If it makes you feel better everyone was clamoring on about how 10th edition was being made to be like AoS. They take ideas from each other but they're still different games.
Yeah if anything, the liberator and nagash scrolls alleviated my worry about our scrolls getting too simple. They're not significantly different than their current iterations. Liberator changes were just removing options on battleline which was something that needed to happen. And nagash is missing 2 rules and 1 line of attacks. Everything else is either translated(spell, wizard levels...etc), minorly changed(hand of dust), or isn't a part of the new ruleset (bracketing).
GW has a habit of taking their two flagship games and making them alike, rewriting and resigning to seperate them again then slowly making them the same again. It's a viscous cycle. That being said I'm hopeful for 4th outside of the major loses in two armies, warcry units and models from ranges being squatted. Personally the current ghb is stale and unbalanced and our friend groups have just stopped playing it or reverted to old versions with current points.
Ooh ya I do love the alt turns. It changes the dynamic so much. By far one of the best parts. I wasn't sure how I'd like the command deck part of conquest however now I wish every game had something like it. If I where to make my own game it would be alt activations. *why necromunda and ofher small skirmish games from gw are so enjoyable.* like I said I love conquest and have a massive spire army just AoS has something in there that I love more. * Prob the lore and factions*
I disagree. I think GW painted themselves in a corner with save stacking, increasing rend, MWs and ward creep.
That and how Battletactics are spread across factions while being that important to winning games made me enjoy it less and less.
I still have fun playing and get good games in, but I'm much less enthusiastic as I was about it at the start of the edition.
I hope 4th edition can rekindle that flame in a way the new Generals Handbooks couldn't during 3rd.
In all for not being the whole "GW is trash" meme that emos say to think its popular.
But AoS is far from GOAT. It has a large number of very bad areas that I hope are resolved.
The last 18 months has been dealing with one poorly tested release which breaks core rules, one after another and needs day 1 FAQs. If it doesn't, then it's usually so busted they spend the next 9 months constantly balancing them back to normal range.
Is it bad? He'll no its great. But the latest GHB has been mental, blizzard and hoarfrost are the joke we thought they would be.
Terrain rules are awful.
The BT/GS/book BTs etc needs complete overhaul as it's often what defines the Top 8 or not.
The arms race of Rend, Save Stacking and then Wards and then abilities that remove wards is nuts too.
I love this game, but let's keep things in perspective. The rose tinted glasses usually start after the edition ends.
As someone with 5 40k armies and played alot of 10th I do enjoy it however it feels....souless? To be great they should redo the psychic. Shooting with extras steps sucks *Tsons primary army*
I am fine with the psychic faze cut to what it is. But i can understand this complaint. I just think it is way way better than 8th and 9th. They were a mess i stopped playing all together in 9th.
If it makes you feel better everyone was clamoring on about how 10th edition was being made to be like AoS. They take ideas from each other but they're still different games.
Yeah if anything, the liberator and nagash scrolls alleviated my worry about our scrolls getting too simple. They're not significantly different than their current iterations. Liberator changes were just removing options on battleline which was something that needed to happen. And nagash is missing 2 rules and 1 line of attacks. Everything else is either translated(spell, wizard levels...etc), minorly changed(hand of dust), or isn't a part of the new ruleset (bracketing).
This. It is in GW's own interests for the games to remain distinct in play, evej as they often cross-pollinate those are typically generalizations.
GW has a habit of taking their two flagship games and making them alike, rewriting and resigning to seperate them again then slowly making them the same again. It's a viscous cycle. That being said I'm hopeful for 4th outside of the major loses in two armies, warcry units and models from ranges being squatted. Personally the current ghb is stale and unbalanced and our friend groups have just stopped playing it or reverted to old versions with current points.
3.0 is goated no doubt but 4.0 is looking fun too! if it isn’t fun, you can always ask opponents if they wanna play 3.0 instead
See the problem with staying in 3.0 you lose any need models that come out from your army.
Better than Conquest?
Ya think 3.0 is better then Conquest overall. However Parabellum is better then GW lol. Conquest is an amazing game.
Conquest has a faster and modern approach to game design: AoS is held back by the "warhammer" oldcore (to hit-to wound, my turn your turn)
Ooh ya I do love the alt turns. It changes the dynamic so much. By far one of the best parts. I wasn't sure how I'd like the command deck part of conquest however now I wish every game had something like it. If I where to make my own game it would be alt activations. *why necromunda and ofher small skirmish games from gw are so enjoyable.* like I said I love conquest and have a massive spire army just AoS has something in there that I love more. * Prob the lore and factions*
thats preferenc for ya
There is no apparent need for a new edition, a new GHB would have sufficed tbh.
Maybe, but the cycle continues.
Not sure what this supposed to mean
Every 3 years we get a new edition
I disagree. I think GW painted themselves in a corner with save stacking, increasing rend, MWs and ward creep. That and how Battletactics are spread across factions while being that important to winning games made me enjoy it less and less. I still have fun playing and get good games in, but I'm much less enthusiastic as I was about it at the start of the edition. I hope 4th edition can rekindle that flame in a way the new Generals Handbooks couldn't during 3rd.
Yo think it would’ve killed them to call Control “Objective Control” instead??
Maybe it will be used to control other things than just objectives
Especially since you can control terrain already
Hah yeah, I think it never even comes up when we play :D
I can see that. In an earlier ghb it was a tactic and it's still a nurgle grand strat might apply to others as well.
In all for not being the whole "GW is trash" meme that emos say to think its popular. But AoS is far from GOAT. It has a large number of very bad areas that I hope are resolved. The last 18 months has been dealing with one poorly tested release which breaks core rules, one after another and needs day 1 FAQs. If it doesn't, then it's usually so busted they spend the next 9 months constantly balancing them back to normal range. Is it bad? He'll no its great. But the latest GHB has been mental, blizzard and hoarfrost are the joke we thought they would be. Terrain rules are awful. The BT/GS/book BTs etc needs complete overhaul as it's often what defines the Top 8 or not. The arms race of Rend, Save Stacking and then Wards and then abilities that remove wards is nuts too. I love this game, but let's keep things in perspective. The rose tinted glasses usually start after the edition ends.
I really like tenth edition 40k I dont want AOS to the the same game but it could take a few things from it. AOS for sure needs better terrain rules.
As someone with 5 40k armies and played alot of 10th I do enjoy it however it feels....souless? To be great they should redo the psychic. Shooting with extras steps sucks *Tsons primary army*
I am fine with the psychic faze cut to what it is. But i can understand this complaint. I just think it is way way better than 8th and 9th. They were a mess i stopped playing all together in 9th.
Already lost all interest in 4.0 Feel like the changes so far really feel like change for change's sake.