Age of Sigmar "2nd edition"

[hellalugosi]

id just expect more universal rules to evolve.

mystic shield could add an additional rule to it that allows the caster to give themselves a look out sir instead of a plus one save if casted on them. otherwise it would perform as normal.

or instead, introducing more generic command abilities that function the same in the core rules. make inspiring presence available but also add a command ability that could help protect heroes.

as for shooting, id only really say that the easiest fix is if you are engaged, you can only target the units that are engaging you (within 3"). otherwise aim free as normal. 

the only other thing i can think of is rolling the rules of one into the base game instead of just matched play.

 

[someone2040]

I think it's interesting to talk about what a 2nd edition would contain. Given the rules are free, in theory the tweaks can be as small or large as they like (as long as they continue to be free IMO).

What I would like to see is added complexity and change, but only in the right areas and not to the extent that the rules become a lot larger.

To me, this is the set of changes I would like to see:

1. Changing measuring from model to model to base to base (regardless of whether they're squares or rounds).

2. Shooting units suffer some form of penalty if they're in combat. I'm not sure a -1 to hit works well across the board, as it double hits some units which gain advantages if they're not in combat. Targeting restrictions may be enough.

3. Terrain type rules incorporated into the core rules. There are some common rules for Walls and Buildings across a bunch of warscrolls that I would like to see in the core rules, just so those rules actually see play in standard games. Terrain basically boils down to a page once you add in terrain types + mysterious terrain rules (I created such a page a while back). Overall, I think part of the issue with cover is that in the core rules, it's very all or nothing. Walls (terrain you can take cover behind) and buildings (terrain you can garrison) add nuances to how you can gain cover in the game.

4. Increase unbind range to 24" by default. This is just so magic becomes a bit more interactive with it being in the Hero phase currently. At the moment buffs are by far the most effective type of magic (outside specific circumstances) because you always have friends nearby, but aren't always in range to debuff/attack enemies (and hence also be in unbind range).

 

Something I'm not as fussed about, but think GW do need to consider is a better balancing mechanism in the core rules. Models don't cut it, and probably wounds don't cut it either. I wouldn't be against them introducing an even simpler 'points' mechanism closer to power points and put on all the warscrolls. Take all the current GHB min sized points and divide by 20 and you get something similar to power points.

These I think don't need to be updated or balanced over time, just let people have them as an 'initial look' and point them in the direction of the GHB for matched play restrictions and better balancing.

[Slayerofmen]

AoS is basically already playing with "power points" ala 40k because all options are included inside matched play points

[Mordeus]

3 hours ago, Killax said:

From my perspective the Warscrolls need little to no change right now.

No real change though I feel they should really update them in regards to the FAQs they publish. Not massive change to the style of the unit but rather the minor changes they include, like a damage 3 going to damage d3.

[someone2040]

2 hours ago, Slayerofmen said:

AoS is basically already playing with "power points" ala 40k because all options are included inside matched play points

And that's why I mentioned I'm not as fussed, because there would not be a huge distinction between 'matched play' and 'power points play' in that case. There are of course, distinctions in the fact that matched play forces composition onto your army (max heroes, artillery, behemoths, min battleline) as well as stuff like horde bonuses. Potentially I think you could take matched play points finer grained than is current.

Potentially if power points came onto scrolls, then it's possible that the GHB points would become finer grained than is current. I don't really want to see min-maxing equipment and standards/musicians/champions and the like of yesteryear (and of 40k), but I could see it going to a points per model system easily enough. Which would also fix some of the issues where you make a hero model out of some boxes (Pusgoyle Blightlords, all the Flesh-Eater Courts stuff, Dracoth cavalry, etc) as you wouldn't be left with awkward unit sizes.

 

Not saying I necessarily want to see that happen, but I think it is a distinct possibility if GW make a 'AoS v2'.

[Envyus]

I would like a Second Edition. Would also like the Old World back as a setting. The current one is still just too large and too focused on the super human.

Plus honestly who is more badass between these two.

Markus Kruber. Normal Imperial Solider whose only real resources are Steel, Faith and Gunpowder. 

 

Vs 

Normal Stormcast Eternal. An immortal superhuman granted lightning blessed powers and has every advantage over Kruber other then the Steel and the Gunpowder. (Because he gets even better gear made of a fantasy element.) 

 

 

Both have fought Chaos Warriors. The Stormcast is the equal of a Chaos Warrior in every way. While Kruber is smaller and weaker.

Yet Kruber rose up against the odds and defeated a large number of chaos warriors sometimes on his own, somtimes with the aid of his companions many of whom were not much more impressive then him.

While the Stormcast wither he beats the Chaos Warriors or not will always have another chance in the future. Except he will lose more of his humanity and become even more unrelatable. 

 

I find the underdog here accomplishing the same feat to be much more awesome.

[Vextol]

For me it's all about getting rid of the double turn. 

When I am showing people how to play the game I always play that each person takes their turn and then the next player goes.  No rolling.  For new people, nothing leaves as bad a taste in the mouth as the double turn and it is consistently the least favorite part. 

I don't like this system either, mind you, because going first has huge impacts as well.  Most modern games you have a first turn penalty (no shooting, minuses to hit, missing phases, movement penalty...something).

I know, vets will defend it until they are blue in the face, but it IS off-putting .  You know how many other games I can think of where you get to go twice without penalty, reason or opportunity to mitigate the situation?  None.  That's because it's a bad design.  Anyone want to play chess where I MAY get to go twice?  Makes check a lot more dangerous.

And the big issue I always have with the double turn IS the shooting threat.  Melee armies are at such a disadvantage because of the double turn.  You get to shoot twice AND you haven't moved into a melee threat range meaning you could EASILY shoot a unit three (!) times before they ever see combat.  See a lot of melee heroes actually in melee?  This is why not.

 

[RuneBrush]

What I find quite interesting is that most of us are all talking about the same three or four items (albeit some are the polar opposite of each other).

As an additional to my earlier comment about terrain rules coming out of the main rules, and @someone2040's comment about extending terrain rules to cover walls  and buildings, it would be ace to have a free "extension" that covers setting up a battlefield, including rules on terrain and deployment.  It would mean the core rules are kept concise and contain everything we need to play (alongside warscrolls) and then you've the battlefield rules (alongside the battleplan).

I also think (toggle controversial mode) that a small change to Line of Sight targeting could solve some of the character sniping issue without breaking the game.  If the rules said that you must be able to see 50% of a model in order to target the unit, characters would gain an element of protection.  And before anybody shoots me down (see what I did there ) I believe that a key part of the whole ethos of AoS is about the characters that make up the mortal realms.  We don't care about Fred a rank and file liberator who's been reforged so many times they only know their name as it's written into the back of their armour - we want to know about the heroic effort of Lord Celestant Alginon and his cunning ruses to defeat the foes of Sigmar.  So when playing a game, to have Lord Alginon shot by a load of Grots with shortbows because they could see him waving his sword around is frankly rubbish

[Vextol]

12 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

What I find quite interesting is that most of us are all talking about the same three or four items (albeit some are the polar opposite of each other).

I think this is because some armies, especially top armies, favor different elements.

You probably won't find a heavy shooting army complaining about the double turn or shooting issues because both of these things play to their advantages the most.

  9 inch chargers/teleporters will definitely love the double turn.  Shooters, at least the 24+ inch shooters, will also love the double turn.  Heavy savers won't care about the double turn.  Multi wound armies won't care as much about the double turn....sound familiar?  It's all the newest armies pretty much.  I bet you'd find a trend in peoples' opinions based on what armies they play as.

Edit: I play a host of armies across the spectrum so obviously I'm free from the woes of army prejudice .

[Kyriakin]

Shooting out of combat: If chosen to do so, -1 to hit for both shooting and CC in that round.

Shooting into combat: Roll one D6 for every wound caused on the enemy unit. Sixes* cause a Mortal Wound on your own unit

* Or fives, fours (etc.), depending on how hard GW want to nerf it.

[Vextol]

8 minutes ago, Kyriakin said:

Shooting into combat: Roll one D6 for every wound caused on the enemy unit. Sixes* cause a Mortal Wound on your own units

I always thought a fun thing to try was that ALL missed hits were attributed to your own units.  Then you rolled to wound as normal.   It builds in a natural "better shots" element.  It does however really hurt bad shooters like skinks. 

You could make it that 1s hit your own guys.  That's really not that terrible but it could be enough to make people think twice before firing a huge volley into a group that's being locked up by only a few of your own guys.

[Guest]

I find it strange. If people weren't so indoctrinated into the concept of 'editions' I doubt we'd even be having this discussion. The core rules are solid and don't need a substantial rewrite, which is what a new edition implies. Nothing is fundamentally broken and everyone is having fun. A rewrite of the core rules to incorporate the erratas and FAQs would be welcome, but that's hardly a new 'edition'.

I think a large section of the player base agrees that there's something 'off' about the way shooting is represented (even if we don't agree on the exact nature of the problem or how to fix it), and I'd personally like to see it adjusted in some way, but even that isn't game breaking. And again, even if they did decide to tweak it that would hardly represent a new 'edition'.

The smartest thing GW did with AoS is to keep the core rules as short and simple as possible, and move most of the rules onto the warscrolls. That simple shift in approach did away with the need for the frustrating and inefficient cycle of new editions at a stroke. Like I said, if the idea of 'editions' wasn't so ingrained in the community consciousness we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because the concept of a new edition as we once knew it is an anachronism. Long may that state of affairs continue!

[heywoah_twitch]

1 hour ago, Vextol said:

For me it's all about getting rid of the double turn. 

When I am showing people how to play the game I always play that each person takes their turn and then the next player goes.  No rolling.  For new people, nothing leaves as bad a taste in the mouth as the double turn and it is consistently the least favorite part. 

I don't like this system either, mind you, because going first has huge impacts as well.  Most modern games you have a first turn penalty (no shooting, minuses to hit, missing phases, movement penalty...something).

I know, vets will defend it until they are blue in the face, but it IS off-putting .  You know how many other games I can think of where you get to go twice without penalty, reason or opportunity to mitigate the situation?  None.  That's because it's a bad design.  Anyone want to play chess where I MAY get to go twice?  Makes check a lot more dangerous.

And the big issue I always have with the double turn IS the shooting threat.  Melee armies are at such a disadvantage because of the double turn.  You get to shoot twice AND you haven't moved into a melee threat range meaning you could EASILY shoot a unit three (!) times before they ever see combat.  See a lot of melee heroes actually in melee?  This is why not.

 

Quite right. The biggest rules barrier of entry for your average gamer is rolling for priority. It's just such an obviously poor mechanic holding the game back from being, well, like a proper game. And as well, if there were proper turn order I don't think people would be so up in arms about ranged tbh. I think solving this one solves the outcry about ranged.

The main complaint I always read about shooting into/out of melee is that "It's unrealistic" but this is a mythic fantasy game. Shooting while in melee is heroic. No one complains about wizards casting spells in melee and that's even more unrealistic (imagine a boxing match against a guy trying to recite lines and mix spell components. he would be KO'd instantly) - and no one's saying fireball should damage their own unit in a melee.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

So when playing a game, to have Lord Alginon shot by a load of Grots with shortbows because they could see him waving his sword around is frankly rubbish

I can only agree, a lot of the narrative design doesn't reflect well on a few particular things. But from the core rules this is most certainly the strongest aspet. In addition we see that narrative does focus on epic melee combats between characters. It's because of this that I'd gladly see it part of being in every game.

The fact of the matter is that some also have stated on the previous pages that those who like 40K's aspect should go and play 40K. But at the same time it isn't discussed that in 40K shooting is actually objectively worse by AoS comparison. I don't know what to make of that... I feel that in AoS shooting should be a viable asset but it has been dominant since GH2016's ineption and logically so. I understand where I can create a technical critical mass with melee combat and I understand that shooting characters deletes that.

The issue AoS has vs 40K is that in 40K everybody has acces to ranged attacks that are relevant. Another funny thing about AoS aswell is that there is an Artillery cap but Shooting units can be part of it all while functionally speaking they often work the same and the unit has the massive advantage of the wounds.

1 hour ago, Vextol said:

You probably won't find a heavy shooting army complaining about the double turn or shooting issues because both of these things play to their advantages the most.

I can only agree. Which makes it hard to discuss the matter sometimes. Plus I don't feel just shooting is the only offender. While I like the Vortex (don't use it) I don't know how healthy it is for the game to have several factions be so obsessed by a magical tornado scenery piece....

43 minutes ago, Kyriakin said:

depending on how hard GW want to nerf it.

I think the real question isn't how hard GW wants to nerf it. What I do think is the real question is where Games Workshop wants is Shooting attack focus to be for Age of Sigmar.

As before, it plays a huge roll for everybody in 40K. But in 40K everybody who wants to can also present a huge ranged offense. This in particular isn't the case at all for Age of Sigmar. The strongest offenses are found in (mixed) Order, Stormcast, Seraphon and to some extend Sylvaneth, Kharadron, Dispossed and Fyreslayers (though the latter has been adressed). To me it isn't suprising that if order wins it's one of these factions. 

Likewise we see a lot of complaints comming for Tzeentch, it indeed makes a lot of top 10 appearances (doesn't win, but does appear a lot) and for whatever reason there is a focus there that people want to see changed, but actual tournament winning lists are ignored by essentially presenting an army that even Tzeentch cannot win from consistantly.

So my question to you is, would you see it as a nerf to the game if more allegiances would be capable to reach competitive relevancy?
So far (since 2016) it's largely been Order vs Tzeentch and the rest. While I do think both Nurgle and Legions of Nagash will make a good show up, I also think that they (luckily) don't have the tools that surpass the insane designs we see in those current meta kings...

9 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I'd personally like to see it adjusted in some way, but even that isn't game breaking. And again, even if they did decide to tweak it that would hardly represent a new 'edition'.

The smartest thing GW did with AoS is to keep the core rules as short and simple as possible, and move most of the rules onto the warscrolls. That simple shift in approach did away with the need for the frustrating and inefficient cycle of new editions at a stroke.

I agree with you on the name of a new edition, but calling it a new edition or not is basically irrelevant to me at this point. Because from my perspective the new editions currently come with Generals Handbooks, and yes, they are adding tweaks to core rules in a massive way with them. The page count of FAQ/Errata has completely surpassed the 'simple Core rules'.

Where I cannot agree at all is to keep the rules as short as possible. Because simplicity and short ammounts of text arn't one of the same. What makes a rulessystem simple (and effective) is consistancy. With this I mean that every time a Warscroll comes out that allows for pushes and whatnot the Core Rules could have simply covered that in particular phase A,B or C you cannot be within 3" of enemy models. This way not every Warscroll has to list it. 
Lastly in regards to your comments, what we see is allready some frustrating and inefficience with the way things work out now. New players often have no idea what Matched play point costs to use or are in for suprises when they have missed the latest FAQ/Errata.

The Core rules are in many ways updated but you have to be an 'insider' to know where to find that, this is very unhealthy for the game and community growth...

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, heywoah_twitch said:

The main complaint I always read about shooting into/out of melee is that "It's unrealistic" but this is a mythic fantasy game. Shooting while in melee is heroic. No one complains about wizards casting spells in melee and that's even more unrealistic (imagine a boxing match against a guy trying to recite lines and mix spell components. he would be KO'd instantly) - and no one's saying fireball should damage their own unit in a melee.

 

The thing is, all of the rules are an abstraction of battles taking place in a setting that's fantastical, but grounded in reality. Everyone will have a different interpretation of A) what is 'realistic' (i.e. plausible) within the fiction of the setting, and B) how that reality should be abstracted for the rules set. For me, regardless of whether a character is a supernaturally gifted shooter, if they're in melee combat they're in melee combat. I don't recall even the mighty Legolas trying to get a shot off at the exact same moment as being up to his eyeballs in slashing orc throats. So for me personally, being able to shoot out of combat is an abstraction that poorly reflects the plausible reality of the fiction - you could say it breaks my suspension of disbelief.

For the record, I think the Lord of the Rings / Hobbit Strategy Battle Game has the most satisfying and plausible shooting mechanics of any game GW have ever produced. I'd love to see something similar incorporated into AoS. But that's just me.

[Killax]

24 minutes ago, heywoah_twitch said:

The main complaint I always read about shooting into/out of melee is that "It's unrealistic" but this is a mythic fantasy game.

My main complaint on it is very different.

Age of Sigmar is a game that rewards tactical placement very well, this is where it's depth lies. Every phase other than the Hero phase and Shooting phase have to account for placement.

Hero phase/Magic
However in many ways even Magical attacks are much more limited as shooting is, we see this fact in threat ranges of magic (only made silly by the Vortex) and the option for practically every army to Unbind. 
Shooting Phase
You can't "unbind" shooting that is targeting your heroes with anything other than a thic piece of terrain right now. Even if a giant monster is directly in front of a hero if he can see between his legs the smaller hero is a legal target. That isn't mythic fantasy, that's impropper rules design. And I think GW is completely aware of it. Because it doesn't work that way in 40K. Shooting is "worse" in 40K.

[Kamose]

10 minutes ago, heywoah_twitch said:

Quite right. The biggest rules barrier of entry for your average gamer is rolling for priority. It's just such an obviously poor mechanic holding the game back from being, well, like a proper game. And as well, if there were proper turn order I don't think people would be so up in arms about ranged tbh. I think solving this one solves the outcry about ranged.

The main complaint I always read about shooting into/out of melee is that "It's unrealistic" but this is a mythic fantasy game. Shooting while in melee is heroic. No one complains about wizards casting spells in melee and that's even more unrealistic (imagine a boxing match against a guy trying to recite lines and mix spell components. he would be KO'd instantly) - and no one's saying fireball should damage their own unit in a melee.

I wonder how many people who decry the double turn are wargame veterans. How many are people with years of experience playing wargames like 40k, WHFB, Malifaux, Inifinity, and all the others?  I say this because the priority roll seems to get a lot of hatred from gamers.  However, I've never met anyone who is actually new to the war gaming who has an issue with it.  They mostly take it in stride and learn to adapt.  It just a rule of the game and you play with it.  For what its worth they are  also less likely to make themselves play monofaction i.e. "I'm an Ironjawz player so I can't ally in goblins for shooting cause that's not who I am cause I only play Ironjaws."  They only start to play that way if their local gaming groups says or heavily implies that monofaction is the 'right' way to play and double turns are bad. 

Of course this is my personal experience and completely anecdotal...like everything else here!

As for shooting in combat I don't have a huge problem with it but I think it could use some sort of modifier or risk  associated with it.  Its not that its broken, at least I don't believe so.  But I think it is kind of a no-brainer strategy right now.  It needs some sort risk to it to force the player to make a decision as to whether or not shooting a target is worth it.  I'm a fan of "Hit Rolls of 1 deal a single mortal wound to a friendly unit within 3" of the target."  That could even be added as a line to the main rules.  If there are no friendly units within 3" nothing happens.  If there are friendly units within 3" then apply the rule.  It introduces risk, perhaps serious risk since the friendly unit gets no save (usually).  It also does this without adding any dice rolls.  That last one is very important I think.

[Carnelian]

3 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

We don't care about Fred a rank and file liberator who's been reforged so many times they only know their name as it's written into the back of their armour - we want to know about the heroic effort of Lord Celestant Alginon and his cunning ruses to defeat the foes of Sigmar.  

S*rew Alginon I want to know more about Fred!

[Ollie Grimwood]

24 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

S*rew Alginon I want to know more about Fred!

I agree Fred sounds cool. 

 

 

[Vextol]

1 hour ago, Kamose said:

I wonder how many people who decry the double turn are wargame veterans. How many are people with years of experience playing wargames like 40k, WHFB, Malifaux, Inifinity, and all the others?  I say this because the priority roll seems to get a lot of hatred from gamers.  However, I've never met anyone who is actually new to the war gaming who has an issue with it.  They mostly take it in stride and learn to adapt.  It just a rule of the game and you play with it.  For what its worth they are  also less likely to make themselves play monofaction i.e. "I'm an Ironjawz player so I can't ally in goblins for shooting cause that's not who I am cause I only play Ironjaws."  They only start to play that way if their local gaming groups says or heavily implies that monofaction is the 'right' way to play and double turns are bad. 

Me. I'm the only Warhammer in my primary group.  We are a board game group and when I show/explain the system, everyone in my group gawks at the double turn.

I think GW could learn a lot from the board game world.  There are a myriad of ways to deal with 'priority' out there in the game industry, and any number could be a viable option AS IS in Sigmar. 

Scaling penalties is a good one.  You take a global debuff, I say call, I'll take that and this one, you say call, I'll take that and this and this.  Not saying "it should be this!"  but I refuse to believe that there are no other options.   Current play styles and 'skill' be damned, there are literally 50 better ways to balance "who goes first" than the roll of a die and preparation to maybe get bunked, maybe not. 

Edit: silly as it sounds, that could actually be fun.  You roll for priority as usual, but if you lose you can choose from a list and say "I claim priority and you can have +1 to hit until my next hero phase" and so on.  Just SOMETHING to give you some control of the terrible situation.  The other person can then take priority back but they have to suffer the penalty.   I am actually loving this.  I smell a play test coming!

[Lousy Beatnik]

I'd only hate shooting "into combat" if  AoS actually had a proper in combat. What it has is a really vague bubble where you can only advance and the alternative, falling back, isn't anywhere near as crippling as it was in WHFB or pretty much any other game. 

With the "not really in combat and we don't even refer to it as such" rules we have, I have never felt it is as bad as people say, even without the "this is super heroic fantasy" argument.

Now... What I really would like in either a second edition or just a rules update in the General's Hand Boek, is to condense most of the first page and add a few extras. Not extra rules, more commentary on what exactly they meant and provide examples. If coming into three years in, you still see people every day online asking if the reeeeealy can shoot "into combat" or whatever, then they probably should spell it out a little more in the main rules.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Killax said:

Where I cannot agree at all is to keep the rules as short as possible. Because simplicity and short ammounts of text arn't one of the same. What makes a rulessystem simple (and effective) is consistancy. With this I mean that every time a Warscroll comes out that allows for pushes and whatnot the Core Rules could have simply covered that in particular phase A,B or C you cannot be within 3" of enemy models. This way not every Warscroll has to list it. 
Lastly in regards to your comments, what we see is allready some frustrating and inefficience with the way things work out now. New players often have no idea what Matched play point costs to use or are in for suprises when they have missed the latest FAQ/Errata.

The Core rules are in many ways updated but you have to be an 'insider' to know where to find that, this is very unhealthy for the game and community growth...

 

It's better for things to be listed on the warscrolls. People refer to the warscrolls regularly throughout a game. No need to look stuff up, it's all right there. People are less inclined to refer back to the core rules. The core rules are defined by the fact that they apply to every player and every unit at all times. Better to have unit-specific rules on the warscrolls even if they do apply to more than one unit. I, and I'm sure many other people, appreciate not feeling obliged to memorise a load of information that doesn't apply to our armies.

What I do agree on is that the extra rules are becoming more and more spread out and harder to keep track of. But that comes from a vocal minority demanding more and more complexity, and thus we have allegiance abilities and various other layers of rules spread out across multiple books and supplements. But the crucial thing is, a new player can still read through those 4 pages of core rules and get a fun game up and running within just a few minutes. That frankly is a revelation compared to what came before, and we should never underestimate the value of that to the health of the game as a whole. Then, if they want to play with all of the extra bits, and if they're the kind of person perversely craves the petty stuff that gets spelled out for people who can't think for themselves in FAQs and erratas, they can look that stuff up very easily in their own time. I'm a casual player, and my outlook is that if my opponent gives two hoots about FAQs and erratas then they're welcome to educate me and I'll go along with whatever they say - but I'm not wasting my life looking up that stuff if GW doesn't consider it important enough to be incorporated into a proper publication. But if GW want to incorporate that information into the core rules in a streamlined way then I'd welcome that.

What's unhealthy for community growth is dangling the carrot of an easy to grasp rules system in front of new people then pressuring them into thinking they need to study a load of obscure online PDFs. They don't. To hell with that attitude.

[chord]

1. Tweak LOS to see 50% of a model,  or something better than people being "that guy" and saying I see their sword.
2. Terrain rules,  we never play with the default ones so I vote for removing or modifying.  And oddly the terrain compendium has rules for walls/fences, etc.  They work out pretty well
3. Keep the double turn
4. Short and simple rules get new players.  Its why I chose AOS over 40K,  I'd rather have short/simple core rules. 
5. I think flying units should be able to avoid ground combat.  I mean they are flying

[Vextol]

8 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

What I do agree on is that the extra rules are becoming more and more spread out and harder to keep track of. But that comes from a vocal minority demanding more and more complexity, and thus we have allegiance abilities and various other layers of rules spread out across multiple books and supplements.

I used very similar wording to express the complete opposite just a few days ago 

Wasn't quite so forward about people wasting their lives however... 

Truth is, rules need to be clear and without FAQs you're left up to interpretation.  It's almost always better to have a third party decide the rulings because players respond better when they feel like they aren't in control.  No one feels cheated or gets mad at the other person because some  committee somewhere came up with a ruling.  And the committee doesn't care about your problem, so they aren't concerned if you don't like their decision.  

And say what you will, but if I'm playing with someone who A. Doesn't want to win, or B. Doesn't care about winning, then I don't want to play.  Competition is important to keep a game lively. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Vextol said:

I used very similar wording to express the complete opposite just a few days ago 

Wasn't quite so forward about people wasting their lives however... 

Truth is, rules need to be clear and without FAQs, you're left up to interpretation.  It's almost always better to have a third party decide the rulings because players respond better when they feel like they aren't in control.  No one gets mad the other person because some  committee somewhere came up with a ruling.  And the committee doesn't care about your problem, so they aren't concerned if you don't like their decision.  

And say what you will, but if I'm playing with someone who A. Doesn't want to win, or B. Doesn't care about winning, then I don't want to play.  Competition is important to keep a game lively. 

The core rules are perfectly clear. What muddies the waters is people overthinking them and trying to find exceptions - and in extreme cases trying to maximise their own advantage from any perceived ambiguity whilst minimising other people's. It actually annoys me that GW panders to this kind of mentality. People, especially experienced wargamers, should be intelligent and accommodating enough to deal with the occasional quirk of the rules system on the spot and in their own way. But no, they need daddy GW to hold their hand, otherwise it's not 'official' - god forbid! I've been playing AoS since launch against a variety of different opponents, and I'm proud to say that I've never once felt the need to look up a FAQ or errata, because I'm happy to accept the core rules as they are without worrying about poking holes in them, deal with quirky situations that arise on the spot between me and my opponent, and move on. I highly recommend it.