What AoS can learn from the new 40k

[Killax]

12 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I think this is worth highlighting.

The existence of a digital resource should be taken as a perk, or a bonus, not as a cover-all solution.

Despite the global increase in access to the internet, people should not be expected to use it in order to be on the same page as other gamers.

Unlike video games, our hobby itself does not exist as a digitally connected experience. It is a physical thing with an option to engage with it in ancillary ways via the internet.

Again the point is that change is easier to apply and GW has applied changes easier because of this.

I highly praise them for it. Because by comparison AoS' balance is rather okay. Despite the heavy shooting meta, aside from Death, Order, Destruction and Chaos can all be part of it. Wether you want it or not, the option is there.

Before, with the split up of factions in WFB for example there was a drastical difference from faction to faction in terms of competitive design. Because of the Grand Alliances AoS is actually archiving a better balance as WFB ever had before because ultimately (unless you play Death) you can compete with your Grand Alliance.

So if I happen to REALLY want to win a Tournament the option to go Sayl + Bloodletters AND Skyfires is still there, legal and proven to be one of the top 3 lists over and over again. What I am asking for is not to remove this but to give a clearer indication of having Shooting not being strictly better as Combat and Magic. Because cool as all the armies are, they are still at the highest level running a certain package of models who can be an active part of the Shooting phase. What I would like is that at the highest level both Combat and Magic would be as much as a game changer or have the Shooting phase in line with the more restricted options of Combat and Magic.

[chord]

9 minutes ago, Killax said:

Because you use paper only it does not make the Warscrolls very much the subject of change. You can choose to follow the books and exclude yourself from the digital updates but in this day and age I wouldn't advice you to do just that.
 

How would you advise one to stay up to date when they don't make the app available to run on any of the computing devices I own.  (Hint: An RSS Feed might be a good idea)

I would totally run the app if it ran on any of my devices. 

So, there is something AOS can learn, find a better way to make updates available. 

[Killax]

Just now, chord said:

How would you advise one to stay up to date when they don't make the app available to run on any of the computing devices I own.  (Hint: An RSS Feed might be a good idea)

I would totally run the app if it ran on any of my devices. 

So, there is something AOS can learn, find a better way to make updates available. 

Process updates on the Warhammer Community website and point players to it. In addition, like they have done so so far, update the PDF's on GW's website so everyone with acces to internet can become aware of these updates.

The issue with a hard medium like a book remains that the slightest mistakes cannot be changed. In addition 80% of book content is usually good enough that it does not require a complete digitial overhaul anyway. However the first step AoS would need to make to improve it's clearity is to also acknowledge that the latest Warscroll is highly adviced to be used. (Not mandatory if you really don't want to but mixing the old and new just confuses the community even more).

I think the updates are quite easily available to be honest. Because the places where the game is played the most are also the places where internet acces and digital use of documents is common. 

[Sleboda]

1 minute ago, chord said:

So, there is something AOS can learn, find a better way to make updates available

GW used to produce an annual book that collected popular WD articles and rules updates & FAQs. I see no reason the General's Handbook could not fill the role now. 

We, as a community, play for a year, live with imbalances during that time, and then,  once per year we plop down $25 for a game refresh.

Proper marketing and sticktoitiveness would keep people in the loop.

[Jamopower]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Because you use paper only it does not make the Warscrolls very much the subject of change. You can choose to follow the books and exclude yourself from the digital updates but in this day and age I wouldn't advice you to do just that.

Although your comment has very little to nothing to do with possible implications of 40K to AoS...

Well the difference is not in the rules so much as it is in the experience. 40K is full of models, Vechicles and Monsters, that are, like AoS, difficult to destroy and really don't mind to be in combat for a turn (as it's likely they'll survive it) and bail out. Then because Rapid Fire is a common weapon trait in 40K you certainly end up within half ranges of weapons, thaking the full effect while the same models will also back out a little so that next turn the player willing to charge still likely has to roll beyond 8" in terms of charging. Next turn the opponent can run back and the Vechicle gets in there again.

As I see it 40Ks Synapse rule is actually very easy to apply... As there is no way to snipe out the characters who have it and happen to have less than 6 wounds. This certainly means that you'll need one dedicated character for this but frankly speaking it isn't hard...
Though generally I dont feel there are morale issues with 40K, the issue to me really is that unlike AoS 40K actively rewards you by breaking away from combat because of the many auto-hit weapons and Rapid Fire weapons. 

The latter dynamic applies to AoS but not so much to 40K. Could you explain what you exactly mend with the last sentence?

I meant that in AoS you don't need to retreat to shoot the units stuck in to the screening unit, otherwise the screening works the same. If you want to see same kind of moves happening, get some skinks on the table. Of course again the shooting is less effective and there is lot less of it in general. Also there are plenty of units with enough hitting power to destroy the screens in a turn, so there won't be anyone left to retreat.

In the new 40k, many of the close combat units feels more geared for destroying elite units and monsters (as the extra attacks from additional weapons and charging were lost) and those big hordes are pretty easy to make fearless (like with synapse) so screening is quite effective. Of course stuff like berzerkers should have no problems cutting though bigger mobs. My initial feeling is that in 40k, it's a drawback if an unit suffers from morale, more than that it is a strength to ignore it, which is bit sad.

 

[Killax]

29 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

I meant that in AoS you don't need to retreat to shoot the units stuck in to the screening unit, otherwise the screening works the same. If you want to see same kind of moves happening, get some skinks on the table. Of course again the shooting is less effective and there is lot less of it in general. Also there are plenty of units with enough hitting power to destroy the screens in a turn, so there won't be anyone left to retreat.

In the new 40k, many of the close combat units feels more geared for destroying elite units and monsters (as the extra attacks from additional weapons and charging were lost) and those big hordes are pretty easy to make fearless (like with synapse) so screening is quite effective. Of course stuff like berzerkers should have no problems cutting though bigger mobs. My initial feeling is that in 40k, it's a drawback if an unit suffers from morale, more than that it is a strength to ignore it, which is bit sad.

 

Well, there is a big difference still, which on paper is only 2" but in the practicle terms looks strange. Being that in 40K, if you fall back, you only have to fall back as such that you are 1.1" away from your enemy. Meaning that in very few scerio's your actually unable to do it or 'stuck' in combat. The difference between 1" and 3" doesn't sound like much but as it applies per model is a rather huge difference as moving 3" away quite simply is 3 times as much as is required in 40K.

As for melee combat units, as per rock/paper/scissor design I feel there are all kinds of examples.
- On one side you have the Orks who mow down anything by sheer force of melee attacks like there is no tomorrow. Granted against Terminators it might not work out well.
- On the other side you have Bloodletters who mow down anything with just a 3+ save and 1 wound, though bring more and they simply become stuck.
- Then you have things like Berserkers who on paper seem to destroy anything but have no way to drastically increase their Movement or Moral for that matter, meaning that their package almost certainly requires transport, pushing their cost.

When Orks would face the Bloodletters, you can rest asured that Bloodletters lose. When the Berzeker meats the Bloodletters (and Bloodletters charge) it's likely not a single guy would remain. Though when Berzerkers go against Orks, they have so much to chew away at that things become a real dice clash...

In the end I think Combat matters in 40K but moving out is an easy option. As above, moving away an minimum 1" is hardly difficult to do, in addition doing so also still allows you to grab objectives and such so it's actually still better to do this as try and fight. To me this feels a bit odd.

Same applies to the former notion of Flamers on cheap tanks. You want to use the brick to stop your melee opponents anwyay, now upon doing so certain units will lose more on the charge as they can dish out. A process you can stop from repeating. Then the game presents Banebade like tanks who have the option to include 4 Heavy flamers and well.. There isn't much that survives that, even other vechicles at that point get severely hurt.

TLDR, 1.1" fall backs with no downside is something I do not like about 40K  

[Jamopower]

Yes, that's a valid point and one of the reasons why I like the AoS combat phase more.

[someone2040]

12 hours ago, Killax said:

Process updates on the Warhammer Community website and point players to it. In addition, like they have done so so far, update the PDF's on GW's website so everyone with acces to internet can become aware of these updates.

The issue with a hard medium like a book remains that the slightest mistakes cannot be changed. In addition 80% of book content is usually good enough that it does not require a complete digitial overhaul anyway. However the first step AoS would need to make to improve it's clearity is to also acknowledge that the latest Warscroll is highly adviced to be used. (Not mandatory if you really don't want to but mixing the old and new just confuses the community even more).

I think the updates are quite easily available to be honest. Because the places where the game is played the most are also the places where internet acces and digital use of documents is common. 

It's a really simple fix actually, something that GW have been doing for decades, and it's called Errata. People may choose to ignore Errata, but it's always made available in an accessible format and tournaments will always use the latest errata/faq, so if you want to participate then you need to play ball.

But anyway, you could change the warscroll for the digital platforms, while issuing errata for the platforms that aren't easily updated. They've been doing it for years, but the problem is, they never change anything that's not broke broken. It's never in the name of balance or making a rule more interesting, but always in the name of clarity.

But IMO, that's a bit sad. There are some things, that shouldn't be fixed with points (or points alone). I'll give you two examples:

I always harp on about Dragon Ogors when I get the chance. They don't feel like Ogors, because their Ogor weapons are missing 1 point of damage. I'm sure they could be fixed with points, but I think a much better fix would be to amend the warscroll.

Sayl the Faithless gets a lot of flack. I'm sure many people would like him pointed out of the meta-game, but honestly, that's sad also. Not only because it may not even fix the problem (There'll always be some super-combat unit within Chaos that needs a leg up to get into combat), but because it's a poor approach to balance to overcost something just to take it out of competitive play. The warscroll, probably needs a change on the range of the spell, possibly restriction on the spell (Say only SLAVES TO DARKNESS), and then, maybe he still needs a points increase.

 

A good example actually is the Lord Vexillor. Pretty broken piece, was pointed extremely highly which made the alternate banner worthless, then was only changed at a warscroll level and bought back in line a lot when the new Stormcast Eternals book came out.

 

My hope is that GW have realised that they need to change some warscrolls (and hopefully, not just to nerf things), and drop warscroll changes alongside the GHB2 points. 

[KnightFire]

On 6/21/2017 at 0:17 AM, rokapoke said:

This would only work if every faction had equal access to rocks, paper, and scissors. Khorne has no access to magic or (essentially) ranged units... so loses to ranged and magic armies? For a game like Starcraft, this works 100% -- each faction has some form of access to each option, and every unit has a hard counter within each faction. To have the sheer variety of armies that exist in AoS, where there are distinctly different flavors (e.g., Khorne vs Tzeentch), that will never work.

That isn't true, not every faction has to have equal access to them for it to work, there just have to exist somewhere in the game. Some factions will be better at one aspect than another (Destruction might be mostly about rock for example). There is absolutely no requirement to make each faction equal, doing so would ruin the game in my opinion. 

One of the things I like about AoS is that each faction is different and has different strengths and weaknesses, so its as much about choosing the right faction for the job as it is about the right list or playing the list right on the table.

[Killax]

17 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Yes, that's a valid point and one of the reasons why I like the AoS combat phase more.

Same here. I dont really know why GW decided 1.1" "fall backs" would be enough. It kind of makes me think the same of how AoS' shooting phase doesn't care about 3" enemies near you. 

What makes this all so strange is that visually it just doesn't feel right. I still have to dive deeper into 40K to really make some conclusions about it but as we do know that combat models, like AoS can pile in 3" and eventually consolidate 3" it feels strange that in order to fall back you do not have to be 3" away from your enemy. Like it feels strange that shooting just goes in AoS regardless where your enemy is.

My best guess on that is to ask on 40K related forums on how people think about it. My initial impression was indeed that close combat was better in 40K but currently Im simply said not that sure. For example I have more faith in the Ork and Nid bricks as I have in any other melee swarm plan simply because of the costs included and Morale checks.

Daemons in AoS arn't too hard to destroy either, like in 40K, though the drastical difference between the two is that A. 40K Daemons are actually more expensive for more mediocre survival (as an Icon does not come for free) and B. 40K Daemons have lower Ld as they have Morale in AoS. Huge blobs of Daemons in 40K might work but then again there is nothing in either 40K or AoS that doesn't work if it costs 300+ points.

7 hours ago, someone2040 said:

It's a really simple fix actually, something that GW have been doing for decades, and it's called Errata. People may choose to ignore Errata, but it's always made available in an accessible format and tournaments will always use the latest errata/faq, so if you want to participate then you need to play ball.

But anyway, you could change the warscroll for the digital platforms, while issuing errata for the platforms that aren't easily updated. They've been doing it for years, but the problem is, they never change anything that's not broke broken. It's never in the name of balance or making a rule more interesting, but always in the name of clarity.

But IMO, that's a bit sad. There are some things, that shouldn't be fixed with points (or points alone). I'll give you two examples:

Dragon Ogors

Sayl the Faithless 

A good example actually is the Lord Vexillor. Pretty broken piece, was pointed extremely highly which made the alternate banner worthless, then was only changed at a warscroll level and bought back in line a lot when the new Stormcast Eternals book came out.

My hope is that GW have realised that they need to change some warscrolls (and hopefully, not just to nerf things), and drop warscroll changes alongside the GHB2 points. 

Absolutely. I hope some more errata's or FAQ would follow. Granted errata's can be something of the past if you have the digital format to change things. For example, there was no errata on Stormcast, DoT or BoK but changes where made.
What I think is the bigger future problem is that allowing any Warscroll to be used can cause some serious confusion. My guess is that local events forbid you from doing so but if that is the case why would GW still allow it? Events are a part of the community, this game is still driven by that.

My hope is largely the same, in addition I also think there are many ways to set the right balance but the question always remains what GW intends to do with it.

Sayl, Skyfires or Vexillor and Bloodsecrator all do not have to be typical insane pieces for the game if they are restricted or un-restricted. With the latter I mean that other factions would have something available like them. Both are possabilities. Many of the AoS core design actually puts replicated units in different factions. If they continue with that the issue could also resolve itself, the question obviously then remains how much is this a part of their narrative.

As before I dont think AoS is full of issue pieces, 90% is good enough. If the 10% will be adressed in GH2 that would be wonderful. However the strange thing is that we've seen several updates to AoS (and FW content) and somehow changes in "expected parts" havnt occured.
 

[KnightFire]

18 minutes ago, Killax said:

As before I dont think AoS is full of issue pieces, 90% is good enough. If the 10% will be adressed in GH2 that would be wonderful. However the strange thing is that we've seen several updates to AoS (and FW content) and somehow changes in "expected parts" havnt occured.
 

I think thats because different people have different views on what parts of the game they expect to change. Personally I don't expect (or want) to see any changes to anything other than points values, which I think should be dynamic (and preferably updated once per quarter). The expectation for most things (such as old warscrolls etc) is that they should be handled with house rules rather than core rule changes, which is what GW do for their events. 

I would like to see the following:

Core rules: Remain unchanged

Warscrolls: Released both ad-hoc and in "battletome releases", no core rules about which scrolls to use if newer versions are released (that should be up to event organisers)

Points: Updated quarterly, warscroll builder on community site as the "point of truth" for points, rather than boks

Suggested Optional Rules (e.g. rules of 1, measure to base etc): Published by GW in the GHB, making clear they are optional

GW house rules: published online on the WHW page for everyone to see (rather than being in event packs) so people can see what house rules GW are using if they want a starting point for their events (but no need to copy them, as AoS is all about house rules and each event being unique).

 

[Jamopower]

2 hours ago, Killax said:

Daemons in AoS arn't too hard to destroy either, like in 40K, though the drastical difference between the two is that A. 40K Daemons are actually more expensive for more mediocre survival (as an Icon does not come for free) and B. 40K Daemons have lower Ld as they have Morale in AoS. Huge blobs of Daemons in 40K might work but then again there is nothing in either 40K or AoS that doesn't work if it costs 300+ points.

 

There is the third part, that I think is the most important. Shooting is very much more effective , you have more range, more shots, more rend, more damage, more movement on shooters and rolling 2+/2+ is not rare.

[KnightFire]

9 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

There is the third part, that I think is the most important. Shooting is very much more effective , you have more range, more shots, more rend, more damage, more movement on shooters and rolling 2+/2+ is not rare.

I think a key thing to remember is that in AoS then melee combat is the "primary"  way combat happens. In 40k then ranged combat is the primary mechanism, with some models not even having melee weapons (and having to resort to hitting people with their guns).

[Killax]

2 hours ago, KnightFire said:

I think thats because different people have different views on what parts of the game they expect to change. Personally I don't expect (or want) to see any changes to anything other than points values, which I think should be dynamic (and preferably updated once per quarter). The expectation for most things (such as old warscrolls etc) is that they should be handled with house rules rather than core rule changes, which is what GW do for their events. 

I would like to see the following:

Core rules: Remain unchanged

Warscrolls: Released both ad-hoc and in "battletome releases", no core rules about which scrolls to use if newer versions are released (that should be up to event organisers)

Points: Updated quarterly, warscroll builder on community site as the "point of truth" for points, rather than boks

Suggested Optional Rules (e.g. rules of 1, measure to base etc): Published by GW in the GHB, making clear they are optional

GW house rules: published online on the WHW page for everyone to see (rather than being in event packs) so people can see what house rules GW are using if they want a starting point for their events (but no need to copy them, as AoS is all about house rules and each event being unique).

 

Well the difference in vision is certainly there. I however do not believe that adressing point costs is the only way to resolve the issue pieces. Simply because in most cases their point cost under changed core rules might actually be good enough aswell.

For me the mayority of Core rules are good, however we see an abundance of Shooting and distinct lack of Magic and Summonning. To me this has less to do with point costs and much more to do with too effective/ineffective rules. Death has not made any appearance in top 3's since the change of Tomb Kings. Likewise Order, Chaos and Destruction have been grabbing tournaments with extremely pontent ranged modules. From whole armies consisting out of them to roughly 50% of the army.

I do however agree with you that it's still very important to adress that General Handbook rules are optional and not reinforced as the sole way to play the game. What 40K presents for this is great proposition however and that's the introduction of Power points. Despite being a point cost what it does is not suggest that every unit has the same kind of power, which it also does not have. An introduction of Power points in AoS would be a massive bump for me to play Open and more Narrative driven games.
 

[KnightFire]

Just now, Auticus said:

Having played a bit of the new 40k, I'd dispute that shooting is the primary mechanism.  The combat armies being able to alpha strike 1st turn are quite frankly: nasty.

Interesting, I found that my combat heretic astartes (all armed with chainsword + pistol, or combat units such as warp talons or posessed) were great for pinning the enemy in place, but did very little actual damage. I came to the conclusion that I need some shooting units, so that I can pin half the enemy army in place while I shoot the other half.

[Killax]

7 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

I think a key thing to remember is that in AoS then melee combat is the "primary"  way combat happens. In 40k then ranged combat is the primary mechanism, with some models not even having melee weapons (and having to resort to hitting people with their guns).

Absolutely and to me this is almost allright. Again the only issue I have with 40K right now, in terms of core rules, is that leaving combat is not diffictul to do and doesn't really give much of a downside, other than not being able to shoot for that turn (despite being able to Overwatch next).

5 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Having played a bit of the new 40k, I'd dispute that shooting is the primary mechanism.  The combat armies being able to alpha strike 1st turn are quite frankly: nasty.

Nasty but not very difficult to stop if you present an additional couple of waves. In essence spacing units 4" from each other should allow you to soack up an alpha and strike back with insane ammounts of Rapid Fire and other heavy hitters.

As even if the combatant is capable of destroying this whole unit his advantage is only to move up 3" after that.

[Jamopower]

Even then, alpha strike is bit of a gimmick "meta breaker" tactic and I wouldn't say, even if some armies are able to do that well, that close combat would be the king of hill. If close combat would be the primary phase to do damage, then the assault marines and such would be the "go to" units, and I somehow think that won't be the case in the new 40k either.

Edit:

I put it this way. If in 40k close combat is the main point of the game because genestealers and some other similar units are very good, you could say that AoS is primarily a shooting game, because Skyfires and Kurnoth hunters are so good. It might be so in some special scenarios, but when looking the game overall (especially outside tournament environment), there are limited amount of that kind of units. This is shown well in that there are armies in 40k that don't have practically any close combat (like tau, imperial guard and such) similarly as there are armies in AoS that don't have much of shooting (chaos outside skaven and chaos dwarves, the whole grand allience death, etc.).

[Jamopower]

That might true in a very competitive environment. I'm maybe wrong person to say, as I have seen skyfires and kurnoth hunters with bows only in the display cabinet at the Warhammer world  We don't basically have any sort of "tournament meta" in the whole Finland, it's all very casual here. There has been one 2000 point tournament, that had maybe 7 players and IIRC it was won by a deathrattle army. On the other hand, the 40k scene here is very competitive.

[AverageBoss]

2 hours ago, KnightFire said:

Interesting, I found that my combat heretic astartes (all armed with chainsword + pistol, or combat units such as warp talons or posessed) were great for pinning the enemy in place, but did very little actual damage. I came to the conclusion that I need some shooting units, so that I can pin half the enemy army in place while I shoot the other half.

I played a 45 power game against the Nurgle half of the new starter. My 20 man Tzaangor unit wiped out half his force (including the Lord of Contagion) on their own, only being reduced to half strength during that time. I think melee will be quite effective with the right builds/units. Though an effective combined arms army will probably be the best way to go.

[Captain Marius]

There are a bunch of tricks available for 40k melee units to mitigate the opponent falling back, not least charging the flank of a unit and getting a fraction of an inch away so you can pile in right round the flank, possibly allowing you to consolidate into units behind who are now less than 3" away.

This is reflective of similar tactics/nonsense ive seen in AoS since i played at WW this April, where chargers deliberately stay out of direct contact with the enemy to give them up to 3" extra move (closer to nearer enemy model blah blah) allowing more dudes to pile in and get attacks.

All valid, but it feels a bit gamey to me - youd think chargers would just want to get in by the shortest distance and smash stuff! In both games i think this is an argument for making base to base contact a core concept again, admittedly a bigger ask in AoS!

[KnightFire]

14 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

 

 youd think chargers would just want to get in by the shortest distance and smash stuff!

I think in this way it echoes real life. The obvious thing to do is not necessarily the best long-term, and those that are skilled and experienced will know that and make more appropriate decisions. 

[Killax]

19 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Even then, alpha strike is bit of a gimmick "meta breaker" tactic and I wouldn't say, even if some armies are able to do that well, that close combat would be the king of hill. If close combat would be the primary phase to do damage, then the assault marines and such would be the "go to" units, and I somehow think that won't be the case in the new 40k either.

Edit:

I put it this way. If in 40k close combat is the main point of the game because genestealers and some other similar units are very good, you could say that AoS is primarily a shooting game, because Skyfires and Kurnoth hunters are so good. It might be so in some special scenarios, but when looking the game overall (especially outside tournament environment), there are limited amount of that kind of units. This is shown well in that there are armies in 40k that don't have practically any close combat (like tau, imperial guard and such) similarly as there are armies in AoS that don't have much of shooting (chaos outside skaven and chaos dwarves, the whole grand allience death, etc.).

There remains a massive difference between the two. Unlike 40K in AoS every unit can automatically target key pieces provided they have a 24"+ missle attack. This does not apply for 40K as much (characters with less than 10 wounds can only be targeted if they are the closest target) and additionally several characters, monsters and vechicles are much harder to thake out in 40K as is the case in AoS.
- It's common to see a ton of S4 shots but if you have T5/6/7 than you have a lot of 5's to roll to actually damage. In some cases, when gigantic models have T8 you'd even be looking at 6's. This does not apply for a really large sum of models in AoS. 

Now AoS is still a combat orientated game, the design certainly seems to confirm that in general. However then the question rises again, how is it that Missle attack models still float to the top?  

Genestealers, massive groups of Orks and the like have a good purpose in 40K but due to it being really well balanced (and I mean, REALLY WELL) I do not expect them to thake over the game like Skyfires, Kunning Rukk battalions etc. By large because unlike AoS these models actually go against the grain of the ranged system.
As before one of my few concerns about 40K is how easy it is to break from combat and not have a single disadvantage other than not being able to shoot that phase. If you have a model with Flying and Flamers or just Flamers in general the large blobs can be halted and grinded down. 
- You certainly have to respect those mobs but every faction has the theoretical tools to stop it. This too is not the case in AoS. Most factions do not have a significant anti-shooting plan. 

[Jamopower]

I would still wait for some time before claiming the game to be really well balanced I think the etc will give a benchmark to see what's the actual status.

[Chris Tomlin]

19 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

This is reflective of similar tactics/nonsense ive seen in AoS since i played at WW this April, where chargers deliberately stay out of direct contact with the enemy to give them up to 3" extra move (closer to nearer enemy model blah blah) allowing more dudes to pile in and get attacks.

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

[Killax]

52 minutes ago, Auticus said:

What that means to me is overall the game is fine, but the extreme competitive players will latch on to the undercost units and transform the meta to be primarily about defeating those... the same as how AOS is plagued with kunnin rukk and skyfires and judicator spam.

I can only agree with that. Where our visions differ is that it might just be that these "undercosted" units profit from an "underdeveloped" rules design.

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.

In that same vein if 40k would not have that rule there would be little to no reason to not only run "Big HQ" or alternatively not have them on the field at all if possible. In AoS this also applies to some extend, as the most viable of Heroes are those who have the tools to either:
A. Shoot/Magic themselves
B. Be effective at really long distances by other supportive means (Bloodsecrator)
C. Are required to thake for a Battalion that allows for B

This is why to date if anything I feel that the Shooting phase should be adressed above all other pieces and designs. Undercosted/overcosted pieces often speak more about rules if their function becomes a repeated trend of top meta's.