• 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.

GW News: LAS VEGAS OPEN 2025

- Q - said:
I know next to nothing about AoS rules, are we looking at these changes as positive or negative? I'm excited to see what the new AoS brings.
Click to expand...
The range change on weapons is potentially good. It simplifies balance a little bit and can clean up some units which had a fake choice because between two weapon loadouts where one option was clearly better in 99% of realistic scenarios.

But that's about the only change that actually has any meaningfull information so far.

Also the fact that "stuff is colour coded" is announced in the same article is kinda odd. Like it's a potentially nice quality of life improvement, but it isn't a change to the actual game...
 
Cristhian MLR said:
Current Chaos Lord came along with those Termies and he already is getting replaced!

OH!, we are getting dripfed those changes for the new edition of AoS:
  • Wounds characteristics: ¡afuera!. Now we have Health.
  • Range for close combat: ¡afuera!. Now everyone fights as long as they are within 3".
  • Battleshock: ¡fuera!.
  • USR: se queda. Not as many as TOW.
  • Command Abilities in every round.
  • EVERYTHING IS AN ABILITY: move, shoot, fight, cast. Declare step and Effect step.
  • All of this colour coded.
  • Indices (NOT indexes) for free at the start of the edition for every faction.
Click to expand...
Wow! That's some big changes.
 
Here is what they meant by "modular rules", but it really not much:
  1. There's core rules.
  2. There's advanced rules.
  3. Use core for all kinds of games.
  4. Use core and advanced rules except battle tactics for Path to Glory.
  5. Use core and advanced rules for everything else.
  6. Use the same as above AND seasonal rules for GHB.
 
Canas said:
The range change on weapons is potentially good. It simplifies balance a little bit and can clean up some units which had a fake choice because between two weapon loadouts where one option was clearly better in 99% of realistic scenarios.

But that's about the only change that actually has any meaningfull information so far.

Also the fact that "stuff is colour coded" is announced in the same article is kinda odd. Like it's a potentially nice quality of life improvement, but it isn't a change to the actual game...
Click to expand...
That sounds pretty good. We may not know much at the moment, but what we do know is leaning towards the positive. That's good news to me!
 
Cristhian MLR said:
Here is what they meant by "modular rules", but it really not much:
  1. There's core rules.
  2. There's advanced rules.
  3. Use core for all kinds of games.
  4. Use core and advanced rules except battle tactics for Path to Glory.
  5. Use core and advanced rules for everything else.
  6. Use the same as above AND seasonal rules for GHB.
Click to expand...
The way it's presented it seems to be:
1 Spearhed: introduction for newbies.
2 Path to Glory: casual/non-competitive
3 Matched play: competitive
4 GHB: Competitive with seasonal sheninigans

Which begs the question; What are battle tactics, and what is so special about them that they are the only difference between casual and matched play.

Also I don't like this:
upload_2024-3-29_10-40-59.png
Because what they're essentially saying is "if something is broken we can just fix it with a seasonal band-aid now."
Which isn't a great approach towards fixing things, it's how we ended up with the mess that is magic in current AoS. Just stacking bandaid upon bandaid.
 
Cristhian MLR said:
Double turn stays another turn! Democracy be damned!

Now, in matched play battlepacks, when you choose to take a double turn, you give up your opportunity to pick a battle tactic for the turn.
Click to expand...
Given how much of a focus they seem to be putting on battle tactics they better be interesting.

As an aside; it's weird that they present this as some kind of fundamental change considering battle tactics aren't used in half their new gamemodes. You'd think the trade off would be based on something that's relevant in every game mode...
 
It's strange having a nice piece of Lustrian/Lizardmen/Seraphon terrain locked in a bundle box featuring two random factions...

RrXd67vHV3eb33zg.jpg
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
It's strange having a nice piece of Lustrian/Lizardmen/Seraphon terrain locked in a bundle box featuring two random factions...

RrXd67vHV3eb33zg.jpg
Click to expand...
That's a really nice terrain piece. Something that would be really hard to build from scratch.

Why is it in a box with a bunch of non-lizards? Shouldn't at least one of the two armies be Seraphon?
 
- Q - said:
That's a really nice terrain piece. Something that would be really hard to build from scratch.

Why is it in a box with a bunch of non-lizards? Shouldn't at least one of the two armies be Seraphon?
Click to expand...
Warcry is currently set around a crashed temple ship. Hence the large mount of Seraphon related scenary that can be found in the warcry boxes.

Which seems to be the only thing GW can think of for the seraphon really; as a mysterious backdrop for other factions to fight over.
 
Canas said:
The way it's presented it seems to be:
1 Spearhed: introduction for newbies.
2 Path to Glory: casual/non-competitive
3 Matched play: competitive
4 GHB: Competitive with seasonal sheninigans

Which begs the question; What are battle tactics, and what is so special about them that they are the only difference between casual and matched play.
Click to expand...

They already existed in Third Edition and are pretty much the AoS equivalent of 40K Stratagems I think... a horrible idea, as they dictate how a player should play with their army to win on VPs, rather than encouraging them to formulate their own strategy (it's like playing your army on autopilot), and one of the pointless pieces of bureaucracy required when selecting army lists that made 3rd so bad, alongside the equally dumb 'Triumphs' and 'Grand Strategies'. I don't know if those two will be staying as well but just the knowledge that so-called 'Battle Tactics' are staying means I'm no more interested in 4th than I was in 3rd.

Cristhian MLR said:
Double turn stays another turn! Democracy be damned!

Now, in matched play battlepacks, when you choose to take a double turn, you give up your opportunity to pick a battle tactic for the turn.
Click to expand...

Canas said:
Given how much of a focus they seem to be putting on battle tactics they better be interesting.
Click to expand...

I honestly think the double-turn is fine, it's the dumb Battle Tactics, Grand Strategies and Triumphs that should be executed. 2nd Edition was fine without them or the other pointless army selection extras.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
They already existed in Third Edition and are pretty much the AoS equivalent of 40K Stratagems I think... a horrible idea, as they dictate how a player should play with their army to win on VPs, rather than encouraging them to formulate their own strategy (it's like playing your army on autopilot), and one of the pointless pieces of bureaucracy required when selecting army lists that made 3rd so bad, alongside the equally dumb 'Triumphs' and 'Grand Strategies'. I don't know if those two will be staying as well but just the knowledge that so-called 'Battle Tactics' are staying means I'm no more interested in 4th than I was in 3rd.

I honestly think the double-turn is fine, it's the dumb Battle Tactics, Grand Strategies and Triumphs that should be executed. 2nd Edition was fine without them or the other pointless army selection extras.
Click to expand...
Counterpoint: Command Abilities have far more in common with Stratagems than do Battle Tactics, Triumphs and Grand Strategies by a long shot.

I'm not at all convinced that you're playing your army on autopilot by using them. You still have to choose your Battle Tactic at the start of each turn based on what you believe you can accomplish during that turn, and Grand Strategies are at best Secondary Objectives that don't reward you nearly as much as you think.

On the other hand, Triumphs are just bad underdog bonuses you get as compensation simply for your opponent having spent more points on their army than you did on yours. This has pretty much been the reason why my group doesn't bother with them doing Contest of Generals.
 
Canas said:
Warcry is currently set around a crashed temple ship. Hence the large mount of Seraphon related scenary that can be found in the warcry boxes.

Which seems to be the only thing GW can think of for the seraphon really; as a mysterious backdrop for other factions to fight over.
Click to expand...
That makes more sense then. It seemed so random before. Thank you for the info!
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
I wonder how much it will cost on its own.
Click to expand...
I will have a guess at 45 Euros, matches with what is currently available on the GW store. I am very curious as to how much the pieces coming to pre order will be on Saturday as in the stand alone terrain set.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
They already existed in Third Edition and are pretty much the AoS equivalent of 40K Stratagems I think... a horrible idea, as they dictate how a player should play with their army to win on VPs, rather than encouraging them to formulate their own strategy (it's like playing your army on autopilot), and one of the pointless pieces of bureaucracy required when selecting army lists that made 3rd so bad, alongside the equally dumb 'Triumphs' and 'Grand Strategies'. I don't know if those two will be staying as well but just the knowledge that so-called 'Battle Tactics' are staying means I'm no more interested in 4th than I was in 3rd.
Click to expand...
See if that's the only difference between "casual" and "matched" play that'd be dumb.
So I'm hoping that there's more to it than that in 4th edition :p
 
Liberators got remade! and they look like this:


dl45M7GJTRwW3v6q.jpg


Hot take: I don't like the redesing. Nose is dumb, shoulders are tiny, shield doesn't match and the tabard was way more cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top