|
|
Post by StepwisePilot on May 29, 2021 12:12:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hi I'm Derek on May 30, 2021 9:04:20 GMT -5
I have a Big Waaagh!!! army so they've got me by the short ones with a new breed of orc that's getting quite an impressive range. Even though I have SCEs, yet more Stormcast infantry isn't quite so interesting but eh... I think I'm getting and keeping a whole box because it's a rare treat for a split box to contain two armies you play. And a 3.0 book doesn't hurt.
Shame they didn't put one of the SCE chariots in it. And I have a strong feeling those hobgoblin minis aesthetic matches the rumoured chaos dwarves, rather than the kruleboys.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 30, 2021 9:30:52 GMT -5
I don't play either army, but this box is seriously tempting. This is both the first wave of stormcast, and destruction models that really appeal to me.
Struggling to decide on a second 40k army, or muster the will to really dive into 9th with my tau, while at the same time being bombarded with temptations for AoS, is a state I never thought I'd be in.
Definitely picked up on the not so subtle hints toward chaos dwarfs during that show. Armour and weapons of a different style and tech level, while making repeated mention of the hobgoblin's dark masters. I wonder if they will actually be a part of Chaos, or a reimagining of evil dwarfs in the destruction grand alliance. If the former, the hobgoblins would be the first unit with a foot in two GAs, as far as I'm aware.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jun 11, 2021 6:58:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jun 11, 2021 7:57:55 GMT -5
Definitely have some mixed feelings on the rules leaks so far. Making monsters other than morathi and teclis relevant sounds great. Buffing the overpowered centerpiece models, and pushing more into hero hammer does not.
Limiting the ability to field anything other than msu also just feels bad
|
|
|
|
Post by StepwisePilot on Jun 11, 2021 12:07:34 GMT -5
Yeah, the rules that make it harder to run things higher than minimum until size are annoying.
|
|
|
|
Post by macstern on Jun 11, 2021 21:17:16 GMT -5
Someone prolly gonna have to share, gw will only give out one box lmao
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jun 14, 2021 10:08:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jun 14, 2021 11:19:51 GMT -5
Sounds mostly good. I am a bit put off by the Age of MSU ruleset though. Restrictions on reinforcements combined with the unit coherency rules really look like they will hamper large blocks of infantry, and running elites/cavalry in anything other than the minimum just doesn't seem to make much sense.
1" reach on anything other than a 25mm makes it pretty hard to get more than half your attacks in if you have more than 5 models. Running two 3's or 2 5's instead of one block of 6 or 10 seems like it's usually the better option. I guess this is by design? Limits the power of command abilities and rules stacking, certainly.
Would really like to see some units get their reach increased from 1" to 2", particularity in the 32mm/min 10 category. It's already a tough spot to be in, and this is only going to make it harder to be relevant.
Does this just seem harder than it looks? How has it been in practice for melee armies in 40k?
|
|
|
|
Post by newguy on Jun 14, 2021 14:22:02 GMT -5
Hey guys,
Super new to AoS but WHFB/Warmahordes/40k vet. Pretty excited to get some games in hopefully soon. Just downloaded the rules and it seems pretty awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hi I'm Derek on Jun 14, 2021 17:39:51 GMT -5
Does this just seem harder than it looks? How has it been in practice for melee armies in 40k? The problem with using 40k as a measuring rod is that 40k's 2" coherency is vastly more forgiving than the 1" allowed in AoS, and without second rank fighting rules many units in AoS are virtually incapable of fighting in ranks full stop. It's particularly harsh for armies with big bases. For example a big based cav unit like a gore grunta can get fewer units in combat range if the unit numbers 6 guys than if it numbers 5, due to suddenly needing two tokyo drifting models at the back of the unit to support the four at the front. 3 model minimum size is probably not worth reinforcing now just in general since it pushes you directly into the pain point.
The big problem I see right now is that all these changes to unit size, coherency, etc, they all make combat harder while doing little to mitigate the dominance of shooting and magic. A 20 man blob of sentinels can delete your heroes from behind cover as easily as they could before, and they now have an overwatch CA to really just... ruin your day. Monsters are also a lot better, which is a little awkward when many of the best units in many armies were already monsters. What remains to be seen is where the points changes in GHB hit - supposedly we're getting points increases across the board but I don't expect they'll be evenly distributed.
Overall this is one of the weirdest edition changes I've seen because they've injected a lot of new mechanics nobody was expecting or asked for, while leaving many of the outstanding issues with the game untouched. Compared to say 9th edition 40k where you can easily trace most of the changes to stuff people specifically wanted to see changed or improved. As a result I've seen a lot of... shall we say mixed opinions?
I'm still getting a Dominion box if I can, but I'm waiting to see what we get in GHB before making any judgements about the launch quality of 3.0
|
|
|
|
Post by Typhus on Jun 14, 2021 21:41:06 GMT -5
Does this just seem harder than it looks? How has it been in practice for melee armies in 40k? In 40k, you always (regardless of your base size) have the ability to fight in two (and only two) ranks due to the way the Fight phase is designed, and melee ranges are measured. Age of Sigmar is definitely leaning into the concept of MSU - because enormous units kind of wildly tip the balance of the system of alternating activations. If I activate 30 'Ard Boyz, it's going to flatten whatever it touches. Encouraging many small units that pick away at each other definitely results in many fewer moments of a large unit taking a single "activation" and then crushing all opposition in range. ...That said, I can't help but chafe at this idea, since ranged armies aren't looking at any similar nerfs. |
|
