What AoS can learn from the new 40k

[WoollyMammoth]

8 hours ago, PraetorDragoon said:

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.

What should be the difference? In my mind I think AoS should be a game with especially weak shooting, powerful magic, and deep melee combat. 40k should be heavy on the guns, lots of shooting, weak with magic and less melee.

Sadly, this is not the case.
Shooting: in 40k you have specific rules and regulations as to how and when you can shoot. In AoS everyone is a super sniper with no rules.
Casting:  Magic scattered in AoS, most armies not having their own lore, and limited by one spell per turn. In 40k armies can be barraged by smite from all sides, to devastating effect. Every faction in the game has a lore with multiple spells and options to choose from.
Combat: In 40k combat is easier to understand with the b2b measurment & is deeper with the SvT mechanic.
Heroes: both games have great heroes, but in AoS they have no protection whatsoever, other than cowering behind a wall, or some godly mechanic like "halve all wounds and mortal wounds"

in conclusion:
- If you like shooting, play AoS.
- If you like potent magic and deep melee, or just like enjoying your hero models - play 40k
 

5 hours ago, chord said:

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

I want a game that's not all about shooting. Can't play AoS .. can't play 40k....
 

4 hours ago, Jamopower said:

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

This concept is only regarding a hero that you are trying to get into combat or something. All the time in AoS you have chars you are trying to keep back, like a Necromancer for example. Sacrificing his 4" to summon a unit of 40 skeletons 18" from him would be an amazing option that AoS could benefit from.

4 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.

I doubt there is really going to be a lot of situations where chars are un-killable in 40k. the Snipers are going to be key in list building so you can take out the synergy your opponent relies on. 

In 40k you have 60" weapons, so this rule makes a lot of sense. Sayl would never survive for first turn. In AoS, Sayl is always going to be available to do his thing first turn going second in the round, whether we add this rule or not. An Orruk boss is a better example - him allowing a unit of 40 archers to shoot twice per turn is insane, and you have to be able to take him out. If you could just drop him in the middle of a horde and make him impossible to target, that would be messed up. (BTW we already have this in AoS - the unit champion being the general .. and its messed up)

But proposing this rule would not make the boss un-killable, it would only make him untargetable by standard shooting units. Currently, the Orruk can be targeted by anything, and hes super dead. As a result you cower him behind a building. With this rule, you can feel more confident to take him out with his troops and actually put him in the middle of the unit he is commanding. 

All we would need is tools to deal with this. In my mind, I can see powerful wizards who have to get up close and stick their neck out but can cast enchanted bolts which snipe out the Orruk Boss. This to me is a good fantasy game. Having a bunch of skeletons being crushed by a stonehorn pinpoint and snipe out the Orruk from 18" across the board never feels right to me.

@Auticus - agreed
 

3 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

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.

The problem is, finding someone to play your custom game is like pulling teeth. This mindset comes from someone who can play with a few close friends, not someone trying to participate in a larger community.  You are going to get about 50x more people interested in playing "AoS matched Play" than "hey let me teach you this custom game system I invented". 

Matched play is supposed to be a more complex competitive rule set for people who are looking for it. They can leave open/narrative alone and only make the more complex changes for people who are looking for this kind of thing.
 

1 hour 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. 

- There are many, many units without any shooting in 40k. Lots of Tyranids, most deamons, Flayers, Terminators geared out for melee .. the list goes on and on.

- As for damage quickly - in 40k it is harder to kill hordes than AoS. In AoS if you inflict 3 wounds with 5 damage each, you kill 15 models. In 40k, you kill 3 models. Only by causing mortal wounds can you do a lot of damage quickly, and the ability to dish out mortals in 40k seems a lot less common. There is a lot of damage going around in both games, but I don't see anything to suggest that 40k units do more damage than conventional AoS units. Skyfires and Kurnoth Hunters don't often have a lot of difficulty inflicting large amounts of damage.

- As for strong heroes, I don't know why they would be any stronger in AoS than 40k. Because of the shooting rules I rarely have some great hero that doesn't just get killed. Even massive heroes like the Glottkin are prone to getting blown off as early as turn 2. There are a ton of amazing heroes in the new 40k rules. 

1 hour ago, chord said:

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.

Thereby negating the entire Blades of Khorne book - This is not how the game is designed.

Bloodbound are so insanely potent in melee that - thats the point. If you make it to your opponent before your they can weaken you enough, you win. Otherwise, if you lose way too much before you engage, you lose. The game takes tactics to win. You can plop a bloodsecrator down in cover with a 2+ save so, most armies are not just deleting your synergy so easily. You need to recognize armies that can do that to you and have a plan for that. I don't think Bloodbound would be necessarily weaker or stronger if you can't target their chars with direct shooting - As long as there is available sniping opportunities to deal with the heroes while using normal shooting to thin the ranks. 

[Sleboda]

20 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Matched play is supposed to be a more complex competitive rule set for people who are looking for it.

 I've noted an assumption in your thoughts that is included regularly,  and I think it's worth calling out.

Matched Play may be intended to create a more competition-driven style of play,  but I think it's a stretch to say it's supposed to make a more complex system.

Complexity is not often a good thing, and I would not think GW is trying to make AoS more complex through Matched Play.

 

Also "Thereby negating the entire Blades of Khorne book - "

Exaggeration much?

[PraetorDragoon]

Clarification: What I ment with "40k with bows" was that I don't want a direct copy of the 40k ruleset with touchups to make it more fantasy like. I want the systems to be distinct from each other, mostly rulewise. What works for 40k might not work in AoS. Another thing to consider is that is kinda too early to call out the things that 40k did "right". The game isn't officially out yet.

1 hour ago, WoollyMammoth said:

What should be the difference? In my mind I think AoS should be a game with especially weak shooting, powerful magic, and deep melee combat. 40k should be heavy on the guns, lots of shooting, weak with magic and less melee.

Mostly the difference would be in tech level. AoS is about High Fantasy. 40k about Science-Fiction. Both games should offer the options to bring melee armies and ranged armies to the table, with neither being the truley dominant option.

1 hour ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Casting:  Magic scattered in AoS, most armies not having their own lore, and limited by one spell per turn. In 40k armies can be barraged by smite from all sides, to devastating effect. Every faction in the game has a lore with multiple spells and options to choose from.

My Dark Eldar do not have Psykers, let alone a Lore available to them. They don't even have a way to deny Psyhics at all! I really think you are overstating the potential of Psychics in 40k, as the only factions that can truly spam Psykers are Grey Knights and Tzeetch (Daemons and Thousand Sons) and those spammable psykers have a nerfed version of Smite. (A single mortal wound) Most other Psykers are Characters, thus just as spammable as Wizards in AOS.

 

1 hour ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Matched play is supposed to be a more complex competitive rule set for people who are looking for it. They can leave open/narrative alone and only make the more complex changes for people who are looking for this kind of thing.

Matched Play is supposed to be more balanced competitive ruleset for people who want a universal system to play comeptitive games in, not about increasing complexitity.

[Ratatatata]

I actually hope none of the 40K changes makes it into AoS. I'd hate for the shooting rules to get bloated. I'd really, really hate the return of strength and toughness - thankfully I just cannot see that one happening in regards to all the scrolls that've been published. But more than anything I'd cry blood if even the mere notion of "ranks" came back. 

I hope that GW can keep their cool with AoS and not run wild with changes. Do worry that GW will think to themselves that "hey ho, look at those sales" and think that AoS would sell as well with the same rules. On the contrary I'd say. 

Really love that the rules for AoS are so basic but with a lot of depth. Weapon ranges/ranks for example - it scales extremely well, is very easy to grasp etc. At the same time there's a lot of depth in it with micro-management of models, pile-ins etc. 

[VBS]

Even though 40k really benefited from an AoS-ification (mainly cos 7th was horrible, so it wasn't hard to do better), I hope they keep both systems as far apart as possible. Purely subjective, but I don't like the idea of both systems having a common basis, almost becoming "interchangeable" (they already do too much). 

I like more the 40k rule-set compared to AoS, but it would be nice that any change in GHB2 would be to make AoS more AoS, to keep it a unique game. Not just mutually introducing "good" ideas from one game to another. For me AoS is at at good complexity point for a simple/beer&pretzel wargame, so no thanks for progressive rule bloating or adding more layers (it's almost too much already for more recent factions anyway, so there goes that).

[TheOtherJosh]

Power Level
- Better than "just put down whatever"

This is exactly what the GHB points values are. So this was a "40k learning from AoS moment"

Restricted Shooting
- AoS needs some better shooting rules

AoS is high fantasy, with epic conflicts.

Do yourself a favor and go back and watch the LOTR and Hobbit movies again. There is shooting in combat, shooting into other people's combat, shooting by heroes while in melee range.

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. 

With the exception of Khorne, wizards are extremely common in AoS.

You don't have to apply the rules of one. Those are explicitly for "Pitched Battles" (p.106 GHB)

They're there to put some level of balance into the casting system. (E.G. Slaan casters vs Chaos Daemons, Priest prayers ... etc.)

If you're running into issues where you already attempted the two default spells, and your other spell isn't useful ... perhaps changing your activation order in the Hero phase would help? Sometimes ... you just don't have any tricks up your sleeve.

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. 

We're likely to get a Nurgle battletome of some flavor this year. Guaranteed? No ... but with the new Nurgle stuff in 40k, and Tzeentch and Khorne having already been covered... likelyhood is high. (Slaanesh is on their own...)
If you can look at the current situation for Daemons of Tzeentch and even Khorne and tell me they don't do some crazy stuff with a bunch of synergy, I'm not sure where your meta is.

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.

Any chaos wizard can summon, many other heroes have the ability to bring more troops on the board. GA:Death even can make a non-wizard a wizard through traits.

Even Khorne priests can now summon. (via Blood Tithe.)

Placing the keyword on a scroll locks you down to less complexity, which seems to not be what you're aiming for... and a line on the scroll clarifies any questioning. And benefits of rolling higher on the summoning dice.... roll higher, get more models.

SvT Wound Rolls
- This would add depth to the scrolls that I think they could use....

That's a lot of complexity that isn't needed. And prior to KO, there were no transports in game. No brutally heavily armored vehicles.

The toughness in AoS is handled via "more wounds" and save values, combined with what the "to wound" roll is for a particular weapon and what the rend is.

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. 

Bases don't matter. You are attached to a concept that they matter. And that's important to you. Will the GHB go to b2b measurement in the future? Maybe.

Can you model base size for more attacks? Sure. Does it make a minor difference in the number of attacks? Sure.

Positioning models for ultimate tactical advantage is hard.

If you position well, can you get a second rank into position to attack ... with 32mm bases and 1" weapons? Yep. (There's a forum article around here somewhere with diagrams) it does it make it easier if you use "virtual stacking" to do what 40k did. If you want to take the easy route, just talk it out with your opponent.

In 40k, you can't move closer than 1" to an enemy unit. In AoS, that range is 3". If we assume that we're measuring from bases, because lots of folks get grumpy if you pile models on their bases and damage the cool scenic base, working off off smaller bases means that you require more models to deal with area denial and tactical positioning.

Take a look at the AoS-tactics.com website article on zoning and area denial, if you're interested.

https://aos-tactics.com/2017/02/21/zoning-area-denial/

[Killax]

Josh, I think you have some valid points but I dont think 40K learned points from AoS  One of the big flops of AoS since the start was to completely exclude any point system from the game, making it both confusing and frusterating to actually try and play a cool game. The moment you need to spend multiple hours before playing your bordering RPG style games and if that was AoS' initial intend that was a poor approach of it aswell.

As for shooting, I dont mind it too much the way it is, other than that we have several again very poorly designed units and battalions who allow you to wreck face with shooting, rendering the whole board denial moot. 3" is fun, 3" is awesome, 3" means nothing if you can blow up Heroes from 24" away and still do when your opponent is 3" near you.

What I am looking for with AoS is not more complexity. Instead Im very much looking for limitations to improve the experience of a tactical game. Like you I do think the way melee is worked out in AoS is great, truely awesome. However I cannot say that about Shooting, Magic or Summoning at all. There are players on the forums who have created better House-rules for any of them.
My issue is that AoS new content is very haphazard. It's sometimes good (BoK book, Kharadron as new army) and sometimes so rushed that it's just bad content (Skirmish) because it seems like someone threw some rules together in the weekend...

For the bases discussions, both have pros and cons. There is one very simple reason as to why I detest the model to model measurements and that's because it becomes a creative limitation. Both for game designers (goblin cant reach zeppelin) and players (player cannot/MAY NOT convert models). The moment you start promoting that model to model measurements are the definite way to go your remove a ton of creative space for the hobby, it's as simple as that.
 

[TheOtherJosh]

Josh, I think you have some valid points but I dont think 40K learned points from AoS [emoji6]...

Not points specifically ... 40k has had those for forever, and the minutiae in points in Whfb was crazy.

This is in regards to the Generalized points a.k.a. The new Powerlevel type of points in 40k 8th edition.

40k hasn't had the "generalized" points concept. It's all been matched points where you pay for every ... little ... thing... *sigh*

For GW, that was a major change to do that in AoS.

That 40k took that "twist" on how to cost units, and incorporated that lesson back into itself is the "learning from AoS moment". And still provided a more granular approach for those that want to be all "number crazy" is pretty nice.

[Arkiham]

30 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

AoS is high fantasy, with epic conflicts.

Do yourself a favor and go back and watch the LOTR and Hobbit movies again. There is shooting in combat, shooting into other people's combat, shooting by heroes while in melee range.

 

lol such a bad example

1) its a movie. high fantasy or not, both fictional worlds or not, never use hollywood as a reference. 

2) shooting into combat with your fellow units into it would also kill some of your own guys... elf or not. 

3) the shooting while in melee range would be at the guy who is literally attacking you, not half way across the battlefield at that guy hidden behind a tree with his feather sticking out allowing you to shoot him.... even then, by the most legendary archer this would be extremely dangerous, some random archers would never achieve this, and would only really allow the one arrow already nocked, not swapping between melee and ranged as you feel; they'd be cut down on the spot as they tried to draw and nock a arrow. 

[TheOtherJosh]

lol such a bad example
1) its a movie. high fantasy or not, both fictional worlds or not, never use hollywood as a reference. 
2) shooting into combat with your fellow units into it would also kill some of your own guys... elf or not. 
3) the shooting while in melee range would be at the guy who is literally attacking you, not half way across the battlefield at that guy hidden behind a tree with his feather sticking out allowing you to shoot him.... even then, by the most legendary archer this would be extremely dangerous, some random archers would never achieve this, and would only really allow the one arrow already nocked, not swapping between melee and ranged as you feel; they'd be cut down on the spot as they tried to draw and nock a arrow. 

You're attempting to bring way too much reality into my epic high fantasy. Inspiration, dreams and imagination. Heroes doing crazy insane feats that nobody can do. This isn't reality. This is imaginary heroes, doing the nigh impossible. This is the stuff of epics. (And exactly where fantasy novels (and movies) are all excellent source material for the imagination.)

Go back and read the LOTR novels, or even the current AoS novels. There's pretty crazy stuff in there.

And besmirching the skill of the Aelves is downright mean. Some of them in LOTR have lived for thousands of years.

(If I wanted reality in my high fantasy I'd be playing DBA (De Bellis Antiquitatis) or DBF (De Bellis Fantasticus).)

[Shoe]

I like the AOS rules, but the system feels like it's grown and stretched in some places, but languished in others. 

In AOS I would like them to completely decouple heroes from any kind of synergy, instead relate synergy abilities to battle line units. This boosts the importance of BL units and leaves the heroes free to go do heroic stuff, instead of hiding in cover. 

In addition, I really like the 40k rules. Bring them all over, that's fine with me. 

 

[TheOtherJosh]

... and leaves the heroes free to go do heroic stuff, instead of hiding in cover. 

Silly-silly man-thing! All good skaven generals lead from cover!

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

ne of the big flops of AoS since the start was to completely exclude any point system from the game, making it both confusing and frusterating to actually try and play a cool game.

That's a matter of opinion on two levels.

1) You didn't like no points. Ok.  Fair enough.  That doesn't make it a flop, but for you it was. Got it.

2) It was neither confusing nor frustrating to play a "cool game." I actually find the matched play concept more frustrating (several units that briefly saw use again after being shelved for years of Warhammer were once again shelved by points) and more confusing (loads of restrictions, options, layers, etc.). The games I played pre-GHB were very, very cool. One of my Top 10 games of all time game from pre-GHB AoS. (Thanks, Scott.)

I still play AoS now, though exclusively Matched because all anyone wants to do is prep for the Next Big Tournament, but I vastly preferred pre-GHB gaming (after a brief period of rage-filled grief and adjustment to the loss of Warhammer).

 

Please excuse the garbage below.  Bracketed HTML quote code opened a quote, but did not close it.  Really, is there a manual for this system?  I am capable.  I can read.  I'll learn.  Any way..

I wanted to comment on Killax's comment that model to model stifles creativity.  I'd argue the base to base removes the need for models at all, turning them into SPI or Avalon Hill chits.  Model to model makes the models matter. I thought it was one of the very best things that GW did with AoS.

 

Quote

 

Quote

 

[WoollyMammoth]

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

 I've noted an assumption in your thoughts that is included regularly,  and I think it's worth calling out.

Matched Play may be intended to create a more competition-driven style of play,  but I think it's a stretch to say it's supposed to make a more complex system.

Complexity is not often a good thing, and I would not think GW is trying to make AoS more complex through Matched Play.

 

Also "Thereby negating the entire Blades of Khorne book - "

Exaggeration much?

By "add complexity" you assume I mean "add over-complexity".

Matched play applies the rules of 1, summoning restrictions, allegiance abilities, artifacts and the entire point system, all of which add a more complex ruleset onto the core rules. This more complex ruleset has been more appealing to the community than the simpler one.

Whats the sweet spot, a little more, a little less? Personally I think a little bit more can make the game more enjoyable without making it overly complex. I don't want over-complexity either but currently there is a bit of under-complexity. They can trim off some of the core rules that nobody uses and replace them with rules that will fix parts of the game that need to be tightened a bit. Maybe 6 pages instead of 4.

-There are no arches in BoK, if you want to add archers, you lose the BoK allegiance and therefore access to everything unique that BoK adds to the game. Its not an exaggeration at all.

3 hours ago, PraetorDragoon said:

Clarification: What I ment with "40k with bows" was that I don't want a direct copy of the 40k ruleset with touchups to make it more fantasy like. I want the systems to be distinct from each other, mostly rulewise. What works for 40k might not work in AoS. Another thing to consider is that is kinda too early to call out the things that 40k did "right". The game isn't officially out yet.

Mostly the difference would be in tech level. AoS is about High Fantasy. 40k about Science-Fiction. Both games should offer the options to bring melee armies and ranged armies to the table, with neither being the truley dominant option.

My Dark Eldar do not have Psykers, let alone a Lore available to them. They don't even have a way to deny Psyhics at all! I really think you are overstating the potential of Psychics in 40k, as the only factions that can truly spam Psykers are Grey Knights and Tzeetch (Daemons and Thousand Sons) and those spammable psykers have a nerfed version of Smite. (A single mortal wound) Most other Psykers are Characters, thus just as spammable as Wizards in AOS.

Matched Play is supposed to be more balanced competitive ruleset for people who want a universal system to play comeptitive games in, not about increasing complexitity.

I don't want the same systems either, but currently it seems like the systems are flipped IMO. 

The full rules have been available about two weeks. You can go to any GW and use the rulebook and indexes to play a full game of 8th. There have been thousands of games around the world already.

Every faction has access to psykers. The most basic way for Dark Eldar would be to add Yvraine or the Yncarne. Anything with the Aeldari keyword can be added to a Dark Eldar Detachment. The only thing you are losing is that the Psyker probably isn't going to benefit from any synergy you are going for. The only reason to stay only Dark Eldar is for fluff reasons. Currently, any army can stack a ton of psykers if thats what they want to do, and if you take several Psykers you can barrage your opponent with D3-D6 mortal wounds over and over. You can take a "supreme command" detachment to take 3-6 leaders. Obviously, you have to sink a lot of points into this type of army and like you said, armies that naturally have a lot of psykers are going to do it better than others. 

I address complexity above.  
 

3 hours ago, Ratatatata said:

I actually hope none of the 40K changes makes it into AoS. I'd hate for the shooting rules to get bloated. I'd really, really hate the return of strength and toughness - thankfully I just cannot see that one happening in regards to all the scrolls that've been published. But more than anything I'd cry blood if even the mere notion of "ranks" came back. 

I hope that GW can keep their cool with AoS and not run wild with changes. Do worry that GW will think to themselves that "hey ho, look at those sales" and think that AoS would sell as well with the same rules. On the contrary I'd say. 

Really love that the rules for AoS are so basic but with a lot of depth. Weapon ranges/ranks for example - it scales extremely well, is very easy to grasp etc. At the same time there's a lot of depth in it with micro-management of models, pile-ins etc. 

Not even a little bit? Personally I think something has to be done about shooting, and I think AoS could benefit from adding an option to summon your units in the size you need them. They don't need to go crazy but there is definitely room for improvement.

 

 

2 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

This is exactly what the GHB points values are. So this was a "40k learning from AoS moment"

AoS is high fantasy, with epic conflicts.

Do yourself a favor and go back and watch the LOTR and Hobbit movies again. There is shooting in combat, shooting into other people's combat, shooting by heroes while in melee range.
.......................

 

Power level is different than the points, its an extra simple system. Its more important for 40k because making lists is a lot more complex in 40k. I don't really care if they add it to AoS I just think its a nice thing for quicker pick up games. The main thing I like is how it pertains to summoning which is the only reason I'd like if they added it.

There is a lot of debate about shooting. A lot of people feel that an engaged unit is too distracted to pick out a distant target, or like to picture fantasy battles as a big mixed up brawl that no one would shoot into for risk of hitting their allies. Others feel as you do, that everyone is spread out and archers are trained well enough that its fine. There's no right answer. Whether you think the shooting rules are cool or not,  the fact remains that shooting has been dominating the game more and more is an issue that needs to be addressed, if not by core rules, then by point increases or scroll updates. 

I almost always have a wizard but as I explained you get stuck with nothing to do sometimes, and activation order is not the problem. I think it would be cool if you could decide to take all your wizards and go all out with Arcane Bolts like what you can do in 40k. But its not a big deal. Currently all my wizards are nurgle, slaanesh, death, skaven .. I'm still waiting on a spell lore to enjoy. AoS needs all the spell lores released more than it needs changes to the magic phase. 

I explained the problem with summoning in detail. the fact that any chaos/death wizard can summon doesn't help anything. 

I know that Tzeentch and Khorne have a lot of synergy that's why I specifically called out Nurgle and Slaanesh. Khorne is even more crazy in 40k IMO, and Tzeentch greatly benefits form unlimited smite. I expalin the issues with Nurlge/Slaanesh in my post.

Removing all the summoning words and replacing them with a keyword (like 40k) is exactly what I'm going for, that's why I proposed it.

If bases don't matter than try removing all your bases and playing a game. I'd love a world in which all the models would stand up by themselves, and the AoS ruleset would work amazing, not to mention action shots would be way cooler. People often try to absorb bases into their dioramas. But this is not possible, because bases are mandatory for most models, and therefore they matter.

You can model your bases for more than "a little" bit of advantage. You could put skeletons on pennies and flying models on 15" stands, but no one is going to want to play with you, and TO are not going to let you play. You can surely "talk it out" with your opponent, you can say, "hey I think its fun to put skeletons on pennies" and hey, maybe they will think that's cool too.

I have tried a lot of talking. People don't like to listen until GW puts in in the rules. Which, most of my ideas end up in there so I have a lot of faith in GW. 

************
There is way to much hyper-focus on the idea of "more complexity". Is Matched Play more complex than open? Yes, considerably. It includes many pages of point values and allegiance rules.  But complexity is an effect, not the goal. The goal is a fun, balanced rule set. I'm just going to say "balance" from now on because complexity seems to be a trigger word. 
 



 

[Sleboda]

1 minute ago, WoollyMammoth said:

By "add complexity" you assume I mean "add over-complexity".

Matched play applies the rules of 1, summoning restrictions, allegiance abilities, artifacts and the entire point system, all of which add a more complex ruleset onto the core rules. This more complex ruleset has been more appealing to the community than the simpler one.

Whats the sweet spot, a little more, a little less? Personally I think a little bit more can make the game more enjoyable without making it overly complex. I don't want over-complexity either but currently there is a bit of under-complexity. They can trim off some of the core rules that nobody uses and replace them with rules that will fix parts of the game that need to be tightened a bit. Maybe 6 pages instead of 4.

-There are no arches in BoK, if you want to add archers, you lose the BoK allegiance and therefore access to everything unique that BoK adds to the game. Its not an exaggeration at all.

Thanks for the expanded thought.  I'll respond.

I see what you are saying about complexity.  True, MP added some additional restrictions.  Perhaps that's the same as complexity or we are just seeing different things in the word.  I have seen you reference "depth" and "complexity" in ways that felt interchangeable to me, and that made me think you think of them as the same.  AoS has plennnnnty of depth (a surprising amount, actually), but not much complexity at all.  It felt to me like you may see adding on layers as a way to create depth-plexity being a positive.  Perhaps I misinterpreted that.

Curious- Which "rules nobody uses" would you drop? BTW, I bolded because it triggered my  twitch that you feel, to me, like you exaggerate often. I think you have good points, but they get lost in the "drama" that comes with blanket statements and exaggeration.  To me, none of the AoS core rules are superfluous.  I use them all.  Those four pages are awesome!

BoK. Yep, you lose certain added benefits to some of your units in that book if you include units from other sources. That's hardly losing access to "everything unique" (more exaggeration) about the book. Even if it were, man, at least they have the option! As a long-suffering TK player, I, for years, wanted to have troops that could march, spells that didn't suck, and so on, but I had to stay in my book and live with it.  Now I can use lots of cool stuff from a Battletome and opt to fill in some gaps at a loss of some perks, or stay within my book and keep those perks. Neat! It's hardly a negative to say that if you want to get all the cool benefits, you might have restrictions.  For BoK, you miss out on some shooting, but that's ok! You get other stuff.

 

 

 

And I'll say it again.  Terrain.

[WoollyMammoth]

@Sleboda
I understand, and appreciate, how the lack of rules facilitate more depth. I don't want to mess with the depth but, sometimes you have to cut some good things to do away with the bad. For example adding a rule where a unit has to pick only one unit per turn to shoot at, this adds more rules/balance but complexity isint going to take a huge hit. Using a base-rank system instead of measurement will give depth more of a hit but, maybe its worth it in the long run. It depends on how its worded. In 40k you can only piggy back your own unit, so you cannot screen a spear unit with a shieldwall unit like you can in AoS, and that would certainly ruin a lot of depth.

..A model’s base isn’t considered part of the model – it’s just there to help the model stand up – so don’t include it when measuring distances...
- Even GW sponsoored events use bases for measurment now. its convenient with some big monsters but almost everyone has used the base edges because its much easier to see and manage.

...First you should decide in which of the seven Mortal Realms the battle will take place. For example, you might decide that your battle will take place in the Realm of Fire. Sometimes you’ll need to know this in order to use certain abilities. If you can’t agree on the realm, roll a dice, and whoever rolls highest decides....
- This rule literally dosen't do anything, unless you are referring to time of war, which this does not directly refer to. Regardless I've never had anyone bring this up or heard of anyone ever bringing this up.

..The player that rolls higher must divide the battlefield into two equal-sized halves; their opponent then picks one half to be their territory. Some examples of this are shown below....
- this takes up almost a third of the page, yet I've never seen anyone propose anything other than the standard separation. 

..then a result of sorts can be calculated by comparing the number of models removed from play with the number of models originally set up for the battle for each army. Expressing these as percentages provides a simple way to determine the winner. Such a victory can only be claimed as a minor victory. For example, if one player lost 75% of their starting models, and the other player lost 50%, then the player that only lost 50% of their models could claim a minor victory....
- I would be totally shocked if I ever heard that anyone has cared enough to use this broken system of determining a minor victory. Its much easier just to say, "hey it seems like you won".

Sudden Death & Triumps
- I think people tired this at the beginning. There was a lot of hate with the Sudden Death at the start. Most players ignored it from the get-go.

Honestly you could cut the 4 pages down to 3 very easily. And the stuff that AoS could use would not take a full page to use, you could probably even squeeze in in the 3 pages.

If you include units that are not in the BoK book you lose access to everything the book that you can't get in the app. The reason for the book is the awesome Blood Tithe table and Prayers, which you are not allowed to use if you add in archers, wizards or any scroll not in the book. I really don't understand your point here. You can add in whatever you like (from Chaos) and a ton of Khorne Players still do, because making a Sayl-Deathball is still an extremely effective way to play Khorne. You can do whatever you like, but if you want to add units that are not in the Khorne book you cannot claim Khorne allegiance and everything that comes with it. This is not any kind of exaggeration. 

[swarmofseals]

I strongly agree with some of these and disagree with some. I don't really want to see a rock/paper/scissors system. Such a system pretty severely limited the usefulness of monsters in WHFB.

I very much like the ranks idea. It serves a bunch of purposes very well. It reduces the necessary number of measurements significantly, it mostly obviates the need to rebase to rounds for those who don't want to do that, and it gets rid of horrible practices like base stacking that heavily punish people who put real effort into basing. Personally, I'd say that range should just be translated directly into the number of ranks that a weapon can reach through. 1" = base to base, 2"= base to base to base, 3" = base to base to base to base. Simple. I think that this change would really help make horde armies more playable. 

I also completely agree that some restrictions should be placed on shooting and targeting. I don't want to see a return to the days of hero bunkers and deathstars, but I also don't think we should stick to the current system.

 

[Killax]

8 hours ago, Sleboda said:

That's a matter of opinion on two levels.

1) You didn't like no points. Ok.  Fair enough.  That doesn't make it a flop, but for you it was. Got it.

2) It was neither confusing nor frustrating to play a "cool game." I actually find the matched play concept more frustrating (several units that briefly saw use again after being shelved for years of Warhammer were once again shelved by points) and more confusing (loads of restrictions, options, layers, etc.). The games I played pre-GHB were very, very cool. One of my Top 10 games of all time game from pre-GHB AoS. (Thanks, Scott.)

I still play AoS now, though exclusively Matched because all anyone wants to do is prep for the Next Big Tournament, but I vastly preferred pre-GHB gaming (after a brief period of rage-filled grief and adjustment to the loss of Warhammer).

 

Please excuse the garbage below.  Bracketed HTML quote code opened a quote, but did not close it.  Really, is there a manual for this system?  I am capable.  I can read.  I'll learn.  Any way..

I wanted to comment on Killax's comment that model to model stifles creativity.  I'd argue the base to base removes the need for models at all, turning them into SPI or Avalon Hill chits.  Model to model makes the models matter. I thought it was one of the very best things that GW did with AoS.

 

1) Well, considering how well recieved the GH was, is and allows for tournament play thus community growth the fact that AoS did not start with it (like 40K does now) is a flop. If GW did not feel inclined to repeat the succes of GH they wouldn't have done so obviously for 40K. 

2) It most certainly is unclear, which is what Ive said. Very cool games can be played without points, the point Im continiously making is that this requires a larger and well developed community. Scott being the example here was such a guy to put an extensive ammount of time into it.

To me it's an outright incorrect observation to state that everybody wants to do is prep for the Next Big Tournament, the cool factor Skirmish being such an example, the well recieved Shadespire being another. The point is that if you want to improve interest in the game you have to incorporate better rules. The way most Tournaments are set up is that they include House-rules. These House-rules increase limitations and as a result have created a better variant of Age of Sigmar rules that GW has yet to supply us with.

Base to base measurement does not remove the need for models at all because several of the tournament rules specifically require you to play with models from GW or can be reconized as an GW alternative. Changing a head or weapon does not remove this identification but cannot be done the moment you want to meassure from model to model because it will present an ingame advantage or disadvantage. 

As before if you really think Goblins shouldnt ever be able to hit another model because it's on a flying stand I think your presenting unneeded hazards to game design. 

[RuneBrush]

8 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

You're attempting to bring way too much reality into my epic high fantasy. Inspiration, dreams and imagination. Heroes doing crazy insane feats that nobody can do. This isn't reality. This is imaginary heroes, doing the nigh impossible. This is the stuff of epics. (And exactly where fantasy novels (and movies) are all excellent source material for the imagination.)

Go back and read the LOTR novels, or even the current AoS novels. There's pretty crazy stuff in there.

And besmirching the skill of the Aelves is downright mean. Some of them in LOTR have lived for thousands of years.

 

For me you've highlighted a fairly important point - films & novels focus on the heroes doing heroic things, not a rank and file spod doing heroic things.  Boromir was ultimately slain by Lurtz in the LotR film, not by a random Uruk-hai.  This is something quite a few of us try to recreate in our games.  Being able to blow a hero off with a cannon shot in a "I can see their head above the dozen models in front of them" moment doesn't really enforce that heroic narrative.  Most of the AoS novels have the heroes almost untouchable against rank and file (coming away with a few flesh wounds here and there).

Trying to get a little bit back on track, I'm looking forward to having a few games of the new 40k.  I have a Space Wolves army which has a good smattering of characters, so I'm interested to how the new rules allow for them to come across as heroic and write an epic saga in the game, rather than being shot off by a Tau Firewarrior

[Mikosan]

Gotta say I am not a fan of proposed changes to shooting in regards to targeting characters.  It creates a rule(no targeting characters within x" of a unit) which then requires another rule(sniper) just to break the first rule, as well as having to spread the sniper rule out among the various warscrolls and factions.  Some may not get the sniper rule at all.  Ironjawz getting snipers? Death factions?  I wouldn't rage quit or anything but I've already seen new 40K lists with 4-5 assassins.  Creating rules requiring more rules to break said rules, requiring auto includes to list building just doesn't seem right to me.  I think the shooting problems are with warscrolls i.e ranges, multidamage/mortal wounds/ and points cost(skyfires) not core rules.  Just my opinion of course

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Killax said:

1) Well, considering how well recieved the GH was, is and allows for tournament play thus community growth the fact that AoS did not start with it (like 40K does now) is a flop. If GW did not feel inclined to repeat the succes of GH they wouldn't have done so obviously for 40K. 

2) It most certainly is unclear, which is what Ive said. Very cool games can be played without points, the point Im continiously making is that this requires a larger and well developed community. Scott being the example here was such a guy to put an extensive ammount of time into it.

To me it's an outright incorrect observation to state that everybody wants to do is prep for the Next Big Tournament, the cool factor Skirmish being such an example, the well recieved Shadespire being another. The point is that if you want to improve interest in the game you have to incorporate better rules. The way most Tournaments are set up is that they include House-rules. These House-rules increase limitations and as a result have created a better variant of Age of Sigmar rules that GW has yet to supply us with.

Base to base measurement does not remove the need for models at all because several of the tournament rules specifically require you to play with models from GW or can be reconized as an GW alternative. Changing a head or weapon does not remove this identification but cannot be done the moment you want to meassure from model to model because it will present an ingame advantage or disadvantage. 

As before if you really think Goblins shouldnt ever be able to hit another model because it's on a flying stand I think your presenting unneeded hazards to game design. 

1) I'm not saying post-GHB isn't a success. I'm just saying that it was not a flop before that.  We had a nice group of players who enjoyed the game just fine without points/Matched.

2a) Do you know the Scott to whom I am referring?  Small world if so.  He is a player in my local community.

2b) How is there a requirement for large and well developed communities to exist for there to be cool games?  My group was small and we had practically no discussion before games. Our games were very cool.

As to the everybody thing, I mean in my local community. Tournaments*, which only came around again because of GHB, changed everything. Before they returned, I could find opponents for all sorts of AoS gaming and we had a blast.  Now all anyone wants to do is prep for the next event (and by anyone, I mean the people I, personally, have as opponents), and since those events are Matched Play and since people around here have limited time for gaming (maybe a game or two every few weeks to a month), they opt to play only Matched.

*Tournaments are, in my view, a huge negative for the game. Yes, more players are playing and GW is selling more models, but AoS is once again narrowly focused in on competitive, winner take all, Matched Play games where several cool models never see the table.

Tournament rules may require models, but if you play base to base, the rules have no need for models any longer to be able to function.  Base to base negates the need for models, and only our choice to include them keeps them around.

Goblins can hit frigates. Measure from the top of their weapons to the bottom fins of the boats.  They can reach.

[chord]

14 hours ago, Killax said:

Josh, I think you have some valid points but I dont think 40K learned points from AoS  One of the big flops of AoS since the start was to completely exclude any point system from the game, making it both confusing and frusterating to actually try and play a cool game. The moment you need to spend multiple hours before playing your bordering RPG style games and if that was AoS' initial intend that was a poor approach of it aswell.
 

You state your opinion like it's a fact.  AOS was popular prior to points.  Maybe not in tournaments but that is not the end all be all.

[Killax]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

1) I'm not saying post-GHB isn't a success. I'm just saying that it was not a flop before that.  We had a nice group of players who enjoyed the game just fine without points/Matched.

2a) Do you know the Scott to whom I am referring?  Small world if so.  He is a player in my local community.

2b) How is there a requirement for large and well developed communities to exist for there to be cool games?  My group was small and we had practically no discussion before games. Our games were very cool.

As to the everybody thing, I mean in my local community. Tournaments*, which only came around again because of GHB, changed everything. Before they returned, I could find opponents for all sorts of AoS gaming and we had a blast.  Now all anyone wants to do is prep for the next event (and by anyone, I mean the people I, personally, have as opponents), and since those events are Matched Play and since people around here have limited time for gaming (maybe a game or two every few weeks to a month), they opt to play only Matched.

*Tournaments are, in my view, a huge negative for the game. Yes, more players are playing and GW is selling more models, but AoS is once again narrowly focused in on competitive, winner take all, Matched Play games where several cool models never see the table.

Tournament rules may require models, but if you play base to base, the rules have no need for models any longer to be able to function.  Base to base negates the need for models, and only our choice to include them keeps them around.

Goblins can hit frigates. Measure from the top of their weapons to the bottom fins of the boats.  They can reach.

If communities are present and know each other well you can play. The whole point Im making is that AoS from the start was not new-player friendly while it was a brand new game.
Even new games like AoS Skirmish and Shadespire include a model limitation level. AoS has none of that within it's Core rules.

The requirement is there for a game to continue. If there is close to no community you get WFB repeated. It's unfortunate but still the way GW operates. Because 40K is so important to GW we see that their core design approaches are simply put great.

If players want to prep for events more as play locally it's an obvious result of it being more interesting. The difference again between playing locally and being able to visit larger events is to meet new people, get inspired and more importantly have fun against new opponents every single time.

Tournaments in the current setting are following Matched AND Narrative approaches. The whole moral of matched play is to incorporate competitive designs, while for narrative play the focus is put onto the story behind it. I am very happy limitations (costs) are put onto units because again it allows for all kinds of players, new and old, from west to east to unite. 
Luckily rules do need models aswell because they refer to named models. As for hitting them, no can't do the moment I decided to place a bit of rock on my bases to further put my model upon. Model to model measurements restrict the hobby to the extreme as model alterations will effect rules. Bases are 2D, like rules and therefor are not only commonly used but allow for the modeller to use any model on top of it.
 

2 hours ago, chord said:

You state your opinion like it's a fact.  AOS was popular prior to points.  Maybe not in tournaments but that is not the end all be all.

Popular to be the joke of the games industry? I really can't say that any of the Core rules at this points are un-touched. You have the GH for that, House-rules and the general growth in the community forums. Playing this point in "Open play mode" has not only become a rarity, it's still up to a local community to form this in a manner they see fit, if anything it pushes out newer players who are not aware of how community X or Y intends to play the game.

We see the failure of this sort of design removed from 40K aswell because if anything even a simple Power Level indication sets a logical restriction so you can play with a complete new player that is only aware of his own datasheets and the core rules. The rising (and continueing) ammount in AoS players since GH is not an opinion. It just shows that point costs for models in a game drastically reduce time needed to start and play a game. This has been effective for GW since 1991...

[Mikosan]

Pre-GHB my local scene consisted of myself and 2 other people.  And that was with the original "Clash Comp".  Now I have run tourneys with 12-15 players and club day sees 6-8 monthly.  Half the tourney attendance is guys who only play Sigmar in said tournaments.

I love AoS, the permissive nature of the core rules, the lore, the models, everything, but it wasn't until the GHB that anyone else in the area took notice, and we are still dwarfed by the 40K crowd.  In fact I fully expect the community here to lose some people to new 40K, some only took refuge in AoS because the 7th ed mess, and will now be returning to the game that drew them into the hobby.  I am a little worried that a long gap in new releases(say 4-6 mo.) for Sigmar will see the players here siphoned off to a more popular, arguably better designed game.  Will they come back once Siggy gets his day again?  Hopefully, I'll still be here playing games when they do

[Killax]

In an ideal world I wish to see an AoS very much akin to 40K so that players can blend systems if they wanted to though arnt forced to by any narrative means. All it would really require is a supplement that allows for either but likely having 40K with it's Force Charts and AoS with it's Battalions.

Now obviously this is very wishful thinking however it would to me be a very interesting development if AoS would ever reach the day it would be on the same tactical level as 40K. Meaning we still have our AoS supportive heroes but units would be devided into more 'specialist roles' as a whole. Where we would indeed see multi-wounds appear on the "Monster hunters" and have it affect models like in 40K, while we would also see the attack quantity we allready have within AoS supplemented with less ranged support but a vital part nontheless. 

One of the best basic set ups I like about 40K is how these specialist roles each unit seems to have give it a pro/con, making it very difficult to say, this is the best because of A. Rend or B. Mortal wounds. 
So in retrospect maby AoS contains to many mortal wounds aswell... What I do know is that I hope summoning and magic to be akin to that of 40K soon, this way it becomes a very relevant part to a very magical place. 

Ideally the way melee and combat works in AoS had the slight upper hand on how ranged combat works in 40K. So without bashing on what I like to alter about AoS I feel the 3" rule and the way combat is resolved in AoS is very good, very great thought out and adds a very practicle tactical dimension. As before, because it's such a vital part, I do think it would be very interesting to see options to disengage but also see units like Khorne Berzerkers who instead of presenting a truckload of attacks are capable to go through the combat phase twice.

All in all AoS is in a good place and it really requires a handful of changes to make it into an even better place. Make no mistake, systems are judged on their quality and having more players as game X or Y does mean it caters to a particular scene very well. By comparison 7th ed 40K was a poor variant of the game, what I hope to see is that 2nd edition AoS will improve on all the minor issues the system has now.