|
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/29/be-a-stormcast-eternal-in-tempestfall/ Apparently the Sisters VR game was one of the first as now they've announced an AOS one as well.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:an unironically good idea considering warhammer total war 3 is just around the corner
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
I enjoyed the square base system a lot and I liked my massed ranked units and I miss that niche
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
Finished my Verminlord Warpseer    
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
Clawtopsy posted:I enjoyed the square base system a lot and I liked my massed ranked units and I miss that niche Oh god this. 100x this. I miss Warhammer fantasy. Beating superior armies because you broke into a flank, or got the rear attack. Not just roll a million dice because you got the charge or X super overpowered leader did X, Y or Z
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
I hope they keep the random turn order in v3, but I hope they add more ways to interact with that mechanic, in order to make it a more significant choice whether you go first or second. Right now going first is almost always strictly better. The only exception is that sometimes you may want to go second on the first round, but after that, it is just a single dice roll that you have no control over and can swing the game heavily in either direction. I hope they add downsides to going first, in order to make it situationally useful. The only thing that currently does this is endless spell activation, where the second player picks one to activate first, but this is almost never significant enough to make it worth going second. One idea I like is to have the player that goes second in a round get first activation in the combat phase on both turns - Moving first would still almost always be preferable, but it would make the choice significant in a way that it isn't right now. I want to see more units, faction abilities, and command abilities that interact with the turn order and the initiative roll in some way. Right now the only one I can think of is Archaon. Mechanics like that would be an obvious thematic fit for many factions. Some factions are fast, sneaky, and clever, others are more slow and ponderous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 11:17
|
|
|
The random turn order can honestly go. It's either they take it out entirely, which would be easier considering the amount of things that actually interact with it, or they would need to add way more abilities and ways that armies interact with turn order, making the roll actually meaningful. They would also need to make predatory endless spells way more impactful as part of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 12:17
|
|
|
Seems like going second would always be better because you would always get the first double turn? Without the double turn going second is always going to be a punishment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 12:36
|
|
|
Feel like its up to the mission design to give you reasons to want to go second. I get that the one with the shifting objective wasn't too popular but I liked that that it gave the second player in a turn 3 vp instead of 1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 12:48
|
|
|
I get why they decided on the random turn order, and a bunch of the things they did to mitigate it (alternating activations fight phase, limited shooting for most armies, endless spells, etc.) actually do help quite a bit, but it’s still the one thing I would hope for them to change with a potential 3rd edition. I just hate it, as really the only thing in the AOS rules. It really does determine a lot games, even among really skilled “tournament level” players, let alone in casual games where it’s again and again the single victory determining dice roll. There is a bunch of reasons, outside the obvious, for example if you have a normal round it may not be a huge deal, but if you happen to spike hard on some key rolls (and AOS does have a tendency for players to spike, some armies more than others) then it’s can be a complete death blow if you get to go again, and the opponent doesn’t get to move or retreat from combat etc. I have a feeling it’s one of those things that once(if, fingers crossed) it goes away, people are going to be like; ‘holy poo poo, that WAS a terrible mechanic, how did we ever think that was cool?’. Maybe I’m wrong. There are still proponents of some of the old warhammer rules I think were terrible now, but once thought was cool. Like no pre-measuring or the old fear and morale mechanics (e: where a single failed roll could chain break your entire army). Revelation 2-13 fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Oct 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 13:19
|
|
|
they got rid of no premeasuring mostly because they largely got rid of the things like guess range weapons and set instead of rolled charge ranges. that said 40k kinda has the opposite problem right now where going first is a massive advantage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 14:10
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:I get why they decided on the random turn order, and a bunch of the things they did to mitigate it (alternating activations fight phase, limited shooting for most armies, endless spells, etc.) actually do help quite a bit, but it’s still the one thing I would hope for them to change with a potential 3rd edition. I just hate it, as really the only thing in the AOS rules. I don't think it is a very good mechanic at the moment, but I like the concept itself. It just needs to be something that adds a layer of strategy and decisionmaking to the game. Players need to interact with it in some way, and it needs to be open to play and counterplay. Let the players affect the outcome. Having a rolloff as a baseline is fine, but adding abilities to influence the rolls, letting you spend CP or even VP to get bonuses to your roll, faction-specific abilities or criteria to affect the rolls somehow, faction-based preferences for going first or second, advantages to going second to make the decision actually relevant when you win the rolloff, and so on would all be cool. Make turn order manipulation another aspect of listbuilding somehow. Lots of boardgames have a non-fixed turn order where there is either a drawback to going first, or a bidding system of some kind to let you spend resources to go first. Removing it entirely would be an improvement, but improving the way it works could be even better. Geisladisk fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Oct 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
Since work is as about as thrilling as staring at concrete atm, here's a couple of ideas about stuff that would make the double turn a thing worth engaging with.
I think some of those things could be fun faction abilities. Armies that want to grind or play hammer and anvil could get some very thematic and cool abilities out of it. I'm not sure if any of those abilities should tie into going first since that doubles down on the reward, but it might be worth experimenting with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 15:51
|
|
|
Clawtopsy posted:I enjoyed the square base system a lot and I liked my massed ranked units and I miss that niche Should check out Kings of War, can even use your existing minis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:Since work is as about as thrilling as staring at concrete atm, here's a couple of ideas about stuff that would make the double turn a thing worth engaging with. I'm one of the weirdos that likes the random turn order, as all of my most interesting games involved multiple double turns, but even I will concede it can just slam a game shut too. Those first two things are super intriguing to me. Or perhaps keeping the dice roll but the wager is a modifier? Mission design can go a long way to resolving the issue too, as 40k has demonstrated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Yeah I wonder if they'll double down on pushing more scenarios and missions to supplement the base rules. Objective play is a lot more interesting than about half the pitched battle games I played in old warhammer. Also I know there are rules for narrative play already but I could see them fleshing out that system a la Crusade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
I'm curious. Does anyone, ever, play Open or Narrative games? Because I've not played one, and I don't think I've ever seen one play one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:I'm curious. Does anyone, ever, play Open or Narrative games? Because I've not played one, and I don't think I've ever seen one play one. I will do "open" to teach new people the basics of turn order and thats it. The problem with Open is its pretty stupid to make a formal game mode around "throw some random models down". I think GW underestimates how wargaming is an involved hobby and a game that can take several hours we wan to to believe we have a reasonable chance of having a game thats close so systems need to be in place for balance. I think crusade is a solid base to do narrative right and id like to see path to glory more closely replicate its rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:I'm curious. Does anyone, ever, play Open or Narrative games? Because I've not played one, and I don't think I've ever seen one play one. We've thought about it a few times, but then realized it wasn't worth the effort of saving ~5 minutes on building lists and making sure they were comparable point sizes versus the 2+ hours of a game we would be playing that could easily end up one sided. Narrative and Open missions also end up sounding kind of crappy compared to the match play missions, especially because Age of Sigmar has a bunch of really fun matched play missions. We'll just drop matched play rules in some cases to facilitate casual games, like let people use allies they shouldn't be allowed to have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
Why not have completely interwoven turns like many boardgames do? You move a unit, I move a unit, and so forth until everyone's done. Same for shooting and every other phase. Is there a reason this wouldn't work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
Ristolaz posted:Why not have completely interwoven turns like many boardgames do? You move a unit, I move a unit, and so forth until everyone's done. Same for shooting and every other phase. Is there a reason this wouldn't work? I"m p sure that GW themselves have done this, just never for the two main games. AFAIK it's just a dumb tradition at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
I've had the same thought and what it boils down to is that it's much easier said than done because it would fundamentally change every aspect of existing balance in the game. It would change the nature of the game to be much more tactically focused and make the activation wars concept the central theme of the game. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it would just be a very different game...from a design perspective it's more akin to scrapping everything but the models and lore than updating to a new edition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
The culture around the game seems built around lots of down time. Before covid, the beer and battle nights at my local shop used that downtime to sell people beer and food. It also let people chat and hang out when it wasn't their turn. A more streamlined game would probably hurt that environment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
I think objectives and missions are where they should expand on how the turn order affects things and provide benefits/opportunities to the player that lost the roll-off. The roll-off has become sort of sacred in the AoS community and iirc every ability that could manipulate it has been removed from the game except for the Coven Throne's command ability, which no one uses. before the Slaves to Darkness book was fully faq'd Archaon could manipulate the turn order in a way and everyone hated it, even though it was probably justified by his big points cost. Getting double-turned at a crucial moment can feel crappy if you weren't able to plan for it, but not even getting a fair roll feels worse even if you opponent paid for it in some way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Tulip posted:I"m p sure that GW themselves have done this, just never for the two main games. AFAIK it's just a dumb tradition at this point. I quite like the style of resolving damage at the end of turn so everything has some chance to fire
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 06:18
|
|
|
Mikey Purp posted:I've had the same thought and what it boils down to is that it's much easier said than done because it would fundamentally change every aspect of existing balance in the game. It would change the nature of the game to be much more tactically focused and make the activation wars concept the central theme of the game. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it would just be a very different game...from a design perspective it's more akin to scrapping everything but the models and lore than updating to a new edition. You-go-I-go also has its own flaws. I play Star Wars: Legion and while I love the game, balance is affected strongly by whoever has the most activations. If you have say 8 units to activate and your opponent has 11, he's got 3-4 activations in a row where he gets to act with impunity at the end (Depending on if he went first or you did). So this generally leads to a playstyle of only running the bare minimum of never equipping upgrades so you can squeeze in more units. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Oct 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
Maybe I’m wrong on the terminology, but I was sure that you-go-I-go was warhammer style, and alternating activation was Star Wars: legion/armada style. Regardless, I think most people who have actually tried both types for war/miniature games think that alternating activation is the superior, more engaging, more balanced way, but for reasons of tradition warhammer will never make a full switch, though obviously the fight phase is basically alternating activations now. I still think the game would just be plain better if both players took turns to make charges in the charge phase, move-blocking charges would probably be insane though. Alternating activations style games, does have a problem with activation advantage, but there are ways to mitigate it. In armada there are command abilities that let you skip activations for example, so if you’re building an more elite list, you do have the possibility taking something which mitigates it a little. Also, fighter activations is basically also a way to mitigate it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 08:19
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Alternating activations style games, does have a problem with activation advantage, but there are ways to mitigate it. In armada there are command abilities that let you skip activations for example, so if you’re building an more elite list, you do have the possibility taking something which mitigates it a little. Also, fighter activations is basically also a way to mitigate it. Infinity needed to hard cap the number of models (activations) per list because people were bringing swarms of trash. The problem with needing abilities to skip activations is they end up becoming a necessity in any list. Either you bring your swarm list or you have to dedicate a slot/points to bringing the anti-activation tech. Alternating activations certainly makes things much more complex to balance when you have hundreds of options in Warhammer (which is already dubiously balanced). Saving up damage for execution at the end of the turn like Apocalypse is probably a more realistic aim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 11:08
|
|
|
Damage resolution at the end of the battleround in apocalypse is perfect and I hate them for keeping it out of 9th.
Harvey Mantaco fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Oct 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
My expectation is that we're not going to see alternating activation or delayed damage resolution in mainline WH because it's perceived as a significant increase in complexity and learning difficulty over "each player has a turn, when a model dies you take it off the table." Having played a fair number of games with those mechanics, it's not really that significant of an increase in beginner complexity and honestly something of a decrease in the complexity at the intermediate level, since reactive, immediate decision making gets rewarded more than in 'block turns' which can make turns feel like running a clock when you get a little bit better but not quite great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
I don't think they're opposed to changing up that format. They just Apocalypse last year, and that had a structure where dead units were removed at the end of the turn after they had their chance to attack/shoot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Tulip posted:My expectation is that we're not going to see alternating activation or delayed damage resolution in mainline WH because it's perceived as a significant increase in complexity and learning difficulty over "each player has a turn, when a model dies you take it off the table." Having played a fair number of games with those mechanics, it's not really that significant of an increase in beginner complexity and honestly something of a decrease in the complexity at the intermediate level, since reactive, immediate decision making gets rewarded more than in 'block turns' which can make turns feel like running a clock when you get a little bit better but not quite great. Alternating activations are already in the game though in the combat phase. Adding it to the movement and command phases would be a minimal change to the rules, although it would require rebalancing around it. Delayed damage resolution isn't a concept I'm a fan of though, simply because of the bookkeeping and potential for mistakes it involves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:I'm curious. Does anyone, ever, play Open or Narrative games? Because I've not played one, and I don't think I've ever seen one play one. I have exclusively played Narrative Play games of AoS, Warcry, and 40k 8th Ed. AT I’ve done Narrative but the matched play rules are already pretty soft (although the Narrative missions are more interesting so I’ve been gravitating toward them). 30k and Necromunda are basically 100% narrative play anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
Bugman has returned. Well okay Bugmansson. But still.  https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/11/01/behold-the-master-of-festivities/ It's another exclusive model but you have until Christmas to order it so the timeframe is pretty lenient. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/11/01/sunday-preview-the-road-to-godhood/ If you're a DoK player then next week is going to be BUSY. Because both the Morathi book for Broken Realms and the Shadow & Pain box is coming up for preorder. We also get a preview of the AoS version of the new Combat Patrol boxes. Cooked Auto fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Nov 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Those definitely aren't the AoS combat patrol boxes. They look in line with the allies forces boxes they out two years ago. They have the full contents on the sub site. An HQ and two troop choices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
... guess they gotta figure out some way to get rid of their stock of Castigators.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
It says they can build one of the battalions in the morathi book. I don't think its a bad idea but part of me thinks that even if any of the new battalions are good, theyll pick the worst one to make a box out of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
There's mention of an updated Allopex datasheet, so hopefully they've given it some kind of actual role and thing it's good at, instead of a mediocre 8 wound monster they keep reducing the points cost on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
Hoping the Chaos Lord on Chariot one is good.RagnarokAngel posted:It says they can build one of the battalions in the morathi book. I don't think its a bad idea but part of me thinks that even if any of the new battalions are good, theyll pick the worst one to make a box out of. With the exception of the Stormcasts each of those factions is only getting one battalion. The rest of their contents is the book is new rules for them. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Nov 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/11/03/broken-realms-new-rules/ Rules preview article for Broken Realms is up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 18:28
|
|