Age of Sigmar "2nd edition"

[hughwyeth]

4 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

(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

Deadzone has an excellent line of sight rule system. Hitting a target is a difficult thing to do (it's a D8 system, not sure if it's 6s or 7s, but it's difficult!) If you can see all of a character- from feet to head, completely unobscured, you get +1. That way, shooting in the game is a difficult thing to do, unless the full model is visible. Trying to agree with someone about 50% of a model being visible is difficult. Agreeing whether every part of them is visible is easier. 

[Mordeus]

The double turn is part of the DNA of AOS. At least for this "edition". Most new players I've dealt with simply take it into account as they would do any other rules. I'm not a fan of the constant criticism regarding the double turn. People always tend to imply that it is bad to be on the receiving end of it but when you are the one dishing out the damage it is quite satisfying. An important thing I have noticed as well is that once the players gain more experience, they usually stop most complaining as they take the double turn into their tactical decisions, which is how it should be imo. Playing that game as if the double turn doesn't exist and then complaining that it is broken when your army is completely misplaced is not a healthy way of seeing a set of rules. 

[RuneBrush]

2 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

Deadzone has an excellent line of sight rule system. Hitting a target is a difficult thing to do (it's a D8 system, not sure if it's 6s or 7s, but it's difficult!) If you can see all of a character- from feet to head, completely unobscured, you get +1. That way, shooting in the game is a difficult thing to do, unless the full model is visible. Trying to agree with someone about 50% of a model being visible is difficult. Agreeing whether every part of them is visible is easier. 

An alternative would be to have it torso based - if you can see the torso of a model, then they're visible - of course it's not infallible because some models have massive hats which people could argue about 

To be honest classic Necromunda (and 2nd ed 40k) used to have a cover system where by you had soft cover (partly obscured) and heavy cover (mostly obscured) that granted a -1 or -2 to hit which worked largely without argument - weapons and banners didn't count and if you didn't agree you rolled a dice.  However I do think that a subjective solution does pose other issues because there are people who take things very seriously

[Vextol]

38 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

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.

If games workshop updated their warscrolls I'd be inclined to agree, but I believe you'd be tired of getting steamrolled by Stonehorns,  shot to pieces by 3 damage sky hooks, crushed by teleporting bloodletters  and destroyed at a distance by thunderer  mortars if you never consulted any eratta.  I think all of these still have non updated scrolls and definitely don't have updated books. (yep, my books all still look pretty much the same) 

GW makes mistakes. If you don't want to accept their corrections then I agree, you should play the game however you want, but I don't believe your opinion would be in the majority. I think most people understand that occasional corrections are required to keep the game competitive. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Vextol said:

If games workshop updated their warscrolls I'd be inclined to agree, but I believe you'd be tired of getting steamrolled by Stonehorns,  shot to pieces by 3 damage sky hooks, crushed by teleporting bloodletters  and destroyed at a distance by thundered mortars of you never consulted any eratta.  I think all of these still have non updated scrolls and definitely don't have updated books. (yep, my books all still look pretty much the same) 

GW makes mistakes. If you don't want to accept their corrections then I agree, you should play the game however you want, but I don't believe your opinion would be in the majority. I think most people understand that occasional corrections are required to keep the game competitive. 

I see your point, but warscrolls could be updated on the app just as easily as putting out a PDF. When GW make a genuine game-breaking screwup then they should fix it - but having a load of wordy PDFs floating around in the ether is a poor solution. And let's be honest, a lot of the stuff covered in the FAQs and erratas aren't game-breaking screwups that GW made - they're loopholes that a tiny minority of ultra-competitive rules-obsessives have gone out of their way to find, and which will only become an issue in one game in one-thousand. But everyone else is expected to read and memorise the ridiculous minutiae that keep these people up at night. And again, in those situations, if you can't resolve that type of thing on the spot with your opponent that's more of an indictment of the players' mentality than it is an indictment of GW.

[Vextol]

1 minute ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I see your point, but warscrolls could be updated on the app just as easily as putting out a PDF. When GW make a genuine game-breaking screwup then they should fix it - but having a load of wordy PDFs floating around in the ether is a poor solution. And let's be honest, a lot of the stuff covered in the FAQs and erratas aren't game-breaking screwups that GW made - they're loopholes that nerdy rules-obsessives have gone out of their way to find, and which will only become an issue in one game in one-thousand. And again, in those situations, if you can't resolve that type of thing on the spot with your opponent that's more of an indictment of the players' mentality than it is an indictment of GW.

No disagreement there.  I remember arguments  about tzeentch mortals on destiny dice and 30 mortal wound tzangors using horrors as wizards.  Probably not necessary of a FAQ, but it doesn't hurt. 

In all things, as long as your group is happy with a decision, people should play as they like.  My big group is very argumentative. I like FAQs there.  My small group is not and we never look at a FAQ.  Sometimes we get it wrong!  I enjoy playing with both groups though.  It's all about enjoyment. 

Back on topic though, I find that the double turn is the biggest culprit of enjoyment injury.  That is my primary reason I think it needs overhaul (not removal, just overhaul). 

[EMMachine]

I think I would like to see two things in the core rules.

The Description what a warscroll is an the Hints & Tipps Section we find in Battletomes.

The Point is, both are essential to play the game, even when you just start the game and don't have a battletome yet (even if I only start with one Box and download the Warscroll I should know what happens when I have two weapons, or how I have to handle random Attacks/Movement/Damage.

The problem is for example that there was no Errata for the Description of a Warscroll Battalion (the point with Allegiance of Warscrollbattalions, was made with Blades of Khorne). So if you don't have Blades of Khorne, Kharadron Overlords, Maggotkin of Nurgle or Legions of Nagash you don't have the update you need.

7 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I see your point, but warscrolls could be updated on the app just as easily as putting out a PDF. When GW make a genuine game-breaking screwup then they should fix it - but having a load of wordy PDFs floating around in the ether is a poor solution. And let's be honest, a lot of the stuff covered in the FAQs and erratas aren't game-breaking screwups that GW made - they're loopholes that a tiny minority of ultra-competitive rules-obsessives have gone out of their way to find, and which will only become an issue in one game in one-thousand. And again, in those situations, if you can't resolve that type of thing on the spot with your opponent that's more of an indictment of the players' mentality than it is an indictment of GW.

I would actually wish that the wording of Warscrolls should be checked. There are some Abilities of Stormcasts where "any" is used while all other army used "each" for such a rule, in some cases the german book was a disaster (Seraphon for example).

 

[heywoah_twitch]

3 hours 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. 

Three of them are veterans of 40k and/orWHFB, five of them have no wargaming experience, but are veterans of MtG, Chess, board games, etc.

All of these can be considered "gamers" of course, but that's probably like, the best possible demographic you want to capture with AoS. The casual, never played any games person buys one box of minis, half assembles them, finds it time consuming, and moves on with their life. Gamers tend to build a whole army with everyone in their friend group and try to compete for fun.

If you've never met anyone new to wargaming that has an issue with double turns, your personal experiences are fully the opposite of mine. And them having to just deal with an adapt to a bad mechanic certainly doesn't make it good, or not worth improving. Of course you can adapt to priority rolls, you can adapt to your car not having seats, but it sure isn't comfortable.

On the other hand, normal turn order like every other game isn't polarizing like double turns are, unless I'm imagining some person just furious at chess or magic or just like every game ever that tries to be fair and balanced. 

[Jamopower]

Te double turn is not perfect, but neither is the 40k style. i actually would say that it is even worse.

 

On 2/12/2018 at 4:45 PM, Menkeroth said:

In terms of rules what really is needed is the alternate activation like in Malifaux, for instance, and either full model to model play or unit to unit, because it's a traditional GW problem (they never made good games after all) - units but with model to model activation and use, which is odd and bad at the same time.

This would be great, but it's not going to happen ever. In the Reddit AMA Andy Chambers there was the following interesting snippet:

 

 

Quote

 

What I'm wondering more is how come 40k stuck with IGOUGO, especially IGOUGO with phases? As the game has continually scaled upwards, points have gone downwards (a Guardsman in 2nd was 10 points, and is now 4 in 8th), the game has become excessively alphastrike-dominated.

• [–]AndyChambersOG[S] 30 points 2 months ago 

Yes, turn sequence should have been addressed earlier in 40K - like several editions ago. From an external perspective though it's hard to see how much inertia and if-it's-not-broke-don't-'fix'-it a system like 40K has within the company. Every change is a major trauma to the player base so everyone gets super cautious. This isn't exclusive to GW either, I saw plenty of it at Blizzard for Starcraft 2 as well.

 

He by the way also said that he likes how tight the AoS ruleset is

 

 

 

[Killax]

The only real reason I dislike about double turning is that one player has so many actions to preform that it actually removes from one players experience.
As before the only profit from it is that the game is sped up, but at the cost of one players input.
Personally I think Age of Sigmar would not benifit from a unit activation like Malifaux, it's too big for that and to cumbersome in movements. 

What I believe is the simplest reason for an I go, you go system is enjoyment. The game thakes longer but things are slightly more predictable so the game becomes actually slightly easier to play. 

This is also why I am not a fan of the current Shooting phase. If a player comes unprepaired, starts out without terrain or simply put has bigger heroes as his foot soldiers this shouldn't put a specific handicap upon the player.
One of the most elegant ways for GW to have adressed this in 40K is looking at the wounds, 9 wounds mean your Hero can still hide (realistically 9 wound heroes in AoS would be able to do this also) and 10+ wounds means you cannot. In general then we are talking about Monsterous Generals also. 

Lastly I also believe that one of the reasons why we are to some extend forced to play a Monsterous General is because these 'at least' are harder to thake out.
As before though, while I love these types of discussions I believe the design team is working on some of these alterations to begin with. 

Cheers,

[Jamopower]

I would say the best activation system for AoS/40k style game would be something like Epic or Dropzoone commander has, i.e. the army is split to detachments that you activate one at a time, with possibly a way to have double or triple activations. I also like the bolt action random activation a lot, but it works better with limited amount of units. Lord of the rings system is nice as well.

 

Edit: concerning the Andy chambers quote above, it's fun to look at what the gw designers have done after leaving the company. Bolt action / Beyond the Gates of Antares compared to 40k and Kings of War and the Warlord historics compared to WHFB/Warmaster.

[heywoah_twitch]

Yeah, I just hope it isn't a blanket immunity to targeting like in 40k, a real messy fix that swings things too far in the other direction. Better to give them some durability in some form like a minus to hit or can only hit on a natural roll of something (say, 5+), or you'll get even more weird-looking tactics like having snakes of chaff technically closer and 8 wound heroes suddenly being garbage if the cutoff is 7 wounds, etc. Not to mention it'd be the same complaints as shooting out of combat "what do you mean I can't shoot the mighty festus the leechlord just because one plaguebearer is 1mm closer? he's right there! just shoot him! etc"

[Sleboda]

Maybe I'm just an old school guy, but I'm really not a fan of systems that let some units act multiple times while others sit idle.

I enjoy 'my turn, my guys go' systems.

[Jamopower]

One thing that would really benefit AoS would be bit more abstract los rules. I.e. having similar sized units block the los from each other, without any sort of looling between the models feet sort of stuff. That would solve a lot of issues concerning the shooting and character targeting. It would also make the terrain more impactful in the game.

 

They returned it to 9th age and it has made me to consider playing it for the first time. It was also one of the only good things in 4th edition 40k and never seen since

[Killax]

8 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Maybe I'm just an old school guy, but I'm really not a fan of systems that let some units act multiple times while others sit idle.

I enjoy 'my turn, my guys go' systems.

I do to, at least with this much models to move.

Yes movement trays could be a solution to have a grouped system like we see with Malifaux/The Other Side or even Bolt Action but as long as Games Workshop doesnt provide that I can't really see it being completely integrated in the game.

Really the simple my turn, your turn games work well. There is no real need to go much fancier than that, The only thing I can see in that manner to work out for rules akin to current Age of Sigmar is when phases work like that. So that a turn is shaired. Leading to:

[Turn 1]
- Roll off who starts turn
- Player 1 Hero phase
- Player 2 Hero phase
- Player 1 Movement phase
- Player 2 Movement phase
- Player 1 Shooting phase
- Player 2 Shooting phase (alternatively have this work more like the Combat phase, including adding restrictions)
- Player 1 Charge phase
- Player 2 Charge phase
- Player 1 and 2 Combat phase 
- Player 1 Battleshock phase
- Player 2 Battleshock phase
[Turn 2]
- Etc.

So other than these turns, as mentioned elsewhere also; I'd love the removal of Battalions, keep their Abilities for Stratagems and link Command Points to a standard of mutual agreement (Narrative and Open play) or put a standard onto it (for Matched play).

Rules that could keep things really easy for character protection is:
- When Leaders who start the game with 9 wounds or less on their Warscroll have the "Look out Sir!" rule.
- When Leaders  with the "Look out Sir!" rule are targed in the Shooting phase and 3" near a friendly unit, roll a die, on the result of 3+ the friendly unit is targeted instead.

An additional rule I'd like to see for the current Shooting phase is:
- When enemy models are near 3" of a model with a Ranged attack reduce the Ranged attack range to 3".
This would lead to shooting still being possible to do "in combat" but not "out of combat". To me at least this would add a sence of logic to the phase. In addition smaller characters would suddenly become great generals to run also.

[Mordeus]

2 minutes ago, Killax said:

Rules that could keep things really easy for character protection is:
- When Leaders who start the game with 9 wounds or less on their Warscroll have the "Look out Sir!" rule.
- When Leaders  with the "Look out Sir!" rule are targed in the Shooting phase and 3" near a friendly unit, roll a die, on the result of 3+ the friendly unit is targeted instead.

An additional rule I'd like to see for the current Shooting phase is:
- When enemy models are near 3" of a model with a Ranged attack reduce the Ranged attack range to 3".
This would lead to shooting still being possible to do "in combat" but not "out of combat". To me at least this would add a sence of logic to the phase. In addition smaller characters would suddenly become great generals to run also.

This is pretty cool, not game changing. I like the -1 to hit on a hero within three of a unit. The problem I have with the 3+ hits the unit is that you lose men in other units. The idea is that you aim at the guy but he is harder to hit.

Your second point is quite elegant, i like that idea.

[Vextol]

37 minutes ago, Killax said:

I do to, at least with this much models to move.

Yes movement trays could be a solution to have a grouped system like we see with Malifaux/The Other Side or even Bolt Action but as long as Games Workshop doesnt provide that I can't really see it being completely integrated in the game.

Really the simple my turn, your turn games work well. There is no real need to go much fancier than that, The only thing I can see in that manner to work out for rules akin to current Age of Sigmar is when phases work like that. So that a turn is shaired. Leading to:

[Turn 1]
- Roll off who starts turn
- Player 1 Hero phase
- Player 2 Hero phase
- Player 1 Movement phase
- Player 2 Movement phase
- Player 1 Shooting phase
- Player 2 Shooting phase (alternatively have this work more like the Combat phase, including adding restrictions)
- Player 1 Charge phase
- Player 2 Charge phase
- Player 1 and 2 Combat phase 
- Player 1 Battleshock phase
- Player 2 Battleshock phase
[Turn 2]
- Etc.

So other than these turns, as mentioned elsewhere also; I'd love the removal of Battalions, keep their Abilities for Stratagems and link Command Points to a standard of mutual agreement (Narrative and Open play) or put a standard onto it (for Matched play).

Rules that could keep things really easy for character protection is:
- When Leaders who start the game with 9 wounds or less on their Warscroll have the "Look out Sir!" rule.
- When Leaders  with the "Look out Sir!" rule are targed in the Shooting phase and 3" near a friendly unit, roll a die, on the result of 3+ the friendly unit is targeted instead.

An additional rule I'd like to see for the current Shooting phase is:
- When enemy models are near 3" of a model with a Ranged attack reduce the Ranged attack range to 3".
This would lead to shooting still being possible to do "in combat" but not "out of combat". To me at least this would add a sence of logic to the phase. In addition smaller characters would suddenly become great generals to run also.

I've played a similar system (in sigmar-out of curiosity) .  You really need two combat phases or melee totally sucks.   Everything does kind of fall into place.  We actually played it that we alternated units.  I move a unit, you move a unit and so on.  Same with shooting and such.  It made movement awesome.  So tactical.  BUT shooting became ridiculous because you just hold them off until the other player moved too close, then you backed them up.  If you only have one combat phase, shooting became OUT OF CONTROL heh.

[hughwyeth]

Frostgrave has an interesting system, where you get Wizard, Apprentice and Soldier phases, and each phase it taken by both players consecutively. So player 1 does wizard phase, then player 2 etc. It's a great way to do it because it means you're never too far from having something to do other than roll save rolls. However, I wouldn't say it's a better nor more enjoyable system. AoS's roll for initiative system is the AoS way. If you change that, it's not really AoS anymore. I don't think it's a worse or better way to do it, it's just what makes AoS, AoS ultimately. It has it's strengths and weaknesses, but as with any turn order/initiative system, you must prepare for any eventuality. I have yet to hear a convincing alternative to the system yet, but then I don't see any one system as innately superior over another merely because of how it deals with turn order. 

[Killax]

4 minutes ago, Mordeus said:

This is pretty cool, not game changing. I like the -1 to hit on a hero within three of a unit. The problem I have with the 3+ hits the unit is that you lose men in other units. The idea is that you aim at the guy but he is harder to hit.

Your second point is quite elegant, i like that idea.

Yeah -1 hit could be cool also but there are unfortunatly many units now who wouldn't care about it. The units who don't care about it are also typically the units most people dislike for that reason.

One thing I like about the 3" 'pawning' is that it does have it's limits and also means that if you just thake some random guys do to it for him there is an end to it. Likewise I just like 3's in this game a lot because 3" has  a bunch of factors in Age of Sigmar currently allready  

2 minutes ago, Vextol said:

It made movement awesome.  So tactical.  BUT shooting became ridiculous because you just hold them off until the other player moved too close, then you backed them up.  If you only have one combat phase, shooting became OUT OF CONTROL heh.

Yeah I still want to test it out also because I think it actually can be done relatively quickly also. I think one issue with Shooting becomming rediculous without additional changes is because well... Shooting phase is quite ridiculous allready because there is no limit really to it.

Honestly the prime reason why I think Age of Sigmar isn't just all a bunch of Order and Tzeentch armies all the time is because most people here want to have fun. AoS has a much healtier community mindset as 40K has for that reason.

Add some form of caps on the Shooting phase and the game will improve, I am 100% sure of that because again, if I wanted to shoot my opponent away knowing that it's the best stratagy I'd rather play 40K. 

[hughwyeth]

7 minutes ago, Killax said:

Rules that could keep things really easy for character protection is:
- When Leaders who start the game with 9 wounds or less on their Warscroll have the "Look out Sir!" rule.
- When Leaders  with the "Look out Sir!" rule are targed in the Shooting phase and 3" near a friendly unit, roll a die, on the result of 3+ the friendly unit is targeted instead.

An additional rule I'd like to see for the current Shooting phase is:
- When enemy models are near 3" of a model with a Ranged attack reduce the Ranged attack range to 3".
This would lead to shooting still being possible to do "in combat" but not "out of combat". To me at least this would add a sence of logic to the phase. In addition smaller characters would suddenly become great generals to run also.

I like these. Though i wouldn't have the "9 wounds" as a prerequesite. The way shooting works in AoS means that even a near God-Level characters (fluff wise, like Glottkin) can be easily taken out in a turn or two with shooting across the board, even with 18 wounds. I also think that the way that monsters and larger models get worse with the more wounds they take it punishing enough (and a great system!) without making it so easy to take them out (Glottkin again, yes I'm a nurgle player!).

[Jamopower]

I have also suggested that 3" rule somewhere some tkme and I think it should be a good addition and increase tactical decisions. Which is also the main benefit in the alterating activation mechanism. With th i go u go mechanism, the alfastriking is amways a thing in the game and shooting will be a very powerful mechanism as you can shoot multiple units to single target before it can react 

[Killax]

1 minute ago, Jamopower said:

I have also suggested that 3" rule somewhere some tkme and I think it should be a good addition and increase tactical decisions. Which is also the main benefit in the alterating activation mechanism. With th i go u go mechanism, the alfastriking is amways a thing in the game and shooting will be a very powerful mechanism as you can shoot multiple units to single target before it can react 

Exact, one reason why Malifaux now has a 30% of the table must be terrain rule is because else Shooting is just too unrestricted there.

Maby AoS needs that too, but again the scale of the typical AoS table makes that difficult. I'd much rather have some Shooting caps. So shooting large units is easy while shooting small heroes isn't.

Perhaps it can be applied to Monster Generals also @hughwyeth but my fear of that is that it would center too much around Monsterous Generals this way. E.g. the GUO/Glottkin now are such a great general in Nurgle because they can handle some fire. But the moment they'd obtain the same bonus as a Harbinger, what would the purpose of the Harbinger be?

Same with Khrone too mind you. I love my Bloodthirster but the fact that Mighty Lord of Khorne has to eat the same shots as he do make me prefer the Bloodthirster.
In general as has been mentioned by others also, some form of true LoS can remain but it's just so unrestricted the way it works now... It just impacts competitive game too much.

I really see a lot of gentleman's agreements locally for AoS games. This is fantastic and should remain but at the same time I also believe that making several Allegiances more relevant starts not with 'nerfing' Skyfires, Irondrakes or what have you but look at the actual Core rule.

[DantePQ]

I think easy fix like return of "Look out Sir" rule would be cool 

- when character(with less then 10W)  is target by shooting and there is friendly unit within 3'' you can allocate any suffered would on that unit on a roll of 4+. Sure can still snipe out key leaders but now you need twice as much shooting. Could work for bigger leaders as well just change 4+ to 6+ for leaders with more then 10W

[Jamopower]

Well shooting is almost always the best mechanic in the games and it is also something that is heavily influenced by the local habits as the terrain vary a lot between the players. There was a big discussion about this in the Infinity between the EU and USA meta back in the day.

 

But it's not limited to shooting, alphastrike armies are naturally a thing to do when you have the traditional turn sequence where you can do everything with everything before the opponent gets to react. Of course it's always a wise thing to maximise this potential. That's how you get armies like the Murderhost, the Clowncar, the deepstriking 30 liberator blob, all sorts of shooting stuff and a lot of examples on the 40k side of the fence as well. It is just the main downside that come with the turn sequence, other sequences have other issues, like if you have alternating activations, you really need to have a limit for the available units, or the game goes to either putting all eggs to one basket kind of mega punch to strike before you opponent can react or having all sorts of chaff units to go with all your stuff after opponent has done his activations. Fun thing that in both of these the end result looks more like the "traditional" turn sequence.

 

Edit: As a disclaimer, I don't have big issues with the aos turn sequence. I like it more than 40k as there is a little bit extra uncertainity, but both systems lead to a game that is highly focused on who has the first turn, which is why I don't have any interest in playing either of the games in any sort of competitive environment. For casual gaming both work fine.

[Menkeroth]

8 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

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

Seconding on that, which I've had and seen plenty in 40k back in the day of 5th edition when Abaddon could die in combat with grots or Avatar of Khaine could be beaten to death by the imperial guardsmen.  This did not happen that often, but was quite weird anyway, although I know, balance, dice and such - after all, any giant can be beaten by a horde of lesser creatures... but still.