Age of sigmar
- Thread starter El Syf
- Start date
-
The masquerade of murder returns! A new game of Vampires Amongst Us has begun. Unmask the killers, trust no one, and try to survive the night. Find out more and sign up now!
I like many of the things you say @EternallyUndying but I really disagree that losing 'old timers' has any significant effect on sales. Sure there are weirdos like me that keep spending insane amounts on plasticrack but let us face it: The veteran players has never been the ones who brought in the revenue, that is the kids (and indirectly their parents). Whenever I speak to people living off selling GW products (which I do a lot since some of my best friends are GW managers 
) what I hear them say is: The entry level is way too high and we lose a lot of potential young customers because of this (this is no news to us). I think AoS will really fix this 
) what I hear them say is: The entry level is way too high and we lose a lot of potential young customers because of this (this is no news to us). I think AoS will really fix this 
Emicrania
Wight King
I like many of the things you say @EternallyUndying but I really disagree that losing 'old timers' has any significant effect on sales. Sure there are weirdos like me that keep spending insane amounts on plasticrack but let us face it: The veteran players has never been the ones who brought in the revenue, that is the kids (and indirectly their parents). Whenever I speak to people living off selling GW products (which I do a lot since some of my best friends are GW managers :tongue: ) what I hear them say is: The entry level is way too high and we lose a lot of potential young customers because of this (this is no news to us). I think AoS will really fix this
This really make think that the truth is just that we are the old farts and the new young blood is the future.
Or maybe not,maybe is just in the name of ever rising stock market action and whoever does not follow the lead can hang themselves or play a game made for kids.
Reposting from a different site. If this isn't legit, I'm sending the entirety of my undead hordes after the troll that made it...and I mean that in the most nicest way possible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3iUmocmCYCUWFRzcWdQTGcxS0U/view?pli=1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3iUmocmCYCUWFRzcWdQTGcxS0U/view?pli=1
Undying Scourge
Blood Knight
Reposting from a different site. If this isn't legit, I'm sending the entirety of my undead hordes after the troll that made it...and I mean that in the most nicest way possible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3iUmocmCYCUWFRzcWdQTGcxS0U/view?pli=1
It says at the beginning that it's unofficial.
Menkeroth
A Knight of Blood
Aye, it was copied that way I guess. But anyway, not that bad, is it?
I'm planning to. My schedule is tight right now, but me and some of the guys on my team are figuring out the best approach to this. I know the formations are in the game, already seen it and I have more on tactics to share soon to. The game has alot going on.
Most of these rules aren't needed. The two I like are units within 3" of enemy can't shoot and summoned units can't act. Look out sir could make characters to strong.Reposting from a different site. If this isn't legit, I'm sending the entirety of my undead hordes after the troll that made it...and I mean that in the most nicest way possible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3iUmocmCYCUWFRzcWdQTGcxS0U/view?pli=1
I would prevent summoned units from acting at all that turn, not just waiting until after the hero phase. No shooting or charging that turn either, imo. Just me. I'd also like to see units a player intends to be available for summoning being included in some sort of reserve pile or sideboard, and counted for outnumbering purposes or whatsits. But that would interact poorly with the proposed wound limits if they were to count for that, so... I don't know.
I also like the 'no shooting while within 3" of an enemy model' bit.
I'd like to see a clarification specifically allowing the 3" pile move to be made however one likes, so long as the model ends the move closer to an enemy unit that some model in their unit was already within 3" of. People are currently interpreting pile in moves as 'in a straight line towards the closest enemy model", which currently prevents lapping around, but can force units to split apart as models farther from the combat split off to chase another enemy unit that they're not even engaged with just because the nearest model of that unit is closer than the nearest model of the unit they're actually fighting. Neither of those results of what seems to be the current going interpretation seems intentional to me.
I don't know about look out sir. I do feel it's way too easy for cannons or the like to pick off typical 5 wound heroes at this point, but if they were rendered largely immune to shooting, I agree that might make them too strong.
For the rest, I agree with Najo. Mostly unneeded, or even counter to the spirit of the game, while I feel the army restrictions imply a possibility of competitive list building that I still don't feel is really there.
Forcing wounds on closest models in particular is a terrible, terrible change.
I also like the 'no shooting while within 3" of an enemy model' bit.
I'd like to see a clarification specifically allowing the 3" pile move to be made however one likes, so long as the model ends the move closer to an enemy unit that some model in their unit was already within 3" of. People are currently interpreting pile in moves as 'in a straight line towards the closest enemy model", which currently prevents lapping around, but can force units to split apart as models farther from the combat split off to chase another enemy unit that they're not even engaged with just because the nearest model of that unit is closer than the nearest model of the unit they're actually fighting. Neither of those results of what seems to be the current going interpretation seems intentional to me.
I don't know about look out sir. I do feel it's way too easy for cannons or the like to pick off typical 5 wound heroes at this point, but if they were rendered largely immune to shooting, I agree that might make them too strong.
For the rest, I agree with Najo. Mostly unneeded, or even counter to the spirit of the game, while I feel the army restrictions imply a possibility of competitive list building that I still don't feel is really there.
Forcing wounds on closest models in particular is a terrible, terrible change.
I disagree on the models being able to pile in towards any enemy within 3". There are really important tactics based around making enemy units pile in towards one unit and then doing a counter charge with your unit that is further away. This also protects glass hammers in combo charges. I discuss this in a video I'm currently uploading. I'll post a link shortly.
Instead of look out sir, you just put enough models between your characters and their warmachines to block visibility. There is no bouncing or templates, so the character is usually safe.
Menkeroth
A Knight of Blood
Awwww he's got a little doggy
he is pretty cool, I like the new AOS models they are actually quite detailed and cool looking much better than other companies, hell the more I see the storm cast eternal I struggle trying to resist buying them as I am starting to like them
Whatever interesting tactics there are, they don't justify the annoyance, hassle, and confusion of the same unit being scattered all over the place due to 'pile in' being interpreted as 'pile out'. This is especially the case when there are multiple of the same unit in a game, as is encouraged by pretty much all of the battalion rules, where it can get super confusing.
An interpretation that deliberately promote situations where half of a unit is way out of coherency with the other half is just obnoxious, especially with how the rules of engagement are written. IF you have five models in a unit engaged in one area, and another five models 18" away, the 18" away models can't even move towards the rest of the unit to get back into coherency, they have to sit there, and probably move even further away in the combat phase.
Yes, there are tactical applications of this, but they don't model any sort of real world situations, rather they are the exploitation of a purely gamist, very obnoxious, and extremely immersion breaking flaw in this system. It's right up there with standing on your opponent's bases with things that should be considered bad form. It's like exploiting broken ai in a video game. It ruins the immersion, and it defeats the entire point of the game.
Here is my thread about tactics in Age of Sigmar, there is a link to a video there: https://www.vampirecounts.net/threads/real-tactics-in-age-of-sigmar.29420/
I don't understand how this would happen. When you pile-in you must pile-in towards the closest enemy model. That represents that the most threatening model (i.e. the closest) is the one you have to attack. What is gamist about that?
Is this issue that, you're assuming since it says you have to move towards the "Closest enemy model" that a unit other than the one you're attacking could be closer, so your models would be "Forced" to move towards them instead of (logically) moving towards the combat?
If that is an issue, the simplest solution is just to add a single line that says "Move up to 3" towards the closest model without breaking coherency".
In fact, looking at it the 4-page rules state :
That already covers that situation, because 3" pile-ins would count as any sort of move. And they must finish any move within 1" of at least one other model from their unit... right?
Was that the issue, or am I confused?
If that is an issue, the simplest solution is just to add a single line that says "Move up to 3" towards the closest model without breaking coherency".
In fact, looking at it the 4-page rules state :
4-page Rules said:
That already covers that situation, because 3" pile-ins would count as any sort of move. And they must finish any move within 1" of at least one other model from their unit... right?
Was that the issue, or am I confused?
'without breaking coherency' could also work, although I'd prefer an interpretation that allowed lapping around, since that seems to be intended.
What is gamist is putting a unit not within the 3" combat range, but close enough that a couple models in a unit are forced by the 'closest enemy model' writing to peel off from their unit, breaking formation and moving away from combat during their 'pile in' move in order to walk off into the middle of nowhere, then standing there while the rest of their unit pushes on into combat, unable to fight the enemy they're meandering towards or even move back to rejoin their unit during the movement phase because their 'unit', now far away, is within 3" of an enemy.
EDIT: Nevermind, you're right, pile in would be 'a sort of move', so that language already applies. Another table missed that in a game the other day, resulting in the sort of shenanigans I described above, but no, if you have to stay in coherency it's fine. I mean, it can still end up with 'pile ins' turning into 'pile outs' for some models, but at least they aren't supposed to break formation with their unit to amble off into the middle of nowhere.
What is gamist is putting a unit not within the 3" combat range, but close enough that a couple models in a unit are forced by the 'closest enemy model' writing to peel off from their unit, breaking formation and moving away from combat during their 'pile in' move in order to walk off into the middle of nowhere, then standing there while the rest of their unit pushes on into combat, unable to fight the enemy they're meandering towards or even move back to rejoin their unit during the movement phase because their 'unit', now far away, is within 3" of an enemy.
EDIT: Nevermind, you're right, pile in would be 'a sort of move', so that language already applies. Another table missed that in a game the other day, resulting in the sort of shenanigans I described above, but no, if you have to stay in coherency it's fine. I mean, it can still end up with 'pile ins' turning into 'pile outs' for some models, but at least they aren't supposed to break formation with their unit to amble off into the middle of nowhere.
NBD, we all make mistakes. Although I find it interesting that people are trying to see things in very negative lights. Granted you @Malisteen at least have your head on straight enough not to endorse the crazy "no base matters" shenanigans, which are truly gross. But honestly, while the rules are very light, it's not like they are a screen door on a boat. They work fairly well, and while it's nowhere near what we had before, I am kinda a fan of the new game, and have thus-far yet to find any game-breakingly bad rules. Besides summoning being kind of ridiculous. My best suggestion for that is at low "points" battles to just not follow the 18" range on dispel, so you at least always have a chance to stop the summon. But in bigger games I don't feel like it's too big of a problem, maybe.. I'd have to play a large battle to see myself.
Menkeroth
A Knight of Blood
Aye, if I collected Khorne or Sigmarites, I'd buy the starter. I hope new boxes will be even better than this, for they are great indeed and GW hasn't done yet so dynamic and thematic khornates as it's now.Awwww he's got a little doggy
The problem is when you face Irondrakes, khemri archers or whatever that can fire two shots a turn your screen is removed rather quickly.
I don't think the implementation of a LOS rule would render heroes largely immune to shooting as it's still a 50/50 chance. AoS cannons can reroll to hit with an engineer, fire twice and do D6 wounds. characters need better protection.
Well, that does sound a bit dangerous, but I mean, skeletons revive d6 per turn as well. A larger sized skeleton unit is unlikely to simply be destroyed in one go. Plus with the undead we can literally just resummon our screens as we advance, which is quite a bit better than other armies face.
And then there is Calvary (Or any faster moving unit), which can close the gap on most ranged units within a turn. Many can be within a risky charge range within one turn starting outside of the ranged weapon's range. Then if you consider them starting inside the range of the guns, they will have a very good chance of getting into charges in one turn.
I won't lie, the new rules certainly make "heroes" feel much more vulnerable, because I mean, you can't even throw them into "Sure thing" combats where they will never be hurt like before. But it's not a complete loss, now we can use our heroes to support our units and use them a bit more cautiously rather than just playing Hero-hammer and letting them smash anything they want or running off alone. I mean they can run off alone as well, just not into the center of the opponents army, unless they plan to die.
I mean, yeah I share your reservations, but I don't like trying to apply theory to what is going to be happening in games too soon. I'd rather play out a good number of games, and I guess if I notice that cannons are consistently destroying my heroes and mitigating any attempt at me hiding behind something else? Then yeah, it might be an issue that needs resolved, but I'd rather see it happen on a regular basis before assuming it'll be a regular thing. Certainly something to look out for though.