Deep Strike has been hit in 40K, when in AoS?

[GeneralZero]

I've never liked the Deep strike rule. In 40K, GW seems to make it less prevalent to avoid a turn one win. I think that it is a good move....from GW.

I hope that  they do the same to AoS. I know, some armies will really get hurt but if GW add some things like objectives, like in 40K, or things that got you some points in matched play, we will see some more movments and actions and suspense in parties. What do you think guys?

[BaldoBeardo]

40k is primarily a ranged game, so any mechanic that reduces footslog distance is always going to be exponentially more powerful than in a melee focussed game like AoS.

[GeneralZero]

8 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

melee focussed game like AoS

I'm not so sure, especially  with the upcoming magic rules". 

[RuneBrush]

I can't see changes to "off-board setup" for AoS as most of those mechanics are already restricted.  Stormcast have to roll to see if they come down, summoned units generally have to be within x" of something (gravesite, wizard etc) which leaves just a handful of armies with unrestricted deployment.  Most of which you'd likely not want to bring down in the first turn   I do think this is where AoS has the advantage in that each warscroll can be written to work within the specific confines of that army.

[Paul Buckler]

Don't see this as needed, most alpha stikes in AOS are from high movement, not setup tactics.

Generally you need to roll a 9" charge to get there after setting up, makes it a risk/reward strategy.

 

Double turn also means if you drop and fail, and get doubled back you probably have very little if anything left.

 

[PJetski]

There isn't a lot of deep strike shooting in AOS so I don't think this is necessary. Even factions that can hold everything back like Nighthaunt still rely on 9" charges.

[Richelieu]

I'll also add that every one of the past four battletomes (including Idoneth) have had deepstriking units, battalions or allegiance abilities.  Clearly this is not something GW has any intention of abandoning in AoS. 

[BURF1]

3 hours ago, GeneralZero said:

I've never liked the Deep strike rule. In 40K, GW seems to make it less prevalent to avoid a turn one win. I think that it is a good move....from GW.

I hope that  they do the same to AoS. I know, some armies will really get hurt but if GW add some things like objectives, like in 40K, or things that got you some points in matched play, we will see some more movments and actions and suspense in parties. What do you think guys?

I think it's a devastating and poorly thought out change in 40k. It's not a great idea for sigmar either. Deepstriking in 40k was admittedly a bit too powerful but that was because most deepstriking units had shooting attacks that would make 24 skyfires look like 3 darkshards, and you could keep basically your entire army in reserve.

In AoS it's not nearly as big a deal. Stormcast have the option to deepstrike everything and deepstrike basically nothing ever.

[Rogue Explorator]

I like the changes, for 40k. In 40k there was no turn one deepstrike at all or it was very rare for most of the games history. In that context this makes 40k deepstrike (that I think was flattened and unified in funktion to much) feel a bit more like "the real deal" again. I also feel it will help the games pacing (taking a fair but of punch from turn one), though I am no 40k competetive buff by far and have no idea wether this really improves (or even worsens) balance.

 

But AoS is an entirely different beast and what is good for 40k is not necessarily good for AoS (and the other way around). So far I see no issues with AoS deepstrike for the balance, feel or pacing of the game. So I think the old "If it is not broken..." applies.

[Skabnoze]

I have a feeling some of the items from 40k are going to trickle into Age of Sigmar.  That said, this rule for 40k is a brand new beta rule - so I think the odds of this coming over to Age of Sigmar any time soon is very unlikely.

But, I would not be surprised to see the general concepts behind this to migrate over (forcing a significant amount of an army to deploy on the board, and limiting the amount of damage that can be dealt in the first turn).  Age of Sigmar does not quite suffer as much as 40k does from Alpha strikes, but it does have some of that in a different form and I would not at all be surprised to see GW make a change to address that in some fashion.

But I think the things that we would be more likely to see soon would be changes to turn order (removing first turn from being deployment based, possibly removing the priority role, a melee combat priority system like in 40k where chargers get priority).  I also would not be surprised to see GW merge the idea of command abilities in Age of Sigmar with Stratagems from 40k and add that in either a book supplement or the next General's Handbook.

All that said, I do hope that big changes to core rules come in the Beta rules fashion that they have used for 40k.  I like that they have piloted some of the core rule adjustments and then tweaked them based on feedback.

[Tzaangor Management]

I think it's unlikely that we'll see a lot of the recent changes from 40k implemented in AoS, as I think they're pulling different levers in order to effect the game. The Idoneth Tide mechanic tells us that we're probably not going to see: a 'look out sir' rule; a rule that provides additional save protection in round one; or first strike if you charged. It's possible of course, but it seems unlikely that a new faction making a big splash (sorry...) would be given rules no one else has, just for everyone else to get them a few months down the line.

[Carnelian]

In 40k you drop down with powerful short ranged weapons and almost certainly get to obliterate your target, completely taking any chance of protecting that unit away from the player.

The same problem does not exist in aos very often so no need to change it

(The corresponding equivalent in AoS might be sniping characters with ranged units which is much more likely to get changed)

[Rogue Explorator]

2 hours ago, Tzaangor Management said:

I think it's unlikely that we'll see a lot of the recent changes from 40k implemented in AoS, as I think they're pulling different levers in order to effect the game. The Idoneth Tide mechanic tells us that we're probably not going to see: a 'look out sir' rule; a rule that provides additional save protection in round one; or first strike if you charged. It's possible of course, but it seems unlikely that a new faction making a big splash (sorry...) would be given rules no one else has, just for everyone else to get them a few months down the line.

To be fair, Idoneth Deepkin to not so much have a "I can hide my characters" rule as they have a "I can hide anything behind anything, I can hide nearly my entire army behind multiwound models with a unmodifyable 3+ save (2+ with shield spell)" rule. That is pretty powerful and special even if everyone else gets to hide their heroes. And then, AoS getting some form of hero protection, that does not have to mean the same rule as 40k has (though that is the most likely solution).

2 hours ago, Carnelian said:

In 40k you drop down with powerful short ranged weapons and almost certainly get to obliterate your target, completely taking any chance of protecting that unit away from the player.

The same problem does not exist in aos very often so no need to change it

(The corresponding equivalent in AoS might be sniping characters with ranged units which is much more likely to get changed)

Well, you can block that 9' zone with chaff on deployment, which I guess is what most competitive players do.

I think wether "Alpha Strike Poker" is a good or bad way to play 40k is a matter of personal taste. I certainly see why competitive players would favor it, tournament games are timed, some quite tightly. Each player wiping out as much as possible on the first turn speeds up the rest of the game and gives you a better chance for a "full" win rather than a win or loss by timeout.

However, I do not think it is the game the designers intended and have the impression they have been working hard on making even the top tourney tier 40k resemble that 40k "feel" as much as reasonable (see also the ban on "soup" detatchments, which was propably more a "feel" than a balance issue).

That is why I am confident we get some sort of bar on character sniping in AoS. It is not that it is bad balance, I just can not see the GW rules writers looking at it and say "Jupp, that is exactly how we imagine a battle in the AoS world".

[Richelieu]

20 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

But I think the things that we would be more likely to see soon would be changes to turn order (removing first turn from being deployment based, possibly removing the priority role, a melee combat priority system like in 40k where chargers get priority).  I also would not be surprised to see GW merge the idea of command abilities in Age of Sigmar with Stratagems from 40k and add that in either a book supplement or the next General's Handbook.

I would be surprised if GW did any of these things.  They would all be bad for the game.  The Deepkin high tide rule should put to rest any speculation that there will be a general "charging units go first" rule.  Polls and threads on this forum repeatedly show that 75% or more of people like the priority roll, so unless there is some minority orchestrating a letter writing campaign to GW about it then it is staying as well.  

 

[DinoTitanedition]

Why do I get the impression that many folks in the forum want to make a 40K out of AoS? If I wante that, I`d be playing 40K instead of AoS. The chances are bigger that I leave the game again after I`ve just returned to it when it was released.

 

I mean, correct me if I`m wrong, but should both systems not BE different from each other?

[Xasz]

People have to stop labeling 40k rules and especially 8th edition as the holy savior of all tabletop games.

There are several rules and dynamics that are a far cry from 'awesome' and would be downright terrible if implemented into other games. 

[Gaz Taylor]

26 minutes ago, DinoTitanedition said:

Why do I get the impression that many folks in the forum want to make a 40K out of AoS? If I wante that, I`d be playing 40K instead of AoS. The chances are bigger that I leave the game again after I`ve just returned to it when it was released.

It's because people see rules in other systems that resolve an issue they see with the game system they play, so will say X will fix Y without really thinking about how much it changes things.

Personally, I doubt we will see any of the 40K fixes applied to AOS for the following reasons....

1. Initiative Roll off - Makes dropping in a unit a high risk move if you fail to roll a 9 for charges
2. AOS units are better costed for what they can do (help that there are less options to customise them)
3. AOS Scenarios make you think about having large/horde units for objectives which means you have to think about what you want in your list rather than spamming units.
4. AOS Charging units do not all strike first, so you need to think about order of combats

The main issues with 40K Deep Strike were being able to drop a load of units which could either shoot things to death, charge and beat them to death or majority of the time do both! The rule of three fixes this but there were scenarios where players were being wiped out in a turn (or having their army damaged to a state where they couldn't do much else in the game) and it doesn't make for a fun game does it?  

If players want to try these rules out in their games of AOS, go ahead but remember that we will unlikely see it in any FAQs or updates  

[Tzaangor Management]

I see your point @Rogue Explorator and there is certainly some wriggle room around the edges of the tide mechanic and some subtle differences between it and the traditional 'look out sir' style rule, although I do still think it's unlikely to have a raft of rules introduced separately that do much the same thing.

My overarching point is  that I think that GW are trying to effect the game with small changes, rather than large sweeping ones and that introducing an army with these mechanics will alter the make-up of armies in order to account for their unusual mechanics. 

Obviously it remains to be seen, but I like the gentle approach that has been taken so far.

 

 

[EMMachine]

21 hours ago, PJetski said:

There isn't a lot of deep strike shooting in AOS so I don't think this is necessary. Even factions that can hold everything back like Nighthaunt still rely on 9" charges.

The only unit I can think off that would fit in a "deep strike shooting" Unit would be Stormfiends with Ratling Cannons and a Grinderfist (or if Clan Skryre with Gautfyre Skorch is used Stormfiends with Warpfire Projector)

In most cases the unit can't deep strike or if it has ranged weapons these ranged weapons aren't strong or don't have many shots.

Like @BURF1 said. In 40k the ranged attacks are much stronger. And if we count Tzaangor Skyfires. Even if they were able to deepstrike they don't have to because of there movement and range.

In AoS deep striking is simply an option to get to an objective or to bring a slow unit in Chargerange to eneny units with a quite high chance that the charge is still failing.

[RuneBrush]

17 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

The only unit I can think off that would fit in a "deep strike shooting" Unit would be Stormfiends with Ratling Cannons and a Grinderfist (or if Clan Skryre with Gautfyre Skorch is used Stormfiends with Warpfire Projector)

Kharadron Overlords would fit into that grouping too.  However that's pretty much their "trick" drop in and blow things up

[ledha]

No

Full deepstrike turn one charge are devastating in 40k because :

- Charging mean striking always first, meaning all the deepstriking units could attack before. It is not the case in AOS, where charging is not as powerful

- Being engaged in melee mean you can't be shot and can't shoot, which is not the case in AOS, where charging unit staying in melee can be shot to pieces

- There is no double turn in 40k, meaning playing first and going full alpha strike is always good. In AOS, it's not always the case, because you can take a double turn after and see all your alpha striking unit melting.

[Skabnoze]

17 hours ago, Richelieu said:

I would be surprised if GW did any of these things.  They would all be bad for the game.  The Deepkin high tide rule should put to rest any speculation that there will be a general "charging units go first" rule.  Polls and threads on this forum repeatedly show that 75% or more of people like the priority roll, so unless there is some minority orchestrating a letter writing campaign to GW about it then it is staying as well.  

 

Polls are only as good as the base that is polled.  I would argue that if you had polled for a number of the changes GW has made to their systems over the last ~6 years most people polled would have been initially against those changes.  People are fairly opposed to change in general.  Remember the huge uproar about the rumors of blowing up the Old World for Age of Sigmar?  And then the giant backlash when they initially did it (which did not really start to calm down on a large scale until the first General's Handbook)?  Or the initial backlash at the rumors that 40k 8th was going to follow many of the changes made to Age of Sigmar with it's rules?  Or the backlash for many of the FAQ/Errata leaks and beta rules (including the current set of beta rules)?  Or the vocal backlash to EVERY edition change for any of GWs games that I can recall going back to the 90s? 

I'm not saying that those rules I pointed out would be an improvement or not.  I am not advocating for them.  But they seem to be solid rumors and I would not at all be surprised to see some of them show up.  I will wait to reserve judgement on rule changes till they happen and I play using them.  Maybe they don't do this.  But GW has historically not given 2 heaps of skaven dung for opinion polls.  They have been paying more attention to the wishes of their customers lately, but I am pretty sure the designers still hold the opinion (warranted or not) that they know best for the game.  Also, I would not necessarily use a new army books rules as indication of upcoming new rules.  Sometimes they do provide a clue, but sometimes they are rapidly invalidated as well.  I have played these games long enough to see books that only get a couple of months before being rendered obsolete in some fashion.  I am not saying this will happen this time, but I am saying that it has happened at least as many times as when the books have been written with future revisions in mind.

Seriously, every single edition change or large rules change has a huge vocal backlash and a big vocal group supporting it.  There are people that claim they will maintain the edition they like and boycott everything new.  There are people that sell all of their armies.  There are people that destroy them in protest.  In the end, my personal experience with GW is that each new edition is usually an improvement in some way and a step back in another way.  Hopefully the improvements outweigh the mistakes (I think they do in most cases - although I stand by 3rd ed 40k being utter garbage).

In the long run, what you or I personally think (or the majority of these forums) won't really have too much impact on the future direction of the game.  We are all just speculating and guessing in the end.  But it is fun to debate about these things!  

[Skabnoze]

9 hours ago, DinoTitanedition said:

I mean, correct me if I`m wrong, but should both systems not BE different from each other?

I would prefer both systems to be distinct.  My personal preference is that Fantasy games stay centered and focused on melee with a much smaller emphasis on shooting, but Age of Sigmar has arguably been skewing towards heavy shooting lists in many cases for a while and much of the reason is due to the structure of the game.

I enjoy Age of Sigmar being a different beast than 40k.  In fact, I came back to Age of Sigmar due to 40k 8th games being somewhat dull and uninteresting.  I don't hate 40k, but every game I have played of 8th is just not as much fun as I want it to be - if that makes any sense.  I am not sure exactly what bothers me as it is sort of intangible, but I think it is a combination of factors and not any specific thing.

But even though I want Age of Sigmar to be it's own distinct thing from 40k, that does not mean that the game cannot be improved with changes.  I think there is a lot of room for the GW designers to make the game better.  I don't necessarily think the rumored changes are my preferred way of doing that (even the changes that I feel seem likely), but I am not opposed to change.  I'll judge any changes once I have a chance to play with them.

[DantePQ]

I don't think so - GW toned down alpha strike anyway but recent Battletomes still got some access to it so I doubt anything is changing considering alpha strike/deep strike as it isn't reliable way to play (in oppostion to Wh40k were aplha striking could be reliable and valid strategy) 

[Kamose]

On 4/18/2018 at 12:16 PM, Skabnoze said:

Seriously, every single edition change or large rules change has a huge vocal backlash and a big vocal group supporting it.  There are people that claim they will maintain the edition they like and boycott everything new.  There are people that sell all of their armies.  There are people that destroy them in protest.

I know, right!  If we're really lucky they post videos of it on Youtube for us to all enjoy.  Break out the popcorn, grab the kids, and watch someone throw a temper tantrum, destroying their own property!  I'm a huge fan! 

Deep Strike in AoS isn't as big an issue as in 40k since since most DS units are trying to charge and only become reliable with (multiple, stacking) buffs from characters who may or may not be able to DS themselves.  The majority of nasty shooting in AoS is from units that can't or don't need to DS.  Alpha Strike is possible but not reliable and that's a key difference. 

Its unfortunate but the "best" way to win any game is to simply prevent your opponent from playing.  For some people the desire to win supersedes their opponent's enjoyment and they will use any tactic regardless of how much fun it sucks from the game.  I just wish the rest of us would call that what it is.  Unless you're playing at the top tables of the biggest AoS tournaments fighting for the title of "Most, Bestest AoS Player", its not really a "valid strategy and everyone else should get gud".  Its actually and technically known as being "rude", and "inconsiderate", and a  "selfish [very naughty word]".