Jump to content

New 40k Rules Info and what could work for us!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am seeing a lot of people refer to the 'no shooting in or out of combat' idea and I am against this in AoS.

I don't feel that's why shooting is, reportedly, an issue with top lists.

I don't believe that shooting itself is the root of the problem with skyfire, thundertusks or kunnin' rukk.

I feel it would be like changing the combat phase or how wounds are taken to handle just the Frostlord on Stonehorn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to kick it off.  From the Facebook live stream on Monday, it's been revealed that 40k is going to have two points systems.  One intended for Narrative play that is akin to the points we have in AoS (so a unit will be X points), representing an average power of the unit and then a Matched Play list where there's more granularity and individual weapon options cost points.  Its not been revealed if there is any commonality between the two points system.

Personally I think this would be really interesting for AoS, but would need mountains of thought and work.  It could diversify some of the commonly seen set ups (so you might see some of the Stormfiend weapons etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Turragor said:

I am seeing a lot of people refer to the 'no shooting in or out of combat' idea and I am against this in AoS.

I don't feel that's why shooting is, reportedly, an issue with top lists.

I don't believe that shooting itself is the root of the problem with skyfire, thundertusks or kunnin' rukk.

I feel it would be like changing the combat phase or how wounds are taken to handle just the Frostlord on Stonehorn.

I'm not surprised they've kept "no shooting in or out of combat" for 40k (hopefully allowing it for some units to shoot in like the old days ;)).  I agree and feel that AoS was designed to have shooting like we currently have, keeping it nice and straightforward.

I think one of the issues is that shooting is that it's an exclusive phase, by which I mean there's nothing that the other player can do beyond rolling armour saves.  Combat has a "you go, I go" mechanism, so both players are involved even though it can be just as brutal both players feel like it's balanced.  I also feel that there is a lot of shooting - vastly more than many of us were expecting.  What's the solution - not a clue :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I think one of the issues is that shooting is that it's an exclusive phase, by which I mean there's nothing that the other player can do beyond rolling armour saves.  Combat has a "you go, I go" mechanism, so both players are involved even though it can be just as brutal both players feel like it's balanced.  I also feel that there is a lot of shooting - vastly more than many of us were expecting.  What's the solution - not a clue

I agree that this is part of the problem - no interactivity. But I can't see it mirroring the combat phase as it'd just DOUBLE shooting armies shootyness unless they are against another shoting army.

It's a lot like the hero phase but without unbinds.

In a sense maybe having shooting BEFORE movement (as default) would resolve a bunch of these issues and bring it in line with the "problem" casters have - they can't move then cast (only really a problem in direct comparison to shooting).

You'd then be able to more reliably stay out of range of shooting...

There are probably drawbacks to that idea but it feels less extreme than other massive changes. Although maybe that feeling isn't right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

a Matched Play list where there's more granularity and individual weapon options cost points.

I am both for and against this.

Against -

1. I like how simple warscrolls are.

2. I like how simple army building is.

3. I think it could get out of hand (artefacts, spell choices, traits - when do you stop adding points costs?)

For -

1. Some units could be tweaked in problematic configurations instead of a blanket solution.

At the same time, there aren't that many new warscrolls with issues with 1 optional weapon. Most (where GW foresee that these units will maybe need points adjusted in future) become different warscrolls. Case in point - Paladins.

Stormfiends are the oft cited example but they're really ported from the old system.

At the same time you could adjust the cost for the less loved configurations of units - Crossbow judicators spring to mind.

2. I do like the idea of being able to add a 3rd Dracoth rider to a unit instead of approx 5 more liberators when I choose to. This makes collecting more fun in combination with matched.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be for removing shooting in and out of combat, but appreciate that I suffer from shooting more than others playing primarily death. If I was able to summon harbingers and get them into a kunnin rukk to at least hamper it's alphastrike on my characters, that would be great. As @Turragor said, I would prefer to see the shooting phase moved so that it goes Hero -> Shooting -> Movement. Currently shooting lists benefit from additional threat range of their movement which is too great in a lot of cases. It would also make hero phase moves much more valuable.

I have heard, and it could just be rumour, I don't know where I'm back it up, that there will be no random initiative. I really hope they keep some element of this. I'm not a huge fan of the double turn, but I think the 'seize the initiative' could happen every turn, so it's a 1/6 chance that you still have to mitigate for, but are not completely flawed by.

More points cost I'm apathetic on. While I think paying 160 points for the ring of immortality would be a great way to solve the reinforcement point issue, I think that we will see less of these sorts of items going forwards. I would like to see the FrostHorns paying for their double battlebrew lists though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good topic, well really have to wait for what 40K brings us offcourse.

2 hours ago, Turragor said:

I don't believe that shooting itself is the root of the problem with skyfire, thundertusks or kunnin' rukk.

I feel it would be like changing the combat phase or how wounds are taken to handle just the Frostlord on Stonehorn.

I agree in theory with you. The thing to me is that shooting works decently well, the issue for some armies comes from the fact how easily you can remove Hero Units with shooting. Obviously this doesn't apply to Monsterous Heroes but the regular 80-100 Hero is very easy to remove by just piling in the ranged attacks. 

Currently though I will also say that the Heros are costed in this way also. In general I believe that the bias against shooting is that the Fantasy game variants usually don't revolve around shooting as much as AoS does.

What is an objective observation though is that Skyfires, Thundertusks and Arrer Boyz in massive blocks are a common sight in winning and top 5 armies in practically every Tournament.

However if you where to say, there are more things undercosted as these types of units I'd certainly agree. 

24 minutes ago, Tokyo Nift said:

I would rather see _models_ within 3" of an enemy can't shoot, rather than units. I think charging a block of 40 arrow boys with the changeling (and I play Tzeentch) should not stop the whole unit shooting.

I almost agree, my suggestion would be:

- If a model has an enemy model within 3" of it it's Missle Weapons Range goes to Range 3".

What this does is make 'rushing in there' a valid strategy without removing attacks or reducing damage output options. What it does do is make Ranged Attacks a bit more logical. On top of that I think that it would have the least impact in costs for ranged units. With this I mean that they can be as lethal as ever but it's unlikely they'll remain that lethal to Heroes throughout the game.

While I wasn't at the SCGT it doesn't thake a brilliant mind to know that removing (support) Heroes as soon as possible is the 'easiest' way of winning a game. So far every army needs them and knowing when to thake out which first (and it isn't a Monster) really allows you to snowball your opponent to the point that while he/she might reach you with some units, there is no support to actually allow those units to push back in the same way as you can. 

Everybody has seen Legolas in Lord of the Rings shoot point blank in melee, but he didn't snipe out the Witch King whilst doing that ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Turragor said:

I am seeing a lot of people refer to the 'no shooting in or out of combat' idea and I am against this in AoS.

I don't feel that's why shooting is, reportedly, an issue with top lists.

I don't believe that shooting itself is the root of the problem with skyfire, thundertusks or kunnin' rukk.

I feel it would be like changing the combat phase or how wounds are taken to handle just the Frostlord on Stonehorn.

 

 

I'm in favour of no shooting out of combat - not because shooting is (allegedly) overpowered, but because the ridiculousness of it is a little immersion-breaking and also because not being able to do so creates the kind of interesting tactical dilemma that real-world generals would need to deal with (rather than tactical dilemmas based on abstraction such as which models to remove during battleshock). Do you commit to fighting hand-to-hand with inferior weapons or attempt to retreat and shoot from a place of relative safety? Shooting into combat I think is fine, but should carry a risk of hitting your own troops. This works well in the Lord of the Rings game.

So you've got additional tactical considerations for the competitive players and greater immersion/drama for the narrative players. Everyone wins. What's not to like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

So you've got additional tactical considerations for the competitive players and greater immersion/drama for the narrative players. Everyone wins. What's not to like?

Skyfires need to kill every Hero at any time at any place ;):P !!11!!

(I am kidding)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Turragor said:

I am seeing a lot of people refer to the 'no shooting in or out of combat' idea and I am against this in AoS.

I don't feel that's why shooting is, reportedly, an issue with top lists.

As someone who plays Khorne with practically no ranged attacks at all... I have to agree with you still. :P

 

I think the issue is the mix of factions that cover weaknesses the army would otherwise have. A simple way to change this would be two columns in the points, one for a faction cost and one for an allegiance.

 

So taking Sayl in a Tamurkhan Horde army would cost 160, but taking him in a Chaos army would cost 240 (for example).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gilby I dont think covering weaknesses is an issue. However what is an issue is when certain factions to have acces to threat range 'SUPER' and others don't. Again the simple short of it is thaking out key Hero models that make a lot of forces work in the first place.

Now as an BoK example, imagne you go Gore Pilgrims, have those 3 Slaughterpriest shot off the board turn 1 to 3. This is very much a possability with the armies you regularly see running those larger ranged blocks. It sets back player significantly because thaking Gore Pilgrims in the first place means you will lean heavier on Gore Pilgrims.

As said in the SCGT topic, Melee ranges and Melee resolvements are very limited. Piling in is limited, charging and moving close to enemies is, etc.
In the current set of rules there is nothing limiting Missle Attacks. This feels odd because there is something limiting Spells, enough house-rules covering Prayers as Spells and even Summoning is severly limited in it's use.

Moral is, the best attack, by far, is always that with the largest threat range. Those currently are Missle Attacks and there is nothing you or the game really does against it, while the game has your Melee Attacks, Spell, Prayer (house-rules) and Summonning 'Attacks' covered. 

So even if Missle Attacks wern't a source of the problem, it's the least "limited" Attack in the game. If GW/Events wants to improve Matched Play "balance" it would be wise to thake a good look at how spamming Missle Attacks is very much a good choice and a constant choice for top 3 armies. Not all armies have (or should have) these options. So it would be wise to limit it in a way, as Melee, Spells, Prayers and Summonning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Killax said:

:

- If a model has an enemy model within 3" of it it's Missle Weapons Range goes to Range 3".

What this does is make 'rushing in there' a valid strategy without removing attacks or reducing damage output options. What it does do is make Ranged Attacks a bit more logical. On top of that I think that it would have the least impact in costs for ranged units. With this I mean that they can be as lethal as ever but it's unlikely they'll remain that lethal to Heroes throughout the game.
 

I made this same suggestion some time ago in the GHB feedback thread. This would also make more use for fast, but not necessarily too killy, stuff like cavalry, that could be used then for tying enemy archers and reducing shots to their slower comrades. With added benefits of giving more choices in positioning of the missile models with front rank protecting the back ranks from enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

I made this same suggestion some time ago in the GHB feedback thread. This would also make more use for fast, but not necessarily too killy, stuff like cavalry, that could be used then for tying enemy archers and reducing shots to their slower comrades. With added benefits of giving more choices in positioning of the missile models with front rank protecting the back ranks from enemies.

I hope that some Tournaments will adopt it into their House-rules. I honestly believe that it would significantly improve the overall faction balance. 

As mentioned it wasn't my idea, I So great idea @Jamopower! It also fits the current design very well in my opinion:
1. It doesn't invalidate Missle Attacks
2. It doesn't remove Attacks
3. It makes more sence for Narrative reasons (when you shoot point blank, your range is more limited)
4. It covers the overall 'feeling' that Missle Attacks work in a strange way for Age of Sigmar

The last feeling largely comes from us comparing things. So yeah from that perspective Melee Attacks and Pile In are limited, Spells are and Summoning is. So as to why Missle Attacks dodges that completely remains unknown to me :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like heroes being vulnerable. I would prefer to keep shooting as is.

In fact, it is the independently survivable heroes that need to get tweaked. A Forest Dragon is, in my experience so far, the most powerful model in the game. If he gets to the "safety" of combat it's game over. He needs to stay shootable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look limiting shooting when you are engaged in combat. I'd also say I dont think shooting is OP or needs nerfing. 

 

The problem is that shooting only has the counter play of run or kill. You either stay out of the fire zone or you kill the shooting unit.

 

Melee on the other hand can be countered with tar pits, pile in stretching, well positioned charges, etc.

 

I love Ad's simple rules system. It's what GW did right, but this is because the simple rules give rise to great and tactical opportunities that feel organic. Shoot as it is now lacks this complete. Which makes shooting annoyingly point and click. 

Again I dont think shooting units are particular Overpowered right now. So if this change were made I'd make all shooting units about 20-10% cheap depending on if they couldn't shoot at all in combat or if they could only shoot the unit they are engaged with. 

 

As far as 40k changes that i dont like in my Aos. I'd really like how you have to by blocks of units and that you dont pay for upgrade. Every time I ask some one to play 40k that doesn't just always play the same list, i have to wait minutes while they try to do the world most pointless sudoku puzzle. As the person tries thier hardest to get to 1850 with out going over like it's the price is right. That 1 or 2 marines isn't (and in a good game shouldn't) be why you win or lose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really for adding points per model and per upgrade for aos. Like mmimzie stated I'd find myself exploring the deep mysteries of math and science for a good 15 minuets to make sure my units were really for reals useful as their cost dictates.

With the shooting portion in what I've seen from games played even just allowing the shooting unit in combat only shoot what they're in melee with would be less immersion breaking and partially resolve the hero snipe issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the shooting issue, I think that 90% of this issue could be resolved by re-pointing the offending units in GHB2.

Skyfire, thundertusks, kunnin' rukk battalion/savage orruk arrow bows, Aetherstrike Battalion and SCE Raptors could all go up in points and it would solve most if not all of the problems. 

But when you do a blanket fix like "can't shoot into or out of combat" you unnecessarily penalize units that are only okay at shooting that pay the points for it, or units like Fyreslayers who all have throwing axes that would essentially never get to use them anymore but pay the points for them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lord Veshnakar said:

As for the shooting issue, I think that 90% of this issue could be resolved by re-pointing the offending units in GHB2.

Skyfire, thundertusks, kunnin' rukk battalion/savage orruk arrow bows, Aetherstrike Battalion and SCE Raptors could all go up in points and it would solve most if not all of the problems. 

But when you do a blanket fix like "can't shoot into or out of combat" you unnecessarily penalize units that are only okay at shooting that pay the points for it, or units like Fyreslayers who all have throwing axes that would essentially never get to use them anymore but pay the points for them.  

Yeah see that's the thing i don't think they are particularly OP, i just think shooting lacks the depth of tactics you have with melee in how you have to play it and how it can be countered. If any shooting changes were made i'd say throw a discount on the shooting units as they are pretty close to balanced for thier points. I just think they alck counter play options and are poor and king of boring game play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I like heroes being vulnerable. I would prefer to keep shooting as is.

In fact, it is the independently survivable heroes that need to get tweaked. A Forest Dragon is, in my experience so far, the most powerful model in the game. If he gets to the "safety" of combat it's game over. He needs to stay shootable.

Would you like the meta to be a constant shooting show of?
I can't find many examples who do not heavily rely on ranged attacks and happend to thake the tournament. 

If your trying to shoot monsters down I'd say that in general your putting yourself at a large disadvantage. If there is a rock, paper and scissors it's Monsters, Massed melee Infantry and Shooting Units. However currently there is nothing that actually limits you from going mono ranged attacks. It's not that often done yet, which I see as a gentlemen's pack, but yes, 9+ Skyfires or 40+ Arrow Boyz are neigh undefeatable regardless of what you put into that next to it. 

4 hours ago, mmimzie said:

I look limiting shooting when you are engaged in combat. I'd also say I dont think shooting is OP or needs nerfing. 

The problem is that shooting only has the counter play of run or kill. You either stay out of the fire zone or you kill the shooting unit.

Melee on the other hand can be countered with tar pits, pile in stretching, well positioned charges, etc.

Again I dont think shooting units are particular Overpowered right now. So if this change were made I'd make all shooting units about 20-10% cheap depending on if they couldn't shoot at all in combat or if they could only shoot the unit they are engaged with. 

I also don't think shooting needs to be nerfed or is OP. I do however think it makes sence when it follows some limitation. Only to continue to promote diversity. As there are reasons as to why X, Y and Z are limited, which makes it strange W isnt. 
What I mean with this is:
- Melee/Piling In is limited. In the WFB past there where armies that only needed 1 turn to kill you off (Chaos)
- Magic Spells are limited. In the WFB past we had games where only 1 turn of massive spell mend GG (Many factions where part of this throughout the editions)
- Summoning is limited. (Several editions of VC or TK being too weak or too good)
These 3 where arguably what made WFB such a cheesfest from time to time. Honestly Missle attacks where also part of them, just not so much in 8th because you either took extremely fast monsters or massive units anyway. 

In short I don't think too many ranged units are overcosted, I just think that the core Missle Attack rule is just slighty too good. WFB and 40K don't have their characters as easily sniped out as AoS does, they never had this either throughout the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make some decent enough points but IMHO it's kind of hard to take what a Khorne or Death player has to say about shooting as not being substantially biased since they both lack shooting in almost any form. That's kind of like me as a Fyreslayers player complaining that Magic is too powerful because I have no means to unbind or to cast my own. Or a Kharadron Overlords player getting upset that the mortal wound potential of a horde of Khorne Bloodletter's is unfair since KO lack decent close combat potential. 

It's hard to deny that certain units have a significant part in a lot of the top tournament armies, but I still feel that it's due to certain units and combinations being costed too cheap so they are able to be spammed or more easily included in 2000 points than they reasonably should.

Skyfires wouldn't be even nearly as good if they didn't have access to multiple sources of +1 to hit for Arrows of Fate.
Longstrikes without Aetherstrike Force isn't nearly as nasty.
Savage Orruk Arrow Boys are only decent if not using them with Kunnin' Ruuk.

All of these could be resolved with points increases to either to the units themselves or the battalions so as to make them harder or more unreasonable to take at 2000 points. Whereas nerfing shooting overall would effect all of the shooting units, even the ones that are sub-par right now. It's a slippery slope is all I am saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...