What would you like to see for 3rd edition?

[Charleston]

My only fear for 3rd is that GW starts that weird wording sheningans like they did for 40k.

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, Charleston said:

My only fear for 3rd is that GW starts that weird wording sheningans like they did for 40k.

It can't be less intuitive than the mess that is everything with wound and damage in it.

[Blightzkrieg]

10 hours ago, JPjr said:

not sure "dipping into fractions" is ever the "simple" answer

Yeah in this case I meant purely in terms of how significant the rules rewrite is. An adjustment to weapon ranges could be done in as little as an app update, but would probably be more frustrating in the long run. Measuring "weapon ranges" for melee combat has always been both inconvenient and unintuitive. 

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

So I skimmed through without reading most of this topic so I'll probably be preaching to the choir somewhat hear on some of these.

To start, GW is literally the only company whose games I play that still forces you to buy 3+ books just to play. My other main miniatures game right now is Corvus Belli's Infinity in which the only things you need to purchase to play are the models as the rules, unit rules and a free list builder tool are all available online. Now I'm going to be drawing many more comparisons to infinity as i feel it is one of the most balanced games I've played in my admittedly relatively short time in miniatures games.

To address the stardrake in the room, the double turn I feel should stay. It's part of what makes the game unique, I just think their should be some counterplay available. We already have alternating activations in the combat phase but nothing for shooting and only unbinds (if your army has any) for magic. For shooting I feel your opponent should be able to shoot back in some limited capacity, maybe a "quick fire" in which they can shoot with a -1 or only hit on a 6? Infinity gives players the ability to have units within line of sight react by making a dice roll to either "evade" (a chance to dodge a ranged attack and move 3") or "overwatch" (the unit get's to shoot back but only getting 1 shot unless they have a special rule allowing more shots in overwatch) now Infinity is a skirmish style game with 1 model units and handles turn structure in a phaseless "you get so many activations per turn, activate units one at a time to move and then perform an action with" but i feel there's still something we can take from this. Things like evading can be hard to make work on hordes but could be a special rule for some elites and cavalry, particularly ones themed around speed rather than tankiness. And for armies that have no shooting to react with they could instead have a "take cover" or similar rule interaction to give one unit a cover bonus. Ironjaws already have a ranged damage reaction but having the ability to use it to move before the shots are fired or to keep it the same but still give one unit the ability to move if in LoS of a ranged unit could be nice and thematic. For the hero phase (magic and prayers) every army at least has access to unbinds or magic negation, but taking these options isn't always the best choices available. What could be done is units in proximity such as 18" of an enemy wizard could "interrupt concentration" giving a penalty to cast, some units already have proximity based casting penalties but it's usually too big a tax to take them. As for prayers nobody likes eating 3 blood boils in a row and losing a hero or elite unit. There should be a "divine protection" mechanic that allows enemy priests to counter the prayer on a 5+ and include some way of accessing this to armies without any priests. You could even go as far as letting the actual gods on the table counter on a 3+ to flex their divinity.

 

I know for certain I'm preaching to the choir when i say there a a ton of objectively bad warscrolls that can't be saved by points adjustments. In the same vein can we just stop dropping points costs so often? It feels like every year the number of models needed for a game increase and not only is that annoying for people who play hordes but it can get annoying for people who only collect a 2000pt list they like and rarely collect more than they need (i was one of these people for a while with my LoN and StD, although now that I'm not a broke college student those have now become 4000pt OBR and 3000pt slaanesh armies respectively)

 

A small want is regarding buffs and auras, I like the direction 40k is going with buffs being restricted by keywords because it makes no sense for a cavalry hero to give a shooting unit orders on how to shoot better, this opens up more room for heroes designed around supporting different battlefield roles and reduces rule and points bloat from being generalist heroes.

 

Battleshock should also be addressed, It's too easy to ignore and way too swingey. I like how 40k has handled it with it being a dice roll for every model that becomes harder as the unit takes more losses. I still believe some rules to ignore battleshock should exist but in rarer forms (like having a god or similar tier hero nearby) and other abilities built around minimizing losses (screaming bell change to ignore half strength penalty, inspiring presence changed to reroll 1s to run away etc.) and as a bonereaper player I have to admit it can be a powerful and disheartening experience to kill 20 mortek guard and still not see a battleshock take the rest out. I still feel they shouldn't run away, having the concept of fear removed from their souls is part of their lore, but maybe a debuff for falling below half strength as their team tactics become less effective or maybe tying their ability to generate discipline to their bravery so that bravery bombs can still affect them in some way (they don't run because they're not afraid but the screaming ghosts are still distracting)?

 

Sorry for all the rambling but I'm a few drinks in writing this. Anyways I'd appreciate any feedback on the ideas.

[Kadeton]

One trend I'd prefer to see curbed or reversed in a Third Edition is the transition of magic from being powerful but wild to a toolbox of mundane but reliable damage and utility effects that you can build your army's strategy around. Personally, I think it fits the theme and lore for magic in the Mortal Realms to be unreliable, dangerous and barely controllable.

I really liked the initial idea for Predatory Endless Spells, that would rampage across the battlefield of their own accord without distinguishing friend from foe. They even had some built-in mitigation for the power of a double turn. Brilliant! Unfortunately, the reality was that you almost never saw them on the table, because their impact wasn't significant enough to justify the fact that they might turn on you, when compared to other spell options. Also, even when you did see them, they would pretty much only last for a turn before being dispelled. Rather than try to adjust the rewards to the point where the risks might be worth it, GW instead went the boring route of making them more dependable - either through making "predatory" spells where player control barely matters (e.g. the Twinstones) to just outright removing the "wild" aspect completely (e.g. all the Seraphon Bound spells).

Similarly, we've seen a ratcheting-up of casting bonuses, to the point where a recent game I played had an entire Lumineth army with a baseline +4 to cast. Since they were generally casting Power 6 spells, the casting roll was literally infallible, and a mere formality - since I didn't have any wizards to try to unbind, there was no point even rolling. The mechanical effect was fine in terms of game balance and so on, but it definitely felt wrong. Rather than "magic is an ancient and ineffable force that is impossible to understand and requires great skill and concentration to control," it was more like "push the button and the magic goes, whee!"

I'd like to see unbinding and dispelling go away pretty much entirely - the action and drama of a wizard's duel should be in the form of them hurling deadly spells at each other, not just counter-spelling each other while nothing happens. I'd like to see predatory Endless Spells rampage freely, and be far more devastating. And overall, I'd like to see magic have much greater impact, but be far less reliable.

So that's my main wish: make magic exciting and dangerous again. I'd also like to see the whole game up-ended by changing the turn structure to unit-based alternating activations... but I won't hold my breath for that.

[Pombar]

My hope is they cool it on new factions for a while (with Sons of Behemat, AoS is up to 24 book factions by my count - same as 40k if you don’t count every SM supplement), and flesh out the ones we already have. Fyreslayers are probably the worst offender that comes to mind for just being basically variations on a single model’s theme, but many factions could do with a second wave to make their range wider and deeper. 

[BlooDeck]

Well, I'd like them to cool it until 2022 at least. I can't imagine the Coronavirus has made it easy to test a new edition. And I'd prefer they do a lot of testing to make sure it's fine.

I guess a simple one would be to revamp Path to Glory to match something like the Crusade system, also throw in Anvil of Apotheosis features into it. Maybe something like the War Cry quests as well. Given how they're going all in on Narrative focus, I think this is pretty likely. As for more rules based stuff, maybe for predatory endless spells instead of control being based off turn order, the caster owns the spell but the other side can cast a spell to take control of it? The idea of two wizards fighting for control over a purple sounds very Warhammer to me. Could also be if no wizard controls it for whatever reason, the spell goes wild and it alternates or just reverts to a simple set of actions governing it.

[JPjr]

I like the idea of predatory Endless Spells where if the caster fails the roll (or if that's too harsh, because people seem to hate fun stuff happening, rolls a double 1) it still materialises but it's wild and no one has control over it.

[Beastmaster]

18 minutes ago, JPjr said:

I like the idea of predatory Endless Spells where if the caster fails the roll (or if that's too harsh, because people seem to hate fun stuff happening, rolls a double 1) it still materialises but it's wild and no one has control over it.

I think people just tend to hate losing (winning?) a two hour game because of a single dice roll over which none of the players has any control.

Unless they’re playing Skaven. 😁

[JPjr]

weird choice of game to play then 🤔

[Beastmaster]

20 minutes ago, JPjr said:

weird choice of game to play then 🤔

Nope. Normally, the outcomes of important events depend on many dice rolls, with lots of possibilities to give a bonus or malus to them. They become more calculable that way, while still creating unforeseen situations to which the players must (and should be able to) react. That’s at least at the moment my opinion of the role of dice rolls in games.

But, granted, that’s more of an RPG theory perspective.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Beastmaster

[sandlemad]

2 hours ago, BlooDeck said:

I guess a simple one would be to revamp Path to Glory to match something like the Crusade system, also throw in Anvil of Apotheosis features into it. Maybe something like the War Cry quests as well. Given how they're going all in on Narrative focus, I think this is pretty likely. 

100% agree. Path to Glory is the weird half-abandoned child of AoS. I think the concept of randomly getting reinforcements and... letting that guide your purchasing decisions? really turns people off, even though it could be relatively easily house-ruled. In theory keeping it similar to the ancient WHFB PtG rules for the chaos wastes isn't bad but it's too flattened out and it's a much bigger deal to add in a monster than, say, 3 beastmen in a small-scale skirmish game. Putting aside the whole points vs. whatever else argument, the glory point approach is very coarse and unwieldy in general.

You can see the DNA of PtG in Crusade but I'd agree that GW would be better off wholesale adopting it. I think Crusade's got a decent shot at becoming pretty popular and prominent for non-tournament 40k games, even if I'm sceptical about how well it interacts with a random matched play matchup. More promising for building a force from small beginnings.

Edited October 1, 2020 by sandlemad

[BlooDeck]

31 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

You can see the DNA of PtG in Crusade but I'd agree that GW would be better off wholesale adopting it. I think Crusade's got a decent shot at becoming pretty popular and prominent for non-tournament 40k games, even if I'm sceptical about how well it interacts with a random matched play matchup. More promising for building a force from small beginnings.

Ever since the first General's Handbook, or even the inception of AoS, GW has been trying to get people to play more narratively (and 'open play' I guess) and Crusade really looks like their biggest attempt. It was enough to make me even briefly consider collecting 40k again! 

[JackStreicher]

On 9/28/2020 at 1:36 PM, JPjr said:

most weapons are R0 so you just fight what's directly in front of you but if it's R1 then you can attack if you're in base contact with another member of your unit who can fight. R2 (which would be pretty rare like Lumineth Pikes for example) you can fight if you are in base contact with someone who is in base contact, and so on and so on.

Mhm.

Simply:

the weapon range specifies the range at which a model can strike.  This works in two ways:

You can strike across as many models of an equal or lower base size as your own as the wrapon‘s range specifies (1“ means you can strike across one base and so on), or you can strike at a unit that is within the weapon‘s range in inches.

[sandlemad]

43 minutes ago, BlooDeck said:

Ever since the first General's Handbook, or even the inception of AoS, GW has been trying to get people to play more narratively (and 'open play' I guess) and Crusade really looks like their biggest attempt. It was enough to make me even briefly consider collecting 40k again! 

Same! I think a lot of it is the sheer amount of weight GW is willing to put behind Crusade as a viable alternative to 'all matched play, all the time'. Here's some stuff you can do in it that you can't do in your hitherto regular games, here's how it can operate in parallel to pick-up matches, and, perhaps more importantly, here's some shiny stuff that comes with keeping track of your dudes, with its own supplements and significant sections in the codices. There's probably a larger conversation to be had about incentives and officialdom but it looks cool.

Edited October 1, 2020 by sandlemad

[Verminlord]

Might be an unpopular opinion, but I love the new 40k coherency rule and would love to see it brought over to AoS. 

I play skaven, and while stretching my clanrats to take 3 objectives and also be within 6 of hero to skip bs is strong, it ends up looking like I dropped a pile of moms spaghetti on the board.

I like the idea of hordes being restricted to stay somewhat in formation, and it would also make trays more convenient and less of a disadvantage to use which, in turn, would make horde armies movement phases faster.

 

Edit: For those who aren't familiar with the rule, units with more than 5 models must remain within coherency of 2 other models from the same unit. Meaning a unit of over 5 models will no longer be able to conga-line, as the end models will not be in range of 2 other models in the unit. Pic for example (just replace within 2" with 1")

Edit, edit: I think for AoS, the rule should be units with more than 10 models are restricted instead of 5. Don't want to hurt big based elite unit pile ins and using a line of 10 guys to screen isn't uncommon or abusive. That or add a "horde" keyword to trigger the restriction.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Verminlord

[brocktoon]

Seconding/thirding/fourthing/whatevering the duplication of the Crusade system. It's so good and they're really committing to it, with armies getting bespoke rules and campaign supplements. My group plays a lot of PtG and has tweaked it plenty, but giving it robust support really would be awesome.

[Pyrescribe]

I once would have wished for the double turn to go away, but I certainly respect its place in the game and as a design choice. To me, it ensures that Age of Sigmar is played for fun above all else. I played Warmachine competitively, and do not wish for AoS to resemble that game even at its height.

My best friend is a Bretonnian through and through, and he won't touch a miniatures game where Bretonnians aren't actively supported. I want Bretonnians back. Not as a city of Sigmar in Azyr, but maybe as a human enclave out in Ghur.

Currently there is no Death faction that really draws my interest. A Soulblight faction with soulblight battleline units, possibly styled as they are in Castlevania, would be awesome.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Pyrescribe

[Pombar]

8 hours ago, Pyrescribe said:

My best friend is a Bretonnian through and through, and he won't touch a miniatures game where Bretonnians aren't actively supported. I want Bretonnians back. Not as a city of Sigmar in Azyr, but maybe as a human enclave out in Ghur.

Currently there is no Death faction that really draws my interest. A Soulblight faction with soulblight battleline units, possibly styled as they are in Castlevania, would be awesome.

Brets being entirely absent feels like such a waste when they had a story hook for bringing them back - Araloth and  his daughter with The Lady of the Lake going with the Grail Knights and some Wood Elves through a portal to a hidden mortal realm not yet touched by Chaos to avoid the Endtimes. Later they said “oh when Chaos ravaged other worlds before AoS but after Endtimes, they wiped out those hiding neo-Brets”, but that’s an incredible waste of a good story hook. 

They just need to say “oh Chaos thought they had wiped them out but actually they used their new fay Green Knight-like talents to provide that illusion as they escaped yet again, and now in their latest jump between dimensions these ethereal half-elven chivalrous dimensional nomadic knights have arrived in the Mortal Realms”. 

But I guess Lumineth now fill a lot of that knightly slot, alas. 
 

As for Soulblight - yes please, asap. 

[Overread]

Whilst Bretonnia might never return I'd still love to see an army that picked up its themes. Focusing on cavalry and the whole idea of knights, kings, queens etc...

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

Whilst Bretonnia might never return I'd still love to see an army that picked up its themes. Focusing on cavalry and the whole idea of knights, kings, queens etc...

Which soulblight could fit in really well.

If Gw chooses tot take that step

[JPjr]

The more I think about it the more I'd love to see them really go to town with secondary objectives.

I think (it was several pages ago so who knows) I mentioned I'd like to see them build upon the new 'actions' business in 40K, allowing units to do specific things rather than just kill or be killed whilst hanging around an objective like a nonce outside a school.

But what I'd really love is for them to turbocharge secondary/auxiliary objectives. As of the GHB2020 you pick 2 and if at the end of the game it's a draw the person with the most gets a minor victory. You then look at them and there's a few that are hero specific and a couple that are like destroy all battleline, but all in all they're all pretty generic. 

woop-di-doo, be still my beating heart.

so relatively easy change, we have around 10-15 universal secondary objectives and each army also gets a specific set of 10-15 secondary objectives in their battletome that specifically relate to their units and reinforce/reward doing what that unit is supposed to do.

you're allowed to pick 5 to start with and every time you complete one you score the points on that card immediately and then get to draw a new one at random.

the secondary objectives aren't all worth the same amount either as that allows you to make certain units more attractive choices and allows them to fulfil their destiny, a big behemoth isn't designed to camp out on an objective, it should be doing big monstrous things and should be rewarded for doing those big monstrous things

likewise small elite units, or units that you'd think of as scouting or vanguard units or cavalry units could score points for doing the kind of things they should be doing.

meanwhile you can let 40 strong blobs of whatever hold objectives and score points that way but make it so the others have their own niches.

plus you could dictate in the battleplan how many secondary objectives you're allowed to score, or up the points of primary objectives if you want to modify their influence on the result.

I mean it works in Underworlds and that's a specifically competitively designed game. And the cards can be reviewed every year so if certain units aren't getting much table time you can give them better scoring objectives that suit with how they should be played.

we get a more tactical game and a reason to field models that might have been gathering dust,  whilst Games Workshop get to sell everyone a pack of cards (or several) for £15 a pop.

👍

Edited October 6, 2020 by JPjr

[BlooDeck]

On 10/6/2020 at 11:03 AM, Pombar said:

Brets being entirely absent feels like such a waste when they had a story hook for bringing them back - Araloth and  his daughter with The Lady of the Lake going with the Grail Knights and some Wood Elves through a portal to a hidden mortal realm not yet touched by Chaos to avoid the Endtimes. Later they said “oh when Chaos ravaged other worlds before AoS but after Endtimes, they wiped out those hiding neo-Brets”, but that’s an incredible waste of a good story hook. 

I think they've added already revealed the fate of Araloth's people. The Slaanesh battletome mentions the few untainted elves in the Mortal Realms were from some hidden sub-realm created by the old elven gods. But it would be cool nonetheless to have Brets back, even if it was just a way to style the Cities of Sigmar. 

[Pombar]

51 minutes ago, BlooDeck said:

I think they've added already revealed the fate of Araloth's people. The Slaanesh battletome mentions the few untainted elves in the Mortal Realms were from some hidden sub-realm created by the old elven gods. But it would be cool nonetheless to have Brets back, even if it was just a way to style the Cities of Sigmar. 

If the Wanderers/Phoenix Temple/Darkling Coven/etc (ie CoS Elves without a patron deity) were descended from Araloth’s people it would neatly tie up that quandary, but I’d still be super down to see Araloth + daughter re-emerge since they took The Lady of the Lake’s place as a god as Endtimes happened, and also whatever happened to the Grail Knights (knightly folk for CoS!). 

[Frowny]

I think they could have kept a few bits of Brets just fine. The 5th edition knights of the realm remain beautiful models and would easily fit into some city of sigmar somewhere. They could retire everything else and just have kept that one box and it would have been fine. I don't think anybody really longs for the old men at arms, who could easily be replaced by Freeguild or whatnot