What AoS can learn from the new 40k

[WoollyMammoth]

Obviously, 8th edition 40k has taken a lot of AoS. But there is a lot of impressive things about the new 40k rules that AoS can learn from as well.

Here is a list of things I find impressive that I think can be directly applied to future editions of AoS to improve the game

Power Level
- Better than "just put down whatever"

Restricted Shooting
- AoS needs some better shooting rules

Better Casting (Psyker) Phase
 - I wouldn't want to mess with the casting phase too much, though I do miss the complexity of the 8th magic phase, I don't want to head down a path to purple sun. I really like Smite though, how it can only be cast at the nearest enemy, and is unrestricted by the rules of one. So often I'm stuck with a wizard that just has really nothing to do, because Mystic Shield & Arcane bolt were already attempted, and their spell is out of range, or not useful in the current situation. 

Daemons
- Daemons, particularly Nurgle and Slaanesh have a lot more going for them in 40k than AoS. Heralds are psykers that grant +1 strength, boosting the power of melee-centric daemon troops, and Demon Princes are power houses that boost re-rolls to hit. Right now when you go through the Nurgle and Slannesh scrolls for AoS, they just don't have much to offer. Obviously this just goes to show how much armies with a lack of their own allegiance tome suffer under AoS, which is really a seperate problem that needs to be addressed. Daemons have no tome of any kind for 40k either, but there is a lot of cool synergy going on with them. Right now they just gave AoS daemons a band-aid by making things very cheap. 

Summoning
- Summoning is flat-out better in 40k. Any char can do it at a risk, and you can summon units of any size. Most troops that you can summon in AoS get a bonus to having 20 or more models, and the chance to even summon 20 is not likely in most cases. As a death player, I rarely ever use summoning because, in most cases its only used to create a chaff wall. Also the whole "summoners know this spell, you can summon blah blah blah" is much better replaced on the scrolls as a simple keyword.

SvT Wound Rolls
- This would add depth to the scrolls that I think they could use. This would open up a lot of interesting possibilities. Monsters and armored things would be harder to wound, making them have more value. You could represent a models unusual toughness (stonehorn, necrosphinx) by giving them a really high toughness, instead of a bunch of nasty special rules. You could have effects and synergy in the form of strength and toughness effects. Spells, effects and synergy that lower or boost would give the game a lot more depth. Right now you mainly see +1/-1 to hit all over the place as the only modifiers in the game. 

Ranks
40k fixes the whole problem of weapon ranges by saying you can target a model who's base you are touching, or any model touching one of those models. This is essentially two ranks, and how AoS works out most of the time anyway. Longer weapons could be attributed to three ranks (b2b w/ a model who's b2b with a model who's b2b with the enemy). This immediately does away with all the confusion; measuring every weapon one at a time, trying to squeeze your models together, and the awkwardness of when someone starts stacking their bases up because "bases don't matter". Bases do matter, and its time for the rules to address this. Even for those using square bases, the concept is not hard to apply. 

These are just a few examples where I think AoS can learn from 40k.

What do you think? Are there any aspects of the new 40k rules you would like to see applied to AoS in future updates, or should fantasy be kept as simple as possible with minimal changes, if any?
 

 

[ZephyrExia]

The only thing I would definitely like to see change, is the shooting mechanic. IMO A unit engaged in combat should only be able to shoot at the unit(s) it is engaged with. Possibly with a -1 to hit.

Power level is cool. Most people probably wont play with it.

Spell casting could be mixed up a little. Mystical Shield and Arcane Bolt could be the exception to the casting, provided that a unit can't benefit from, more than one mystic shield at a time. The issue is that we don't want it to be like pre-GHandbook spell spam.

No opinion on daemons as I don't play or vs them.

Summoning could be fixed if there was some sort of 'size' factor. Like if you kill a hero, you can summon a hero, kill a monster, summon a monster etc. Summoning is a tricky thing to balance though, so I'll leave it to the rules adepts.

SvT, I hope not. I personally like the simplicity of AoS warscrolls. 

Attacking in base combat is interesting, but 40k doesn't have many models on 40mm bases as standard units (stormcast could hit a power creep here). I do think its about time for base rules to be added, as AoS has been out for a while, and re-basing from squares isn't too hard.

[WoollyMammoth]

@ZephyrExia
I don't think stormcast would have too much power in two units. each model is basically supposed to represent two of a "human sized" unit (2 wounds, 2 attacks, etc). so 5 liberators for example cost 100 points like most 10 man infantry. 10 man infantry have no problems surrounding a unit but the big bases cause issues for stormcast. Based on the research I have done, its mostly an unnecessary hindrance for stormcast. A lot of people "stack" their stormcast bases to squeeze in since, bases are not supposed to matter. 

I talked about this a lot in this topic in this post where - a year ago - I was proposing this same idea for AoS in order to limit the annoyance of "bases don't matter" in a world where they absolutely do matter.

As far as 40k and 40mm bases, pretty much every space marine-based army can field all or mostly Terminators. Grey knights are almost all 40mm exclusively. Its easily to field a Tyranid army with lots of warriors now, or even bigger base units. Genestealer Cults can (and likely will) have a lot of Abberants for some powerhouse melee. 7 of the 22 new primaris marines are on 40mm, and you will probably see a lot of interceptor squads together. When it comes down to it, there is really no reason 40k should have this rule and not fantasy, and I think a lot of people would be relieved with the simplicity of this compared to the current "measure every weapon" system.

 

[Killax]

I pretty much agree with the above. The other more practicle thing I like about new 40K is that it contains a true rock papper scissors approach, which could be really cool to implement in AoS more aswell, however this would likely lead to a return of S/T in AoS. 

The advantage I see now in 40K is that Monsters/Vechicles really require dedicated anti Monster/Vechicle weapons and units, the same applies for Infantry aswell. The whole sequence of movement and charges with priority is also very interesting as it leads to a tactical reward.

Other than that I think it's also good to see the Index books having covered parts of the factions/legions/chapters/fleets to come. I feel many of the older Battletome's are cool supplements but add very little when it comes to the gaming content, in fact we could even argue that some parts of the Index add more as the old Battletome's in AoS did.

[PraetorDragoon]

While there are some things that AoS can learn from 40k, it is also good to have a lot of differences. In the end, we want to play Age of Sigmar, not Warhammer 40000 with bows.

- Power Levels

While rather useful, I don't think Power Levels will be used a lot. Most players will gravitate towards matched play and points, as "points are better balanced". Just like you see with current AoS. I would like to have them, but currently Power Levels aren't that much different from our AoS points.

- Restricted Shooting

I would like to see this change mostly because it feels weird that an "engaged" unit can still shoot. The main thing that could gain an improvement.

- Spellcasters

Funny that you mention that as I have already seen some grunting on the Tyranid Forum that certain models are relegated to "Spamming Smite". I suppose it's better than just sitting around. 40k Psykers only have Smite and a spell picked from their Discipline (currently 3 choices for each faction). While Tome-buffed AoS Casters have more choices. (Arcane Bolt, Mystic Shield, Unique Spell, Lore), so the average AoS Wizard has more diversity in spell choices than the average 40k Psyker.

In the end however, this is mostly a limit imposed by the "Three Rules of One" of matched play and the lack of a lot of Lores for AoS casters. A lot of their supposed issues can fixed if we would get an "Allegiances of the Realms" book or something, or if GW would churn out a lot of Battletomes already.

- Daemons.

Mostly a lack of Tomes/Allegiance stuff, as adressed above. Heralds being Wizards could be interesting however. Not something I would say that could be learned specific from 40k.

- Summoning.

I almost forget Summoning did exist in 40k so little has been talked about it. IMO it is better in AoS however, as you have far more control over it. The AOS spells are riskier to use compared to dice rolling of the 40k version, however, being absolutely certain that you will get whatever Daemons you need for the given situation is flat out better, especially if you throw the required Reserve points (at least, in Matched) in the mix. (For the uninitiated,  in warhammer 40.000 any Chaos character can attempt to summon Daemons at the end of the movement phase. To do so the Character rolls up to 3 dice, the result of the dice being the power level you can summon. If you roll doubles or triples you suffer Mortal wounds. Bloodletters have a power level of 5 per 10 models, so you would need to roll at least a 5 to summon them. )

- Strength & Toughness.

How about no? I like the information all being available on the warscroll. While additional stats do provide the opportunity for some more complex interactions and tricks, it doesn't necessary mean that it's better. IMO AoS has a good system by having weapons being completely seperate from the unit statsline. (By which I mean that units have a Move/Wounds/Bravery/Save line, and weapons a Hit/Wound/Rend/Damage line. It does allow for more variety without resorting to having weapons special rules modifying how well the unit hits, like power fists. 

- Ranks

Most people I know do already measure from bases and it works fine.  Weapon ranges also make for certain interesting tricks, such as having a unit with 2"/3" spears hiding behind a shieldwall unit so they can stab the enemy without moving in contact with those when the frontline unit is charged. A tactic completely absent from 40k.

 

- Final Points

IMO a lot of points you raised can be fixed with changes to individual Warscrolls and the release of Allegiance books, rather than changes to the Core system, with the exception of maybe Shooting.

Also, the only Core Rule I would like to see ported is the ability to hide small based Heroes behind units. (In 40k, a Character with less than 10 wounds cannot be shot at if it's within 1" of a friendly unit unless it's the closest model.) It might be a good rule to either houserule or copy into GHB2.0, whenever that book releases.

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

5 hours ago, Killax said:

I pretty much agree with the above. The other more practicle thing I like about new 40K is that it contains a true rock papper scissors approach, which could be really cool to implement in AoS more aswell, however this would likely lead to a return of S/T in AoS. 

The advantage I see now in 40K is that Monsters/Vechicles really require dedicated anti Monster/Vechicle weapons and units, the same applies for Infantry aswell. The whole sequence of movement and charges with priority is also very interesting as it leads to a tactical reward.

Other than that I think it's also good to see the Index books having covered parts of the factions/legions/chapters/fleets to come. I feel many of the older Battletome's are cool supplements but add very little when it comes to the gaming content, in fact we could even argue that some parts of the Index add more as the old Battletome's in AoS did.

I think it coulde be solved fairly easily without the need to do much tweaking. Just introduce 4 keywords:

Monstruous: -1 to wound.

Gargantuan: -2 to wound.

Monster hunter:  ignores monstruous keyword.

Big game hunter: ignores both keywords and get +1 to wound against monstrous.

Add in another keyword:

Area attack: allows for splash damage.

And negate wound pooling over other models and we may be gold.

[chord]

I disagree with most of it.  I prefer AOS to stay more streamlined and "simple" rules.

[Killax]

57 minutes ago, KillagoreFaceslasha said:

I think it coulde be solved fairly easily without the need to do much tweaking. Just introduce 4 keywords:

Monstruous: -1 to wound.

Gargantuan: -2 to wound.

Monster hunter:  ignores monstruous keyword.

Big game hunter: ignores both keywords and get +1 to wound against monstrous.

Add in another keyword:

Area attack: allows for splash damage.

And negate wound pooling over other models and we may be gold.

Certainly possible. But thats what Im also promoting here, a lot of the Core rules in AoS are almost there.

I think that other options could be to simply keep Monsters as the units they are now but have the option to move from combat to combat as they please (though Flyers are still only able to move over models)....

24 minutes ago, chord said:

I disagree with most of it.  I prefer AOS to stay more streamlined and "simple" rules.

40K is actually more streamlined as AoS' start was, much more even. No "do whatever you want" which leads to "this game is about whatever".
One of the coolest factors 40K is now introducing is a system where rock, paper and scissors are all very worthy opponents and ignoring either can lead to your demise. What this leads to is that meta's can shift continiously which rewards the player predicting it and playing it well.

On one hand we see swarms who require Rapid Fire, Assault X and Heavy X awnsers while Monsters/Robots/Vechicles require 2/3/D6 damages in order to be very well dealth with. In addition to all of this we have armour saves and wounds balanced better more than ever as the typical 'good unit' comes in at 180 points. Which directly and continiously translates to:
- 10 guys with 1 wound and armour save 3+
- 20 guys with 1 wound and invuln save 5+
- 30 guys with 1 wound and several moral test modifiers
The beauty of this type of design is that it ripples into very easy to balance designs. If you've got high AP the 10 guys with armour save 3+ will be shred to bits in a single turn. If you've got high attacks with high range the 30 wound guys are very easy to mow down all the while the fine middle ground can deal with both sides and thus punishes a particular skew very well as they fit perfectly in between wounds and reliable saves.

Simple rules can be contained while giving tactical depth and 8th 40K offers this in a complete design while AoS to me offers it for the Combat phase and honestly only does it well for the Combat phase. Missle attacks are arguably too hard of a game manipulator, Magic and Summonning is arguably too soft of a game manipulator. 

In all cases, fans of AoS, I have to ask, do you think it makes sence that AoS has a strictly better shooting phase while 40K has the better Magic? To me, from a fan of both systems, that actually should have been the other way around...

[chord]

1 minute ago, Killax said:

 

40K is actually more streamlined as AoS' start was, much more even. No "do whatever you want" which leads to "this game is about whatever".

In all cases, fans of AoS, I have to ask, do you think it makes sence that AoS has a strictly better shooting phase while 40K has the better Magic? To me, from a fan of both systems, that actually should have been the other way around...

For you perhaps, but I personally felt that AOS in the beginning was fine but then again I did not carry any wargaming baggage with me, AOS was my intro into wargaming.

I'm ok with AOS as is. For people who want more in-depth they should probably play 40K

[Jamopower]

I've heard from initial reactions of some local (competitive) players who have been testing the new system for the ETC, that the summoning seems to be quite useless in the new 40k. Of course remains to be seen if it's really so, but the restriction to movement is quite big penalty for most characters.  For casual gaming it looks fun though, especially as a Word bearer player

 

Also, the rock, paper, scissors elements leads easily to the situation where the result of the match is clear after (or even before) the deployment. Don't see the advantage there? I have understood that Warmachine mk3 had big problems in this sense. No experience from the game, but just heard quite in depth analysis of the game some time ago from local WM/H tournament regulars.

[SolarBur]

Well when the next edition of the generals handbook comes out. I hope that the armies that do have army books finally get their artifacts, army rules, and command traits. This might seem a little biased because i have clan pestilens, but i also have bonesplitterz. two armies both carried over from warhammer fantasy with no new models, but one got a bit more treatment than the other. 

Even the ironjawz and fyreslayers, two new miniature armies didn't get the same amount of love put in like say.. stormcast, kharadron overlords, beastclaw, or syvaneth. 

I know with the new 8th edition out, 40k is going to be pretty popular and in local gw's i've seen, its pretty much been people getting ready for the release this weekend. But still, i would like to see the armies currently out with books get some attention to make them a bit more complete. 

 

I do agree on the shooting while engaged, it feels a little off that a unit can still fire to its full capabilities while fending off attackers. If its a large model, that's fair enough, but not say a handgunner for instance. 

Other than that, AoS to me is a pretty solid game. It does what it needs to do and it keeps it simple. The level of customisation for units and characters isn't as deep as 40k, but it doesn't make it any less of a game. I do miss kitting my characters out with an erray of exotic magical weapons, stolen and snatched from the hands of another general. Personally, i just think AoS lacks depth. Before you kill me, hear me out

AoS is a skirmish style battle game, along the lines of hordes and warmachine (with generally a lot moar models for most armies), your characters playing a large role in your army for it to work. Such as my bonesplitter wizards or my plague priests, giving the army buffs and such to get them through. But like H&WM, the game pretty much comes as is, units have command options, maybes a special weapon or two. You monsters come as they are with different weapons on them being more visual more than anything (for instance the giant). When you pick up a box of models in the store, what you see on it is what you get, you see all the things the unit is capable of taking and that's as far as unit customisation goes. In 40k its a lot more deeper in its customisation, even simplified as 8th is it still follows that role of kitting out units in a variety of ways. 

Sorry, its early, i just woke up. I tend to ramble when i'm tired ^^;;;

[Killax]

25 minutes ago, chord said:

For you perhaps, but I personally felt that AOS in the beginning was fine but then again I did not carry any wargaming baggage with me, AOS was my intro into wargaming.

I'm ok with AOS as is. For people who want more in-depth they should probably play 40K

Well to me it was fine as a nice game to play with your friends however also exclusively with that because you basically have to fill in your own rules. The fact of the matter is that globally speaking we still do this... Comming back to the most common example, measuring from base to base instead of model to model so your Goblins can actually damage those recently released Kharadron Overlords Zeppelins or a wicked converted flying Bloodthirster on a giant heap of skulls.

AoS is okay as is, though it has the potential to become big, ideally as big as 40K. To me, the more who play the game, the merrier. By large because it means that you can face different armies and continue to be amazed by new paintjobs, army constructions and converted models.

[ZephyrExia]

3 hours ago, PraetorDragoon said:

Also, the only Core Rule I would like to see ported is the ability to hide small based Heroes behind units. (In 40k, a Character with less than 10 wounds cannot be shot at if it's within 1" of a friendly unit unless it's the closest model.) It might be a good rule to either houserule or copy into GHB2.0, whenever that book releases.

I really don't like that rule in 40k. Just imagine not being able to shoot Sayl because it was next to a unit, or the savage orruk hero. There are a lot of heroes in AoS that are powerful, and under 10 wounds. House rule if you want, but I hope it isn't in the core rules.

[Mikester1487]

I would love to be where you are around for 40k Killax.  It would be amazing to have the crowds 40 k does, but around my area variety is lacking.   Just walking around 40k tournaments and game night's at my local store more than half of them were space marines with a different twist of the same list.

Anywho, to the post question I would be happy to see shooting revamped a bit.  I'd even be ok with shooters only having a 3 inch range at -1 to hit in combat.

 Magic for the most part feels a bit useless on the offensive side when games get over 1500 points.  From my personal experience its always better to buff a unit with the shield as opposed to causing d3 damage.  Perhaps adding more risk and reward to higher damage spells is the answer? Although in 8th wfb it was about the only time I rolled double 6s.

[PraetorDragoon]

12 minutes ago, ZephyrExia said:

I really don't like that rule in 40k. Just imagine not being able to shoot Sayl because it was next to a unit, or the savage orruk hero. There are a lot of heroes in AoS that are powerful, and under 10 wounds. House rule if you want, but I hope it isn't in the core rules.

Definitely true. It's something can both be bad and good, depending on the hero you have. On one hand you have strong heroes like Sayl, and on the other you have squishier guys like the Crypt Ghast Courtier. It can easy be demetrial as benefitical.

In any case, concerns like that show that there are more differences between the games that aren't solved that easily.

[BunkhouseBuster]

What with all the negativity that is so loud and prominent regarding the changes to 40K, I hope most of all that what AoS gets from 40K is all the positive and enthusiastic players.

To me, the rules are just there to facilitate the game.  If I want to play a wargame that's more like a simulation, I'll go play Warmahordes or Infinity.  In my view, Age of Sigmar works because it is the simple, abstract core rules that allow for greater modularity in the rules.  The simple rules, the easy to understand Warscrolls, the malleable options of 3 Ways to Play in the General's Handbook, and the selection of rules and army tactics present in the newer army books, these all give significance to the simplicity.  By starting at the core rules and making them less complex, it allows for more things to be added to increase the options and variety in the games.

One of the biggest problems of 7th Edition, from a rules perspective, is that there was just so many rules that needed to be known.  By keeping a unit's rules on its Warscroll/Datasheet, it allows for the players to memorize just what their army needs, and not 30+ pages of hundreds of Universal Special Rules that their army may or may not need.

Want to add in Strength VS. Toughness as a mechanic?  Go for it!  But how about we make it an "advanced" version of the game that includes less abstraction and more simulation.  Got another idea for additional rules?  Write them up!  The game is simple enough that there is an opportunity to make your own game out of it.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, ZephyrExia said:

I really don't like that rule in 40k. Just imagine not being able to shoot Sayl because it was next to a unit, or the savage orruk hero. There are a lot of heroes in AoS that are powerful, and under 10 wounds. House rule if you want, but I hope it isn't in the core rules.

I agree, to some extend, because both Sayl and Kunnin Rukk are examples of poorly thought out design.

[KnightFire]

6 minutes ago, Killax said:

I agree, to some extend, because both Sayl and Kunnin Rukk are examples of poorly thought out design.

They aren't poorly thought out design, both are interesting design but undercosted (but thats not a design issue). However shooting being under-costed in some units isn't a reason to go changing the core rules of AoS. Just make super-efficient shooting cost more. 

The ability to snipe characters is fine, especially once things are appropriately costed.  Pointing at kunnin rukk and skyfires and trying to use them as an argument for a Look out Sir style save is bad analysis. 

[RuneBrush]

2 hours ago, ZephyrExia said:

I really don't like that rule in 40k. Just imagine not being able to shoot Sayl because it was next to a unit, or the savage orruk hero. There are a lot of heroes in AoS that are powerful, and under 10 wounds. House rule if you want, but I hope it isn't in the core rules.

This is why in 40k each army has access to Sniper weapons in some form or another that can ignore this rule and generally inflict mortal wounds on a to hit roll of 6.  If we had the same rule in AoS, we'd likely see some warscrolls updated to include sniper abilities.  So you would have units specialising in sniping such as Skaven Jezzails/Long Rifles etc, but we'd see the end of heroes being taken out by artillery/massed bow fire

[ZephyrExia]

Just now, RuneBrush said:

This is why in 40k each army has access to Sniper weapons in some form or another that can ignore this rule and generally inflict mortal wounds on a to hit roll of 6.  If we had the same rule in AoS, we'd likely see some warscrolls updated to include sniper abilities.  So you would have units specialising in sniping such as Skaven Jezzails/Long Rifles etc, but we'd see the end of heroes being taken out by artillery/massed bow fire

The main difference is that in 40k every unit has a ranged weapon, and those weapons can inflict large amounts of damage quickly, more so than any conventional AoS unit. 

AoS is also more heavily focused on strong heroes, and as such, hiding behind an ally unit in my opinion ruins this feeling. In addition the Necromancer has an ability that allow it to pass along wounds to nearby units, which is in character for the unit. 

If GW were to implement a form of this, I feel it would be better if it was a warscroll ability (eg. Liberators granting a save to a unit behind them).

As for the sniper ability, AoS is prone to spamming units, and I feel a strong shooting special ability like that would be the next meta spam list (similar to how Skyfires are overused).

[AverageBoss]

I am all for AoS becoming a deeper game. So I would be for most of these rules changes as (especially in the case of S vs T) it would allow for better balance going forward. Also it would be great if it kept our local players around as pretty much all of them (including the guy that runs our AoS events) are moving to 40k with the new edition.

[RuneBrush]

2 minutes ago, ZephyrExia said:

The main difference is that in 40k every unit has a ranged weapon, and those weapons can inflict large amounts of damage quickly, more so than any conventional AoS unit. 

AoS is also more heavily focused on strong heroes, and as such, hiding behind an ally unit in my opinion ruins this feeling. In addition the Necromancer has an ability that allow it to pass along wounds to nearby units, which is in character for the unit. 

If GW were to implement a form of this, I feel it would be better if it was a warscroll ability (eg. Liberators granting a save to a unit behind them).

As for the sniper ability, AoS is prone to spamming units, and I feel a strong shooting special ability like that would be the next meta spam list (similar to how Skyfires are overused).

For me the issue is that there doesn't seem to be a middle ground.

I predominantly play Bloodbound, so have little to no shooting and I benefit from including multiple heroes.  As it stands, there's nothing quite as demoralising as you spend the first two turns removing all of your character models as you bimble across the battlefield, so by the time you reach your opponent you've lost pretty much all of the key parts of your army.  The 40k rule offers a potential solution (at least on the surface) - however it may swing the balance too far in the other direction if implemented in AoS.  You're right, AoS should be about strong heroes, but I feel that with the current shooting mechanism, it's actually too easy to kill heroes with shooting.  I'd be really interested to see how this rule translates in the flesh between something like Bloodbound and Kharadron (probably the two ends of the spectrum).

[chord]

6 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

For me the issue is that there doesn't seem to be a middle ground.

I predominantly play Bloodbound, so have little to no shooting and I benefit from including multiple heroes.  As it stands, there's nothing quite as demoralising as you spend the first two turns removing all of your character models as you bimble across the battlefield, so by the time you reach your opponent you've lost pretty much all of the key parts of your army.  The 40k rule offers a potential solution (at least on the surface) - however it may swing the balance too far in the other direction if implemented in AoS.  You're right, AoS should be about strong heroes, but I feel that with the current shooting mechanism, it's actually too easy to kill heroes with shooting.  I'd be really interested to see how this rule translates in the flesh between something like Bloodbound and Kharadron (probably the two ends of the spectrum).

You could also expand to a grand alliance and add some shooting in.   GW gave us the ability to overcome shortcomings of a faction with grand alliances.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, KnightFire said:

They aren't poorly thought out design, both are interesting design but undercosted (but thats not a design issue). However shooting being under-costed in some units isn't a reason to go changing the core rules of AoS. Just make super-efficient shooting cost more. 

The ability to snipe characters is fine, especially once things are appropriately costed.  Pointing at kunnin rukk and skyfires and trying to use them as an argument for a Look out Sir style save is bad analysis. 

If your game starts to revolve around 3 units and 1 Battalion its poor design. Cost adressing to ability is the final point of design. 

Sniping models is no issue if all can do it. Which is not the case and the reason why AoS top 3s have become extremely predictable.

[Sleboda]

 What AoS can learn from 40K is that it's a great game on its own that need not try to become 40K-without-plasma-guns nor revert to resemble a simple edition change for Warhammer. 

It is a distinct, fun game with systems used in its foundational design that both reflect the style and setting of a heroic fantasy universe and enable a huge range of really cool and dangerous characters and regiments to be put on the table with very little worry of anything being overly dominant (because everything dies at the drop of a die).

Let it be what it is - unique,  fun, inclusive, adaptable, simple, and cinematic.

Also, post 666. \m/  Raise 'em!

Also also, terrain.