pick up games, and pick up games are all that a lot of pkayers, including myself, can get. My friendgroup dropped gw when gs dropped the old world, the local store is a ways away, and my work schedule isnt consistent enough to sign onto a regular campaign or league, and im far from alone in that.

A lot of players need a version of this game that can be played against a stranger in a one off session. Points arent the only way to support that, but they are the only way that GW has found in any version of warhammer so far.

To be clear, i dont look down on or dislike campaign based warband play. My best memories of any gw game are playing campaigns of mordheim in college. Small game campaigns with warbands that persist and evolve from game to game are the best and funnest way to play these games. But they're also the way that requires the biggest overhead in space, time, organization, and consistent player pool, and as such is just entirely out of reach for many players.
 

Count michael

The Undead Sparky
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
768
#24
https://www.warhammer-community.com...ilities-and-command-pointsgw-homepage-post-2/
Latest preview for new edition, focusing on command points, any hero / character can use their command abilities regardless of being General or not however they are bringing Command points from 40k which are required to use them. I really dislike Command points from 40k as they are generally unfair for certain armies who find it harder to access more due to unit cost compared to other armies which can easily amass quite large number due to more easily cheap and spammable units
 
Top