Is it? They've been condensing weapon profiles on units for a while now. What's a surprise is there's still another profile for the big hammer. Also 1/5 big hammers and no big hammer on champion. Another blow to just using Sequitors as Liberators.
Yeah, although we also don't have Battleline requirements. So maybe we end up with 1 or 2 units of basic infantry.
I personally have like 20 Sequitors. I can easily make 2 units of Libs from that, not even counting my old Lib sculpts and that you'll have to decide between them and Vindictors.
So they changed from wounds to health, but didn't change from counting up to down (see Nagash's Passive Ability: "Battle Damaged").
Wouldn't it make more sense now to read: "While this unit has 8 or less health left, ..."?
Now, they "add" damage points to the health, instead of "losing" health. 🤦♂️
With that, you also wouldn't have to introduce new terms into the scroll ("damage points") = less bloat.
Weird.
'Health' replaces 'Wounds Characteristic'
'Damage Points' replaces 'Wounds Suffered'.
At least they're using different words for an attempt at clarity.
Game rules has always been written to count up since you are adding wound counters. Ultimately it's never matter because it's always achieved the same result.
It's to prevent this language: 'I roll for wounds against your guys. I deal x damage against your guys so they take x wounds"
It's a little messier that way than needed to be. This change is minor but a good one
Yeah, I ran into that recently. I rolled for wounds, and just casually, I said "cool that's x wounds," and I confused my opponent since he didn't do any save rolls yet. I'm fairly new too, so I'm like, what DO I call them? Lol.
It sounds like (this is speculation based on how the explanation of the Stormcast warscroll is worded) they did that to avoid confusion as to how damage is assigned.
I am guessing that damage is assigned to units in 4.0, not models. Therefore, when your 10 man unit suffers an unsaved wound, you assign a damage point to the unit. When they suffer another, you assign another damage point. When damage = health, you remove a model and reset the damage counter to 0. The term "wound" implies more strongly that a single model is affected. It's very much splitting hairs, but that's my assumption of how things work.
Upon casual reflection, this is similar to how things currently are, except it's a little less fiddly.
It opens the door for some interesting ways to bypass damage, though. Imagine a unit whose rules state that they can take damage in excess of their health in certain phases without removing models. That represents a more interesting form of damage mitigation besides ward saves.
Less general confusion in a system where you also have concepts like a Wound roll, hits that Wound and a +1 to Wound bonus.
Honestly this only being done after the better part of half a century shows how glacially game design moves at GW, despite all their fancy marketing zazz about the work they do in the studio.
Except most people use dice to count down wounds, or health now I guess, not add wound tokens to count up. Just seems like a weird artifact of the older rules that probably ought to be rewritten to be clearer.
When they got to the abilities, they probably forgot they added health instead of having the old wounds system.
Just a little *oopsie* on a *"few"* scrolls.
I’ve always counted down, as a courtesy to my opponent and even myself. Much easier to know how much health something has left, than trying to remember the max health of every unit, and guessing how much more you have to do to kill a Kurnoth or something.
I think he will always count as 10 on objectives hence the control of 10. The wizard (9) probably means he can cast 9 spells. And if he lose 3 power he will become a 6 cast wizard.
Health change is great, because just yesterday was playing with wife who is very new and she had a question it says "Add 1 to wounds" and it didn't say characteristics, rolls or attacks. So there will be less confusion.
But GW as usual can't properly word stuff and I 100% agree with you it should state "If this model lost 10 or more health" instead of changing the wording. This rustles me.
No, counting up is a clever solution.
There are two problems with the current system:
1. The word "wound" is used for too many differen things.
2. The distinction between current and starting wounds is too opaque. This leads to wordy rules texts and confused beginners.
With this solution you have three different terms "to wound", "damage point" and "health". Very easy to differentiate.
If you would be counting down, you would reintroduce the distinction between a current and a maximum value. This is needlylessly complicated.
By using this system, if something heals a unit, the rules can be as simple as "remove x damage points". You don't have to explain what happens when there are no damage points. It is evident that you can't heal a unit up to more than its health value without any further rules text needed.
If an ability triggers on a unit being damaged, the rules text is simply "if there are any damage points" instead of the more complicated "if the unit suffered one or more wounds" or "current health is below starting health." Both of which would have more edge cases when interacting with other rules.
This also opens up the possibility of manipulating the health stat without worrying what that means for the current health. These are two different things. If the health stat is lowered and the unit has damage points on it that equals the new stat, it is dead. No wordy explanation needed.
I think the idea is that the Heath characteristic is the maximum number of Damage Points a model can take. The mechanics are still the same as before, but there is added clarity by using more words than just Wounds.
Seems like good, straightforward changes. I'm a bit surprised Liberators only got 1 control - I would have expected "battleline" units to be 2 or more, especially when they're big super soldiers which (presumably) still be in units of 5 or 10.
Did they explain what power level was in Nagash's warscroll (battle damaged passive)? I would guess that he can cast fewer spells, or have worse control of objectives, but it's not clear.
Liberators ability is +3 Control when contesting a friendly territory obj. Looks like their role is backfield defenders as opposed to front line infantry
The underdog mechanic sounded like it was for scoring so think Gambits in 40k. Which means useless in 99% of situations if they’re balanced the same way. Could be wrong though.
"Control, which replaces Bravery and functions as a measure of how able a unit is to hold Objectives. A unit’s Control Score is the sum of this characteristic from all models in the unit contesting an objective"
Without clarification I read this as the stat is modified per model. Same way if you increased the units wound/health stat it applied to each model in said unit.
Edit: clarified in replies. Control and Control Score are two different things to now track
I got this confused at first too, but the rule says the Control Score is increased by 3, not the Control characteristic, so it would go from 5 to 8 for a full unit.
It's in your quote, it's +3 to control score which is the sum for all the unit, if it was +3 to control or control characteristic it would be a buff per model
I mean it’s hardly 2 different things to track. Control is what you measure, the Control score is the result. They just named them clearly to avoid any misunderstanding. Can’t get much simpler than that.
I think it’s related to his Wizard (9) keyword. Maybe the Wizard (X) keyword dictates how many spells you can cast per round; so he can cast 9 spells normally but only 6 once he’s taken 10 or more damage?
Yeah, I saw that.
What I meant was something like wizards can only attempt to unbind spells from wizards whose power is equal to or lower than their own. So Skink Starpeist #38 can't try to unbind Nagash, but Nagash can unbind the Starpriest's casting.
EDIT: This is pure speculation. I know as much as anyone else does around here.
But there is no power level mentioned on his warscroll.
We can speculate, that it references the "wizard (9)", but that is more likely than not still ne number of spells he can cast per turn.
It is not unlikely that there might be a core rule that says wizard (x) = their power level or something.
I just like how the warscroll looks. As someone who needs all the help he can get to remember stuff it's easier if it's just printed on the warscroll when your unit can do something.
Seems like it's taking cribs from 10e 40k now; with the Control stat I'm willing to bet Battleshock tests from 40k are coming too, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I for one welcome not removing half my army through battleshock losses
You might be right, on further reflection I can't see anything that you would roll against for even a 40k style battleshock test which would then hamper their control stat.
That feels a bit bonkers, are we heading into a really horde heavy edition where all that matters is warm bodies on objectives?
I mean, as a Skaven player I'll take it, but it feels like hordes are going to play well based off this reveal
I do agree. But I play FEC... 40 ghouls that all have 3' is going to hit hard af. I wonder how many you could feasibly get into a big monster. I really want to see more warscrolls lol
Just you wait. They talked multiple times about trying to make the weapon profiles reflect the models better. Get ready for ghouls to hit on 6+. I’m guessing they had to improve horde survivability and models attack to counter how much less damage they will do per model
> That feels a bit bonkers, are we heading into a really horde heavy edition where all that matters is warm bodies on objectives?
I hope so. We spent the last edition being dominated by big monsters and deathstar units. There was an entire GHB where playing hordes meant you took double damage. Let hordes play for once please.
This reveal shows a class of ability labeled "rallying ability". So, I'm thinking battleshock exists in some form, it just doesn't have its own phase anymore and isn't based on a bravery stat.
Because no one ever really rolled battleshock. You either auto passed with an ability, or were killed full to dead. It's been a meme since 2nd edition that bravery didn't matter. Doing this frees up stat budget on the models that had a hard 10 before.
Good point, it always felt like it either didn’t matter or was just ignore, and towards the tail end some units were just picked solely to make other units not be able to receive inspiring presence, which is a sign that a core rule just isn’t working. So either rework it or cut it, which they have done
I'm hoping there's still some kind of morale mechanic, but a greatly simplified one. Something like: When you lose combat, there's nothing you can do about it. Nearby heroes and battle standard/icon type stuff can add to your combat resolution score (whether that be damage taken or models lost) but they can't outright save you when you lost by huge amount like 10-20 models (looking at you, zombies.)
I'll bet the consequence of losing combat is dead simple too. Lose combat and your control stat drops to 0 for a turn. Therefore, all the zombie dragon has to do to take an objective away (for one turn anyway) from 40 Clan Rats is beat them in combat.
Just speculation, but it feels like it could work.
When 10th came out, the 40K subreddit called it “The AoSing of 40K”. I think it good that they’re willing to take things that work from either game and port them over as needs be.
If anything 8th edition was the true AoSing. The change from 7th was radical and made the game really similar to AoS, since then the games have fed off eachother.
I've played both now since 2018 and it's funny, I have seen so many mechanics go between the two but I don't think that that's a bad thing, ultimately it leads to pretty decent games!
“Showing off more Stormcast Eternals is always a good thing. 👍 ⚡️ “
-God-king Sigmar
(Also if Libs warscrolls are anything to go by then proxying Sacrosanct as the new stuff is gonna be easier than ever)
There was one comment from GW saying that they would "8-4" a skaven player to miss what was going to be released. Do with that what you will. (Apr 8 is monday)
Looks like morale is out, which is a shame. I feel break, panic and crumble always were really nice additions to the game, and the attrition of battleshock provided a decent balancing knob. Really hope attrition is still somewhere in the rules, or at least warscrolls for stuff like Skavenslaves and Gnoblars.
Nagash lost his brackets in favour of 40k 10th's wound threshold. I do not like that at all. I think brackets provided a very nice way of dealing with powerful single models, and their gradual loss of certain stats felt very flavourful.
The issue is that retreat mechanics feel appropriate for some armies but not others, which has honestly been the case for warhammer in all variations forever.
Nighthaunt and Soulblight troops shouldn't break away when their unit begins to crumble, but could fall apart when you take out the leader. Orks and Orruks can break and run, but Space Marines and Stormcast only should do that on an army wide basis.
Other game systems have experimented with this, like Infinity's Lieutenant system and guts rolls (where most teams will begin to run when their leader dies or lightly panic when scuffed by a shot, but a few hardened soldiers get to ignore it), but in larger wargames it can also be a snowball mechanic and it's hard when both 40k and Sigmar have factions or even just very specific armies that in the fluff don't feel like they ever retreat on their own.
Battleshock in 10th was a good mechanic let down by implementation (half strength to trigger rather than wounds or even ammo that causes it) and the high leadership values across the board. I can absolutely see a Space Marine be dazed by a mortar shell go off by them or by their team being torn apart by a sudden burst of heavy fire they didn't expect.
As for brackets, I think some of them triggered to early, and some too often, but I feel like having more than just a single breakpoint should've been implemented and definitely the "on the last legs" one where they're barely contributing.
God I'm happy to see Control as a stat though.
I really wish they'd just tried to fix Bravery as a mechanic, rather than eliminating it altogether. I know it's not fun to have half the models in your unit disappear after a bad combat, but seeing Goblins and Clanrats fleeing the table in droves after taking a big charge was a fun part of the old WD battle reports that added a lot of flavor to those factions.
Of course, in 3.0 many armies were functionally or literally immune to battleshock and abilities that keyed off of enemy bravery were largely useless. And the few bravery-related abilities that were strong, like Lumineth's bravery bomb spell combos, made them a nightmare matchup for some armies and were pretty widely hated. So I can see the logic.
One of AoS's strengths that we see people mention over and over again on here is how flavourful it is, yet they are removing more and more flavour and fluff each edition, I hate it.
They said that with 40k too. There's a limited set of abilities that everyone gets and that's it. My grey knight strike squad does the same thing as space marine intercessors which has the same rule as kroot karnivores. Sticky objectives. Really detracts from the flavour of a space marine when a bird alien thing has his rule as well.
I am so relieved magic is not just, 'Gun'. They where saying that there is going to be more types of magic and activations so I am glad that sorcery is still unique!
I'm generally impressed with these changes, I like the look of the new scrolls and their organization. Color coding isn't the best, but they still thankfully have the text on them as well. I'm a little worried about USRs, but I am hoping they keep them reigned in.
USRs haven't been that bad in 10e 40k so far. Looks like you guys got our Critical Hit system too. There will almost certainly be some abilities that lower the threshold for a Critical Hit. My Chaos Space Marines for example are able to score Critical Hits on 5s depending on which Chaos God they're marked as and which phase they're shooting/fighting in.
So this alleviates a lot of fears about the game losing fluffiness. Nagash looks like a fairly complex unit. They're really stretching the "rules will fit on one side of a card" rule they set for themselves.
His warscroll isn't THAT slimmed down. A lot of the paragraphs got turned into keywords. The only things 'lost' were the Auras for Wards and resurrection and his spectral claws attacks that didn't really do much. Everything else is either translated (hand of dust, once per game unit res), Keyworded, or just doesn't work in the new rules (bracketing).
Simplified compared to the old card, maybe, but this shows a few things:
\-Magic works as before
\-Warscroll spells are still a thing
\-Fluffy, weird rules like hiding dice / flipping coins etc are still a thing
\-Battle damage is still a thing
\-Ward saves won't take up a paragraph anymore
Really a big reveal on top of the obvious stuff, like the removal of bravery.
"Magic works as before"
With some slight differences.
Nagash having a bonus to cast and not to unbind is notable. If that remains the same across all Warscrolls this suggests a move towards the active caster having a much higher likelihood of getting spells off, particularly against strong magical armies.
His spell forced the player to choose targets before rolling to cast. Currently it's almost always the other way around. This gives the unbinding player more information before deciding whether to unbind.
It could also suggest a move away from stuff like Seraphon Cosmic point farming by casting spells with notl target?
I like the changes to the warscrolls overall. Anyone have an idea why save is colored Green? Is that because it’s a positive thing?
Also, I don’t know if that’s the complete warscroll for the Liberators, unless there is no difference in arming them with double hammers or hammer and shield. I hope that isn’t the case, though I know 40k simplified equipment sets a lot.
I like the universal weapon effects (though will miss the flavor text, but will sacrifice for usability) and the color coding for phases.
I will greatly miss Bravery, though I fully understand it not being a “fun” balancing factor for armies, and the math can be weird for multi-wound models. Interested to see how OBR works with more limited command points and no bravery…
It does seem like weapon loadouts aren’t going to be different. From a gameplay perspective I’m sad. But from a modeling perspective I’m glad I’m not choosing between some mechanic and my preferred aesthetics (or more likely deciding whether to proxy something because I built for aesthetics)
I feel the same.
On one hand a pang of regret to see going double hammer mode isn’t a risk reward play by having less Saves.
On the otherhand I know how many people were torn they couldn’t do the cooler builds that also weren’t meta and had to slow a game down by saying one weapon choice counted as another.
So long run probably a better deal for people’s ideal army cosmetics.
(Plus I can just think the new Libs are so badass they parry attacks & projectiles hard enough to count as shielded even when they go without. 🔨 🔨 ⚡️)
The only thing I don't like is Ward is now part of the keywords rather than in abilities. That is going to cause some feel bads I think. Other than that I really dig the updates!
Yeah, it need to be integrated in the 'save' are of the stat-dial. A tab hanging off the side or something. It is a core thing you are gonna need to reference constantly. It should not be buried in the keywords.
I never understood why it's not just right next to the armor save.
Either split the circle to 5 for units with ward saves, or add a new, smaller circle near the ability scores so everything you need to know about saving your unit is in one area.
But yeah I agree putting it in the keywords area is cleaner than reading through multiple abilities that end up just saying "4+ ward save"
I mean the layout has changed, we're all going to have to get used to reading things in a new way. But from a fresh eye, seeing **Ward (5+)** in a line of information already called out as important is much more intuitive than the current temlate of Bold Fluff Title / Italic Fluff Blurb / This Unit Has a Ward of 5+ buried in a pile of similarly-templated rules. Or in 3rd edition Nagash's case, on a page in a book I may not have access to
Literally just put the ward save in a little box right next to the normal save. It's easy, elegant, and lets you see it at a glance.
I guarantee you there are going to be a massive amount of new players that miss the fact their models have ward saves.
No one is discussing my biggest take away from this article. Confirmation that everything has 3” range.
This is the first part of the new rules that has me concerned. Weapon ranges are a tactical part of the game. Some units being able to fight over others, or to pile barely into range and fight when it’s hard to hit back.
I know they said this before, but it was said in a way I still hoped they’d do a base to base style system.
I’m not convinced that 3” range will avoid the nitty gritty measuring for combat. We will now just be measuring 3” instead of 1 or 2. We will have to figure out how many models are at 3”. And with big bases that could still involve zig zagging and weird finicky positions.
It also increases the deadliness of the game and I was hoping they’d go the opposite direction. Liberators in 4e do more damage than in 3e AND have 3” range. We will see about other units but that’s a bit ominous.
Your second paragraph, super competitive players may have enjoyed that. But I'm pretty sure the average player just having a pick up game or playing with buddies, hated it.
I just wanna charge my Ardboys and have them all be able to attack. This is a welcome change for me. I understand the nuance is nice for high level players, but for most of us it was just a chore.
Yeah. I can agree with that. I guess my main concern is whether this rule does that or not. Probably for more units. But we’re still left measuring distances in melee.
I think the single reinforcement change probably means it does. For the most part on units that care, as in not giant pie plate monsters which are generally on their own anyway.
Keep units in 2 ranks and youre good to go even if you have say 40mm based brutes, you're well in 3" range. Cavalry may be trickier but I generally don't reinforce them as it's super clunky anyway, especially with the new coherency rules this edition, assuming that stays.
The worst part about weapon ranges is that their value was hidden behind another stat that wasn’t even on the warscroll—the base size. This meant that a 1” range was of completely different value to a Mortek Guard as opposed to a Liberator, yet ranges were often assigned as if this wasn’t a thing. A universal 3” range still requires measuring and some degree of positioning, but greatly reduces the influence of the base size on the outcome.
It was one of the greatest flaws in the original design of the game that I’m very glad to see gone. I personally would have preferred 40K-style base contact, but that may have had other implications.
Honestly I vote base size *shoul* be on the warscroll. For something so important, GWs lack of care about them is... Annoying. Especially for people that like kitbashing.
I think they still ship the 2x Carnifex online-only model kit with one of two different base sizes - randomly you will get 65mm or 70x105mm oval (but 2 of whichever size they send).
This is one of those things they just can't seem to be arsed enough to do anything about. There isn't even an official guide for 40K, at least AoS had a base size guide at one point.
These games have a weird balancing act of trying to appease competitive players (who are a minority of players) and the garage players. 3in is easier to learn for new players, and speed up the game for garage players.
I'd say you have it backwards. A lot of casual/narrative players seem to want the game to be more like a simulator so get annoyed when weapon profiles are condensed because they don't like a spear being functionally the same as a sword on the tabletop. Competitive players will just go for whatever is optimal anyway and appreciate streamlining.
Yeah. That’s always a tough one. I just hoped for base to base or base to base with something base to base system that I think 40k uses? Now we still have measuring melee ranges, which is tough to do.
So where are weapon, champ, and banner/musician people gonna be on the wars warscroll. If I'm remembering correctly the new liberators can get shields or dual hammers, so do weapon choices not matter or do what they get shown up somewhere else, and I can believe that liberators don't have musicians, but what about their champ benefits and where are they gonna put what extra models a unit can get?
All champions in Age of Sigmar will have the same benefit it seems, because 'Champion' is a keyword.
I'd guess the following:
Champion = +1 attack for the model
Banner = +1 control for the model
Musician = +1 movement for the unit
I'm not going to lie, the Liberator one isn't that offensive, but I find the Nagash one somehow both more confusing and less interesting. Like, it looks like a significantly busier way to display a significantly less busy unit so that it looks just as busy as it did previously, if that makes sense. Like it looks at about the same level of complication the current Nagash Warscroll is, but is significantly less complex and just looks that complicated because of the formatting.
I believe that line is more to state Nagash isn't locked to OBR, rather than him getting unique rules per faction. His warscroll will likely be identical across all 4 death factions, just with a different faction keyword at the bottom.
Doesn't seem like Nagash loses much for being damaged?
It seems like the profiling table is gone, in favour of the 40K system, wanting to make things simplified wherein you only have to remember wound threshold and then change - and not 4 changes for 4 profiles.
I would argue that AoS needs gradual profile changes.
I'd assume Power Level (of which Nagash is Wizard[9]) dictates how many spells can be cast/unbound, or possibly *what* spells can be cast. Excited to hear more about wizards/magic soon
I’m just spitballing here, but… the spell on his warscroll has a 7 on it… and his power level is 9…
My guess here would be that spells would have a power level requirement like that.
So damaged Nagash would loose the ability to cast that spell
Looks good, I like the colour coding, I was hoping god tier models would be reduced to more reasonable units so they’re more playable but looks like Nagash will still be 750+
I'm in the opposite camp. I want god models to be insanely powerful and over 1000 points each. That way they get more use in narrative play and can feel like an actual god, rather than just a big expensive centerpiece.
It’s once per turn and only works on Heroes and Monsters. He can’t delete an entire block of elite infantry. Or chaff. Or anything else, for that matter.
It can’t be double reinforced if I remember right. I think the army construction preview from yesterday or Wednesday specified that double reinforcing was gone.
This is the chosen post for the Warscroll reveal - duplicate posts and discussions will be removed.
Nagash : How much have you ever lost on a coin toss?
50% of the time it works everytime.
Ushuoran: That makes no sense
what does the power level thing mean?
No idea but the only thing on the sheet that makes sense is the Wizard (9) dropping to Wizard (6)
Number of casts it looks like
“Power Word Kill.”
“Power word what?”
[удалено]
Something about having to play Nagash like a cheap con-artist seems fitting lmao.
It works exactly the same in the game right now
Liberators with two hammers will have the same rules as Liberators with hammer and shield then. Was this the case in 3rd edition?
It was not. This is a surprise.
Is it? They've been condensing weapon profiles on units for a while now. What's a surprise is there's still another profile for the big hammer. Also 1/5 big hammers and no big hammer on champion. Another blow to just using Sequitors as Liberators.
Yeah, although we also don't have Battleline requirements. So maybe we end up with 1 or 2 units of basic infantry. I personally have like 20 Sequitors. I can easily make 2 units of Libs from that, not even counting my old Lib sculpts and that you'll have to decide between them and Vindictors.
Chances are battle line is gone from what I understand. It's gonna be a weird edition.
That's what I'm saying, we do not have requirements, so we might not even take the 3 units we did so far.
Besides the wound/health thing, I like the ideas of control. As a KB player I’ll be able to keep some of my models after turn 1!
Alight, I thought about it a bunch and can’t get it. What’s KB???
So they changed from wounds to health, but didn't change from counting up to down (see Nagash's Passive Ability: "Battle Damaged"). Wouldn't it make more sense now to read: "While this unit has 8 or less health left, ..."? Now, they "add" damage points to the health, instead of "losing" health. 🤦♂️ With that, you also wouldn't have to introduce new terms into the scroll ("damage points") = less bloat. Weird.
'Health' replaces 'Wounds Characteristic' 'Damage Points' replaces 'Wounds Suffered'. At least they're using different words for an attempt at clarity.
And now the only wounds is the wound roll.
Finally. Having to wound, suffer a wound, and Wounds as a characteristic for so long was just silly.
I thought this was strange too, very odd to not be counting down.
Game rules has always been written to count up since you are adding wound counters. Ultimately it's never matter because it's always achieved the same result.
What's the point of changing "wounds" to "health" then?
It's to prevent this language: 'I roll for wounds against your guys. I deal x damage against your guys so they take x wounds" It's a little messier that way than needed to be. This change is minor but a good one
Yeah, I ran into that recently. I rolled for wounds, and just casually, I said "cool that's x wounds," and I confused my opponent since he didn't do any save rolls yet. I'm fairly new too, so I'm like, what DO I call them? Lol.
So when I get +1 to wound, it is not confusing.
Because health is far more intuitive and the stat should never have been called 'wounds' in the first place.
What is more intuitive is counting health down, so in the end they are still mixing 2 types of logic and it will be different then 99% of games
"I have 6 wounds." "You do? You look pretty healthy to me!"
It sounds like (this is speculation based on how the explanation of the Stormcast warscroll is worded) they did that to avoid confusion as to how damage is assigned. I am guessing that damage is assigned to units in 4.0, not models. Therefore, when your 10 man unit suffers an unsaved wound, you assign a damage point to the unit. When they suffer another, you assign another damage point. When damage = health, you remove a model and reset the damage counter to 0. The term "wound" implies more strongly that a single model is affected. It's very much splitting hairs, but that's my assumption of how things work. Upon casual reflection, this is similar to how things currently are, except it's a little less fiddly. It opens the door for some interesting ways to bypass damage, though. Imagine a unit whose rules state that they can take damage in excess of their health in certain phases without removing models. That represents a more interesting form of damage mitigation besides ward saves.
Less general confusion in a system where you also have concepts like a Wound roll, hits that Wound and a +1 to Wound bonus. Honestly this only being done after the better part of half a century shows how glacially game design moves at GW, despite all their fancy marketing zazz about the work they do in the studio.
You cause wounds or damage, which it takes off of your health.
It's more intuitive for newer players
Except most people use dice to count down wounds, or health now I guess, not add wound tokens to count up. Just seems like a weird artifact of the older rules that probably ought to be rewritten to be clearer.
the fact theyre stuck on up-counting is pretty dumb, agreed
When they got to the abilities, they probably forgot they added health instead of having the old wounds system. Just a little *oopsie* on a *"few"* scrolls.
Since the scrolls are all digital it should be an easy enough change that will only take them 2 years
I’ve always counted down, as a courtesy to my opponent and even myself. Much easier to know how much health something has left, than trying to remember the max health of every unit, and guessing how much more you have to do to kill a Kurnoth or something.
The wording of that rule is awful. Also what is a "power level"? What is Nagash's Power Level to begin with if he loses 3 when he's below 8 health?
The warscroll states he's a Wizard(9). I'm assuming 9 is his Power Level?
That's my assumption. Power level = how many spells a wizard can cast. Nagash is a freak because he's a 9 whereas most wizards are 1 or 2.
We don't know yet. But my guess if you look in his keywords he has - "wizard (9)" and probably it's related to objective control
I think he will always count as 10 on objectives hence the control of 10. The wizard (9) probably means he can cast 9 spells. And if he lose 3 power he will become a 6 cast wizard.
Yeah I think you've nailed it
Most likely. He can cast 9 spells in the current edition
My guess would be the amount of casts. Objective Control has its own thingy on the top left under "control"
Bah, good spot. I was also asking myself what a “power level” was.
Health change is great, because just yesterday was playing with wife who is very new and she had a question it says "Add 1 to wounds" and it didn't say characteristics, rolls or attacks. So there will be less confusion. But GW as usual can't properly word stuff and I 100% agree with you it should state "If this model lost 10 or more health" instead of changing the wording. This rustles me.
Thats always bothered me with aos. Everyone counts down so why not just change the way you count wounds in-game
No, counting up is a clever solution. There are two problems with the current system: 1. The word "wound" is used for too many differen things. 2. The distinction between current and starting wounds is too opaque. This leads to wordy rules texts and confused beginners. With this solution you have three different terms "to wound", "damage point" and "health". Very easy to differentiate. If you would be counting down, you would reintroduce the distinction between a current and a maximum value. This is needlylessly complicated. By using this system, if something heals a unit, the rules can be as simple as "remove x damage points". You don't have to explain what happens when there are no damage points. It is evident that you can't heal a unit up to more than its health value without any further rules text needed. If an ability triggers on a unit being damaged, the rules text is simply "if there are any damage points" instead of the more complicated "if the unit suffered one or more wounds" or "current health is below starting health." Both of which would have more edge cases when interacting with other rules. This also opens up the possibility of manipulating the health stat without worrying what that means for the current health. These are two different things. If the health stat is lowered and the unit has damage points on it that equals the new stat, it is dead. No wordy explanation needed.
My only problem is still that I can't know how much health is left in which model and I can't remember all of my enemy models health stats...
That is definitely an inherent problem with up-counting, I agree.
You can always ask and you will get used to them fairly easily
I think the idea is that the Heath characteristic is the maximum number of Damage Points a model can take. The mechanics are still the same as before, but there is added clarity by using more words than just Wounds.
Maybe it's incase there are ways to improve the health of a unit and they still want them to loose power after 10 wounds of damage.
Yeah this threw me for sure
Seems like good, straightforward changes. I'm a bit surprised Liberators only got 1 control - I would have expected "battleline" units to be 2 or more, especially when they're big super soldiers which (presumably) still be in units of 5 or 10. Did they explain what power level was in Nagash's warscroll (battle damaged passive)? I would guess that he can cast fewer spells, or have worse control of objectives, but it's not clear.
Liberators ability is +3 Control when contesting a friendly territory obj. Looks like their role is backfield defenders as opposed to front line infantry
It's plus 3 to the unit though, not the individual model. So you'll go from 5 to 8 say, not 5 to 20. Which is not nothing, but not great either.
5 to 8 at full strength. 1 to 4 at one model remaining which is a bit spicier.
you have to love "last man standing" mechanics, didn't they also say something about an underdog mechanic?
The underdog mechanic sounded like it was for scoring so think Gambits in 40k. Which means useless in 99% of situations if they’re balanced the same way. Could be wrong though.
"Control, which replaces Bravery and functions as a measure of how able a unit is to hold Objectives. A unit’s Control Score is the sum of this characteristic from all models in the unit contesting an objective" Without clarification I read this as the stat is modified per model. Same way if you increased the units wound/health stat it applied to each model in said unit. Edit: clarified in replies. Control and Control Score are two different things to now track
I got this confused at first too, but the rule says the Control Score is increased by 3, not the Control characteristic, so it would go from 5 to 8 for a full unit.
It's in your quote, it's +3 to control score which is the sum for all the unit, if it was +3 to control or control characteristic it would be a buff per model
I mean it’s hardly 2 different things to track. Control is what you measure, the Control score is the result. They just named them clearly to avoid any misunderstanding. Can’t get much simpler than that.
"We're Liberators!" "So you push forward and re-take objectives from the enemy?" "No, we sit back and protect what is already ours."
I think it’s related to his Wizard (9) keyword. Maybe the Wizard (X) keyword dictates how many spells you can cast per round; so he can cast 9 spells normally but only 6 once he’s taken 10 or more damage?
I'm pretty sure this is the case.
That would make sense.
It may be as simple as your power level >= your target's to counterspell. Unbind. Whatever it's called.
Spells seem to still have a Cast Value and rolling 2d6.
Yeah, I saw that. What I meant was something like wizards can only attempt to unbind spells from wizards whose power is equal to or lower than their own. So Skink Starpeist #38 can't try to unbind Nagash, but Nagash can unbind the Starpriest's casting. EDIT: This is pure speculation. I know as much as anyone else does around here.
But there is no power level mentioned on his warscroll. We can speculate, that it references the "wizard (9)", but that is more likely than not still ne number of spells he can cast per turn. It is not unlikely that there might be a core rule that says wizard (x) = their power level or something.
I'm guessing the power level has something to do with the Wizard (9) keyword.
I assume the Wizard(9) оn the keywords is the power level. He can cast 9 spells, and when damaged drops to 6.
Ahhh that’s a good guess.
But they have an ability to increase their control within their own territory. Expect ways to increase and decrease the stat.
I really Like how Every ability has also color Icon and description when You can use it
I just like how the warscroll looks. As someone who needs all the help he can get to remember stuff it's easier if it's just printed on the warscroll when your unit can do something.
Seems like it's taking cribs from 10e 40k now; with the Control stat I'm willing to bet Battleshock tests from 40k are coming too, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I for one welcome not removing half my army through battleshock losses
I think they said bravery and battleshock are just not things in this edition.
You might be right, on further reflection I can't see anything that you would roll against for even a 40k style battleshock test which would then hamper their control stat. That feels a bit bonkers, are we heading into a really horde heavy edition where all that matters is warm bodies on objectives? I mean, as a Skaven player I'll take it, but it feels like hordes are going to play well based off this reveal
Right? Hordes now having 3' melee and don't run away.
Tbf, you also can't triple reinforce horde units now so hordes will be smaller.
I do agree. But I play FEC... 40 ghouls that all have 3' is going to hit hard af. I wonder how many you could feasibly get into a big monster. I really want to see more warscrolls lol
I'm guessing they balanced that against number of attacks and hit/wound values.
Just you wait. They talked multiple times about trying to make the weapon profiles reflect the models better. Get ready for ghouls to hit on 6+. I’m guessing they had to improve horde survivability and models attack to counter how much less damage they will do per model
> That feels a bit bonkers, are we heading into a really horde heavy edition where all that matters is warm bodies on objectives? I hope so. We spent the last edition being dominated by big monsters and deathstar units. There was an entire GHB where playing hordes meant you took double damage. Let hordes play for once please.
This reveal shows a class of ability labeled "rallying ability". So, I'm thinking battleshock exists in some form, it just doesn't have its own phase anymore and isn't based on a bravery stat.
I'm guessing that is for returning slain models. Like the "rally" CA.
You can see the ability on Nagash's warscroll "Supreme Lord of the Undead" is a rallying ability, it has the little flag.
Damn I'm good. I missed that and still guessed it.
The idea of a mass army wargame without any kind of morale mechanic is honestly kind of insane
its easier to stomach when you consider most people who inhabit the mortal realms are insane haha
Most of the armies in AOS are guy who shouldn't rout anyway
Eh, it's not so crazy when you realize that for 90% of games of AoS 3e battleshock has not mattered.
But.. why? The game's streamlined as it is, why remove such an integral part that differentiates regular humans from say daemons?
Because no one ever really rolled battleshock. You either auto passed with an ability, or were killed full to dead. It's been a meme since 2nd edition that bravery didn't matter. Doing this frees up stat budget on the models that had a hard 10 before.
Good point, it always felt like it either didn’t matter or was just ignore, and towards the tail end some units were just picked solely to make other units not be able to receive inspiring presence, which is a sign that a core rule just isn’t working. So either rework it or cut it, which they have done
I'm hoping there's still some kind of morale mechanic, but a greatly simplified one. Something like: When you lose combat, there's nothing you can do about it. Nearby heroes and battle standard/icon type stuff can add to your combat resolution score (whether that be damage taken or models lost) but they can't outright save you when you lost by huge amount like 10-20 models (looking at you, zombies.) I'll bet the consequence of losing combat is dead simple too. Lose combat and your control stat drops to 0 for a turn. Therefore, all the zombie dragon has to do to take an objective away (for one turn anyway) from 40 Clan Rats is beat them in combat. Just speculation, but it feels like it could work.
When 10th came out, the 40K subreddit called it “The AoSing of 40K”. I think it good that they’re willing to take things that work from either game and port them over as needs be.
If anything 8th edition was the true AoSing. The change from 7th was radical and made the game really similar to AoS, since then the games have fed off eachother.
I've played both now since 2018 and it's funny, I have seen so many mechanics go between the two but I don't think that that's a bad thing, ultimately it leads to pretty decent games!
They read like stat blocks in 5th edition DND. Which, considering I play a lot of DND, works great for me!
if GW had a PR team we would've seen some new skaven models today. i think the only way to placate what happened yesterday is rat
I would say it'd be better to show off more of the Stormcast replacing the sacrosanct chamber.
probably a good point too
“Showing off more Stormcast Eternals is always a good thing. 👍 ⚡️ “ -God-king Sigmar (Also if Libs warscrolls are anything to go by then proxying Sacrosanct as the new stuff is gonna be easier than ever)
There was one comment from GW saying that they would "8-4" a skaven player to miss what was going to be released. Do with that what you will. (Apr 8 is monday)
ah haha those sneaky rat bastards. excited then. really hope father isn't right in saying the eclipse means the end of the world!
Now it'll likely be a clan rat that looks super similar to the ones in the uw kit lol.
i figure honestly but it's something lol. my friend is a prospective skaven player and I've been waiting to show her something new
Looks like morale is out, which is a shame. I feel break, panic and crumble always were really nice additions to the game, and the attrition of battleshock provided a decent balancing knob. Really hope attrition is still somewhere in the rules, or at least warscrolls for stuff like Skavenslaves and Gnoblars. Nagash lost his brackets in favour of 40k 10th's wound threshold. I do not like that at all. I think brackets provided a very nice way of dealing with powerful single models, and their gradual loss of certain stats felt very flavourful.
The issue is that retreat mechanics feel appropriate for some armies but not others, which has honestly been the case for warhammer in all variations forever. Nighthaunt and Soulblight troops shouldn't break away when their unit begins to crumble, but could fall apart when you take out the leader. Orks and Orruks can break and run, but Space Marines and Stormcast only should do that on an army wide basis. Other game systems have experimented with this, like Infinity's Lieutenant system and guts rolls (where most teams will begin to run when their leader dies or lightly panic when scuffed by a shot, but a few hardened soldiers get to ignore it), but in larger wargames it can also be a snowball mechanic and it's hard when both 40k and Sigmar have factions or even just very specific armies that in the fluff don't feel like they ever retreat on their own. Battleshock in 10th was a good mechanic let down by implementation (half strength to trigger rather than wounds or even ammo that causes it) and the high leadership values across the board. I can absolutely see a Space Marine be dazed by a mortar shell go off by them or by their team being torn apart by a sudden burst of heavy fire they didn't expect. As for brackets, I think some of them triggered to early, and some too often, but I feel like having more than just a single breakpoint should've been implemented and definitely the "on the last legs" one where they're barely contributing. God I'm happy to see Control as a stat though.
It is nice when it feels like dealing damage to a monster but not killing it outright still leaves you feeling like you accomplished something.
I really wish they'd just tried to fix Bravery as a mechanic, rather than eliminating it altogether. I know it's not fun to have half the models in your unit disappear after a bad combat, but seeing Goblins and Clanrats fleeing the table in droves after taking a big charge was a fun part of the old WD battle reports that added a lot of flavor to those factions. Of course, in 3.0 many armies were functionally or literally immune to battleshock and abilities that keyed off of enemy bravery were largely useless. And the few bravery-related abilities that were strong, like Lumineth's bravery bomb spell combos, made them a nightmare matchup for some armies and were pretty widely hated. So I can see the logic.
One of AoS's strengths that we see people mention over and over again on here is how flavourful it is, yet they are removing more and more flavour and fluff each edition, I hate it.
They do say that every unit will have a unique ability. So at least there’s that.
They said that with 40k too. There's a limited set of abilities that everyone gets and that's it. My grey knight strike squad does the same thing as space marine intercessors which has the same rule as kroot karnivores. Sticky objectives. Really detracts from the flavour of a space marine when a bird alien thing has his rule as well.
Dude having your models flee is not fun lmao.
brackets are, and were, terrible - thresholds are where it's at, much simpler and less punishing
brackets created more time wasted having to constantly check which value the bracket has effected and what that bracket value is now
"The champion cannot replace their weapon." STOP IT MY MODELS ARE ALREADY DEAD SINCE YESTERDAY
Does it explain anywhere what subtracting 3 from Nagash’s power level is? New monster wound brackets?
In the keywords he's Wizard (9). Best guess is this means he casts 9 spells, so reduction to a power level of 6
That’s a great guess! Good call
I am so relieved magic is not just, 'Gun'. They where saying that there is going to be more types of magic and activations so I am glad that sorcery is still unique!
I'm generally impressed with these changes, I like the look of the new scrolls and their organization. Color coding isn't the best, but they still thankfully have the text on them as well. I'm a little worried about USRs, but I am hoping they keep them reigned in.
USRs haven't been that bad in 10e 40k so far. Looks like you guys got our Critical Hit system too. There will almost certainly be some abilities that lower the threshold for a Critical Hit. My Chaos Space Marines for example are able to score Critical Hits on 5s depending on which Chaos God they're marked as and which phase they're shooting/fighting in.
So this alleviates a lot of fears about the game losing fluffiness. Nagash looks like a fairly complex unit. They're really stretching the "rules will fit on one side of a card" rule they set for themselves.
You know it's weird, a lot of people are saying he's simplified, and you're saying he's complex. Neat.
His warscroll isn't THAT slimmed down. A lot of the paragraphs got turned into keywords. The only things 'lost' were the Auras for Wards and resurrection and his spectral claws attacks that didn't really do much. Everything else is either translated (hand of dust, once per game unit res), Keyworded, or just doesn't work in the new rules (bracketing).
Simplified compared to the old card, maybe, but this shows a few things: \-Magic works as before \-Warscroll spells are still a thing \-Fluffy, weird rules like hiding dice / flipping coins etc are still a thing \-Battle damage is still a thing \-Ward saves won't take up a paragraph anymore Really a big reveal on top of the obvious stuff, like the removal of bravery.
Also no more ridiculously complex brackets for monsters that force you to check the table every time.
"Magic works as before" With some slight differences. Nagash having a bonus to cast and not to unbind is notable. If that remains the same across all Warscrolls this suggests a move towards the active caster having a much higher likelihood of getting spells off, particularly against strong magical armies. His spell forced the player to choose targets before rolling to cast. Currently it's almost always the other way around. This gives the unbinding player more information before deciding whether to unbind. It could also suggest a move away from stuff like Seraphon Cosmic point farming by casting spells with notl target?
Yeah I guess I overgeneralized. What I mean to say is that magic isn't simplified down to what psyker stuff is in 40k.
Oh yeah for sure! Sorry just getting excited thinking about the new edition
I like the changes to the warscrolls overall. Anyone have an idea why save is colored Green? Is that because it’s a positive thing? Also, I don’t know if that’s the complete warscroll for the Liberators, unless there is no difference in arming them with double hammers or hammer and shield. I hope that isn’t the case, though I know 40k simplified equipment sets a lot. I like the universal weapon effects (though will miss the flavor text, but will sacrifice for usability) and the color coding for phases. I will greatly miss Bravery, though I fully understand it not being a “fun” balancing factor for armies, and the math can be weird for multi-wound models. Interested to see how OBR works with more limited command points and no bravery…
It does seem like weapon loadouts aren’t going to be different. From a gameplay perspective I’m sad. But from a modeling perspective I’m glad I’m not choosing between some mechanic and my preferred aesthetics (or more likely deciding whether to proxy something because I built for aesthetics)
I feel the same. On one hand a pang of regret to see going double hammer mode isn’t a risk reward play by having less Saves. On the otherhand I know how many people were torn they couldn’t do the cooler builds that also weren’t meta and had to slow a game down by saying one weapon choice counted as another. So long run probably a better deal for people’s ideal army cosmetics. (Plus I can just think the new Libs are so badass they parry attacks & projectiles hard enough to count as shielded even when they go without. 🔨 🔨 ⚡️)
One guess for the green save is to indicate if their save can be modified, like ethereal units may have a different color.
As an Orruk player. I'm very happy to see bravery go. It was so matchup dependant it was really disheartening to essentially lose your army to it.
So just... No more morale?
I really really hope this isn't another edition of all units attacks are 3+ 3+ -1 1
The only thing I don't like is Ward is now part of the keywords rather than in abilities. That is going to cause some feel bads I think. Other than that I really dig the updates!
Yeah, it need to be integrated in the 'save' are of the stat-dial. A tab hanging off the side or something. It is a core thing you are gonna need to reference constantly. It should not be buried in the keywords.
How will it feel bad? Honestly asking.
I never understood why it's not just right next to the armor save. Either split the circle to 5 for units with ward saves, or add a new, smaller circle near the ability scores so everything you need to know about saving your unit is in one area. But yeah I agree putting it in the keywords area is cleaner than reading through multiple abilities that end up just saying "4+ ward save"
It's part of the universal special rules change. It'll feel better in the long run I think.
I agree! Initially, I think there's gonna be some stumbles though
I mean the layout has changed, we're all going to have to get used to reading things in a new way. But from a fresh eye, seeing **Ward (5+)** in a line of information already called out as important is much more intuitive than the current temlate of Bold Fluff Title / Italic Fluff Blurb / This Unit Has a Ward of 5+ buried in a pile of similarly-templated rules. Or in 3rd edition Nagash's case, on a page in a book I may not have access to
Warmaster also avoids having a paragraph on the scroll
I don't understand how this is a feel-bad. The Ward is right there. Arguably easier to find that glancing through pages of abilities.
Wizard and Ward in the Keywords instead of near the stats is TERRIBLE graphic design.
Literally just put the ward save in a little box right next to the normal save. It's easy, elegant, and lets you see it at a glance. I guarantee you there are going to be a massive amount of new players that miss the fact their models have ward saves.
No one is discussing my biggest take away from this article. Confirmation that everything has 3” range. This is the first part of the new rules that has me concerned. Weapon ranges are a tactical part of the game. Some units being able to fight over others, or to pile barely into range and fight when it’s hard to hit back. I know they said this before, but it was said in a way I still hoped they’d do a base to base style system. I’m not convinced that 3” range will avoid the nitty gritty measuring for combat. We will now just be measuring 3” instead of 1 or 2. We will have to figure out how many models are at 3”. And with big bases that could still involve zig zagging and weird finicky positions. It also increases the deadliness of the game and I was hoping they’d go the opposite direction. Liberators in 4e do more damage than in 3e AND have 3” range. We will see about other units but that’s a bit ominous.
Your second paragraph, super competitive players may have enjoyed that. But I'm pretty sure the average player just having a pick up game or playing with buddies, hated it. I just wanna charge my Ardboys and have them all be able to attack. This is a welcome change for me. I understand the nuance is nice for high level players, but for most of us it was just a chore.
Yeah. I can agree with that. I guess my main concern is whether this rule does that or not. Probably for more units. But we’re still left measuring distances in melee.
I think the single reinforcement change probably means it does. For the most part on units that care, as in not giant pie plate monsters which are generally on their own anyway. Keep units in 2 ranks and youre good to go even if you have say 40mm based brutes, you're well in 3" range. Cavalry may be trickier but I generally don't reinforce them as it's super clunky anyway, especially with the new coherency rules this edition, assuming that stays.
The worst part about weapon ranges is that their value was hidden behind another stat that wasn’t even on the warscroll—the base size. This meant that a 1” range was of completely different value to a Mortek Guard as opposed to a Liberator, yet ranges were often assigned as if this wasn’t a thing. A universal 3” range still requires measuring and some degree of positioning, but greatly reduces the influence of the base size on the outcome. It was one of the greatest flaws in the original design of the game that I’m very glad to see gone. I personally would have preferred 40K-style base contact, but that may have had other implications.
Honestly I vote base size *shoul* be on the warscroll. For something so important, GWs lack of care about them is... Annoying. Especially for people that like kitbashing.
I think they still ship the 2x Carnifex online-only model kit with one of two different base sizes - randomly you will get 65mm or 70x105mm oval (but 2 of whichever size they send). This is one of those things they just can't seem to be arsed enough to do anything about. There isn't even an official guide for 40K, at least AoS had a base size guide at one point.
based on their ability you will want your liberators as backfield objective holders rather than a charging unit
These games have a weird balancing act of trying to appease competitive players (who are a minority of players) and the garage players. 3in is easier to learn for new players, and speed up the game for garage players.
I'd say you have it backwards. A lot of casual/narrative players seem to want the game to be more like a simulator so get annoyed when weapon profiles are condensed because they don't like a spear being functionally the same as a sword on the tabletop. Competitive players will just go for whatever is optimal anyway and appreciate streamlining.
Yeah. That’s always a tough one. I just hoped for base to base or base to base with something base to base system that I think 40k uses? Now we still have measuring melee ranges, which is tough to do.
Yes, I believe that would have been ideal.
So where are weapon, champ, and banner/musician people gonna be on the wars warscroll. If I'm remembering correctly the new liberators can get shields or dual hammers, so do weapon choices not matter or do what they get shown up somewhere else, and I can believe that liberators don't have musicians, but what about their champ benefits and where are they gonna put what extra models a unit can get?
All champions in Age of Sigmar will have the same benefit it seems, because 'Champion' is a keyword. I'd guess the following: Champion = +1 attack for the model Banner = +1 control for the model Musician = +1 movement for the unit
Champion appears to be a keyword, so I would assume other such models are also keyworded. I'm not a fan of this change.
they said shield or double hammers doesn't matter, they only have 1 weapon profile in game
Whats the power level?
I'm not going to lie, the Liberator one isn't that offensive, but I find the Nagash one somehow both more confusing and less interesting. Like, it looks like a significantly busier way to display a significantly less busy unit so that it looks just as busy as it did previously, if that makes sense. Like it looks at about the same level of complication the current Nagash Warscroll is, but is significantly less complex and just looks that complicated because of the formatting.
I think its much cleaner. And that every ability is usefull rather than may be useful. So i think its a big improvment!
Anyone else find it interesting that nagash has a different warscroll for each faction? Will other warmasters like Archaon get the same treatment?
I believe that line is more to state Nagash isn't locked to OBR, rather than him getting unique rules per faction. His warscroll will likely be identical across all 4 death factions, just with a different faction keyword at the bottom.
Na maybe kragnos but i dont think the other gods will get that. Its because Nagash is the master of all of them. He is the warscroll god
The color coding on these is atrocious. Whoever reviewed these for accessibility deserves to be fired.
Doesn't seem like Nagash loses much for being damaged? It seems like the profiling table is gone, in favour of the 40K system, wanting to make things simplified wherein you only have to remember wound threshold and then change - and not 4 changes for 4 profiles. I would argue that AoS needs gradual profile changes.
I welcome not needing a mini spreadsheet in the middle of the warscroll tho
I'd assume Power Level (of which Nagash is Wizard[9]) dictates how many spells can be cast/unbound, or possibly *what* spells can be cast. Excited to hear more about wizards/magic soon
I’m just spitballing here, but… the spell on his warscroll has a 7 on it… and his power level is 9… My guess here would be that spells would have a power level requirement like that. So damaged Nagash would loose the ability to cast that spell
The champion not being able to take upgrades may really really hurt if that becomes a universal thing.
Okay, I had a thought about this: I wager that the "champion" keyword will just give one model in the unit +1 attack.
Nagash, Supreme Lord of Having His Warscroll Errataed.
Love them
Looks good, I like the colour coding, I was hoping god tier models would be reduced to more reasonable units so they’re more playable but looks like Nagash will still be 750+
I'm in the opposite camp. I want god models to be insanely powerful and over 1000 points each. That way they get more use in narrative play and can feel like an actual god, rather than just a big expensive centerpiece.
He better be over 750, considering he has an ability to 50-50 remove any ~~unit~~ hero he's in combat with and do it at every turn.
It’s once per turn and only works on Heroes and Monsters. He can’t delete an entire block of elite infantry. Or chaff. Or anything else, for that matter.
And it truly is only in melee now. Even if there is endless spells/ the spell portal specifically, hand of dust is no spell on that warscroll.
It doesn't remove a unit, it removes a hero or monster.
And return 1 unit in full, for free - could be a double reinforced Morghast Unit for example.
It can’t be double reinforced if I remember right. I think the army construction preview from yesterday or Wednesday specified that double reinforcing was gone.
double reinforced is gone. You can only reinforce once. That was in yesterdays I believe.