Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Overread wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
OPR is not in any way a threat to GW, if anything it drives more GW sales since it just provides better rules for GW models.

Yes it drives sales of GW models. However if everyone is using OPR they'll stop buying GW rules expansions. They might only get the codex for their favoured army instead of all the armies they collect if they do at all since they aren't using them to play with any more. That was my point, it won't hurt GW's model sales, it will just impact their rules material sales and its not until those are hit that GW will start to make actual changes to how they do their rules.

not like people who play are buying rules expansions anyway and I doubt a lot of people would play the game if they had to buy the rules
This won't really change much, the same as playing GW games with 3D prints does not really hurt them

 Overread wrote:
Much like how it took Warmachine 2.0 doing really well for GW to wake up then (granted GW got a reprieve then because PP then rushed out their own 3rd edition and messed it up with a bunch of other things).

doubt that WM or X-Wing had anything to do with GW waking up, but simply crashing their new best game into a rock made them realise that they need to change
and unless GW crashed another game, they are going to continue with what works for them, not matter if people like it or not, or more people would play if different

just as above, as long as people buy, everything is alright. does not matter that not the same people buy models who are buying rules or people never play with the rules at all, as long as they sell out no need to change something

Is Health really more intuitive than Wounds? What is the point of such changes other than to invalid old books?

 Overread wrote:
Some stuff sounds like its just change for the sake of change like wounds going ot health.


The 3 inch instead of 1 inch close combat makes me wonder if this means we'll see larger unit blocks returning to this edition.

I imagine the increase in range and end of battleshock is there to give whole units things to do other than the guys on the edge just being used as wound tokens once a combat was lost.

RIP morale then?

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Some stuff sounds like its just change for the sake of change like wounds going ot health.


The 3 inch instead of 1 inch close combat makes me wonder if this means we'll see larger unit blocks returning to this edition.

I imagine the increase in range and end of battleshock is there to give whole units things to do other than the guys on the edge just being used as wound tokens once a combat was lost.

Another consideration is that it might be part of them speeding the game up. Why take 2 or 3 turns to kill something by grinding a unit into another unit when you can do all the damage in 1 turn.

So if they stick with things like the reinforcement system there could be even more bias for having more smaller units because having big units might give a lot of killing power, but would also mean one hit and you've lost a lot of your army and board control.

Terrible bad faith from GW.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Is Health really more intuitive than Wounds? What is the point of such changes other than to invalid old books?

Old books are going to be invalidated regardless of this change.

And Health Points would have been better anyway.

Honestly it feels like there's enough changing that learning about the changes piecemeal is going to result in people judging things without considering the big picture. It feels to me like the kind of edition where I'm better off waiting until I can play the final product.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Is Health really more intuitive than Wounds? What is the point of such changes other than to invalid old books?

If you're familiar with GW games, wounds is a long standing term and doesn't need changing. If I think back to any other games, be they digital or physical, I can't really think of one that doesn't use health or hit points. It's a bit uncharacteristic for GW to adopt standard terms, especially if they have their own that have as long a tradition as wounds. However I could see their growth in the last years and focus on recruitment of new customers lead to the idea that they apply more standard terminology to make it as easy as possible to get into the game. AoS and 40k both have the stated goal of being beginner friendly, after all, regardless of the cost. I could see this change being a part of that fixation.

The old battletomes are going to be invalidated anyway. That's part of GW's sales strategy. So my guess is that this change actually appeals to someone on the design team for a real reason rather than being part of the package that necessitates invalidation of old books. Of course the design team thinks the double turn is a good idea, so that doesn't mean much.

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly it feels like there's enough changing that learning about the changes piecemeal is going to result in people judging things without considering the big picture. It feels to me like the kind of edition where I'm better off waiting until I can play the final product.

There's always the danger of that and GW historically being stingy with what they preview doesn't help. But then a lot of people here were pretty positive about the Old World rules previews. As far as I'm concerned, how the AoS previews are received depends a lot more on what they suggest of the game's quality.

And not to be negative, considering the way people have voiced their concerns that 4th ed is a rewrite for the sake of selling a new round of battletomes from day one, the theme seems to be set regardless.

I looked at Reddit and saw AOS people having legitimate trouble with the distinction between "to wound", "wounds", and "wounds remaining". Must be hard.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Is Health really more intuitive than Wounds? What is the point of such changes other than to invalid old books?

'Losing health' is more intuituvely something bad than 'losing wounds'. After all, if one 'lost a wound' in real life, they'd be getting better, not worse. After all, in Warhammer wounds are inflicted on models, but those inflicted wounds are then subtracted from their wound total. Gaining wounds reduces them? That does not make obvious sense to a new player. All of us long-term grognards are fine with the disconnect, but the theoretical new player will grok health easier than a wound stat.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I looked at Reddit and saw AOS people having legitimate trouble with the distinction between "to wound", "wounds", and "wounds remaining". Must be hard.

To be replaced with the more intuitive, "to health", "to de-health", "health points", "healths", and "healths points"

(silliness without malice - don't currently play AoS but if 4th Ed is any good I'll give it a go!)

Warhammer Community wrote:Every current Battletome will be retired when the new edition drops

Hahahahaha

I read this as "We made a few minor word changes to force everyone to buy an entire set of new books, including those battletomes that have just been released in last few weeks"

Warhammer Community wrote:You’ll be able to buy physical Faction Packs from the outset<snip> And of course, these Indexes will be replaced by new-look Battletomes....

Faction packs outdated almost immediately more than likely

This is why I'm so glad I'm happy enough to stick with early versions of all their games including AoS. They make great minis but this is just GAK for the sake of being gak. No game needs to be changed this much the sake of a new edition.

I am not sure if I should be surprised about how little excitement and interest a new edition of AoS is generating.

You mean here? This is a 40k site with a very light sprinkling of anything else.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You mean here? This is a 40k site with a very light sprinkling of anything else.

In all of the hobby related sites, groups and forums I am in, seems like a marked change compared the announcement of 3rd

I'd suggest TGA, facebook groups, discord groups and the reddit pages for actual discussion.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"

A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.

*Codices. Yet again, GW themselves say "Indexes" instead of "Indices" so frick me I guess.

 Mallo wrote:

Warhammer Community wrote:Every current Battletome will be retired when the new edition drops

Hahahahaha

I read this as "We made a few minor word changes to force everyone to buy an entire set of new books, including those battletomes that have just been released in last few weeks"

Possibly the worst/hottest take I've seen since the official announcement, whether its here, on X* and various other FB pages and forums. Impressive!

There's about 4-5 paragraphs before the "Battletome retired" sentence starts that details why the battletomes are getting put out to pasture and its clearly not "a few minor word changes".

*(Formerly known as Twitter) as the journo's love to put to inflate their word count.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I looked at Reddit and saw AOS people having legitimate trouble with the distinction between "to wound", "wounds", and "wounds remaining". Must be hard.

Reddit has never struck me as having the sharpest crayons on the tree.

But if GW is moving Age of Sigmar away from having 'wounds', it makes me wonder what other terminology changes are coming. It kinda sounds like their 4 'main' games will all feel very different from each other, which would be good. AoS is currently 40k but with a fantasy setting.

I can see them wanting AoS and Old World ot sound, feel and play very differently to separate the products as much as possible. Because the bleedover for the two is nuts.

At least one bonus is potentially if one fails and the other rules they can just squash them together.




The only pain will be rebasing to rounds/squares for the one that loses

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Still not removing the double turns? Pass.

That's because the double turn is an excellent game mechanic!

Which is why other GW games also use it.

...wait...

Iirc, MESBG uses double turn as well, no? Haven't played it often, but from what I recall, it's a bit more tame that it is in AoS?

 CMLR wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"

A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.

*Codices. Yet again, GW themselves say "Indexes" instead of "Indices" so frick me I guess.

Lol, as a school teacher I would write Codices and Indices, but while typing the above, I altered it to Codexes to stop the cult of GW 'correcting' me.
Heck, I even write Dwarves and hate seeing it as Dwarfs.

 CragHack wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Still not removing the double turns? Pass.

That's because the double turn is an excellent game mechanic!

Which is why other GW games also use it.

...wait...

Iirc, MESBG uses double turn as well, no? Haven't played it often, but from what I recall, it's a bit more tame that it is in AoS?

Much more tame, and there are ways for the other player to mitigate it, such as with Heroic Actions. MESBG is GW's best ruleset and it's not close.

Which is why, with all their talk of more interaction, more thought needed for the double turn, that they may be pulling from the Middle-Earth rules concerning it.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 CragHack wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Still not removing the double turns? Pass.

That's because the double turn is an excellent game mechanic!

Which is why other GW games also use it.

...wait...

Iirc, MESBG uses double turn as well, no? Haven't played it often, but from what I recall, it's a bit more tame that it is in AoS?

Much more tame, and there are ways for the other player to mitigate it, such as with Heroic Actions. MESBG is GW's best ruleset and it's not close.

Not being overly familiar with AOS, I'd wager why it's worse there because in LotR, each player does movement, then shooting, then melee happens. And melee is done off opposed rolls, so doesn't overly favour the side with priority.

 CragHack wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Still not removing the double turns? Pass.

That's because the double turn is an excellent game mechanic!

Which is why other GW games also use it.

...wait...

Iirc, MESBG uses double turn as well, no? Haven't played it often, but from what I recall, it's a bit more tame that it is in AoS?

Both players act fully in each phase, but yes the same player can go first multiple turns in a row. As someone else said, you can also mitigate that with Heroics, and both sides fight in combat (and shoot/magic).

MESBG has double phases, not double turns
same as some games have double or multiple activation

main problem is that a turn already takes too long and has too much impact on the game without the other player being able to react (and not just roll some dice to see what happens) and the double turn makes this just worse

if AoS would switch to alternating phases like MESBG it would not be a problem


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cyphertheory wrote:
I am not sure if I should be surprised about how little excitement and interest a new edition of AoS is generating.

well, those who played AoS and/or collected the models more or less liked it for the game it is and it was the better game compared to 40k

of course now telling people that instead of the updates people felt should happen the game the game is replaced with something new and given GWs track record that the first version of a new game takes some years and/or the 2nd iteration to work out (with exception from the old days were design work was done differently) I doubt that a lot of people are going to be very happy

Greatbalddave wrote:
Terrible bad faith from GW.

...you may need to be a touch more specific.

And I'm mildly disappointed that they've yet to implement the fabled triple turn.

 Dysartes wrote:

Greatbalddave wrote:
Terrible bad faith from GW.

...you may need to be a touch more specific.

And I'm mildly disappointed that they've yet to implement the fabled triple turn.

Don't give them any ideas.