1. Spearhead will be it's own separate thing much like Combat Patrol, there will be no army building in it, as they have stated you will buy and build the box then play it. 2. Age of Sigmar has never had the diversity of wargear and weapon options that 40k had. They literally just toned down 40k to be closer to the level of AoS customization, AoS will still probably function the same with some 0-X weapon options and maybe a piece of wargear or two per unit.
I don't think that we're seeing the death of the rapid errata. If something absolutely breaks the game, they'll probably issue quick erratas. But instead of having to print the errata and stick it in the book, maybe they print the fixed version in the GHB reducing the number of books/pdfs you need. Or if they want to do a massive change, like they note for Andtor magic, they can just do a full rewrite instead of 'change paragraph x to say y'. The rules writers have gotten too much praise through 3.0 for their tight balancing to entirely eliminate it. Also I think that the path that GW has done since 8th ed 40k and 2e AoS is AoS iterates on the rules system, 40k takes the successes and attempts to add it to 40k. I think the best thing they can do with weapon profiles here is to unify chaff weapons. A clan rat's weapon shouldn't matter, it's a clan rat it's meant to be a speedbump. We've seen most chaff and liberator equivients have their weapons unified through 3.0, there's just a few holdouts (saurus warriors, Mortek Guard, and the aforementioned clanrats come to mind). Now if they made spears a reactive weapon (like extra rend, attack first, or mortals when charged) then scrap what I said and let's have some discussions.
I hate that rend (and AP in 40k are negative instead of positive). Everyone basically adds it anyways. If save 4+ and rend -1, opponent needs to roll a 5+. Clarify how the rule is written. It should state that the opponent adds your rend modifier stat to his save stat, and then has to roll a dice equal to or higher than his new modified save stat in order to make a save. Currently, it's written roll a dice, minus opponents rend stat from rhe dice, and that has to be equal to or higher than his save stst. Its same thing but written clearer. It's the same thing to pass a save, just written more clearly.
For veterans YES everyone views it as a + and you add it to your save. People just starting will get confused cause the way the human mind works is when somthing makes somthing else harder thats a negative not a positive. Personally Id prefer going back to the old AP days, aka a flat AP and anything with a worse save than the AP just doesnt get a save. Simple, straightforward and no mathing involved. GW over the years kept saying they are changing things that dont NEED to be that complex, BS going from a chart to simply saying what is actually needed to hit, that was a why is this a chart and not just stated on the sheet. Changing AP from If the AP is lower then no save to take the AP value of the weapon and subtract it from you save roll and if the result is higher than your save you fail is the OPPOSITE of their intended direction.
Yeah the wording screwed me up for longer than I wanted. The whole modifying the dice roll was so clumsy as a description when I obviously pictured it as modifying the stat for the roll.
@@memnarch129nah I didn’t like that. The all or nothing of that ap mechanic lacked nuance and it was annoying that you had weapons that were basically heavy vehicle weapons bouncing off stormtrooper armour. And apparently it made rules design balancing harder.
@@gwell2118 What?? Umm no you didnt. Melta/Las/equivalent weapons where always AP 1 or 2 which meant no save. Only Vehicle Weapons that didnt where any that where just infantry weapons with more shots or abilites, aka Hurricane Bolters being 3 Twin Linked bolters and the Twin Linked Assault Cannon well being a Assault Cannon with Twin Linked. So youd rather have the current where it IS possible for Firewarriors in cover can shrug Lascannon shots? Yeah no when your hit with a weapon that is designed to blow holes in tanks there shouldnt be a chance you walk away from that.
Modular rules ... Isn't that what one page rules has been doing since the start , strange that gw have to look at how other formats work now to get inspiration 🤔
Not really. Smart businesses look at why their competition is beating them. They then figure out a way to do the same thing their own way, and possibly improving on it since the first party was doing it all from scratch so 90% of the work was getting it to work in the first place. Really if GW did this MORE over the years they would of been in a MUCH better situation.
@@memnarch129exactly toy you can’t JUST copy competition as your just jumping into a race already behind. You gotta find a way to give yourself a leg up.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D2 | Fall | ต้องรักษาฟอร์ม อย่ายอมให้ใครแซง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x38QsGn7A3M/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] MCHOICE & MINT AWARDS 2024 at TRUE ICON HALL, ICONSIAM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wMewUeT5nbY/mqdefault.jpg)
1. Spearhead will be it's own separate thing much like Combat Patrol, there will be no army building in it, as they have stated you will buy and build the box then play it.
2. Age of Sigmar has never had the diversity of wargear and weapon options that 40k had. They literally just toned down 40k to be closer to the level of AoS customization, AoS will still probably function the same with some 0-X weapon options and maybe a piece of wargear or two per unit.
I don't think that we're seeing the death of the rapid errata. If something absolutely breaks the game, they'll probably issue quick erratas. But instead of having to print the errata and stick it in the book, maybe they print the fixed version in the GHB reducing the number of books/pdfs you need. Or if they want to do a massive change, like they note for Andtor magic, they can just do a full rewrite instead of 'change paragraph x to say y'. The rules writers have gotten too much praise through 3.0 for their tight balancing to entirely eliminate it.
Also I think that the path that GW has done since 8th ed 40k and 2e AoS is AoS iterates on the rules system, 40k takes the successes and attempts to add it to 40k. I think the best thing they can do with weapon profiles here is to unify chaff weapons. A clan rat's weapon shouldn't matter, it's a clan rat it's meant to be a speedbump. We've seen most chaff and liberator equivients have their weapons unified through 3.0, there's just a few holdouts (saurus warriors, Mortek Guard, and the aforementioned clanrats come to mind). Now if they made spears a reactive weapon (like extra rend, attack first, or mortals when charged) then scrap what I said and let's have some discussions.
I hate that rend (and AP in 40k are negative instead of positive). Everyone basically adds it anyways. If save 4+ and rend -1, opponent needs to roll a 5+. Clarify how the rule is written. It should state that the opponent adds your rend modifier stat to his save stat, and then has to roll a dice equal to or higher than his new modified save stat in order to make a save. Currently, it's written roll a dice, minus opponents rend stat from rhe dice, and that has to be equal to or higher than his save stst. Its same thing but written clearer.
It's the same thing to pass a save, just written more clearly.
For veterans YES everyone views it as a + and you add it to your save. People just starting will get confused cause the way the human mind works is when somthing makes somthing else harder thats a negative not a positive. Personally Id prefer going back to the old AP days, aka a flat AP and anything with a worse save than the AP just doesnt get a save. Simple, straightforward and no mathing involved. GW over the years kept saying they are changing things that dont NEED to be that complex, BS going from a chart to simply saying what is actually needed to hit, that was a why is this a chart and not just stated on the sheet. Changing AP from If the AP is lower then no save to take the AP value of the weapon and subtract it from you save roll and if the result is higher than your save you fail is the OPPOSITE of their intended direction.
i'm confused how y'all are nerds and also simple.
Yeah the wording screwed me up for longer than I wanted. The whole modifying the dice roll was so clumsy as a description when I obviously pictured it as modifying the stat for the roll.
@@memnarch129nah I didn’t like that. The all or nothing of that ap mechanic lacked nuance and it was annoying that you had weapons that were basically heavy vehicle weapons bouncing off stormtrooper armour. And apparently it made rules design balancing harder.
@@gwell2118 What?? Umm no you didnt. Melta/Las/equivalent weapons where always AP 1 or 2 which meant no save. Only Vehicle Weapons that didnt where any that where just infantry weapons with more shots or abilites, aka Hurricane Bolters being 3 Twin Linked bolters and the Twin Linked Assault Cannon well being a Assault Cannon with Twin Linked.
So youd rather have the current where it IS possible for Firewarriors in cover can shrug Lascannon shots? Yeah no when your hit with a weapon that is designed to blow holes in tanks there shouldnt be a chance you walk away from that.
Modular rules ... Isn't that what one page rules has been doing since the start , strange that gw have to look at how other formats work now to get inspiration 🤔
Not really. Smart businesses look at why their competition is beating them. They then figure out a way to do the same thing their own way, and possibly improving on it since the first party was doing it all from scratch so 90% of the work was getting it to work in the first place.
Really if GW did this MORE over the years they would of been in a MUCH better situation.
@@memnarch129exactly toy you can’t JUST copy competition as your just jumping into a race already behind. You gotta find a way to give yourself a leg up.