What would you like to see for 3rd edition?

[Nos]

10 hours ago, boombyeyeah said:

I am wishing for streamlined rules and quicker play in general.

First step would be removing of abilities that allow things to be done in different phases than they were designed for(sry English not at my best right here). For example all this moving/shooting/fighting in hero phase.  This would also make balancing  much easier. 

Yeah same, though I'm not holding my breath. Warhammer and AOS are the only wargaming or mini systems I've played where I feel as though the real challenge is the rules themselves as opposed to my enemy.

Compared to other systems like Saga, LOTR, Kings of War etc they are like some form of Da Daist experiment. 

[Beliman]

4 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Snotlings make me happier than everything.

Fixed!!!

 

[Howdyhedberg]

On 9/3/2020 at 3:36 AM, 123lac said:

No more rule books.

Like literally, no more printed rules. None.

The rules for 3rd should be via an app.

I think this would be neat. After all, the models are pretty expensive. I wouldn't mind buying patches to the main game, like ghb. But core rules and rules for factions could be free. If in interested in the lore of the faction, then I would like to buy a book/digital file for it.

I'm not sure what I would like to change for the next edition. Maybe streamline the game a little bit (Lumineth realm lords and all their rules + terrain rules and so on makes it a headache to keep track of everything, compared to the living city in CoS).

I like double turns, but I wouldn't mind taking it away, and maybe a redo for the combat? I might have got it wrong, but someone wrote about being able to fight with your models even if they will die to a charge. (Not sure how they could change this though). Maybe both role for all their attacks and then both roll for their defence and then carry out casualties? Add a bonus for charge or defence if you have a wall of spear and someone charges you in the front.

 

Bonus to flanking/charging from behind. -this shouldn't be that hard to implement!

[EMMachine]

14 hours ago, Howdyhedberg said:

I think this would be neat. After all, the models are pretty expensive. I wouldn't mind buying patches to the main game, like ghb. But core rules and rules for factions could be free. If in interested in the lore of the faction, then I would like to buy a book/digital file for it.

And than with one Update the App-Crashes und you can't play for the next 3-4 Weeks, and any old content is lost after a new Battletome Update, your smartphone isn't compatible anymore or the Battery of your Smartphone dies during the same and you are unable to check the values for the rest of the game. App only could be the death of the game.

An App would only work well if you could say for example that I want the state of the game of December 31st, 2018 and get the content of that time, so backtracking what has changed would be possible.

Still I think, PDFs with the rules that could be downloaded would be a better alternative, because you can use a PC or Laptop instead of only a Smartphone and you can print the rules if you want that you don't need an electronic device when playing. And you can store them so you can check changes still after 1-2 Years or play an older edition if you want (basicly like 9th Age does). I think I would still buy Battletomes if they were Lore-only content.

Edited September 26, 2020 by EMMachine

[SirSalabean]

As much as I’d like to see something that isn’t stormcast next edition they will likely have a new chamber expanded. They were made to be the AOS marines and will get the same treatment. I’m thinking Malerion could be the big bad for third though 

[Frowny]

I really like the coherency rules for 40k. I hope they import that.

[Grimrock]

3 minutes ago, Frowny said:

I really like the coherency rules for 40k. I hope they import that.

This, and I'm actually really interested in the way they handle combat range in 40k. No more ranges for melee weapons, you just need to have models in range of friendlies that are in range of the enemies. It would fix the inherent balance issues with small bases and make combats a lot quicker. 

[Skreech Verminking]

4 hours ago, Grimrock said:

This, and I'm actually really interested in the way they handle combat range in 40k. No more ranges for melee weapons, you just need to have models in range of friendlies that are in range of the enemies. It would fix the inherent balance issues with small bases and make combats a lot quicker. 

Yeah that would be great, although what would happen with all those spear and other trading better stats for more range weapons?

Edited September 26, 2020 by Skreech Verminking

[Warmill]

4 hours ago, Grimrock said:

This, and I'm actually really interested in the way they handle combat range in 40k. No more ranges for melee weapons, you just need to have models in range of friendlies that are in range of the enemies. It would fix the inherent balance issues with small bases and make combats a lot quicker. 

That would be a terrible move , it would instantly remove all the tactics for charging, positioning and piling in, so I really hope not. Neutering big units by tagging them either end is one of the best defences against them and 2 and 3" reach weapons would be pointless versus just taking big hordes.

[Frowny]

In 40k 2 Inch weapons mean you have to be in base to base with a guy within 1/2 inches of the target. 3in range is  then base 2 base of that guy. It's more how many ranks can fight than an actual distance which gets away from fiddly tedious measuring.

Or at least that's the idea, not sure of the actual base range etc. Also most things are base range in 40k. 

[zilberfrid]

4 hours ago, Grimrock said:

This, and I'm actually really interested in the way they handle combat range in 40k. No more ranges for melee weapons, you just need to have models in range of friendlies that are in range of the enemies. It would fix the inherent balance issues with small bases and make combats a lot quicker. 

How would you balance the units that now only work because of those smaller bases?

[Barbossal]

In my mind we need a more consistent ruleset around terrain, probably themed around two elements:

Point Costs for Army Terrain: Giving some armies free abilities for paid models crosses a line in my view that would be easily remedied by treating them like point-costed fortifications. Armies like Sylvaneth could have their 'compulsory' terrain point costed but reductions in their units for example that rely on them.

Generic Terrain Rules: Maybe this is my own experience, but rules for basic terrain stuff like chest-high walls/fences should be more streamlined and have consistent rulesets. Not sure if it's just my gaming group, but noone uses that 'Arcane' terrain ruleset.

Other than that, I'll just harp on the common ones, hopefully a heightened focus on rules balance across books.

[Frowny]

13 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

How would you balance the units that now only work because of those smaller bases?

Points like anything else, but I don't think you'd have to do much honestly. Small based models with long reach are currently top dogs so nerfing them slightly wold be fine . It's a lot more pleasant than having to measure out all your 1 inches. Id say 1 inch=has to be within 1/2 Inch. 2inch reach  = bases to base with that first model. 3inch reach = bases 2 bases with that 2nd model. This would be an overall nerf to most small based models, which are almost universally very strong, and a slight buff to bigger based models with 2inch or more reach, but those generally aren't that strong as a rule so I think overall it would be fine.

But yes, just adjusting points could easily balance this back out.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Frowny
Grammar

[Grimrock]

7 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

How would you balance the units that now only work because of those smaller bases?

Well it's not like they'd lose the benefit of fighting in two ranks, it's more that units who are thrown by the wayside due to their larger bases (blood reavers for example, or namarti thralls) would get a new lease on life. Small bases with 2+ inch reach would be trickier, but I think @Frowny has the right idea. I know you'd lose a bit of finesse and skill in placement, but I think the trade-off in helping less interesting units would be worth it. I guess instead you could make the default weapon reach 1.5" instead of 1", that might accomplish the same goal.

[zilberfrid]

9 hours ago, Frowny said:

Points like anything else, but I don't think you'd have to do much honestly. Small based models with . It's a lot more pleasant than having to measure out all your 1 inches. Id say 1 inch=has to be within 1/2 Inch. 2inch reach  = bases to base with that first model. 3inch reach = bases 2 bases with that 2nd model. This would be an overall nerf to most small based models, which are almost universally very strong, and a slight buff to bigger based models with 2inch or more reach, but those generally aren't that strong as a rule so I think overall it would be fine.

But yes, just adjusting points could easily balance this back out.

Points are harder for modelst that have differing profiles, like Freeguild Guards' option for spears or Arkanaut's pikes. That'd require a rework of the warscroll. Overall, it'd be a nerf to the non-casting side of CoS.

6 hours ago, Grimrock said:

Well it's not like they'd lose the benefit of fighting in two ranks, it's more that units who are thrown by the wayside due to their larger bases (blood reavers for example, or namarti thralls) would get a new lease on life. Small bases with 2+ inch reach would be trickier, but I think @Frowny has the right idea. I know you'd lose a bit of finesse and skill in placement, but I think the trade-off in helping less interesting units would be worth it. I guess instead you could make the default weapon reach 1.5" instead of 1", that might accomplish the same goal.

I'm not sure it will, but I haven't played much of GW games and will never play a 40k game. You're probably better equipped to know what's going on.

[mojojojo101]

19 hours ago, Barbossal said:

In my mind we need a more consistent ruleset around terrain, probably themed around two elements:

Point Costs for Army Terrain: Giving some armies free abilities for paid models crosses a line in my view that would be easily remedied by treating them like point-costed fortifications. Armies like Sylvaneth could have their 'compulsory' terrain point costed but reductions in their units for example that rely on them.

Generic Terrain Rules: Maybe this is my own experience, but rules for basic terrain stuff like chest-high walls/fences should be more streamlined and have consistent rulesets. Not sure if it's just my gaming group, but noone uses that 'Arcane' terrain ruleset.

Other than that, I'll just harp on the common ones, hopefully a heightened focus on rules balance across books.

If they add points for faction terrain then they need to make those factions with terrain viable without taking it.

 

It just feels like it would be both a balancing problem and just straight feel bad if every single time you wrote list that the first 100poi to or so was just paying for the terrain piece and/or making your allegience abilites viable.

[Blightzkrieg]

Some things that have occurred to me (some of this has already been mentioned):

• Adjust how combat ranges work. 25 mm bases with spears shouldn't be fighting in three ranks (or two ranks with swords). This punishes low model count armies like stormcast, who are already at a disadvantage. The "simple" answer would be to adjust weapon ranges based on base size and start dipping into fractions (half inch range, 3/4 inch range, 1.5 inch range), but that might be difficult to implement in practice. They might also adjust it so all weapons have a half inch range by default but certain weapons have "reach" where they can attack through models in base to base. Not sure.
• Make magic less of a zero sum game. Right now the armies who are best at casting also tend to be the armies who are best at blocking enemy magic. This makes bringing in a support wizard in a non magic focused list difficult.
• Adjust how monsters work. This could be straight up warscroll changes (combat focuse monsters get higher wounds/damage) or rules bonuses (eg, monsters get +1 save, +1 damage, +1 to wound, and/or -1 to be wounded against non-hero/monsters). 
• Battleshock. IDK how, just change it.

[JPjr]

13 hours ago, Blightzkrieg said:

Adjust how combat ranges work. 25 mm bases with spears shouldn't be fighting in three ranks (or two ranks with swords). This punishes low model count armies like stormcast, who are already at a disadvantage. The "simple" answer would be to adjust weapon ranges based on base size and start dipping into fractions (half inch range, 3/4 inch range, 1.5 inch range), but that might be difficult to implement in practice. They might also adjust it so all weapons have a half inch range by default but certain weapons have "reach" where they can attack through models in base to base. Not sure.

not sure "dipping into fractions" is ever the "simple" answer but you are onto something so spitballing an idea here, which obviously might be total ******, but could have the kernel of something useful here (and so has no doubt been discussed at length elsewhere).

rather than giving weapons a range in ", which makes units with smaller bases better, in a sense, and involves ****** around with tape measures, give them a "Rank" number.

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.

removes having to do tedious measuring and fiddling around, makes it feel like a melee with everyone up close, and doesn't penalise larger base models where you end up with situations where say a Gloomspite Grot's spear has say the same range as an Ogroid Myrmidon's one despite being obviously very different sized creatures.

[Howdyhedberg]

On 9/26/2020 at 1:55 PM, EMMachine said:

And than with one Update the App-Crashes und you can't play for the next 3-4 Weeks, and any old content is lost after a new Battletome Update, your smartphone isn't compatible anymore or the Battery of your Smartphone dies during the same and you are unable to check the values for the rest of the game. App only could be the death of the game.

An App would only work well if you could say for example that I want the state of the game of December 31st, 2018 and get the content of that time, so backtracking what has changed would be possible.

Still I think, PDFs with the rules that could be downloaded would be a better alternative, because you can use a PC or Laptop instead of only a Smartphone and you can print the rules if you want that you don't need an electronic device when playing. And you can store them so you can check changes still after 1-2 Years or play an older edition if you want (basicly like 9th Age does). I think I would still buy Battletomes if they were Lore-only content.

I guess I didn't point that out, but I also agree with PDF. In that way you can print it out  yourself or have it on the platform you prefer :)!

i don't know if I understand the changes for Warhammer 40k, but did you have to subscribe to access the battletome you bought physical or is there a code you scan? Because that way you could buy a tome and then get patches by pdf and have the rules in your phone if that's your cup of tea

[EMMachine]

1 hour ago, Howdyhedberg said:

I guess I didn't point that out, but I also agree with PDF. In that way you can print it out  yourself or have it on the platform you prefer :)!

i don't know if I understand the changes for Warhammer 40k, but did you have to subscribe to access the battletome you bought physical or is there a code you scan? Because that way you could buy a tome and then get patches by pdf and have the rules in your phone if that's your cup of tea

I basicly only know this:

https://app.warhammer40000.com/subscriptions

Because I don't have downloaded the 40k App

The way I heard is that new Codizes for 40000 have a code inside to unlock the Codex inside the 40k App. If you have a subscription you have access to all contents (for example the still valid 8. Edition Books) as long as you pay the subscription.

What I really don't know is, if the App only included rules or lore as well, so it is possible that you pay 3,99€ Subscription for rules only and maybe still need the Books when you want the lore but I think I can get the information.

Edit:

Got my answer from one of the german forums. The Subscription is rule content only. So if you are interested in the lore you still need the books. It's only good for people you are mainly interested in the gaming part.

Edited September 28, 2020 by EMMachine

[Frowny]

1 hour ago, JPjr said:

Rather than giving weapons a range in ", which makes units with smaller bases better, in a sense, and involves ****** around with tape measures, give them a "Rank" number.

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.

This is pretty much exactly what I was advocating up above and also exactly what 40k does. I believe most weapons have what you would term r1 in that system, but it would be pretty easy to adjust to aos with 1inch reach as your r0, 2inch reach as R2 and 3 inch reach as R2. It's way less fiddly, which is a huge plus.

[JPjr]

ah indeed! sorry for basically repeating your post at 4 times the length!

[Howdyhedberg]

3 hours ago, EMMachine said:

I basicly only know this:

https://app.warhammer40000.com/subscriptions

Because I don't have downloaded the 40k App

The way I heard is that new Codizes for 40000 have a code inside to unlock the Codex inside the 40k App. If you have a subscription you have access to all contents (for example the still valid 8. Edition Books) as long as you pay the subscription.

What I really don't know is, if the App only included rules or lore as well, so it is possible that you pay 3,99€ Subscription for rules only and maybe still need the Books when you want the lore but I think I can get the information.

Edit:

Got my answer from one of the german forums. The Subscription is rule content only. So if you are interested in the lore you still need the books. It's only good for people you are mainly interested in the gaming part.

I guess we find out after the new codexes arrive.

__

I think the combat is pretty fine right now.

One thing I would like is that armies that spawn units get some kind of tax or penalty for it. I guess I'm just biased because I don't like StD spawning units every turn If the opponent have 5 heroes :)! 

 

 

 

 

[Svalack]

I want to see a rework to magic, maybe casting bonuses only effect spellcast not unbind. Or add line of sight requirement? perhaps change the range? The powercreep of casting bonuses has just meant the +0 cast armies are almost locked out of that part of the game. I guess the argument is just don't value wizards in those armies but its a big hit to support spells.

Command point reducing/debuffing also seems to be heading the same way with newer ways to reduce or neuter command abilities which cripple old books that have no extra command point generation.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Svalack

[Shearl]

I know there's been a lot of talk about magic getting re-rolls or not. What if something was implicated where the wizard could attempt to recast a failed spell, but at the cost of d3 mortal wounds? The idea being that it is physically taxing for the caster to try and re-harnesss magic after failing. That way you get some more magic re-rollability, but its a trade in that he might die sooner rather than simply using a command point.