Romes

I'll be there!

Thanks for the suggestions all! Will post here when I try something out.

Yeah thanks that's a good call.

Basically I have a lot of fully painted bases on my daemons that look like this: http://shop.microartstudio.com/possessed-bases-25x25mm-5-p-862.html They're a pretty solid resin. Because they are solid, and don't have elevated edges like GW bases, I'm wondering if there is a way I can trim down the corners to turn a 25 mil square into a 25 mil round. I know this will do some damage. I've drilled holes in them with a dremmel before, but never cut the material. Anyone have any suggestions on a tool that could do a curved cut on these?

For Saturday and Sunday all the street parking to the North of the Hilton is free. I parked just across the park both days.

I think that, because it is not defined, A has to move toward Y as much as he can. That means when piling in, he should move 3" to whatever point he can that is as close as possible to Y. In your scenario he would get to choose between to the left and to the right, as those routes are equidistant. If one B model was not in that line, on either side, he would be compelled to use that route. If the left B was not there, he's be sitting waiting a turn, to attack Y next pile in. If the right B was not there he might end up close to Z, possibly get to attack Z, and next turn have to pile toward z instead. Would of course love a FAQ with some diagrams =P

I think you're reading into it to much. I have to move toward model A (not model B). If, with every millimeter point in my movement, say along a diagonal, I move closer to model a, I'm still moving toward it. Just not directly. That could however leave me within .5 inches of model B. But I don't think it means that either. I think it means move toward the model, and is totally non-specific about going around stuff, models or terrain, in the action of accomplishing that instruction.

": When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model." It doesn't say it has to be a straight line. Just that you have to move toward the closest model

If you mean it slow to a crawl because here are meaningful decisions to make - I'll take it - as the main complaint has been lack of tactical depth. now for points

Hobbit, You don't choose what model from the horde is removed. Both, I think that the scenario is more complicated than is efficient to theory hammer out for certain. We're ignore terrain, where the horde is hit, so on and so forth. Also, how the math would change if the unit in question was different. For example, models with a lower or higher output versus durability relationship. The take away should be that there are advantages to both horde and MSU, and tactics which can be used to try to increase the effectiveness of either. Which is good. This is the answer to the original question.

The interesting part of battleshock and multi wound models is that you're less likely to take damage, but more likely to take extreme damage. I had a friend run a unit of 2 chaos chariots. They're bravery 6. One died. He took battleshock. If it had been wounds done that turn, and done wounds, he would have at most taken 3 of 8 wounds, meh. As it was, a model had died, 1-5, nothing, if he rolled a 6 the other chariot disappears. Not sure if it's balanced right, but it's definitely and interesting trade off.

THey dont all charge. One charges The others mosey to 3.01 inches away, behind their doomed charger friend. Charger activates, damages, horde activates, kills charger, the activation rules then allow the other 9 to go in turn because they're now within three inches due to the horde's pile in movement. Of course the horde can choose not to pile in. But then only the one in range gets to attack.

Pluses of big units: -Many abilities buff one unit (I tried this with a chaos warshrine and chaos warriors) -Only one activation makes ganging on them less effective since they effectively have the second highest initiative in multicharge scenarios. (except for pile in shenanigans) -Easy to charge an steamroll small units Minuses: -Scenarios with multiple control points - big units are certainly stronger when the scenario is just smash until dead -some models or spells do bonus damage or auto hit depending on the unit, the larger the unit the better. (though since this is based on models and not wounds, multiwound units the equivalent of 25 single wound models are not affected by this, which I think makes them relatively stronger) - can be manipulated take 10 vargulfs, then take 10 units of 1, if the lone ones charge, you charge with one, it attacks, 10 pile in and kill it, other lone 9 pile in on them. The larger unit will have taken way more damage. I think that big units seem more powerful initially, and certainly have advantages (buffing), but as players get more used to the shenanigans in this version of the game, some of those will be offset. Also, without points, it's not very useful to compare the relative effectiveness of one unit against another, so we can't expand far from the vargulf versus vargulf scenario.

I think because they keep being told the doom isn't there. People invested a lot of money and energy into 8th, and it's been killed off. The frustration with AoS is not about the game itself, it's easy to not play a game you don't like, it's that it is the replacement for 8th. In that role, to many people, AoS is unacceptable, and so they have lost something of value in their lives. When you've put 100s of hours into something and feel like it's been taken from you, it's not unreasonable to call "doom", and when others tell you, "no it's fine, stop complaining" it's not unreasonable to repeat yourself. From your perspective, someone hurt you, and other people are telling you you're wrong to think that. To the doomsayers: I'm giving AoS a chance. I've done a lot of gaming, I'm a competitive gamer, I tend to pick up games quickly, and I am confidant that i have not yet played enough games of AoS to determine if it is sufficiently strategically deep to hold my interest. If you've already come to that conclusion, I would tell you that, in my opinion, you are most likely jumping the gun. Will I continue playing it indefinitely without a balance system? No. I like tournaments, to me, meaningful tournaments don't exist without an attempt at balance. But I'll give it until the end of the year to see what 3rd party balance system comes out. I might decide it's not what I want to do, but I don't know that yet, and I suspect that a lot of people who have made up their mind have done it without giving the game a fair shot.

But the game doesn't scale that way, players are choosing to apply that scale in absence of another one. So, the models are only "better" by a scale that is not designed to be balanced by GW, which undermines the idea that they're putting out "better" models to sell them. Either they don't have a balance system (which I believe to be the case) or they're making new models unfairly balanced. They can't be doing both at once. If players are balancing based on wounds, and that's what defines what's good, that's the players fault. They've at this point (mostly from individual store leaks) provided suggestions of wound counts, but there is no system in the rules which establishes that. I personally think lack of a point system was a huge mistake. But, you can't accuse them of every sin at once when they're contradictory. No points = everything is equally good or bad, save player injected norms. Note that this is both why it's easy for GW to do and why it's a disservice to players who can no longer cite a shared source of what their army power level is without resorting to unintended proxies. As you're exploring this game, in general, right now, it's not useful to look at battle scrolls as good or bad, it's useful mainly to consider them interesting or uninteresting. (Note that I'm trying to address a previous statement and clarify rather than making a direct complaint) My direct complaint is that I swore those horns would be Malekith/Morathi but it's a stupid rat man!!! booooo! >.< Thanks for the continued leaks.

Why do you say they're better? Because they are stronger per wound on the table? There are no points. There's no limit or cap. So a stormvermin is way better than a skaven slave model to model, but so what? Without points everything is amazing and terrible.

YOu can host photos on the ordo forum using the gallery feature

interesting take on it. "It's never spelled out clearly. But I think it's very dangerous to assume that because text says it affects other units, doesn't mean you get that without actually purchasing it." I agree, but that's not enough. =/ Your interpretation is consistent with something odd I noticed. The special characters in the daemons book don't have summoning values/rules. (can't summon them if they're already there!) *edit: note every other daemon (save nurglings???) has summon rules

Why not? (not saying your wrong, I just don't see a way to tell if that's a rule or not) OK my bad then.

No, but I think you were inadvertently reading a balancing mechanism into the game that doesn't exist. And the implied tone of the first quoted post is that summoning is not a big deal/problem because of example X. Maybe I read the post wrong? that's certainly possible, tone is hard online. There's a lot of frustration around this game. I end up in discussion both with people who tend to give it the benefit of the doubt (here), and people who have already written it off (wargamers). I think it's important for the community to take the time to accurately evaluate it for what it is while trying to decide what to do moving forward.

Yeah, All the daemon cards have the same for chaos wizards.

I guess what I'm saying is that I want to give this game a try, give it a shot, and maybe be forced to houserule some stuff, assuming someone comes up with a way to build armies. But as far as a complete, balanced rule-set is concerned, please don't tell me my water is wine.

I think in practice you're right. My objections on this, (and summoning) is to what the rules say and allow rather than to how the average casual gamer will use them. And I'm objecting because you're statement last page seemed to suggest you thought the summoning rules were not inherently problematic. They very much are from a game balance perspective, though two players can (and most will) certainly choose not to abuse them. Game time for minor victories is not actually written to assume a defined timeline. It's written as "If it has not been possible to fight a battle to its conclusion or the outcome is not obvious, then a result of sorts can be calculated by comparing the number of models removed from play with the number of models originally set up for the battle for each army." "of sorts" Ryan, why end after 6 turns? People are applying reasonable rules and guidelines from the 8th ed book onto AoS, but they're not actually in AoS. This is not surprising, it's hard to fit everything into 4 pages.

Like, thee are ways reasonable people can get around those issues, and for a casual game it's not a big deal, but we can't just write in clarity and balance where it isn't.

What do you mean even if you assume? The language is pretty straightforward. And since there is no turn limit beside when you decide to stop, all games will be a major victory unless stopped prematurely. Then you get into situations where, if the multiplier you're talking about matters, if we stop while I still have a model left I win, if we keep playing I lose. Guess it's time to head out, gg, I win.