Shooting at Heroes and Bodyguards

[Gaz Taylor]

11 hours ago, Elmir said:

I think the 40k virtual immunity from shooting (for small heroes) is quite warranted because of the prevalence of heavy, high rend, multi damage shooting. 

It's a very extreme form of protection, because it's needed in that environment. AoS doesn't nearly have that big an issue with how its guns/damage are designed. Like I said in my previous point, some more protection would be good... The amount of protection that you get in 40k, would be overkill in AoS This isn't a game in which every 5th liberator is essentially armed with the firepower of a duardin cannon, like 40k is.  It's not a game where a 120p tank can shoot 2 shots at 48" that ignores the majority of your armor and inflicts D6 damage points each ...

That being said, AoS does require character assassination to work. Character assassination can be pulled off using spells (that you opponent can stop),very skillful movement based tactics.... and shooting. The latter one feels a bit too easy/straight forward and there's not a lot your hero can do against it, except cower behind a LoS blocking rock. 

I agree with all of this. I've never found shooting at characters to be a major issue as you can mitigate some of it due to range and hiding the characters, but I can see why people want something like this in AOS. My concern is that it's not an easy fix as some units have ways to protect them (such as -1 to hit or extra saves). Even having something like a Look Out Sir would need to be carefully looked at, because this could be abused (just think of using Skinks for this!!!).

[Jamopower]

And it's good to remember that the shooting protection rule caused a lot of issues in 40k as well, which they had to cover in many faq's and rules revisions.

[RuneBrush]

The challenge is striking a balance between making a character virtually indestructible whilst they have some mates nearby, versus where they are now as easily sniped out.  Armies that have dedicated sniper style units (KO's spring to mind, but there are others) will understandable be frustrated if something is implemented that they feel nerfs their ability to pick out single models.  However I do think that some armies are very vulnerable to hero sniping because the heroes are significantly larger than rank and file

I will also point out that I'm not a fan of layering additional dice rolls or complexities onto any solution.  The core rules exchange some elements of realism for a slick game system and I think that's one thing that makes AoS a really good game.

One idea I've thought of is if the target of a ranged attack is a non-monster Hero and at least 50% of the model is obscured (by scenery or other models - excluding anything on the base of the model), all attacks suffer a -2 to hit penalty.  Possibly even reduced to -1 to hit if the attacker is also a hero.  You could even expand it to magic with a -1 to cast.  That does of course start down the path of "whats 50%", but I think it's easy to discuss "half of that model is hidden" with an opponent.

I feel this would sort of be a half-way house, where you'd annoy everybody but ultimately take a step towards making heroes a little more survivable.

[Killax]

9 hours ago, BURF1 said:

I wouldn't do both at the same time. Making changes that compound each other is dangerous.

Depends how you look at it by other phase comparison. For example, for combat to occur to your liking you need to make a charge, followed with a 3" pile in. The way the Shooting phase isn't restricted by anything makes it such a potent weapon against everything.
Likewise there is even a bigger restriction on Magic, cast one named spell (max), which occurs in the Hero phase before movement and can be Unbind by opponents. Nothing akin to it applies to the Shooting phase.

Even if it was just for the consistency of tactical depth in the game, making changes that compound each other is creating more depth to shooting. But I do agree that it's not really instantly applicable. Because it requires playtesting to see how much costs then should be altered for primairly shooting units.

All I do want to highlight with the idea is that:
1. It's absolutely weaker as 8th's character protection rule, which only doesn't apply if the character is the closest target.
2. It's absolutely weaker as WFB's  Look Out Sir! rule, which only didn't work if you rolled a 1.

This rule would still allow shooting attacks to occur on a character on a 33,33% chance but only if the character has a friendly unit 3" near. What this leads to is that you can either choose to protect backfield support characters with backfield support characters or need to bring them along with your combat units which in turn opens them as viable combat targets. Profided you can deal with that unit.

32 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

  The core rules exchange some elements of realism for a slick game system and I think that's one thing that makes AoS a really good game.

Hmm, true-ish but at the same time I think the only phase that is completely devoid of elements of realism is actually the Shooting phase.

Other than that I really don't see any oddity within the rules, but honest question, perhaps you do see them?

[Jamopower]

One thing that I would ask about shooting, is that is the shooting in self powerful, or is the reason for why it is good that the characters and support units are good and the shooting is the best way to deal with them? For some individual cases such as skyfires and the kunnin rukk, I would go with the first option, but as an overall I think the latter has a lot of reason, especially as the Kunnin rukk is a prime example of the good characters which have to be dealt by some other way than combat.

There are a lot of characters for which an additional protection against sniping would be a good thing, but as there are some characters that are very powerful even when you can possibly snipe them, making universal tweaks would require a lot of side tweaking to balance things out.

I wouldn't draw direct comparisons from WHFB, as even when the characters had a better protection against shooting, they were a lot harder to keep away from the combat reach with the pursuit in to fresh enemy, redirection, overrun and the line of sight requirements. At least before the 8th edition, from which I have less experience as I didn't like it enough to play it much.

 

edit: As a clarification, I wouldn't mind having additional restrictions to shooting, like bit more non-transparent Line of Sight rules and the prevention from shooting further than 3" when within 3" of enemy, but as the game has been designed like it is now, the changes would need a lot of rewriting for the rules. Those kind of things are easy to house rule and keep a "gentleman's touch" in the list building to cover up the problems that may rise, but if the reasoning for the changes is that there are some "Tier 1" lists that are too powerful because of the character sniping, by tweaking the rules you quickly run into a situation where the "Tier 1" lists are strong because they have characters that do strong stuff and are near impossible to kill.

[Killax]

44 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

There are a lot of characters for which an additional protection against sniping would be a good thing, but as there are some characters that are very powerful even when you can possibly snipe them, making universal tweaks would require a lot of side tweaking to balance things out.

I wouldn't draw direct comparisons from WHFB, as even when the characters had a better protection against shooting, they were a lot harder to keep away from the combat reach with the pursuit in to fresh enemy, redirection, overrun and the line of sight requirements. At least before the 8th edition, from which I have less experience as I didn't like it enough to play it much.

Honestly, I think there are but a few characters where a tweak like this wouldn't work out. I do agree that more factions need to be looked at also. But my idea/suggestion really would apply to a Age of Sigmar 2nd edition. I don't expect the change to occur in GH2018 or GH2019 for example.

I dissagree with the WFB comparison, because they wern't a lot harder to keep away from combat. Wizards being part of a small chaff unit or shooting unit where commonly applied. All to have it be save from shooting and still be effective. Melee characters, like AoS, want to be in melee anyway.

The thing is really that GH2017 and the Battletomes that came after it have indirectly adressed how potent Shooting is. With this I mean we see more teleports/deep strikes. However the issue still remains, if your Allegiance can't do that AND can't shoot your bound to be Tier 2 or worse. The impact ranged attacks have on the game really is that big. Unfortunatly I also don't see tournament results from GH2016 and on prove otherwise.

One reason why for example GA Chaos and Khorne don't show up too often on top 4 anymore is directly linked to Sayl and Bloodsecrator alterations/nerfs. Which is okay, but at the same time we see no changes to a 'Kroak-nado' a minor cost increase to Skyfires and several cost decreases in ranged chaff units which still hunt characters all too well due to how unrestricted the Shooting phase is.

I'm certainly not hating on shooting but we see that the Combat phase and all Battalions that are linked to it being patched up a lot, yet ranged attacks are litterly untouched. Examples of this are found in Battalions or abilities that still force you to be 3" away from your enemy or even 9" away. With rules like that every 'awnser' to strong shooting attacks get chocked down. It's as simple as that. To the point where there is no true competitive alternative. Whilst the impact of the Vortex Balewind is a different discussion altogether it does lead to one thing; if you can't 'shoot' you do not matter.

Edit:
Comming back on the last 3 Battletomes also, wether or not GW is concious of doing it we also see that Maggotkin of Nurgle, Legions of Nagash and Daughters of Khaine next to 'deep striking' also obtaned acces to shooting attacks.
- In Maggotkin the option to throw heads can be very potent if you bring enough Blightkings.
- In Legions the option to ambush a Terrorgheist leads to instant problems.
- In Daughters a new shooting unit appeared next to more ranged offense.

As before, shooting AoS is actually much more potent as in 40K. Not because of quantity of shots but the ease to deal with key targets. Dealing with key targets doesn't win you the game but does stop your opponents engine from functioning in a race.
What I see is that AoS more or less benifits from a 'gentlemen's pact' in the sence that we don't all play Tier 1 armies such as Seraphon, Stormcast, Fyreslayers or Tzeentch. The latter is the case with 40K because the competitive urge is much higher there.

[Jamopower]

Yeah, Khorne is one good example of an army that hasn't got means to take out characters and thus has a hard time against stuff like Fyreslayers, or I would guess the new undead. Back with the WHFB comparison, in that you had to make the whole game plan to protect that mage-bunker by all sorts of diverters, banners that make you immune to psychology etc. In AoS you can easily have something like an unit of 40 skeletons around your wizard and have it protected from all sides. There is slight possibility from double turns that the opponent can get through, but besides that, you should always have time to react before the enemy gets to your character. Also the screening unit is typically not wolf riders or great eagles, but an actually a potent unit, which is also the target for the buffs for which you protect the character in the first place. Thus often when you finally get in the combat with the supporting character, the reason for getting there has already gone, as you have had to destroy the buffed up units first.

[AlphaKennyThing]

I think Killax is on to some good ideas there. Below I've taken the primary AoS rules, and amended them to how I think they should be:

Quote

INFLICTING DAMAGE

After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they see fit (the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit). When inflicting damage, if you allocate a wound to a model, you must keep on allocating wounds to that model until either it is slain, or no more wounds remain to be allocated. Once the number of wounds suffered by a model during the battle equals its Wounds characteristic, the model is slain. Place the slain model to one side – it is removed from play. Some warscrolls include abilities that allow wounds to be healed. A healed wound no longer has any effect. You can’t heal wounds on a model that has been slain.

Hard to Hit: Warscrolls with the Hero keyword that have 9 or less wounds and are within 3" of a friendly non-Hero unit may roll a D6 after suffering any unsaved wounds in the Shooting Phase. On each roll of a 4+, the friendly non-Hero unit suffers a Mortal Wound instead.

I think this is a really balanced rule. It still gives a good chance for you to hit a hero, but heroes should take 50% fewer wounds each turn from ranged attacks. Having the hand-off of wounds happen after making saves means you don't have to mess around rolling a second load of saves with different criteria, though saves that negate Mortal Wounds can still be taken. This means people should tend to pick 'bodyguard' units as the OP suggested, but they'll do so naturally, and I'd assume will pick units that can negate Mortal Wounds in some way. Interestingly, I think in caster-heavy armies, it'll make players want to keep a unit with the caster, as such taking another unit away from the 'front line' so to speak. If you go with the 40k type character-targeting, I literally cannot see a way beyond deep striking that you could ever beat Tzeentch. You'd get annihilated.
 

Quote

SHOOTING PHASE

A storm of death breaks over the battle as arrows fall like rain and war machines hurl their deadly payloads.

In your shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with missile weapons. Pick one of your units. You may not pick a unit that ran or retreated this turn. Each model in the unit attacks with all of the missile weapons it is armed with (see Attacking). After all of the models in the unit have shot, you can choose another unit to shoot with, until all units that can shoot have done so.

A unit that has any models within 3" of any enemy units may only make ranged attacks against those units.

I believe this is a pretty common-sense approach, that probably should have been in the game from the off. I'm all for a game being simple, but I also want a little bit of sensibility, and having a unit of Judicators firing perfect-accuracy shots across the board at a lone Warchanter whilst being punched in the face by Orruk Brutes is just taking the ****** a bit. I don't think this breaks the game, it just forces the ranged attacks to go towards the immediate threat, i.e. the people stabbing you in the face. Arguably, you shouldn't really be able to fire at all if you're engaged in melee, but I think this slight rule adaption is a halfway house.

Keen to test it out to be honest, and see how it plays.

[RuneBrush]

8 minutes ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

A unit that has any models within 3" of any enemy units may only make ranged attacks against those units, until there are no enemy models within 3". 

Not quite sure about the wording of this?  Until there are no enemy models within 3" doesn't make sense as you should be allocating all of your attacks before rolling (you can't roll 10 to one unit on the off-chance of killing it and then decide to put the other 10 somewhere else).

[Killax]

19 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

Yeah, Khorne is one good example of an army that hasn't got means to take out characters and thus has a hard time against stuff like Fyreslayers, or I would guess the new undead. Back with the WHFB comparison, in that you had to make the whole game plan to protect that mage-bunker by all sorts of diverters, banners that make you immune to psychology etc. In AoS you can easily have something like an unit of 40 skeletons around your wizard and have it protected from all sides. There is slight possibility from double turns that the opponent can get through, but besides that, you should always have time to react before the enemy gets to your character. Also the screening unit is typically not wolf riders or great eagles, but an actually a potent unit, which is also the target for the buffs for which you protect the character in the first place. Thus often when you finally get in the combat with the supporting character, the reason for getting there has already gone, as you have had to destroy the buffed up units first.

Well I think there is more than Khorne, but the armies who don't even have anything that can compete with the offense there just simply arn't seen at all. Which is Death armies that don't use Legions of Nagash, all the Skaven Clans barring Clan Skyre, Slaves to Darkness, litterly all of Destruction barring Kunning Rukk and indeed all Order armies that want to assume a position without Ranged attacks really. 

What I think is that Fyreslayers are an positive issue to anybody but not too many play them. Logical also because the army is expensive and this GH2017 boost they recieved is unlikely to be exactly the same in GH2018. Plus not all like running 90 of the same models. I know this is the case for Khorne also with Bloodletters. There is a 'best' choice but it isn't really a 'fun' choice. Most players don't favour doing the same model 90 times over again or more.

There are certainly options to have characters out of LoS, I agree there completely, but the fact is that any army with decent Shooting vs non-Shooting doesn't have to really account for that. This tactical advantage is litterly massive. Because many of those early tournament rounds do cut the fun armies from those that abuse every rule in the core rules. It's just that most don't seem to have a massive issue with it. Which I get because this is the general Tournament concensus. But this doesn't mean some of the core rules couldn't improve to strike a better balance between 'super shooting', 'regular shooting' and 'no shooting'.

@AlphaKennyThing I like it! As before though I also think that it's too early to directly port into the current AoS. It's something GH2018 could consider doing but I doubt they will because it does require some serious playtesting to alter Core rules like that. It's much easier and quicker to shift unit costs up and down by 10-30 points or add 100 points to 80% of all Battalions.

Ideally I'd love to see the 40K design team create some new ideas for AoS but yeah, I don't see it happening before 2020. The downside of this is that the awnser to 'Shooting' sort of comes from the new Battletomes. With sort of I mean that these armies do get a great chance in dealing with shooting provided the non-/low shooting pieces player plays it's game well and the table allows for it.

[AlphaKennyThing]

7 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Not quite sure about the wording of this?  Until there are no enemy models within 3" doesn't make sense as you should be allocating all of your attacks before rolling (you can't roll 10 to one unit on the off-chance of killing it and then decide to put the other 10 somewhere else).

That's a split shooting rule I seem to have carried on over into AoS. It should just be up until that part of the sentence.

Edited the original post!

[RuneBrush]

6 minutes ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

That's a split shooting rule I seem to have carried on over into AoS. It should just be up until that part of the sentence.

Edited the original post!

That'd explain why it didn't make sense

[Jamopower]

I would do the 3" rule on model basis. If a model is within 3" of an enemy model, the range of the ranged attacks is reduced to 3". Which is:

-easy to play

-works similar to the close combat ranges,

-is easily measured with the combat cauge and

-allows for interesting interactions, where you can have a front rank of the shooting unit fighting the enemy back to allow their comrades to continue shooting (as typically the larger shooting blocks aren't the ones that are problematic).

 

Truth to be told, I don't think this would make any sort of impact for the problem units. It's hard to get within 3" of the shooters if they are surrounded by hordes of e.g. skinks or brimstone horrors.

 

Also again, when thinking about the rules tweaks, the "broken" combos usually aren't the ones that come to mind first. Good example is the "Assassin list" from the 40k (i.e. the list which is mostly characters and there is a very hard to shoot assassin in front of everything to take out most of the shooting from the enemy as it is the only thing that can be targeted). I'm pretty sure that it took some time for someone to get the idea. Similarly in AoS, with seemingly very minor tweak, there can be some warscrolls from the hundreds available, that can ruin the whole thing. 

[Killax]

@Jamopower can only agree and I think the prime 3" rule in AoS is very good. This is also the type of character rule that could be considered for 40K also.

Perhaps more importantly, I believe that a 3" 'protection rule' also visually is pleasing. We know that a model (at least for combat) can pile in 3" so the idea that 'jumping in front of an important character' within 3" doesn't really sound like an oddity to me either. Better put something 3" is at least very consistent within the other rules found within Age of Sigmar. 

The cascading effect I like to highlight for this is also that I feel it would open a massive door to cheaper Hero slots that are made for melee. Not only Khorne has these. Practically every Allegiance has these but they are "useless" because there is no guarantee of ever getting them in combat and in addition we see that support models are now often taken in duplicate because you then can at least have a higher guarantee that one of them continues to live.

Unfortunatly I'm out of likes and thanks for the posts above me but I am extremely happy that this discussion is so objectively approached. I recall that same same debate occured in GH2016 and the awnser then was that X or Y couldn't ever be like this because both Chaos and Death had key characters that otherwise would be too potent. I think that with the GH2017, newer Battletomes and Errata results we can say that they arn't too potent anymore. Yet what remained is the extremely potent shooting still being able to deal with these characters quite easily.

To me the consequence of commonly taken Monster Generals isn't just their power but the meta-analysis that thaking anything with 8 wounds as a general in a force that has no sniping options is a bad plan for competitive play. 
 

[Jamopower]

The combat characters are not used less than the support characters only because of the shooting issues. Having played a lot of 5 wound combat characters myself I can say that besides dying from shooting, they also have other problems:

1. They die just as easy in the combat without a good support to tie in the majority of opponents (which doesn't help against bigger targets such as monsters)

2. They have to get to the combat to have any impact to the game, whereas a wizard is useful from the turn one. Additionally, when they get there, look at point 1.

3. They often aren't choppy enough. A chaos lord is a very disappointing model to get in to a close combat. Very many characters are very hit or miss with few attacks that have high damage, if you whiff your hit rolls you lose a lot of damage.

4. Due to the alternating activation in the combat, getting a character and a unit in to combat with an enemy unit can backfire as you usually get to strike before the opponent only with one of the units, thus the result can often be the point 1.

Of course as a balancing factor, the character can punch face on both players turns, but a lot of the buffs also work until the start of the next hero phase of the controlling player, even if the character dies.

 

Edit: To sum up a bit, by helping the characters as whole, there might be few borderline beatstick type of characters that would benefit and see play, but as there are a lot of reasons why support characters are better for the overall performance of the army than the combat oriented ones, it wouldn't most likely change the situation in that sense at all. The combat characters simply need to come down in price to be viable and I even that has limits, if you think about something like the Witch hunter or the Black ark fleetmaster.

[chord]

I would recommend against the idea of heroes and bodyguards.  

[BURF1]

you just have to keep one specific thing in mind with anti-shooting/character protection changes : High Oracle Morathi, it's not really fair to leave her out of protections just because she's better designed than other heroes, but at the same time if you guarantee her full strength magic until it's time for full strength snake god every game, it's gonna get silly.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, BURF1 said:

you just have to keep one specific thing in mind with anti-shooting/character protection changes : High Oracle Morathi, it's not really fair to leave her out of protections just because she's better designed than other heroes, but at the same time if you guarantee her full strength magic until it's time for full strength snake god every game, it's gonna get silly.

I agree which is why I dont think this edition of AoS will have this rule happen in GH2018 or 19. Because indeed it would require a reconsideration of all characters basically.

Having said that though, I'm all pro small heroes get protection and big don't. Even for Morathi then there is a downside to her, I mean her monster form (unable to protect) is worth the 480 points. While I'd say her smaller version just isn't, especially not because wounds carry over and 6 wounds means she at best will survive two rounds (without protection rules).

Perhaps Morathi is even the best example here too, her small for is nice, but there is no reason to keep her that way after turn 1. Her melee potential just outweighs what she can do and perhaps more importantly again, the wounds do carry over between her forms. So staying small is actually creating a giant option to kill her under the current rules.

To self-reflect, I don't thake a WoK Bloodthirster because I absolutely want to. I thake it so I have some hope that my general will see turn 2.

[Envyus]

Another rule from 40k I could see heavily benefiting Age of Sigmar is Charging units fight first. Right now there is a not a lot of benefit to charging and this would help that a lot. And once again help those Combat focused 5 wound heroes. Particularly if we put something like Heroic Intervention in as well. 

Things like Slaanesh Daemons and really speedy units having the ability to break that like in 40k and reset it back to alternating even if they were charged. 

[Killax]

3 hours ago, Envyus said:

Another rule from 40k I could see heavily benefiting Age of Sigmar is Charging units fight first. Right now there is a not a lot of benefit to charging and this would help that a lot. And once again help those Combat focused 5 wound heroes. Particularly if we put something like Heroic Intervention in as well. 

Things like Slaanesh Daemons and really speedy units having the ability to break that like in 40k and reset it back to alternating even if they were charged. 

Yeah Id like it too, however we did see that in WFB this caused issues in 6th ed so like Overwatch I cant say its easily applicable, reason being that 40k has the rules and abilities to break the 'first strike' patron. Where in AoS we dont have that.

What it can lead to is cavalry thaking over the game again like in 6th.

[Jamopower]

I guess that varies, but at least for me, being used to the AoS combat mechanics, the 8th ed 40k close combat feels very dumbed down and non-interactive, although I can again see why it has evolved to that as there is the overwatch and the combat often lasts only the one round before the opponent retreats away. Getting to fight first during the charge has been in my mind sort of a prize for getting into close combat.

I wouldn't port it to AoS as it would take a lot of skill element out from the game. Now you have to think about what to charge with what and is it worth it and think about the positioning of the heroes and models with longer ranges etc.. I wouldn't also say that there isn't much benefits to charge, the charge move allows for the charger to set up the situation in to his benefit. For example the melee heroes can be positioned so that they get only few attacks back as the other opponent's are tied in by the supporting unit etc. And of course there are a lot of weapons that are better on the charge.

One can also imagine what an army like the Murderhost would be if all chargers would be striking first...

 

[Killax]

21 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

One can also imagine what an army like the Murderhost would be if all chargers would be striking first...

Certainly that too, but really my fear/idea is that we'd get to a GH2016 like state where Sayls and models like that suddenly are key and as before the whole idea of chargers striking first was also applied in some editions of WFB and people didn't really like it. Like you said then speed becomes the main factor of competitive gaming, or at least this is true for 40K also. As there arn't that many melee only focused units, unless they are either immume to Morale and thus can thake the Overwatch to the chin or (and this has become quite common) are able to charge 3d6" sometimes in combination with deep striking.

I think that the current way combat works in AoS is actually really cool. It's the deepest tactical aspect of the game. The moment chargers strike first I can see the game skewing as much toward speeding units as they do now for shooting units due to how basically the Shooting phase is 'unrestricted'.

The advantage of how charges work now also removes the 'sad feeling' of failing a charge. Where in both 5th/6th ed WFB and 8th 40K this is basically a death sentence for the unit. I'm totally cool with working how it is now. It's restricted to some ammount, but still is a movement advantage. 

Lastly another pithole I'd like to avoid (again) with how charges 'should work' is that some are of the opinion that all Aelfs should strike first, some are of the opinion that all spears should strike first, some are of the opinion that all cavalry should strike first and in reality charging into something really isn't that different from just obtaining additional movement. Yes there are certain weapons who become deadlier this way but I believe we allready see this where it's logical, such as cavalry.

[Elmir]

15 hours ago, Killax said:

I agree which is why I dont think this edition of AoS will have this rule happen in GH2018 or 19. Because indeed it would require a reconsideration of all characters basically.

Having said that though, I'm all pro small heroes get protection and big don't. Even for Morathi then there is a downside to her, I mean her monster form (unable to protect) is worth the 480 points. While I'd say her smaller version just isn't, especially not because wounds carry over and 6 wounds means she at best will survive two rounds (without protection rules).

Perhaps Morathi is even the best example here too, her small for is nice, but there is no reason to keep her that way after turn 1. Her melee potential just outweighs what she can do and perhaps more importantly again, the wounds do carry over between her forms. So staying small is actually creating a giant option to kill her under the current rules.

To self-reflect, I don't thake a WoK Bloodthirster because I absolutely want to. I thake it so I have some hope that my general will see turn 2.

This... My gaming group actually did moan that I always end up taking a VLoZD in virtually every list. But simply put, if you want your Command trait/ability to last past turn 1, you always have to default to one of these big monsters as general. And that's just incredibly dull... The second on I took a normal VL as general after some moaning, he got killed turn 1 by a ripperdactyl battalion (name escapes me). 

Yes, a change towards some form of "small character" protection could shift the meta a lot. BUT, maybe that's not a bad thing if it opens up new options and MORE options, because this wouldn't invalidate "big monster as general" lists.  It would however, create more varied competitive lists and this can only lead to a more interesting match-up scenarios on top tables. 

But GW would have to have the stones to actually admit some things are just a bit too good that they put in print (like the staunch defender trait for SCE, fyreslayer rune lord,...) on smaller, well protected characters.  It's just a shame that a handful overtuned abilities (easily fixed through errata) could stand in the way of a more varied competitive environment for top lists. 

[Envyus]

I am still of the opinion of protection for small characters is needed and chargers should go first.

If this changes the meta and tactics. requires a few warscrolls to change I would welcome it. 

[Killax]

8 hours ago, Envyus said:

I am still of the opinion of protection for small characters is needed and chargers should go first.

If this changes the meta and tactics. requires a few warscrolls to change I would welcome it. 

The opinion is totally cool. It's just that with chargers going first you still favour the faster units and that does very much come down to 1" movement differences, charge buffs and everything that revolves around it.

As before, the fact it works this way in 40K has lead to Overwatch. In WFB when it worked that way it lead to cavalry thaking over the game (6th ed). The initiative thaking that over in 7th and 8th edition still wern't the best solutions either because then Initiative 5 (much like Strength 5) was the ideal go to...

The fact that Combat works the way it does now means you cannot snowball into victory because you've reached your opponent before he reached you. In reality charges also wern't paralel to complete succes. So if anything I personally really like the I Go You GO style the current Combat phase has. It adds massive tactical depth.

--

@Gaz Taylor in relation to some not having issues with how sniping characters works. I've found that practically all who indeed play Desciples of Tzeentch or Order don't have this issue because the strongest aspect of all Order armies is arguably their massive acces to units who are amazing in the Shooting Phase  

Competitively speaking I think not playing DoT or Order means you absolutely have to be better as your opponent to beat him in 2nd to 1st place and ideally have that player with the 'Shooting Phase units'  make mistakes.

The games that I've played where the Shooting Phase is close to absent are also the most tactical deep games I have played. Because if side B has no support then yes snowballing within combat doesn't become a huge problem either. As one side has buffs. Not saying that anything should be nerfed directly. I am just saying that the Shooting Phase from the Core Rules allow for a particular advantage that no other Phase can as easily replicate.