What would you like to see for 3rd edition?

[SleeperAgent]

We all know it is inevitable. Let's discuss some things that could be done to make the game better for everyone.

 

First, I would like spells to be allowed multiple castings per turn if the previous attempts failed. Sometimes you really just need one spell to go off and you get the snake eyes. There aren't nearly as many magic re-rolls available as combat re-rolls. Lets unleash the magic!

Secondly, I would like to see a line of terrain made available to all armies. The Forbidden Power Penumbral Engine is a good start, but the points are way off. More people buying terrain in general is good for everyone. Tables look better and GW makes that money.

Edited August 17, 2020 by SleeperAgent

[El Syf]

Going on what you said about magic, maybe bring back miscasts and irresistable force?

If somehow challenges could come back and work, I'd like that a lot. No idea how it could be implemented and be worthwhile but I'd like it all the same.

I also honestly think you shouldn't be able to shoot if your in combat to me it just seems a bit much, I'll shoot you in combat and then attack with my melee weapons as well.

[Maddpainting]

I personally don't feel we need a 3.0 at all, a lot of the things I had problems with were fixed  with the most recent changes. I however do want some more changes, but just do what 40k just now did and release a "GT" book with striker rules.


A change to the double turn. If they want to keep it, at least give the other player more things to do to help mitigate it, like free 3 buffs, +1 save vs shooting, pick 1 unit to fight first, gets 1 auto deny, etc.. Or just remove it. But there is a reason its in the game, sadly players hates it so find a better way to do it.

Terrain needs to be redone a bit and separated from taken terrain. Make it easier to place bought/faction terrain.  I also want all terrain to just be label with XYZ rules.  Make terrain a little more meaningful, Doesn't need a lot, maybe just 3 to help tactics, movements, placement of armies, etc..
Examples
Difficult = -2" to move/charge if moving over/thought/Into
Thick = -1 to shoot a unit fully in it

Tie breakers no long "kill more other than Summoned" no summon should count, but just say its 1/2 points for killing summon units.

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by Maddpainting

[The World Tree]

Terrain is the big one for me. The new realm rules make a difference, but could be refined.

I'd like greater thought to how the priority roll can be disincentivised (eg in the new Blade's Edge scenario). 

I'd like secondaries like in 40k, though they'd need some thought as they couldn't be transposed directly. Perhaps that feeds into my second point.

Lastly I'd like to see a general depowering of armies. The fundamental rules are fantastic but some of hte army books, less so...

[Bayul]

1. No more points printed in Battletomes but published regularly via PDFs. This is such an antique approach and a chunk of points are already available in errata anyway.

2. A method that ensures that rules from older White Dwarf issues or expansions keep relevant for matched play. New WD battalions that will be obsolet in a few months already feel like a trap for the customer. There shouldn't be any doubts an event about an offcial battalion or mercenaries being legal or not. This wouldn't require a new edtion, but I guess we'll see a new freemium app in 3.0 that could deliver a solution for this. 

3. Rules for friendly fire maybe? I know shooting isn't broken in 2.0 but in my opinion it makes sense that you should be punished if you shot arrows into units that are within melee range with your own troops. Every failed hit roll could wound your own units for example.

4. A rehauled battleshock phase. This already has an own thread though:

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Bayul
grammar

[Frowny]

I don't really like the terrain rules. More like 40k with Los blocking would be nice. Who even cares for most of the rolls? 

-battalions must be dropped either all together or all separately, not both ways.

- roll off for first turn (and roll winner picks) instead of decided by drops. Stops that silly race to the bottom and I think would help balance a lot.

- look out sir allows a 5+ pass off of mortal wounds onto nearby characters. Too easy to snipe little support characters for far too many armies now with magic. 

- battleshock like 40k Changes seem good However, you keep taking battleshock each turn if you've lost more than half your models, with 1s again always failing and 6s always succeeding. If 29 of your friends died t1, I can't imagine those last guy is feeling super brave t2, and will continue to be in danger of running off.

Mostly I don't want a lot of changes. Seems pretty good right now. I really hope they don't do some psychic awakening ****** like wrecked 40k. The aos missions are excellent

[Overread]

A few things:

1) Move the turn roll to openplay - ergo remove the potential of doubleturns from matched play. Honestly I think trying to keep it just messes with the game balance far too much and trying to give additional bonuses to other sides to try and mitigate it kind of admitting that its too overpowered. 

2) Make it so that Predatory Endless Spells don't have the potential to change controllers between turns. You're already paying points for using the spell and when they swap sides it just tends to mean people only cast them when they are 100% save to use, It also tends to make higher point cost, high powered spells unattractive to take since they don't fit into spare points at the end of building an army; but the potential to swap sides limits their effective use. 

3) More dragons - everyone deserves a dragon - heck two dragons! 

 

 

On the subject of points I think they should still appear in Battletomes. As "Antiquated" as it is the Warmachine situation shows that a purely digital rules/points system creates a disconnect for gamers in a product that is otherwise totally physical. Even if they end up out of date, it at least gives a base connection point for someone to buy the book and get stuck into the game without barriers of entry or having to go online etc... 

[Skreech Verminking]

If third edition will Arrive I would love to see:

-the removal of the double turn

or giving the guy who was given or who took the first turn of the battle-round be given, a +2-3 to the roll.

-a better look out sir rule. (It’s incredible in this game, but when most things hit you on 3s/2s , -1 to that role isn’t that great at all)

-a model release for all those skaven unpleasant looking/costing units (Like for example acolytes, All weapon teams, almost the whole range of clans moulder and eshin)

-Missions, that kinda go a similar way like those in 40k, with secondaries giving points, and if that is the case, secondaries that can help, very elite oriented armies with killing stuff instead of holding objectives.

-bolder Points updates

-Warscroll updates/changes (Including battalions)

 

 

[Bayul]

25 minutes ago, Overread said:

On the subject of points I think they should still appear in Battletomes. As "Antiquated" as it is the Warmachine situation shows that a purely digital rules/points system creates a disconnect for gamers in a product that is otherwise totally physical. Even if they end up out of date, it at least gives a base connection point for someone to buy the book and get stuck into the game without barriers of entry or having to go online etc... 

That's not what I suggested. I meant points specifically. You could still buy the rest of the physical battletome and would only miss one page, which soon after the purchase will be obsolete anyway. I could refer to X-Wing TMG 2nd Edition as a counterargument: FFG took this step and it was the most impactful and acclaimed change for the game. The community is always looking forward for those point changes. Going online can't seriously be considered as "barrier" nowadays, especially for wargaming hobbyists.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Bayul

[EMMachine]

Looking at WH40k I could see the following stuff.

1. The Battleshock role only states if the unit misses or succedds Battleshock, 1 model goes automaticly and all others have to role if they flee too.
2. Modifications to coherency for larger units,  to prevent congalines and bring the unit closer together.
3. Generals Handbook more in the Form of the gaming Book, so all rules needed for matched Play are in one Book (after Pitched Battle is basicly updated every year) + maybe sprit into a bundle of two books with the second book being Stuff for Open & Narrative Play.
4. Standardized Rules for Prayers and Prayermodels (Fyreslayers + Khorne) Similar to Spells and Endlessspells (because a Wizard can know x spells from different scources and only can bring 1 while a Priest with x sources can basicly bring them all.

 

48 minutes ago, El Syf said:

If somehow challenges could come back and work, I'd like that a lot. No idea how it could be implemented and be worthwhile but I'd like it all the same.

The Idea itself from a loreperspective isn't a problem. The way it was used in WHFB and 9th Age still gives me knightmares if a simple champion could basicly tank all 40+ wounds of Archaon instead of killing the entire unit like it should be. Things like that killed the immersion that I stopped playing 9th Age entirely. (okay, I'm not really playing AoS at the moment, only building and painting models and reading the lore but still).

6 minutes ago, Overread said:

2) Make it so that Predatory Endless Spells don't have the potential to change controllers between turns. You're already paying points for using the spell and when they swap sides it just tends to mean people only cast them when they are 100% save to use, It also tends to make higher point cost, high powered spells unattractive to take since they don't fit into spare points at the end of building an army; but the potential to swap sides limits their effective use. 

Instead of alternating activations it would basicly fit better if the player has to roll 1 dice for each of the Endlessspells and on a 3+ he controls if while on a 1 or 2 the opponent controls it. That way the opponent woundn't strate get halve of the endlessspells or all of them im case of only 1 being on the field.

11 minutes ago, Bayul said:

1. No more points printed in Battletomes but published regularly via PDFs. This is such an antique approach and a chunk of points are already available in errata anyway.

2. A method that ensures that rules from older White Dwarf issues or expansions keep relevant for matched play. New WD battalions that will be obsolet in a few months already feel like a trap for the customer. There shouldn't be any doubts at an event if an offcial battalion or mercenaries might be legal or not. This wouldn't require a new edtion, but I guess we'll see a new freemium app in 3.0 that could deliver a solution for this. 

Exactly this. Having 1 PDF on Warhammer Community that is Updated over time would clean up the mess that is Generals Handbook + Errata for newer Battletomes + Errata for Generals Handbook if the same Warscroll is used in an old and new faction because the Point Change of the Errata is conflicting with the Generals Handbook. And that way they would clear the problem too, that writing the Points somewhere (or an Armybuider) would basicly be a copyrightinfringement.

I think the main problem is, that unit size is combined with the Matched Play Points.

 

17 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

-the removal of the double turn

I think than they had to nerf high movement range units because some Armies basicly need the double turn to get them in combat.

 

20 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

-Missions, that kinda go a similar way like those in 40k, with secondaries giving points, and if that is the case, secondaries that can help, very elite oriented armies with killing stuff instead of holding objectives.

Isn't that called simply hidden agenda in AoS?

 

 

[Scurvydog]

29 minutes ago, Frowny said:

I don't really like the terrain rules. More like 40k with Los blocking would be nice. Who even cares for most of the rolls? 

-battalions must be dropped either all together or all separately, not both ways.

- roll off for first turn (and roll winner picks) instead of decided by drops. Stops that silly race to the bottom and I think would help balance a lot.

- look out sir allows a 5+ pass off of mortal wounds onto nearby characters. Too easy to snipe little support characters for far too many armies now with magic. 

- battleshock like 40k Changes seem good However, you keep taking battleshock each turn if you've lost more than half your models, with 1s again always failing and 6s always succeeding. If 29 of your friends died t1, I can't imagine those last guy is feeling super brave t2, and will continue to be in danger of running off.

Mostly I don't want a lot of changes. Seems pretty good right now. I really hope they don't do some psychic awakening ****** like wrecked 40k. The aos missions are excellent

I agree with a lot of things here. Better terrain rules are needed, especially those you roll for, always being a 1 or 6 on a d6 just does not feel good, you can't really play much with it and all the negative stuff just results in tedious micro managing units to be 1" away from stuff and slows play.

Battalions are interesting I think, but we could do without them with more consistent and better sub factions, as getting to use the same models, but with different stuff added on is fun and cost effective.  This leads into the next point though, as battalions if kept around, should not have anything to do with first turns. 

In general the current first turn and roll off just feels bad, and it seems most agree here. Squeezing into tight battalions, often to not get 1st turn, as that opens you up to the dreaded double turn. Facing a double turn against the current meta of shooting and magic can often be the end of the game before it even started, like a KO army hiding in a corner, then blasting with everything T1 and then get double turn and fire everything again, then the opposing army is usually just too crippled to do anything.

A 5+ wounds transfer, like a slightly weaker version of the cities commander and bodyguards is a decent option. Either that or there needs to be more consistent access to bodyguard units. DoK just got a warband to "fix" the hag issue with added bodyguards. Ironjawz got a terrbile warband and warchanters are still essential and die to every gun and spell that spots them. This is also true for armies like mortal khorne and makes the game at high level impossible for these armies. I still think a penalty should apply, if it is just a 5+ wounds transfer, all damage still comes through, targeting a character like that should still result in more misses, due to the difficulty, otherwise you might as well shooting character, if that fails, you still kill other stuff.

Battleshock was ruined from the start, giving most death and daemons a flat 10 across the board ensured a horrible system that had no chance of being balanced.

I am not sure that some stuff similar to PA would be all bad. Getting new stuff is so exciting and I think few people would like everything to stay static, with no new models or rules. I hope what they do, is to fill some gaps in armies, both the model lines and rules wise. Adding some sub factions for armies with none/few or poor sub factions, like Maggotkin got i WotEC. Getting a new hero or unit will always be an exciting time. Sometimes I dream of a situation where AoS got useful version of the warbands from underworlds and warcry, so many cool sculpts, it seems those games get more cool stuff than the main game!

[OkayestDM]

I like a lot of the suggestions so far!  Here's some of my thoughts.

1. Tightening up of the battleshock phase.

2. Expansion to the "Look out sir" rule. Perhaps a way to attach heroes to a unit if they end a move in base-to-base with it, shielding them from shooting and magical attacks.

3. Adjustments to Endless spells. Since most predatory endless spells are such a gamble, why not just make those ones free? We have the three spell limit now, so it's not like this could get too out of hand.

4. Benefits to taking named heroes as your general. You loose out on an artifact and a  command trait, so why not offset that by giving the army an extra command point or two? It might not appease everybody, but for certain factions this could be a game changer.

1 hour ago, Maddpainting said:

I personally don't feel we need a 3.0 at all

I'm largely in agreement with that. Many of the suggestions presented require relatively minor changes that could be handled with an FAQ. Some of the more sweeping changes brought up aren't necessarily essential or pressing (though will almost certainly be addressed whenever the new edition does come out.)

57 minutes ago, Bayul said:

Rules for friendly fire maybe? I know shooting isn't broken in 2.0 but in my opinion it makes sense that you should be punished if you shot arrows into units that are within melee range with your own troops. Every failed hit roll could wound your own units for example.

 I could get behind something like this. Possibly unmodified 1s to hit deal a mortal wound to the friendly unit?

54 minutes ago, Overread said:

More dragons - everyone deserves a dragon - heck two dragons! 

You've got my vote!

[JPjr]

Battletomes

Battletomes to be like the GHB, hardback book with all the lore, models etc, paperback with the warscrolls etc, that can then be updated once a year (that's probably wishful thinking but would be nice). Or if they insist on keeping them all as one book then go all in & battletomes should include stuff like Warcry rules as well, would only be a few pages for most factions, but make them THE BOOK for collectors of that range whatever they play.

Rules - evolution not revolution

Make terrain more interesting and impactful.

Make cavalry better, allow them to plough straight through units.

Make ranged units do more damage but don't let them do ranged and melee in the same round.

But then also make ranged shooting ****** by making it so you can't hit every model in a unit just because 1 single model has their ****** toe sticking out from behind a wall. I don't know how just sort it.

Make it so there's more interesting & different ways to score points (obviously this can be just a battle plan thing, but I like the idea of certain types of units having actions that allow them to do stuff other than just stand around or hit things).

Look at the rules for behemoths, if we're not going to let them hold objectives then really figure out what it is that they are there for and then make them good at it.

Allow characters to embed within a unit.

Either lose the bonuses that max sized units gain, or lose the points drop they gain. Both is dumb.

Figure out what's going on with battleshock and either ditch it or reform it entirely.

Not alternating activations as such as it's tricky with larger games but you can't tell me after how ever many decades of wargames there isn't some better ideas out there they can steal to make turn orders better.

Employ some normal people to read the rules before they print them.

edit: oh one other thing from 40K - stratagems. I like these, don't replicate them entirely but they are interesting.

Edited August 17, 2020 by JPjr

[EMMachine]

12 minutes ago, Scurvydog said:

Battalions are interesting I think, but we could do without them with more consistent and better sub factions, as getting to use the same models, but with different stuff added on is fun and cost effective.  This leads into the next point though, as battalions if kept around, should not have anything to do with first turns. 

The funny thing is. Battalions are normally a way to show how a faction should look in the lore, but reading the lore it is sometimes hit or miss, if the battalion is a good representation or not.

 

[JPjr]

I will say this, back in pre-plague times I grabbed that Sisters of Battle box set because I thought it would be fun to paint (I obviously haven't touched it since) but as I also got the Indomitus set the other day I thought I should actually sit down and at least read the Soroitas Codex as I might actually like to try 40K again...

Now whilst I'm no genius in my less depressed moments I do like to think I'm not the thickest ****** ****** around, but readers let me tell you that game is aggressively obscure at times.

I think I spent about 30 minutes alone just trying to figure what the actual living ****** the wargear options on the Cannoness model were before hurling the book away in disgust, and that was just the very first data slate, or whatever they call those grotesque messes.

So basically after that all I can say is whatever its current faults AoS is still in a much better place than our unironic fash loving space cousins.

--------------------------------------

 

OH one last thing for AoS3, and this one is super important to me, every faction should have their 4-6 or whatever sub-factions but every battletome should also come with a 'create your own sub-faction' section, with a range of various allegiance abilities, etc etc to pick and choose from so those who like to create their own totally wild stuff feel more empowered to (I mean I know it's ****** to do it anyway but really bake it in as a concept, build your own Sigmarite city or Orruk tribe etc YES PLEASE).

Edited August 17, 2020 by JPjr

[EccentricCircle]

Honestly I'd rather they didn't do a 3e at all. I find GW's 3ish year edition cycle frustrating at best, given how infrequently I get to play the game these days the books come out far faster than I can actually use them. I'd like them to slow things right down, and shift to a more sustainable release pattern.

3e it might well be the point at which i decide I'm out, and shift entirely into the painting side of the hobby.

But since its inevitable, and we're almost at the end of 2e, I guess we might as well wishlist!

Alternating activations: or more specifically I'd like to see some of the ideas behind warcry come to the main game, I think its a very fresh take on AoS and could add a lot. I don't expect that to actually happen though, since I think it would be a very controversial move.

Better lore books: I'd like the return of the old Black Library lore books like the Liber Chaotica, Liber Necris et al. Modern battletomes have brilliant production values, but the actual writing isn't nearly as good as what we were seeing in the turn of the millenium era. I'd like the more characterful army books to come back, and them to release more one off references to really explore the setting.

More new factions: This one might actually happen, but I want to see them continue to push the envelope of what they can do.

 

 

[JackStreicher]

Battleshock the 40K way.

Improvement of monsters.
 

Overhaul of magic (one spell per mage is really boring and swingy, also Endless Spells should not cost a spell-cast)

Improvement of Knights and a bonus for the first charge in your turn (otherwise orruks escalate too much).

more mounted generic heroes

Reducing the powercreep and bad point costs of units to a minimum

4x a year really bad Warscrolls get rewritten via White Dwarf

Better support for the Azyr App

Edit: Stopping to invalidate Rules after only ~ a year 

Edit: Add 40k‘s actions

Edited August 17, 2020 by JackStreicher

[Kramer]

3 hours ago, SleeperAgent said:

There aren't nearly as many magic re-rolls available as combat re-rolls. Lets unleash the magic!

 

Im pretty sure magic has been very much unleashed for some recent factions 😂

as to the question. I’d rather have tweaks than a full new edition update. 

[SleeperAgent]

3 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Im pretty sure magic has been very much unleashed for some recent factions 😂

as to the question. I’d rather have tweaks than a full new edition update. 

While I do like the new spells that allow any number of wizards to cast them, I want to be able to try a specific spell multiple times. But still limit it to one actual casting. Only if it fails or gets unbound you can try again.

[MitGas]

I think we need better rules for terrain and generic terrain (hills, swamps, etc.) in plastic. With almost everyone going for printed battlemats these days, cool basic terrain could sell pretty well I think.

I'd like to see some warscroll fixes. Slaves to Darkness and other armies could easily become way better if a few changes were made.

Skaven, Lizardmen, generic humans and the like need new miniatures. 

A few minor touchups in the rules (most often just a different wording as they could be misinterpreted) and that's it... the more I type, the less I see the need for a new edition personally. These fixes can all be done without changing core mechanics.

[Neverchosen]

Here is my list of rules that I would like to see introduced or refined in a new edition. I really like the current rules and I can see many of my rules being poorly executed or sadly imbalanced. So think of this more of a poorly considered wishlist:

I really want the introduction and implementation of siege rules. I also think that this would go hand in hand with a set of new terrain rules. I think the rules around garrisons is a good starting point for siege mechanics but would need some more defined rules to expand the ideas.  I also want there to be specific rules for attacking and defending different structures with different materials. In generic terms: Walls, gates, towers, and buildings could be the broad categories and then wood, stone and metal being some of the generic materials for these defensible terrain features. This way you can include a Stormkeep or just a single watchtower to defend or possibly even just have some freeguild defend a small little cottage from invaders. In this way the siege can be the sole objective of a game, or an optional challenge as it is possible to just ignore a poorly positioned watch tower and steal objectives. Furthermore, if it is possible to breach a wall should it be possible to destroy terrain and even faction specific terrain? In this regard it may only make sense for Siege rules to be an expanded game format and not part of the core rules. However, I really hope that they find a way to make it work in the main game.

I also like the suggestion of an overhaul of magic, I would also like a return of generic spell lores. I think the new spell lores being tied to the realms would add some interesting strategies in terms of choosing realms of battle and would make choosing which realm your army comes from more important. Miscasts are really fun but they also worked best with a pool of dice as it was a risk reward factor. If magic dice pools and magic levels were to return I really hope that they are much more limited than in the past.

I think that there should be some refinement in cavalry, chariot, and flyer rules. I think having more dynamic charge rules would be really interesting and possibly having distinctions for heavy and light cavalry would be great. I think that heavy cavalry and chariots causing impact damage while light cavalry and fliers being able to fall back and charge might give them distinct battlefield roles. 

I feel like behemoths should use their number of wounds to count towards holding objectives. A massive dragon should be able to hold an objective but when it is on the verge of death a unit of soldiers outnumbering it can steal the objective away.

As shooting becomes more prevalent in the game I think it is important to look at its mechanics again but I have no suggestions in terms of changing it. In a similar manner, I feel like the crew and warmachine rules feel somewhat strange to me currently. I feel that they should not be able to move and shoot (unless stated otherwise on a warscroll). I also think that their shared warscroll between crew and warmachine are really confusing.

I also want an overhaul of the battleshock phase. I am particularly displeased with the implementation of Inspiring Presence I have suggested before that altering it to use the leadership of nearby heroes would mitigate my issues somewhat. However, others have pointed out that certain armies would be hit very hard and possibly unfairly by this change. In this regard having the reworked Inspiring Presence use a single command point and then giving the option to use a second one for autopass might be an interesting alternative. This would allow high bravery elite armies to more readily pass using a single command point and make low bravery horde armies have to think more strategically about their use of command points. I also think that the new bravery mechanics in 40k seem really interesting. 

I think that there is a enough that I would want changed to warrant a new edition, but I also think that there is very little reason to rush it out. 

As for what I would want in a 3rd edition roll out: an Indomitus style box featuring order and destruction followed by a new starter set featuring a defensible piece of terrain for siege style games. I think having a nice stone tower that can be attached to modular walls would be a great starting point. It would encourage folks to purchase from GW while not limiting them to use the ones provided if they have their own preferred or homemade castles or ramparts. As for factions, I think the obvious answer would be Stormcast and Ironjawz are the obvious answers to represent Gordrakk's siege of Azyr. However, I think that maybe a Duardin force defending the walls they helped forge battling Grotbag Scuttlers would be a fun change from the typical Stormcast starter set and still fit into the invasion of Azyr narrative.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Neverchosen

[Kramer]

3 minutes ago, SleeperAgent said:

While I do like the new spells that allow any number of wizards to cast them, I want to be able to try a specific spell multiple times. But still limit it to one actual casting. Only if it fails or gets unbound you can try again.

Then where’s the risk reward? 
it should be possible to fail things. The argument 

 

4 hours ago, SleeperAgent said:

Sometimes you really just need one spell to go off and you get the snake eyes. T

 To me, this is all about trying to find a way to avoid risk. Again it’s very personal, but a dice game without risk is boring. 
that’s why I think the teclis rules are boring. Nagash with +4 can at least roll snake eyes to fail. 
super glad the incantor dispel scroll was not a sign of every army getting them. 

and some faction/units having a way to mitigate a risk a bit can be real thematic. But keep it specific not general would be my thought. 

[JackStreicher]

Another point that just came to mind:

fewer degrading levels for monsters that don‘t rend it utterly useless (black dragon, *cough*). 3 Levels would be fine starting with half life.

[SleeperAgent]

Just now, Kramer said:

Then where’s the risk reward? 
it should be possible to fail things. The argument 

 

 To me, this is all about trying to find a way to avoid risk. Again it’s very personal, but a dice game without risk is boring. 
that’s why I think the teclis rules are boring. Nagash with +4 can at least roll snake eyes to fail. 
super glad the incantor dispel scroll was not a sign of every army getting them. 

and some faction/units having a way to mitigate a risk a bit can be real thematic. But keep it specific not general would be my thought. 

You can still fail. But spending resources (spell attempts) to get essentially a re-roll is less "feel bad". Combat has so many ways to re-roll and make it more likely to succeed if built correctly. Let magic have the same.

[Frowny]

I'm ok with fails being fails. Spells are currently very powerful I think.

I think some broad categories could've looked at. Notably cavalry should feel more impactful on the charge and mid level monsters never quite feeling good enough. Often too low damage for their points. 

But those are warsscoll changes, not edition problems. Even just allowing units of 3 or so and adjusting the points would go a long way for some of them.

Optional seige rules would be fun, I agree. I was expecting that in wrath of the ever hose but those ended up with this weird other Minigame.

I mostly just hope they use a light touch. Things are quite good right now