What AoS can learn from the new 40k

[KnightFire]

12 minutes ago, Killax said:

What I mean by this is that by 40K comparison, imagne that AoS characters below 10 wounds also would be illigal targets for shooting models unless they would be the closest targets. Do you think it would push Rukk, Skyfires, Judicators, Hunters back in a place that is less dominant?
- Because I do think so. I REALLY do.
 

Absolutely not, I think that would make Rukk and Skyfires unbeatable, because you can't shoot the characters that are buffing them. Beating Rukk and Skyfires is done by taking out the characters at the back that are allowing them to shoot twice or giving them +1 to hit. If you can't shoot those characters, then those lists become absolutely dominant.

What makes rukk strong is being able to shoot twice, which comes from a buff from a character.

What makes skyfires strong is doing mortal wounds on values lower than 6s, which comes from getting +1 to hit from nearby characters.

So I REALLY think not being able to shoot characters would make the rukk and skyfires armies more dominant.

[chord]

30 minutes ago, Killax said:

What I mean by this is that by 40K comparison, imagne that AoS characters below 10 wounds also would be illigal targets for shooting models unless they would be the closest targets. Do you think it would push Rukk, Skyfires, Judicators, Hunters back in a place that is less dominant?

That does not sound like it would make AOS more fun/enjoyable but less.  I don't want to have to measure the various models to see which is closer, it will slow down the game more.  

 

[wayniac]

The more I think of it, I think something needs to be done perhaps to SOME characters to make them less prone to sniping, but ALL would kill the meta as said by others.  For instance, I play Flesh-Eater Courts.  My entire army breaks down if you snipe the few heroes I have; that IMHO needs to be fixed because it's trivially easy to invalidate the entire army.  Maybe not a global "can't target" rule but where it's appropriate (e.g. for my FEC it would make sense that my "noble soldiers" would take a shot for their lord), to prevent hero sniping from ruining armies that rely entirely on synergy while not making the egregious units worse.

[chord]

Just now, wayniac said:

The more I think of it, I think something needs to be done perhaps to SOME characters to make them less prone to sniping, but ALL would kill the meta as said by others.  For instance, I play Flesh-Eater Courts.  My entire army breaks down if you snipe the few heroes I have; that IMHO needs to be fixed because it's trivially easy to invalidate the entire army.  Maybe not a global "can't target" rule but where it's appropriate (e.g. for my FEC it would make sense that my "noble soldiers" would take a shot for their lord), to prevent hero sniping from ruining armies that rely entirely on synergy while not making the egregious units worse.

Maybe better rules around picking targets?  So instead of "Oh I see part of their weapon" make it more "I see their torso"?

Or something else.  

[wayniac]

5 minutes ago, chord said:

Maybe better rules around picking targets?  So instead of "Oh I see part of their weapon" make it more "I see their torso"?

Or something else.  

I think it has to be more, because even without nitpicking on "I see a horn", GW terrain doesn't really block LOS nor do units, which means you can be behind a forest and a unit of 20 guys and be picked out with no issue.

I think better terrain rules might fix it.  E.g. you can't see PAST a forest, but you can see INTO it (maybe you can see out of it if you start inside it), granting cover as normal; this one alone I think would be HUGE to help.   if the model is partially obscured by cover you get a cover bonus (so for example shooting a guy through a window).  Things like that.

[Killax]

54 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

Absolutely not, I think that would make Rukk and Skyfires unbeatable, because you can't shoot the characters that are buffing them. Beating Rukk and Skyfires is done by taking out the characters at the back that are allowing them to shoot twice or giving them +1 to hit. If you can't shoot those characters, then those lists become absolutely dominant.

What makes rukk strong is being able to shoot twice, which comes from a buff from a character.

What makes skyfires strong is doing mortal wounds on values lower than 6s, which comes from getting +1 to hit from nearby characters.

So I REALLY think not being able to shoot characters would make the rukk and skyfires armies more dominant.

And if you would stop shooting while in combat? Like 40k.

The thing is, to me Rukk most certainly needs a redesign. For me Mortal wounds from Skyfires are more problematic for characters as units.

Melee units with Mortal wounds are powerful too. But the awnser to shooting now seems shooting or Sayl...

[Killax]

48 minutes ago, wayniac said:

The more I think of it, I think something needs to be done perhaps to SOME characters to make them less prone to sniping, but ALL would kill the meta as said by others.  For instance, I play Flesh-Eater Courts.  My entire army breaks down if you snipe the few heroes I have; that IMHO needs to be fixed because it's trivially easy to invalidate the entire army.  Maybe not a global "can't target" rule but where it's appropriate (e.g. for my FEC it would make sense that my "noble soldiers" would take a shot for their lord), to prevent hero sniping from ruining armies that rely entirely on synergy while not making the egregious units worse.

I think its also a good option. The thing remains that if shooting is an issue its a Core Rules issue. Because the difference in cost increase shooting units does not adres the Core rules issue that is the shooting focused meta.

The question could be at what cost are Skyfires for example fixed? 180? 200? More? And then at which point are they still playable?

Likewise Kunnin Rukk is not really a matter of making the Battalion 20-40 points more expensive. Its whole Core design as a battalion simply is so good that another Core design can only trump it, being shooting.

But Im happy to hear what more AoS players think about 40K. Its a shooty game but unlike AoS isnt capable to pick out and continue upon w/e. 

To me Skyfires and Kunning Rukks are problematic because they remove key figures with close to 100% succes. The units who then arrive have no means to remove oppossing key pieces and thus the game snowballs into quick defeat.

[Nico]

Quote

I think its also a good option. The thing remains that if shooting is an issue its a Core Rules issue. Because the difference in cost increase shooting units does not adres the Core rules issue that is the shooting focused meta.

The question could be at what cost are Skyfires for example fixed? 180? 200? More? And then at which point are they still playable?

Likewise Kunnin Rukk is not really a matter of making the Battalion 20-40 points more expensive. Its whole Core design as a battalion simply is so good that another Core design can only trump it, being shooting.

I don't agree. The shooting focussed meta is a result of specific units being overpowered. It's not like people are using Dispossessed and batteries of Cannons or lots of Wanderer lists.

Kunning Rukk would be fixed instantly if the unit size was reduced to 30 from the absurd 40 (80 wounds) and if the Arrer Boyz cost 120 for 10.

Skyfires need a unit cap at 6 and a cost increase to 200.

 

[Mikosan]

Changing core rules as a response to the current meta seems like a very deep dark rabbit hole I'd rather GW not go down.  The meta can change with each release. Changing fundamental parts of the basic rules to nerf the super effective choices in armies in any given meta when you could just change warscrolls is going to create more problems than it solves in my opinion.

[chord]

39 minutes ago, Nico said:

I don't agree. The shooting focussed meta is a result of specific units being overpowered. It's not like people are using Dispossessed and batteries of Cannons or lots of Wanderer lists.

Kunning Rukk would be fixed instantly if the unit size was reduced to 30 from the absurd 40 (80 wounds) and if the Arrer Boyz cost 120 for 10.

Skyfires need a unit cap at 6 and a cost increase to 200.

 

Agreed it's the units.

Although I'd make them more about 220

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

Unit X costs 200 points and puts out 20 shooting dice.
Unit WAAC costs 200 points and puts out 60 shooting dice.

Which one will I min/max on?

Clearly the 60 dice one because the game has absolutely no other factors that determine costs, balance, or outcomes ... right?

[Captain Marius]

3 hours ago, Chris Tomlin said:

I've tidied up your post. Not wanting to derail this, but just interested why you think this is nonsense?

Fair shout, nonsense is probably too provocative a term! To me it seems a bit disjointed that the chargers who could reach enemy models would deliberately not do so so that they can take advantage of the pile in rules and move yet again... though to be fair its taken me nearly two years to discover this is even a thing! It definitely does open up a lot of tactical options which i guess allows more dudes to get in, leading to more casualties, leading to speeding up the game, so i guess its all relative!

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

I don't agree. The shooting focussed meta is a result of specific units being overpowered. It's not like people are using Dispossessed and batteries of Cannons or lots of Wanderer lists.

Kunning Rukk would be fixed instantly if the unit size was reduced to 30 from the absurd 40 (80 wounds) and if the Arrer Boyz cost 120 for 10.

Skyfires need a unit cap at 6 and a cost increase to 200.

 

 

41 minutes ago, chord said:

Agreed it's the units.

Although I'd make them more about 220

So the fact that they still remove Heroes just as easily with a potential point increase doesn't bother you guys?

Interesting for sure.

[Captain Marius]

Id knock savage arrer boyz down to one attack with their bows. I dont really think they deserve 2 wounds either unless regular orruks are going to get a similar buff. Theyd probably need a points decrease with that sort of nerf!

[chord]

47 minutes ago, Killax said:

 

So the fact that they still remove Heroes just as easily with a potential point increase doesn't bother you guys?

Interesting for sure.

With less of them, the chance of taking out a hero decreases

[Tiger]

I. Add rules for terrain that will reward positioning and hiding of units. Such as it is I feel AoS has better terrain rules, although for the most part they're tied on a random effect generation. Even terrain bonus has larger impact on AoS game than in 40k.

II. Keeping rend and damage on weapons relatively rare means that high armor on units has certain value. Everything melts in 40k by sheer weight of negative modifiers and multi damage weapons. To me this is not exciting and motivates me even less to paint models, when it's likely they'll get removed from the table in a heartbeat.

III. (Strength versus Toughness) versus fixed rolls. After seeing 40k games I prefer AoS. While it's true that higher toughness has more benefits (although you can always wound a model on a 6 I think) the lower strength models suddenly have much less utility. With shooting being dominant it doesn't show that often, however certain close combat units now simply feel useless investment. I can't think of a situation of when those points invested wouldn't be better in more shooting units. Overwatch is still a thing and perhaps only few close combat units have an ability to overrule it.

IV. I'm not a fan of a miscast result in 40k. It might be in character of the dark grim universe, however I simply can't force myself to enjoy it.

V. Split fire doesn't create more tactical depth, however it does slow the game down considerably as people ponder what would be the most optimal way to break the unit through shooting. With shooting being the most common attack the responding player is again going through a lot of downtime where he's just looking how the opponent is throwing two fists full of dice and removing his units.

VI. 40k Knights versus AoS monsters. I feel AoS has much healthier approach when it comes to monsters and their variety, although they can be though and definitely there probably are examples of things that are too though. I haven't really experienced something that'd be too hard to take down. The monster itself is a threat but never did I feel such tremendous pressure that I need to commit all my resources or it'll obliterate my entire army.

After seeing few 40k reports and a live game I am rather happy with how AoS turned out and continues to grow.

[Killax]

Certainly! I do think that this topic isn't really about a system vs system debate though, which is why I cherry picked the rules from 40K I do like to see transferred in AoS  

As before, the way melee combat resolves in 40K actually gets me more grimmier the moment I look at it. A large part of it again comes from the fact that 1.1" "disengagement" is suffient and while doing so you can still claim objectives and overwatch. Basically still enforcing that shooting is on spot number 1.

Now there are certainly a few factions and units who can still go toe to toe in melee combat but I really like melee combat and because of that I really like AoS. To me shooting (which is why I dislike how it in general works on certain AoS pieces) should be an important factor in Fantasy games but not the overtaking factor. This vision is most certainly very biased. I am the Khorne player aswell. 

What I however wouldnt mind seeing is to have this part be as good as Magic for example. Because I do feel that the way Magic works out in AoS is restricted too much. We have Sayl and others who can do something but as before I do like 40K's rock, paper, scissors approach slighty more in that it removes itself from spamming, as spamming means you are one of the three and not a mix of all.

For example, some 40K players are now working on a Razorback + MSU spam, in essence not that different from multiple small units of Skyfires. However due to how Deepstriking works in 40K (ala summonning) and the magic that can push up these units there actually are very much hard counters available for such tactics.
If we would translate that to AoS I think it would actually be extremely benificial to all if engaged units could either A. Not shoot, B. Shoot with a penalty, C. Shoot only with those they are engaged with or D. Shoot only with those they are engaged with with a penalty. 

All in all that's the only comment I have on Core game design in AoS. Kunning Rukk, as a Battalion is also the only Battalion I believe needs a re-design. The moment it's effect would be once per game or only applied if the Battalion is filled with the units (like many other Battalions obtain a super power if they are) I wouldn't mind it.

Then the moment Skyfires, Judicators and Hunters would be stuck shooting that which is in combat I think they wouldn't be that much undercosted or undercosted at all. Still very powerful but not beyond the norm they are beyond now. This implication is much more there for a tactically advantaged level, less so on based numbers/wounds vs army size.

[Karchev23]

I say nothing, AOS is fine as it is... well summoning needs fixing but other than that I prefer it over 40k

[kozokus]

There will always be a "Skyfire" unit. Before they existed or the Kunninrukk existed, the heat was on the Thundertusk, and before....well, there was no General Handbook so there was nothing.

If they all diseapeared, all the frowns and grim looks would point toward the Longstrike Raptors/Aetherstrike.

And if they diseapeared too all would look at the 60 gitmob grot archers with shaman. Wanna remove them? Say welcome to mass Kurnoth-bow.

I really beleve that unrestricted shooting is a pain. It is a pain because it is completly one-sided unlike the combat phase which make both players participate and take decisions. There should be at least a disadvantage.

[Jamopower]

Slight threadomancy, but as the 40k etc-lists were released, I wanted to share them as there seems to be around four different lists all together : flyers (stormravens), hordes of fearless melee units, max amount of good untargetable characters with hordes and Guard. Of course this is partly because of the format, but still nothing new under the sun. 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-hZfH5vZ6PLcHlGcWNkVmJvU2M/view

 

Apparently the flyers were so good, that the GW already had to change the rules to disallow pure flyer lists.

[Jamopower]

5 hours ago, Auticus said:

The spam lists in the tournaments weren't all flyers.  They took troops as well.  However it makes there be a risk in doing so now.  

Don't know about other tournaments, but for example Team England seems to have 3 out of 8 lists full of stormravens, that, if I counted right, in combined have 16 stormravens and 23 other models, of which 5 are single acolytes  

Anyways, this was just to point out that in almost any case, the powerful armies will be found out quickly in the age of the internet, and some of the rules that seem to be nice, like the targeting restriction for characters, can result into armies with 8 daemon princes or tau commanders. But at least the deck will be shuffled quickly as they are pushing the codexes out in record time and by actually changing points/rules for the most powerful stuff on the fly.

[Sleboda]

29 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

targeting restriction for characters, can result into armies with 8 daemon princes or tau commanders.

My fear exactly for AoS - Herohammer Returns with that rule.

[Sleboda]

Yes, but if they are all mostly safe from harm, then the more powerful buffers will be the ones you see.  You need, in AoS, to be able to remove the buffers to make some armies reasonable. It's not how many heroes they get, it's how to kill the ones they take.

[RuneBrush]

I've played some 40k now so feel I can contribute a little more to this discussion. 

40k appears to have quite a few "under the bonnet" fail-safes to try and limit some of the potential issues with character spam.  Characters are limited based on the detachments used and are pretty expensive in comparison to rank and file units.  They're also vulnerable to both anti-armour and anti-infantry weapons as they're a unit of a single model.  Character models don't have the same damage potential as characters in AoS.  They normally only have one or two ranged weapons and often only 4 or 5 melee attacks.  A daemon prince will only make a maximum of 7 melee attacks per phase - that's not enough to wipe out a unit of ten models my Mighty Lord has the potential to inflict up to 15 damage without any kind of buffs at all!

From the opponents perspective, I think nearly every army has access to sniper weapons - you can field a unit of 5 marine scounts with sniper rifles for a lot less than a character (you can field 2 units for the cost of a daemon prince).  A number of sniper weapons also can inflict mortal wounds.  Failing that, a lot of units can now happily deepstrike outside of 9", allowing you to comfortably drop a unit so that a character is now the closest target.  Generally people who are trying to build a super-competitive list 

To surmise, do I think AoS can learn from the character targeting rule?  Yes!  However there are a lot of little nuances 40k has in place to balance this out which AoS doesn't so a straight copy over doesn't really work.

13 hours ago, Auticus said:

Having been playing with basically the 40k rules for shooting the entire time in AOS for the past two years, I haven't seen it become as big of an issue as people make it out to be.  And the irritation that it causes is still a lot less than the current rules which see narrative fantasy heroes cowering in the back, which is unlike any book ever written or any film ever shown, which makes the game about recreating cinematic battles the total opposite of what cinematic battles are depicted as.

I'd not say the current rules are irritating, more they cause you to throw your hands in the air and proclaim "why did I even bother bringing characters".   I'm a Bloodbound player and lucky enough that I have a huge variety of characters to pick from (which I have spent many hours lovingly painting).  It's pretty demoralising when the first action when playing against a shooting heavy list, is they simply nuke every character they can target.  I'd not even really say it needed a particularly talented general to do it.  What I can say is that I've not had the same frustrations when playing the new 40k

[Killax]

16 hours ago, Sleboda said:

My fear exactly for AoS - Herohammer Returns with that rule.

To some extend AoS is allready very much Herohammer though the cap on quantity still means that you will have to thake other choices. In the end I think this is also the healtiests variant of Herohammer.
Now there are allready loads of ways to bypass 40K's Hero protection mind you, as the rule is a LoS based rule and this means that if you place your vechicle in such a way that only the Hero is visible it can be shot, despite other units perhaps being closer.

Personally I think Hero protection from ranged attacks would still be a healthy development for AoS. In that same vein I also think Monsters should have some more impact as they do now, which a simple -1 Morale could actually fix aswell. 
There are basically some 'realistic' elements missing from AoS which I believe when included would actually improve the game even further.

As said before Im not a huge fan of Battleline units, I believe the 40K approach on how non-Troops can form an army aswell makes much more sence, is better for the hobby and generally the game (if units are balanced right and they mostly are in AoS). 
At the same time I also believe that the 40K flyer rule might eventually change or become even more common. As Ultramarines essentially have the best aspect of the Flying rule as their Chapter Tactic...