AoS Lizardmen warscroll is out.

[pendrake]

BTW

Swarms = 14 points each
Kroxigors = 37 points each; except every 5th Kroc which costs 38 points

...this is not rocket science.

 

[onlinemph]

Played a quick couple of games with these rules. We used wounds as a way of balancing it out. For example, we played a 100 wound game. 25 wounds went to Heros, 75 to base infantry, and 25 to monsters. Obviously there are some problems here, but we managed to make it work.

Surprisingly fun. Beastman sure got hosed with their bravery however. Playing against demons turns into a massive moshpit as we summon more and more guys to try and kill each other's wizard.

Our infantry is deadly now. 4 attacks each with that one formation.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

No. Never. Because the system of declaring points swiftly becomes a tool to drive sales.
BIASED

If only GW was neutral.

If true balanced armies are the goal, it has to be designed by those it benefits. The players NOT the purveyors of the models.

It is difficult (if not impossible) for the player base to come together and create a set of rules that would widely adopted. Look at the Predatory Fighter fiasco that took place on this forum (and this is by far the friendliest, most polite and accepting warhammer forum I have seen). All of those issues were caused by trying to merely interpret a single rule... let alone trying create something that the masses will universally accept.

When no neutral authority figure is involved, everyone's opinions, thoughts and ideas are on equal footing... so the chance at reaching a universal consensus is remote to say the least. It's too hard to create something that people will collectively view as fair and balanced. GW definitely does not always create balanced rules, but I would definitely define them as an authority figure and I'd even argue that they are more or less neutral.

 

[Arli]

I have to admit, I am interested in this again. I will give it a try. This is the first time in several years that I have considered buying some new stuff from GW (models). I think giving out the rules for free could save them.

 

[Ixt]

Just taking a shot in the dark here, but couldn't two players balance it as follows..?:

"2 battalions max,
5 warscrolls max,
40 wounds per unit max."

etc. etc.

"1 battalion, 2 warscrolls, 30 wounds per unit max."

Just read through, and still digesting all of this. Despite the major changes, it seems interesting and fun. Looking forward to reading some of your battle reports! ^_^

Btw, skinks used to be really good... but now they look totally broken. Plus, Saurus w/ support are friggin' AMAZING.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

BTW

Swarms = 14 points each
Kroxigors = 37 points each; except every 5th Kroc which costs 38 points

...this is not rocket science.

This is exactly my point. These numbers might be meaningful to you, but what about for anybody else? Who will accept them? Jim 3 houses down the street might think that Kroxigors should be 32 points, while Sally from the game store refuses to believe that Kroxigors should be anything less than 51 points.

 

[lordkingcrow]

I was talking it over with some of the guys I play with and I think basing it off of wounds is a good start. However, the problem you run into here is that you would never run any of the "lesser" units. Why take skink cohort if I can take temple guard. Same wound value, only one is considerably more deadly. Then you run into the "Kroak" issue. That dead toad has no wounds. I'm sure there is something else out there that has something similar.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I think giving out the rules for free could save them.

I have to admit that this is an interesting turn of events. I'd agree that it is probably a really good idea on their part... especially with the prevalence of all the scanned "free" copies of their army books that floated around the internet anyways. Free rules can help reel people in, peak their interest and get them to start buying models!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I was talking it over with some of the guys I play with and I think basing it off of wounds is a good start. However, the problem you run into here is that you would never run any of the "lesser" units. Why take skink cohort if I can take temple guard. Same wound value, only one is considerably more deadly. Then you run into the "Kroak" issue. That dead toad has no wounds. I'm sure there is something else out there that has something similar.

It's an interesting idea... but I'm in agreement with you that "lesser" units would never be fielded. In such a system the most defensible wounds (via the best save and special rules) would become the most powerful and prominent.

 

[Ixt]

I was talking it over with some of the guys I play with and I think basing it off of wounds is a good start. However, the problem you run into here is that you would never run any of the "lesser" units. Why take skink cohort if I can take temple guard. Same wound value, only one is considerably more deadly. Then you run into the "Kroak" issue. That dead toad has no wounds. I'm sure there is something else out there that has something similar.

I think that your sentiment reflects the same problems that the old system had: a meta that asks, "why would I take Saurus when I could take TG?" Just like in 8th edition, the units are dynamic and fill different roles. Now, with Kroak, yeah, he's insane - that, I can't answer.

So, looking at the units in question (Skinks vs TG), I can tell you why: take Skinks because they've effectively got Hit & Run, which your other units will benefit from when you face a meatgrinder. I'm seeing Skinks exploiting the HELL out of the pile-in thing. Skinks can also get a 2+ to hit in the shooting phase, and something like a 3+ or 4+ in CC -- that's huge. They both do different things, just like they used to.

 

[Ixt]

It's an interesting idea... but I'm in agreement with you that "lesser" units would never be fielded. In such a system the most defensible wounds (via the best save and special rules) would become the most powerful and prominent.

I'm the last to be blindly optimistic, but, again, chaff is still a thing! And skinks are especially good at it with their hit & run abilty! Plus, all of the D3 damage stuff..

This carries water across all armies, too. Chaff still exists, so those big bad demigryph-esque units aren't all as bad as they seem, especially when you set limits like, "2 battalions, 5 scrolls, 40 wounds max per unit."

Or, "bring 120 wounds." Some combination of the two could work well. "2 battalions, 5 scrolls, 40 wounds max per unit, 200 wounds total."

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I'm the last to be blindly optimistic, but, again, chaff is still a thing! And skinks are especially good at it with their hit & run abilty!

The thing with chaff is that it needs to be cheaper than what it is attempting to chaff.

Is a skink worth as much as a temple gaurd? Are two skinks worth as much as a chosen? Are 16 skinks worth as much as Nagash?

If "wounds" are the new currency, then elite units become more cost effective than "weaker" units.

 

[Ixt]

I don't think that wounds have to become the new, lone currency... it's all still fresh, but I think that a combination of roster slots & a wound cap is the way to go.

If my opponent - let's say they field WoC - says,
"Tomorrow, let's play with 2 battalions and 5 warscrolls. 40 wounds max per unit, 200 wounds total," then I could do this:

Field a Skink Patrol as a Battalion slot with the objective to take out his monsters (or whatever) that he has to field in his precious, dynamic Warscroll slots (let's say he fields 3 monsters). I've made a good move - I get a ton of chaff for just one slot with a ton of perks (chaff that's pretty good in a fight, no less), and I still have all of my warscrolls to back that chaff up. To me, that chaff is now cheaper than that monster, and I can adjust my list accordingly.

Thinking about it further, this method also opens the door for the 'Sudden Death' rules!

I just don't see how the "different units for different roles" aspect of Warhammer has vanished, especially if you balance it in this manner. I mean, look at all of the abilities that everything's got! The roles couldn't be clearer.

The game doesn't look like its become this rush-forward-and-kill-everything sort of deal where you just throw dice at the board. There are still roles when you implement slot limits, a wounds-per-unit bar and an overall wound cap, which isn't even that tedious... no more tedious than adding points and calculating percentages.

And... seriously... skinks look broken as hell now.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I don't think that wounds have to become the new, lone currency... it's all still fresh, but I think that a combination of roster slots & a wound cap is the way to go.

If my opponent - let's say they field WoC - says,
"Tomorrow, let's play with 2 battalions and 5 warscrolls. 40 wounds max per unit, 200 wounds total," then I could do this:

Field a Skink Patrol as a Battalion slot with the objective to take out his lone monsters (or whatever) that my opponent fields in his Warscroll slots (let's say he fields 3). I've made a good move - I get a ton of chaff for just one slot with a ton of perks (chaff that's pretty good in a fight, no less), and I still have all of my warscrolls to back that chaff up. To me, that chaff is now cheaper than that monster, and I can adjust my list accordingly.

I just don't see how the "different units for different roles" aspect of Warhammer has vanished, especially if you balance it in this manner. The game doesn't look like its become this rush-forward-and-kill-everything sort of deal where you just throw dice at the board. There are still roles when you implement slot limits, a wound-per-unit and an overall wound cap, which isn't even that tedious... no more tedious than adding points and calculating percentages.

Possibly... you could very well be correct. It is difficult account for synergy as of yet... but in the end it could very well prove your viewpoint to be correct.

At this stage I just see it as a pretty big mess. Nothing there to make me want to give up 8th edition.

 

[Ixt]

Possibly... you could very well be correct. It is difficult account for synergy as of yet... but in the end it could very well prove your viewpoint to be correct.

I sure hope so! I'd hate to see GW take a massive loss on this, because it'd mean bad news for Fantasy at large. I've gotta hand it to 'em... they know how to play cards.

Can't hurt to try, eh? I'm gonna give it a spin as soon as I can.

Doing my part to bring Balance to the Force.

 

[Eubrontes]

Wow, I kind of like these. Not saying I find them superior to 8th, I need to do some in depth compassion and play testing to do such.
It seems quite easy to get an understanding of the rules. This is good for what they wish to accomplish with the game, getting new players in.

• I find the idea of us being treated as Celestial Daemons quite intriguing.
• I think its pretty cool that the Slann can summon the rest of the units. My understanding of this would be that you place down the warscrolls of those units at the beginning of the battle but you do not deploy the models, thus granting the spell to the Slann but keeping the models in reserve until you need them. This reminds me of one of the board game The Duke, yet without randomly drawing a new unit. Of course Slann cannot summon more slann.
• Slann can make nearby Lizzies fly
• Kroq-gar seems pretty damn cool. it seems to imply would be involved in larger battles, As his command ability gives an attack bonus to to saurus heroes, whose command abilities in turn benefit nearby units. I find that the mechanics of that have a thematic aspect of delegating to his sub-commanders that satisfies me immensely

These are just my thoughts and opinions, have not received a chance to play yet. I think after a week or so the warhammer community will get a better grasp of how its all working balance wise and such.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I sure hope so! I'd hate to see GW take a massive loss on this, because it'd mean bad news for Fantasy at large. I've gotta hand it to 'em... they know how to play cards.

Can't hurt to try, eh? I'm gonna give it a spin as soon as I can.

I just can't picture this being a better game than 8th (at least for me).

• the no-points thing is still messy, no matter which way we look at it
• it is a far simpler game than 8th (which isn't bad in general, but I enjoy the complexity)
• AoS seems to be far less customizable (magic items, character creation, etc)

 

[Ixt]

AoS seems to be far less customizable (magic items, character creation, etc)

Yes -- this is a bother for me, too.

That said, I play a lot of traditional games... and this release screeeeeams add-ons & expansions, you know? I can see it going Munchkin-style, even ZOMBIES!!!-style.

"Magic Items eBook, $5!
Magic Spells eBook, $5!
Updated battalions, $5!
SALE! SALE! SALE!"
etc.

Looks like Scalenex might need to make some additional subforums for it, if the community shares your sentiment (which it appears to, at least for now).

 

[pendrake]

I think basing it off of wounds is a good start. However, the problem you run into here is that you would never run any of the "lesser" units. Why take skink cohort if I can take temple guard. Same wound value, only one is considerably more deadly.

This is why you would have to factor in all the stats a model has. Which is what I did.

I created a formula. And it is telling me:
Swarms = 14
Krox = 38
Bastilodons = 58

BUT, I Am Not A Math Major. And 58 seems low for a Basti. But the next steps are to calculate a few more values. and run a few fights, and test the formula. If it fails to produce even handed results. Revise the formula, and try again.

But here is the key, make the formula publicly available, and the process transparent.

Anybody curious to see the formula?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

That said, I play a lot of traditional games... and this release screeeeeams add-ons & expansions, you know? "Magic Items eBook, $5, Magic Spells eBook, $5, updated battalions, $5..." etc.

That is definitely a possibility. GW's direction seems to be a much more fluid and changing rule set. They are definitely not afraid of trying out something new.