GHB 2018, and Main rule changes

[FRoper]

 

-GHB2017: Gave no major changes to the main rules, this could be the standard for the future although I do not see this as the case. 

We got: 

- More Allegiance abilities, Artefacts, command traits for various fractions 

- additional rules and scenarios for narrative play. (siege, realms etc)

- additional scenarios for matched play. 

- points changes to units and battalions as well as large unit reductions. 

 

With other threads giving us an idea of potential changes that could happen to make either the game more enjoyable or more realistic. 

Changes that people have put forward over the years

Changes to main rules

- Remove shooting into combat or make it so that you can only shoot the unit you are engaged in combat with. 

EG: a change could be that you have to choose either to shoot or engage in combat. 

- Remove move and charge in the same turn

- more terrain rules. 

- Something akin to perils in the warp/Misfire to provide mishaps when casting magic. 

- characters could not be shot at unless closest unit unless they are a behemoth etc. 

Changes to matched play and narrative

- Battalion changes, either could be decreasing points cost, but removing deployment and artefact benefits or just decreasing the cost altogether.

- maybe have artefacts associated with points cost rather than battalion's. 

- Rules of One,  this benefits and disadvantages others especially for spells ( could have number of times a spell is cast increase by 1 per 2000pts)

EG: I will edit this with other suggestions as people give them. 

Would people like to see more terrain rules for playing in particular realms??

If GW added to Narrative, what would people like to see???

 

 

 

[Elmir]

Personally, I get the changes to shooting. Shooting is just too good right now... They work as hyper accurate snipers for low tier heroes and can't even be stopped when diving into combat with them. AoS could learn from the new 40k in this regard. 

However, I don't agree with any of the other proposed changes at all except for a more meaningful impact of terrain. 

[Twitch of Izalith]

Yes, if you are in combat you should not be able to shoot out, You are gonna shoot the guy trying to hit you in the face with an axe, not the priest/wizard hiding behind a rock on the other side of the field. 

Happy for unengaged units to be able to shoot in to combats they are not involved in though.

All squishy factions need some kind of access to a Deep strike/Teleport/Ambush type ability - so many of them have it now that it is unbalancing those that don't. If armies are tough enough that slowing them down is a levelling  factor then fair enough, they don't get it but if your best saves are 5+ the faction with the deep strike option is far more powerfull than the one without.

[Carnelian]

More nuanced terrain rules.

Bring back the fantasy equivalent of perils of the warp so there is a risk to casting spells.

Expand the priest-type rules so they are more interactive.

Restrict shooting in some way as has been said a lot.

Add in some rules for a zone mortalis type game

[Blood&skulls]

Not introduce too many new rules. The whole point of AOS is it's easy to learn and play. 4 pages ect ect. Not layer apon layer apon layer of rules. Then it eventually becomes what WFB and 7th 40k became. 

Also slow some armies down. I'm becoming annoyed at how many armies have some gimmick that enables 1st turn charges and the like. It takes away any kind of manoeuvring or tactical choice. 

[BURF1]

Everything with the Tzeentch keyword doubles it's  points.

[Blood&skulls]

?

[Trout]

I wouldn't want any changes. The only change that really interests me is taking away the ability for people to influence who gets the first turn. But I'd rather that be accomplished by changing the matched play battleplans so that in the setup section they all say that you roll to see who gets to choose whether they go first.

[FRoper]

40 minutes ago, Trout said:

I wouldn't want any changes. The only change that really interests me is taking away the ability for people to influence who gets the first turn. But I'd rather that be accomplished by changing the matched play battleplans so that in the setup section they all say that you roll to see who gets to choose whether they go first.

this is interesting and after playing some small 1000pt games earlier today, I feel that 1st tern should only be impacted by the battleplan rather than number of units especially as this causes an advantage in armies that have access to battalions. 

[RuneBrush]

I'd like to see a bit of a tweak to battalions, because I'm not entirely sure they're "right".  Drop the single deployment shenanigans and bonus artefact and reduce the cost to a sensible level.  Artefacts should be based on the size game you're playing - so Vanguard may gain 2, Battlehost 3 etc.

I think it's wish listing for rules changes - they'll come out in errata or a new version of the rules.  GHb is about "expanding" the game and items like the rules of one are only applicable in matched play.  Things like changing shooting should be an update to the rules and apply to everything.

[Twitch of Izalith]

2 hours ago, Carnelian said:

Bring back the fantasy equivalent of perils of the warp so there is a risk to casting spells.

Only for Tzeentch wizrads... 

... No Wait! I have Tzeentch wizards in my S to D army.

Seriously though I would welcome a double 1's crit fail and a double 6's crit success. It should be simple though. i don't want to roll on a table.

I'd like to see a bit of a tweak to battalions, because I'm not entirely sure they're "right".  Drop the single deployment shenanigans and bonus artefact and reduce the cost to a sensible level.  Artefacts should be based on the size game you're playing - so Vanguard may gain 2, Battlehost 3 etc.

I think it's wish listing for rules changes - they'll come out in errata or a new version of the rules.  GHb is about "expanding" the game and items like the rules of one are only applicable in matched play.  Things like changing shooting should be an update to the rules and apply to everything.

I prefer my opponent to do a one drop. then i get to deploy counter to his whole army...

[Ratatatata]

2 hours ago, Trout said:

I wouldn't want any changes. The only change that really interests me is taking away the ability for people to influence who gets the first turn. But I'd rather that be accomplished by changing the matched play battleplans so that in the setup section they all say that you roll to see who gets to choose whether they go first.

This!

I think there is so much flexibility in using different battle plans and creating new warscrolls and battalions, and points of course. 

[Gothnomicon]

OMG, no don't change the shooting rules...

[Ollie Grimwood]

The GHB isn't for wholescale rules changes. It for an annual tweak. What you're asking for is a rewrite of the rules and that's something else entirely.  Also given the second FAQ answer it's unlikely GW will do it. 

[Lousy Beatnik]

For me, just do away with single drop batallions, extra artifacts and just roll off for first turn (or use whatever the battleplan says).

[BunkhouseBuster]

While I can see the single-drops from Battalions being problematic for some, we never remember to use them in my local group for that purpose.  We usually end up alternating deployment as per normal even with Battalions being used.

Personally, I am okay with how things are right now.  Any major change in the rules will probably drive me out of the game.  HEAR ME OUT.

I barely have time to think about hobbies anymore.  I get have about 3 or 4 hours a day during the week to eat dinner, help my kids with homework, etc.  Maybe one or two nights a weeks I get any time to spend any time on wargaming in any way.  While work is easy and not usually busy, it's okay for me to browse these forums but not books at my desk.  As such, my time that I can invest in this hobby is minimal at best.  Any major change in the core rules would greatly affect my mental capacities for the game.  Aside from the local players, it's the one of the main reasons I no longer play 40K at all after 7 years.  Too much change means  too much to learn and study again, which means either less time on wargaming or less time with my family.  And even though my family is interested in Age of Sigmar, schoolwork, housework, and World of Warcraft take up their free time these days.

To me, the game is fine.  It's not the rules that are a bother (as they are just an abstraction of realistic and non-realistic combat elements and mechanics designed to facilitate a positive gaming experience, in ANY GAME).  Rather, it's the PLAYERS that make a big difference in my enjoyment of the game.  The folks that take the game way too seriously are a drain on my experience, sucking the fun and escapism from the hobby.  I may snark about them on occasion, but I won't criticize them for enjoying the game the way they like it.

As it stands, and based on my anecdotal experiences, I'm okay with the core rules as they are.  If anything, how about more stuff?  More content in the style of expansions that add in modular rules.  Want no more shooting into melee?  How about a module that handles that dynamic?  Want more immersive terrain rules?  Have another module!  That is the kind of further updates I would like the game to have.

[Screwface]

I'm late to the party. What is it about the terrain rules that people don't like or want to expand on? I always play my games with the terrain rules straight from the AoS core rules, and I've never felt like pieces of terrain were inconsequential - 0-3 pieces of terrain per-square, all with generic terrain rules like inspiring or damned if the terrain piece is generic, and the special rules if it's a specific piece like Arcane Ruins or Deathknell Watch for e.g. I've never felt like terrain was an afterthought, and terrain has always had an interesting but not earth-shattering impact on how my games play out. This seems about right for how terrain should affect a game imo. What do people want other than this?

[Keldaur]

I know that no shooting into combat has been an stapple in many miniature games. But i am completely fine with it. My only problem is that the shooting unit has no penalty for doing so.

[heywoah_twitch]

As many others have said, and that I made a thread about awhile back, make first turn a roll off that no player can influence. Certainly not from number of drops aka 'my army book has good battalions and yours doesn't so I can always choose who goes first '.

Making artefacts go by point size of game rather than battalions is an elegant suggestion that I rather like. 

 

[Screwface]

14 minutes ago, Keldaur said:

I know that no shooting into combat has been an stapple in many miniature games. But i am completely fine with it. My only problem is that the shooting unit has no penalty for doing so.

Maybe -1 to hit for the unit if shooting into a combat it's not involved in?

[Gotrek]

10 hours ago, FRoper said:

</snip>

Changes to main rules

- Remove shooting into combat or make it so that you can only shoot the unit you are engaged in combat with. 

- Remove move and charge in the same turn

- more terrain rules. 

- Something akin to perils in the warp/Misfire to provide mishaps when casting 

</snip>

 

So you want 8th edition again...

[bsharitt]

4 minutes ago, Screwface said:

Maybe -1 to hit for the unit if shooting into a combat it's not involved in?

I really don't like full on no shooting into combat rules, but negative modifiers seem to be a way to go, or maybe natural 1s hit your own guys that the enemy is engaged with(and of course sharp shooter/sniper rules that would get around these drawbacks). Being able to shoot into combat with not negative side affects may seem wonky, but having guys sitting there going "oh no, our comrades are getting hacked to bits and we can't even attempt to help them" is just a bad.

As for no shooting out of combat, I sort of agree, but do it on a model by model basis. Just because part of the unit is engaged and distracted by some clan rats doesn't mean the unengaged members of the unit are going to ignore the rat ogres coming up behind them.

Really the top top shooting rule I'd like to see is the units before individuals rule for 40k.

[Screwface]

Yeah but there does seem to be an urge from some ex players of WFB, either consciously or subconsciously (and I include myself in that bracket sometimes), to want to move back towards rules seen in that edition. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean there was a risk of actually turning AoS back into 8th exactly so no need to be such a literalist, but on the other hand I think there's a risk of departing from the spirit of AoS with the gradual creep of these rules changes here and there that have been proposed. 

[Lousy Beatnik]

Eh, there isn't really an "in combat" to begin with, so the simple shooting rules don't bother me.

It's an intentionally simple rules set to begin with. All "light" rules cut a few corners to match the brief. There are some things lacking in Dragon/Lion Rampant, Song of Blades and Heroes etc., but not in a "they forgot to include it" way. I think interesting scenarios and units make up for many of the common complaints.

[Sarkazim]

I think the only major change I'd like to see, and it's a carryover from 40k, is that Characters can't be shot at unless they're the closest model to the firer.  My experience is limited, and it wouldn't even help my army specifically, but I think this is one of the most frustrating thing I see when watching others play.  Especially with some of the Casters.  40k has a wound limit for this protection, and I think AoS is setup better because it has Monster/Behemoth/etc keywords in play that could already be included in the exemptions.

Other things would be changes to the exisitng GHB rules to be honest.  I think they need to really look at the 'Rules of 1', and find some sort of balance.  There are still a few armies/units that are hamstrung by this.  I understand having limits, but I just don't feel they've addressed it well enough.  Ideas include 'Successful Casting of a spell' or 'Increase the casting difficulty by 1 for each cumulative attempt'.  

Not really wishful thinking, just my thoughts on it.