Rules of 1 discussion

[Tittliewinks22]

If GW revisits the rules of 1, are there any changes or additions you think would be beneficial to the game overall?

Two changes I would like:

Either make prayers all have the rule of 1 like spells, or remove the restriction on casting the same spell more than once.  Not sure why khorne can use bronzed flesh X number of times a turn but wizards are limited to a single mystic shield?  Granted allowing same spell cast could potentially break some units like Nagash or Kroak, so I'd be more for restricting prayers.

Add new rule "No unit can be affected by the same positive modifier more than once at a time." Thisaddition will allow them to make the FAQ/errata sections smaller for all the stuff that has this specific errata to prevent stacking (ex. Khemist or Bloodsecrator).

I'm curious what you guys think should change if anything. Or if it's fine the way it is, I'd love to have some polite discussion why.

Thanks

[rokapoke]

Changing the spell limitations wouldn’t break Nagash or Kroak— the base rules prevent a wizard from casting the same spell multiple times already. I think that multiple Mystic Shields might be okay with the single modifier restriction, but I’d certainly want to see how it plays. That said,most of my games are of the casual variety anyways, so maybe I’ll just try something like that with my friends. 

[Hounsou83]

In the new Daughters of khaine book all the prayers already have the rule of 1 , if this summer "AOS2" comes as predicted the rules of one will affect all prayers,  in my gaming group we are already using it 

[Tittliewinks22]

3 hours ago, Hounsou83 said:

In the new Daughters of khaine book all the prayers already have the rule of 1 , if this summer "AOS2" comes as predicted the rules of one will affect all prayers,  in my gaming group we are already using it 

This is good to hear, I haven't looked at the DoK book yet.

[Nikobot]

4 hours ago, Hounsou83 said:

In the new Daughters of khaine book all the prayers already have the rule of 1 , if this summer "AOS2" comes as predicted the rules of one will affect all prayers,  in my gaming group we are already using it 

The rule of one applies to the 6 "Prayers of the Khainite Cult" from the table on page 55.

It doesn't say that this applies to the prayers that characters may know on their profile.

So if you have 3x hag Queens they could all pray for Touch of Death.

To me it suggests that maybe bigger and better prayers may be limited somewhat.

[Nikobot]

Prayers are not spells, they are just abilities.

You may as well apply the Rule of 1 to any ability used on the board if you feel that way about prayers.

There are exceptions but in general, they tend to be weaker in their effects than magic, less reliable to cast than spells and with less choice.

DoK have a nice prayer deck, Pestilens do not. Applying a rule of 1 to Pestilens would hurt them a lot. I think maybe it will stay as is and be dealt with on a tome-by-tome basis.
 

 

[PJetski]

Spells need a rule of one because every wizard knows two spells (Arcane Bolt & Mystic Shield) that can break the game if they were spammed.

Prayers are already considerably more limited than spells. 

• Prayers are generally lower range than spells, and with far fewer ways to boost the range
• There are far less Priests than Wizards. Some factions, like Tzeentch and Daughters of Khaine, have access to non-hero units that can cast spells
• Not every army with Priests has access to faction-specific prayers (Seraphon) while others are totally reliant on prayers (Pestilens)
• Prayers are less reliable, usually activating on single dice rolls of 3+ and 4+  with few (if any) ways to boost their reliability
• Many prayers already do not stack
• In the case of prayers that do stack, each Priest can only take one prayer you are effectively paying points for a chance at buff stacking

If there is a prayer warping the meta around stacking priests to cast that prayer then a surgical change is required through an errata/FAQ. A global rule of 1 for prayers is not needed, nor is it desirable.

[RuneBrush]

Agree with @PJetski, I don't think the Prayer "game" is particularly broken as it currently stands.  Most complaints I've heard, come from Blood Boil that has a 1 in 6 chance of injuring the priest.

[Richelieu]

9 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Agree with @PJetski, I don't think the Prayer "game" is particularly broken as it currently stands.  Most complaints I've heard, come from Blood Boil that has a 1 in 6 chance of injuring the priest.

And the Daughters of Khaine allegiance ability prayers can only be attempted once.  Plus, as you mention, a 1/6 chance of injuring yourself and only a 2/3 chance of success for things that are typically of limited range and are usually just buffs can't compare with the power of magic.

[Kamose]

The biggest problem with trying to limit prayers is that there is no such thing as a "Prayer" in AoS.  That term is not defined in the game; its simply shorthand the community to uses to describe a suite of somewhat similar abilities that models with the "Priest" Keyword usually have.  See the problem?  A "suite" of abilities, "somewhat similar", "usually have".  The only thing all "prayers" have in common is that they are special abilities that "Priest" models have.  Limiting special abilities that "Priest" models have would hit all abilities on those Warscrolls not only those usually (there it is again) defined by the community as "prayers".

Without a definition for "Prayer" the rules writers would have to and inevitably fail to explain which specific examples of "Priest" special abilities are limited to once per turn and which aren't and under what circumstances.  For all that Magic the Gathering is famed for their tightly worded rules, some of the linguistic knots they tie their rules text into are truly grotesque.  Quoting pg 78 of 228, section 603.4 of the Magic the Gathering comprehensive rules, "This rule is referred to as the “intervening ‘if’ clause” rule. (The word “if” has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an “if” that immediately follows a trigger condition.)"

(I swear to God, every time I read a Magic card with the words "only anytime" printed on it, I can feel my high school English teachers die a little inside.)

My point is not to suggest that Magic doesn't have tight rules; Magic has tighter rules that the US tax code. Magic also has a 228 page rules tome that even WotC admits players shouldn't bother reading.  I'm simply suggesting 'be careful what you wish for'.  We don't want to  slowly creep back towards the previous editions of rules complexity by adding generalized rules if its not completely necessary.  I think the way that Daughters of Khaine implemented their own "rule of one" for their own prayers is the best way to handle this.  Provide limits only where needed and freedom where its not.  This allows greater flexibility for the game designers and players.

[Captain Marius]

I think they should replace the name "Rules of One" with "Matched Play Rules", and cover all Matched Play rule changes in one place e.g. no cover for big guys. This would be where to add stuff like limiting character targeting with shooting, without messing up the core rules for Open and Narrative games.

[Lousy Beatnik]

I hadn't thought of "prayer" not being something actually defined in the rules and more something people just say. I guess it's the equivalent of "in combat"

[someone2040]

14 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

I think they should replace the name "Rules of One" with "Matched Play Rules", and cover all Matched Play rule changes in one place e.g. no cover for big guys. This would be where to add stuff like limiting character targeting with shooting, without messing up the core rules for Open and Narrative games.

The name rules of 1 were basically a marketing name from the start anyway. They haven't really been related to 1's since the original GHB.

I mean, the 4th rule of one (being unable to modify priority) has absolutely nothing to do with 'one'.

So wholeheartedly agree they should change the name of the rules section. Better yet, if we are going to see AoS 2nd edition most of them should just be rolled into the core rules anyway.

No idea why the duplicate artefacts isn't just errata on the existing battletomes and made a thing going forwards from GHB2017.

[PlasticCraic]

On 02/05/2018 at 1:03 AM, Richelieu said:

And the Daughters of Khaine allegiance ability prayers can only be attempted once.  Plus, as you mention, a 1/6 chance of injuring yourself and only a 2/3 chance of success for things that are typically of limited range and are usually just buffs can't compare with the power of magic.

Not sure I agree with this. There are a couple of priests who can injure themselves, but that's also true of the Weirdnob Shaman. So I don't think you can say that makes prayers intrinsically weaker than magic. It mitigates the power of those specific units, but not prayers as a concept. And of the units that can self harm with a prayer or spell, I certainly don't think the Weirdnob Shaman is a stand out  bargain at 120 points. 

2/3 chance of success sounds kinda like a spell casting somewhere between a 6+ or 7+ which would be pretty standard.

The prayers you most commonly see do compare very well indeed with the power of magic. Bronzed Flesh is virtually identical to Mystic Shield (indeed Mystic Shield spam was a very common strategy in the early days of AOS, and one of the reasons behind the Rules of One on the first place). Blood Boil is significantly better than Arcane Bolt.  Lightening Chariot is a massive  deal. Lightening Storm is amazing. Blood Bind is incredible. 

Add on top of this the fact that they can't be unbound, and that if you have warscroll spells and access to a prayer lore, you get to cast a prayer from the lore in addition to the one on your warscroll (not just access to it - you get an additional cast). 

Given all this, as well as their points cost, no wonder people  love to spam them. Being able to stack them seems a bit much. 

[NemoVonUtopia]

I think prayers are better kept to a case by case basis as they are now. Slaughterpriest's blood boil is very good but it is also the only ranged mortal wound option and one of the few ranged options for khorne armies. Not being able to stack the effects wouldn't be bad in my opinion because I personally do not but for something like bronzed flesh there is only a 25% chance of both going off outside of gore pilgrims. 

From the little that I have seen, the daughters of Khain prayers seem more impactful than +1 buffs so it would make sence to limit them. I haven't had the opportunity to fight the daughters of Khain yet so my impression may be wrong.

 

[Richelieu]

11 minutes ago, NemoVonUtopia said:

I think prayers are better kept to a case by case basis as they are now. Slaughterpriest's blood boil is very good but it is also the only ranged mortal wound option and one of the few ranged options for khorne armies. Not being able to stack the effects wouldn't be bad in my opinion because I personally do not but for something like bronzed flesh there is only a 25% chance of both going off outside of gore pilgrims. 

From the little that I have seen, the daughters of Khain prayers seem more impactful than +1 buffs so it would make sence to limit them. I haven't had the opportunity to fight the daughters of Khain yet so my impression may be wrong.

 

The DoK prayers are quite powerful.  I'd field max priests if they were stackable.  Catechism of Murder is easier to succeed on than stormcast bless weapons and a 6 just counts as two hits instead of getting to roll an extra attack.  It's basically twice as powerful and I would put it on every unit in the army if I could.  

[BURF1]

On 01/05/2018 at 3:32 AM, Tittliewinks22 said:

If GW revisits the rules of 1, are there any changes or additions you think would be beneficial to the game overall?

Two changes I would like:

Either make prayers all have the rule of 1 like spells, or remove the restriction on casting the same spell more than once.  Not sure why khorne can use bronzed flesh X number of times a turn but wizards are limited to a single mystic shield?  Granted allowing same spell cast could potentially break some units like Nagash or Kroak, so I'd be more for restricting prayers.

Add new rule "No unit can be affected by the same positive modifier more than once at a time." Thisaddition will allow them to make the FAQ/errata sections smaller for all the stuff that has this specific errata to prevent stacking (ex. Khemist or Bloodsecrator).

I'm curious what you guys think should change if anything. Or if it's fine the way it is, I'd love to have some polite discussion why.

Thanks

Absolutely not on removing the limit of casting spells more than once. Between Tzeentch, LoN, and Maggotkin, and to a(significantly) lesser extent, Deepkin, Magic is threatening to eclipsed shooting as the single most powerful and binary aspect of the game.  Personally I'd like it if they restricted magic MORE. 

Also, why cap prayers? Only 2 armies that have uncapped prayers actually use them and both of those armies are mediocre with mediocre prayer abilities. Does anyone actually use multiple bronzed flesh in Blades of Khorne lists? Does it really accomplish anything when they do? DoK also prove that GW knows that uncapped prayers are a thing and that they are capable of designing around that. DoKs super buffing prayers are all capped at 1 but their 'make 180pt model not stand completely still for 3 turns' prayer and their 'make a bad melee character slightly better at melee' prayer are both uncapped, and are clearly designed around being uncapped. Capping them now is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

Most buffing abilities don't stack with themselves anyway since they FAQed the 'any' wording, especially in the newer battletomes.

[Nikobot]

As stated above, Prayers don't have a defined system  that covers all of them, like magic does. They are just another ability. In some cases this has been expanded like DoK, in others its quite undeveloped, like Pestilens.

Any suggestion like applying a rule of 1 to them needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis, which appears like its already being done.

I agree GW are likely on top of this and have let certain Prayers be spammed/stacked like pestilens which isn't breaking the game, and others like DoK allegiance prayers limited to 1 as they are much more powerful overall, and would likely break the game if they weren't limited.

[Gotrek]

Speaking specifically about blood boil, if you limit that to once per turn, how do you suggest Khorne armies deal with things like a mystic shielded bastiladon? Lord celestant on star drake with staunch defender and thundershield? Treelord with the ignore rend 1/+1 save combo? I mean i guess you could throw killing frenzy on a bunch of blood letters and pray in real life but that doesnt seem like good design

[Somanlius]

If I could add a rule one 1 it would be that units may only be affected by the same ability once. No stacking the same ability. Im a khorne player and I hate themold stacking Bloodsecrators and stacking Bronzed Flesh/Killing Frenzy. Im down with different abilities conferring stacking effects, but not the same ability.  Mystic Shield + Castellant's Lantern + Staunch Defenders? +3 to saves, sure. But not 3 Castellants Lanterning the same unit for +3 to save!

[EMMachine]

3 hours ago, Gotrek said:

Speaking specifically about blood boil, if you limit that to once per turn, how do you suggest Khorne armies deal with things like a mystic shielded bastiladon? Lord celestant on star drake with staunch defender and thundershield? Treelord with the ignore rend 1/+1 save combo? I mean i guess you could throw killing frenzy on a bunch of blood letters and pray in real life but that doesnt seem like good design

Another point is, what makes the Blood boil different from the Ability "Sigmarite Warcloak" of a Lord-Celestant?

Blood Boil has the word "Prayer" in the rule text, has 16" Range needs a 4 to succeed (and on a roll of 1 the model itself suffers D3 mortal wounds) and makes D6 mortal wounds.

Sigmarite Warcloak is a ability used in the shooting phase, is not called a prayer generates D6 dice (that could be allocated freely to units in range) and generates on a 4 a mortal wound.

Both rules have some difference but doing mostly the same at the end (in best case 6 mortal wounds).

So why should it be possible to play 4 Lord Celestants (even it would be totally against any form of lore), making 4 times Sigmarite Warcloak but 4 Slaughterpriests could only make Blood boil once per round?

The purpose for the rules of 1 was mostly to stop 1+ Save Spam with Mystical Shield and restricts Summoning multiple same units in one round.

The downfall of the rule of 1 restricting magic is, that even rules that say that a Model could cast the same spell twice can't do it (Lord Kroaks "Celestial Deliverance", an Artefact of Tzeentch etc.).

12 minutes ago, Somanlius said:

If I could add a rule one 1 it would be that units may only be affected by the same ability once. No stacking the same ability. Im a khorne player and I hate themold stacking Bloodsecrators and stacking Bronzed Flesh/Killing Frenzy. Im down with different abilities conferring stacking effects, but not the same ability.  Mystic Shield + Castellant's Lantern + Staunch Defenders? +3 to saves, sure. But not 3 Castellants Lanterning the same unit for +3 to save!

There are two ways to handle this. Making a rule of one or using the sentence "while affected by this ability" or similar wording (the Bloodsecrator uses a similar sentence with "while they are within 18" of any models with this ability").

The Point is, that with such a wording, the question is "is it affected", yes or no.

One question to the wording you mean for that rule of one ("be affected by the same ability once"). Would it also mean that in my example above with the 4 Lord Celestans that any enemy unit could only suffer mortal wounds from one Lord Celestants Sigmarite Cloak?

[Rob Hawkins]

40K has FAQed it so a unit can only benefit from one special "ignore wounds" roll.  That sounds like a "Rule of One" that may be inbound for AoS.  It would certainly eliminate all the questions about when and in what order to take all the rolls that you can stack to ignore wounds and mortal wounds.

 

[Richelieu]

1 hour ago, Rob Hawkins said:

40K has FAQed it so a unit can only benefit from one special "ignore wounds" roll.  That sounds like a "Rule of One" that may be inbound for AoS.  It would certainly eliminate all the questions about when and in what order to take all the rolls that you can stack to ignore wounds and mortal wounds.

 

Not gonna happen.  AoS and 40k have very different needs from a balance perspective.  Doing this to AoS would also just invalidate all the death rules that grant an additional ignore wounds roll on top of deathless minions.  There also shouldn't be any question of when they activate.  The FAQs have done an effective job detailing the order of operations.

[Lucio]

Personally I prefer to limit the real issue, that individually the powers are fine, but stacking the same or similar effects have unintended consequences

So instead of limiting their use, put a blanket rule that states each phase a unit can only benefit from a single offensive and single defensive buff

[Aelfric]

I personally wouldn't want to see any changes or additions to the rule of one.  Blanket rules often cause more problems than they solve.  It is clear that GW are introducing various limitations or exceptions on a Battletome by Battletome basis and I think this is the way to go.  It allows tweaks to be made that don't have far-reaching consequences and enhances the individual flavour and identity of the factions.  This is a better and more sustainable way to maintain a balanced system, in so far as the system can be balanced.