GHB 2018, and Main rule changes

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, Screwface said:

there does seem to be an urge from some ex players of WFB, either consciously or subconsciously, to want to move back towards rules seen in that edition

A freakin men.

Usually in shooting rules.

Move on.

[Gotrek]

Time to be a negative ******...

Shooting into/out of combat:

In AoS armies engage each other so quickly that if you implement this then you will effectively kill off most ranged units. Only those that can be bunkered, have decent combat stats, or have the movement to stay out of combat will be viable. Think about it. Standard shooting attack is about 20", a few go further but most dont. That means youll get at best 2 rounds of shooting before you get engaged, and most ranged units are garbage in melee. So you'll be choosing between units that MIGHT get to perform 2 times out of the 10 turns of the game (5 turns per player), or you can choose a unit that will be performing 6-8 rounds out of 10.  And thats not even counting turn 1 charge shenanigans. 

 

Shooting is NOT OVERPOWERED, it just doesnt suck completely like it did in 8th.

 

No move + charge: will literally make it impossible for slow armies to engage fast ones. Ironjawz or stormcast for example against sylvaneth, DoT or skinks. Its too easy to stay 13+" away. 

 

Miscasts/perils: why? In 8th it was a risk/reward structure for using extra dice to cast bigger spells. What is the purpose here? All it does is punish you for bringing wizards. Its not like 8th where a single good magic phase could win the game on its own.

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Gotrek said:

Shooting is NOT OVERPOWERED, it just doesnt suck completely like it did in 8th.

I'm going to take the middle ground on this.  Shooting generally isn't overpowered when one or both sides have a small smattering of ranged units - but it can quickly become/feel overpowered when you've multiple blocks of 30 who demolish a melee army.  You also have the scenario where many shooting units aren't awful in combat - they're generally significantly better than a melee unit is with shooting

However we're in danger of veering onto the shooting discussion which is probably the most divisive topic on TGA!  Lets try and steer this back towards the original topic  

[FRoper]

Thank you for all the interesting points, so far. 

Personally I would like to see some form of protection for characters, this is purely due to my death heroes getting killed every game before doing anything meaningful. 

also I have placed two questions, which I would like people to think about, I feel that narrative could be a really fun way to add different aspects to the game, such as in the realm of beasts, you could add sandstorm rules etc. rules that add a bit of immersion to the game. 

[the_prophecy]

Just add a single line to the rules:

"a unit cannot shoot if it is within 3" of an enemy unit" thats it

[Gotrek]

32 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I'm going to take the middle ground on this.  Shooting generally isn't overpowered when one or both sides have a small smattering of ranged units - but it can quickly become/feel overpowered when you've multiple blocks of 30 who demolish a melee army.  You also have the scenario where many shooting units aren't awful in combat - they're generally significantly better than a melee unit is with shooting

</snip>

While there are exceptions to the "good at shooting is bad at melee" rule of thumb those units *tend* to pay a premium for it, either in points or in number of attacks. I'll say this: individual shooting units/combos can be overpowered/undercosted, however those are outliers and should not be held up as how shooting generally functions. Just as how alpha strike/turn 1 charge armies should not be held up as how melee armies typically work or how nagash, DoT and Kroak-nado shouldnt be held up as the standard for how magic works. When you make changes to the entire system to bring skew lists/combos in line you run into a problem of forcing people to take those skew lists just to be able to functionally play the game.

 

Edit: basically my complaint with this thread is people are essentially using a chainsaw to fillet a fish instead of a knife. 

[Arkiham]

20 minutes ago, Gotrek said:

 When you make changes to the entire system to bring skew lists/combos in line you run into a problem of forcing people to take those skew lists just to be able to functionally play the game.

 

Edit: basically my complaint with this thread is people are essentially using a chainsaw to fillet a fish instead of a knife. 

this. 

 

wide sweeping changes arent as simple as people think 

[Siorra]

1 hour ago, the_prophecy said:

Just add a single line to the rules:

"a unit cannot shoot if it is within 3" of an enemy unit" thats it

No thanks.

The most reasonable solution I see is "If a unit is within 3" of an enemy unit, it can choose to use it's missile weapons or its melee weapons in your turn, in either the shooting or combat phase respectively. It may only attack the unit it is engaged with." That's a rule I can understand and get behind, but asking for shooting units to become unusable by turn 3/4 by not shooting anything in combat just seems like a "I'm weak against shooting so buff me" cry. Play with the rules, not against them.

I will admit I didn't play any GW games before AoS (apart from trying to play 40k at the age of 10, likely terribly). The reason I picked it up is because AoS isn't riddled with rules and complications. The rules are, and should be, easy to follow. The complexity should be in the units, akin to trading card games like someone said earlier in this thread. I know it's the vocal minority piping up, but let's try to keep AoS like, well, AoS.

[the_prophecy]

Just now, Siorra said:

No thanks.

The most reasonable solution I see is "If a unit is within 3" of an enemy unit, it can choose to use it's missile weapons or its melee weapons in your turn, in either the shooting or combat phase respectively. It may only attack the unit it is engaged with." That's a rule I can understand and get behind, but asking for shooting units to become unusable by turn 3/4 by not shooting anything in combat just seems like a "I'm weak against shooting so buff me" cry. Play with the rules, not against them.

I will admit I didn't play any GW games before AoS (apart from trying to play 40k at the age of 10, likely terribly). The reason I picked it up is because AoS isn't riddled with rules and complications. The rules are, and should be, easy to follow. The complexity should be in the units, akin to trading card games like someone said earlier in this thread. I know it's the vocal minority piping up, but let's try to keep AoS like, well, AoS.

hm that woukd also be an elegant rule to say that a unit can either shoot or use its melee weapons but not both in the same turn. I would prefer a easy and short rule not an entire new paragraph

[Ollie Grimwood]

i like units being able to shoot in combat I always disliked the premise that missile  armed troops wouldn't use them if an opotuity arose or unengage models wouldn't help out their mates. 

Im not so keen on models not taking long range shots against distant foes rather than then one trying to rip their throats out. That why I don't do it. 

However I see some are worried their opponents aren't as thematically gifted as I, so how adding this to the Picking a Target section of Attacking in the main rules. "A model must direct its attacks toward an enemy  model within 3" unless there are no enemies with in 3" or the model is unable to draw a line of sight to enemy models within 3" " 

edit: though it's probably quite thematic for heroes or units fighting against smaller opposition to shoot at different targets. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

14 hours ago, Screwface said:

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?

What many of us are thinking (at least I am ) is that we want rules, or at least options for, generic and non-magical terrain.  Not a Sylvaneth Wyldwood, but a regular old FOREST.  Instead of the Fortress Wall we have in the rules, we get just a simple and plain castle wall that doesn't magically cause Mortal Wounds, rather it just keeps the enemy away.  Let's have some rules for generic ruins that are just crumbled buildings, not necessarily magical artifacts.

It's not that terrain is bad as it is, but it's just a bit much to have so many different things to remember on top of your own army.  Surely the Mortal Realms aren't ALL full of mystical ruins, Chaos Castles, and Sylvaneth trees?

To put it another way, some of us want some vanilla ice cream in addition to our rocky road, cookies 'n' cream, or other cool flavors.  If you only enjoy the big fancy stuff, then you lose your appreciation for it.

12 hours ago, Auticus said:

A lot of that I find is that people are wanting a wargame.  WHFB was a wargame.  AOS, and I play it regularly still, is more akin to the combo-driven games that derive from CCGs.   Its going down the road that warmachine already went down over a decade ago.

At least Age of Sigmar will let you make up your own stuff and support Narrative play, and doesn't outright encourage players to be jerks, and you don't get weird looks for painting your army in custom colors, and a few other things that actually make it a positive experience

I'm never playing anything by Privateer Press again.  Ugh....

[Sleboda]

11 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

a simple and plain castle wall that doesn't magically cause Mortal Wounds, rather it just keeps the enemy away. 

One of the beautiful things about the simplicity of AoS is that plain terrain is handled by the rules themselves.

Movement and lime of sight are impacted by the size and shape of, for instance, a plain castle wall. No need for extra rules.

[Lousy Beatnik]

I agree with Sleboda. I played a few games with some decent sized walls recently. Cover and movement penalties (measuring vertically) already applied with the main rules.

I've been enjoying my "normal" trees just counting as cover and ruins also slowing movement by measuring vertically or forcing individual models to move around larger bits.

[Flood]

If shoot into combat was removed, i think id stop playing. Its my favorite part of the game, and i think its what makes aos. It makes it dynamic, unique, strategic, and is not limiting.

[Ollie Grimwood]

6 hours ago, FRoper said:

 

also I have placed two questions, which I would like people to think about, I feel that narrative could be a really fun way to add different aspects to the game, such as in the realm of beasts, you could add sandstorm rules etc. rules that add a bit of immersion to the game. 

There are Time of War rules in the Realmgate Wars books that do exactly that. You are correct they are fun and add immersion. 

[heywoah_twitch]

6 hours ago, FRoper said:

Personally I would like to see some form of protection for characters, this is purely due to my death heroes getting killed every game before doing anything meaningful.

I've seen people suggest "can only target nearest unit".

Which I'm am vehemently against with a fury. It changes death heroes from having a weakness to sniping to being the pope inside a completely impenetrable bubble of two layer skeleton protection for the entire game. It also obliges death armies to play massive buffed concentric circle death stars of immortal untargetable god heroes.

tldr 'only target nearest unit' swings the pendulum too far the other way and then it breaks off and flies out the window and kills my dog.

[Arkiham]

Almost as if gw knew what they were doing when they wrote the rules...

 

Who knew ?

[Screwface]

1 hour ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

What many of us are thinking (at least I am ) is that we want rules, or at least options for, generic and non-magical terrain.  Not a Sylvaneth Wyldwood, but a regular old FOREST.  Instead of the Fortress Wall we have in the rules, we get just a simple and plain castle wall that doesn't magically cause Mortal Wounds, rather it just keeps the enemy away.  Let's have some rules for generic ruins that are just crumbled buildings, not necessarily magical artifacts.

It's not that terrain is bad as it is, but it's just a bit much to have so many different things to remember on top of your own army.  Surely the Mortal Realms aren't ALL full of mystical ruins, Chaos Castles, and Sylvaneth trees?

To put it another way, some of us want some vanilla ice cream in addition to our rocky road, cookies 'n' cream, or other cool flavors.  If you only enjoy the big fancy stuff, then you lose your appreciation for it.

At least Age of Sigmar will let you make up your own stuff and support Narrative play, and doesn't outright encourage players to be jerks, and you don't get weird looks for painting your army in custom colors, and a few other things that actually make it a positive experience

I'm never playing anything by Privateer Press again.  Ugh....

I think you want more than is reasonable to expect.  People are just wishlisting now. GW have given us good, fun and varied terrain rules with  the core rules and warscrolls for terrain pieces. There's only so much they can do. I guess you'll have to make your own stuff up if you need even more rules on top of what you already have. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

29 minutes ago, Screwface said:

I think you want more than is reasonable to expect.  People are just wishlisting now. GW have given us good, fun and varied terrain rules with  the core rules and warscrolls for terrain pieces. There's only so much they can do. I guess you'll have to make your own stuff up if you need even more rules on top of what you already have. 

Maybe so, but it's something that I and others are interested in.  And yes, there currently is terrain rules as is.  But I'm wanting something a bit different in that regard.  And to be fair, I'm not wanting a re-write of the core rules or removal of anything that is already published, just something in addition.  What I would REALLY like is modular (and optional) expansions that provide more content, whatever it is.  I'm just wishing for simple terrain rules that are easy to remember to be one of those expansions as well.

And while I'm wishing, I want a pony, and a winning lottery ticket...  And to paint my models quicker...

[BURF1]

On 9/27/2017 at 8:00 AM, FRoper said:

 

-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???

 

 

 

Remove move and charge in the same turn? Why? There's no reason for it. It was dumb in fantasy, it'd be worse here

Spells are too good as is, like we need tzeentch to dominate for another year.

The character thing barely works in 40k, it would destroy plenty of armies in Sigmar, and would break tzeentch again.

[Gotrek]

2 hours ago, BURF1 said:

</snip>

Spells are too good as is, like we need tzeentch to dominate for another year.

</snip>

Can you clarify this? The rule of 1 pretty much puts a lid on abusive magic

[Freejack02]

27 minutes ago, Gotrek said:

Can you clarify this? The rule of 1 pretty much puts a lid on abusive magic

Not when Tzeentch can choose  from 12 additional spells while fielding literally an entire army of wizards. I would like to see another 1-2 spells added to the "everyone knows these" pool, just so factions without newer spell tomes can keep up a bit better. 

[SirPug]

If people want major changes to the rules perhaps playing some other game would be more for their liking.

Small tweaks and additions are fine so long as they do not subtract from the game too much.

[Kessler]

My wish would be that there are no major changes.  And definitely no "special rules that apply on X or Z occasion". These are nightmare to remember.

If we make shooting weaker, then Kunnin Rukk/Skyfire units are not powerful shooters, but they are decent. And ALL other units with ranged option are just pointless. The same applies to magic: nerf magic, then "normal" wizards cannot do anything, but Tzeentch still do. So if anything, they turn out to be even more powerful. To make major rule change because of one powerful unit is slippery road to take.

Note that I don't play a lot, so I'm just speculating.

[Arkiham]

5 hours ago, Freejack02 said:

Not when Tzeentch can choose  from 12 additional spells while fielding literally an entire army of wizards. I would like to see another 1-2 spells added to the "everyone knows these" pool, just so factions without newer spell tomes can keep up a bit better. 

Compared to shooting? Spells are (generally) pretty terrible against horde armies.

Oh  5 mortal wounds ? Ok only 55 wounds left in the unit...on turn 2 or 3.