AoS Power Creep

[TimM85]

Its pretty simple to fix.

when your playing you mates discuss how hard your going to play, you know who's good and who's poor, if I play dave he's running obr but i know i can run khorne and 66% of the time win, whereas if i play henrik and he's running his seraphon i need to run slaves,  cities or nurgle but if henrik brings a fun army i can bring a fun army. If war mill runs tzeentch or big waaagh i know i've got a 50percent chance to beat him with troggs. our friend simon will only bring his KO if we request him to bring it. Answer buy more armies be grown ups and play fun people!!!!

Tourney wise it comes down to why your there  i go for fun pretty much always run my khorne and i go because il get more games in 2days than a month sometimes also its great for social catch ups meeting people etc your end up playing people similar level to you after the first 2 games anyway.

The only thing that needs addressing is uninteractive phases, lumineth realm lords just scrap the book completely write a new one it just needs whole new book, seraphon just need a few tweaks, KO and shoot cast get solved with a few point increases.

[Sarouan]

3 hours ago, Overread said:

I've never understood the whole "balance makes things boring" aspect. If anything it should make things far more exciting and interesting. You get far more diversity of armies; far more options and choices on the table. That means far less predictable results; far fewer repeat matches and far more freedom for players. In addition it means that more factions have a chance and it pushes the chance to win away from purely army list building and back to where it should be - player skill  and choices. Besides, as I've noted before, if you're imbalance then at the top end of the competitive circles you'll just see mirror matches with the current best metal lists any way. So the worse the balance the far more predictable results you'll get; the far fewer options and the simpler you make the game. 

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Balance in itself doesn't make things boring, but if you really want to seek balance as your first priority in game design, you'll tend to make the armies work similar speaking in terms of rules. Anything that makes something stand out or work uniquely is way harder to balance, since it increases the number of parameters to take into account. If your game is leaning to also have a high number of different factions and you want to make them play differently, there are not many choices : either you accept unbalance for the sake of variety in game rules, or either you make them work in a similar way, meaning that they're effectively just cosmetic changes with different miniatures / names (that was the way of old Kings of War, for example...and that was the reason why this system was felt as being very balanced).

So, when you say that balance encourages variety, I assume you're talking about an ideal world where everything is already balanced. But if it is at the cost of everything playing the same, so that every faction has exactly the same chances, it's not variety here...it's just people using different miniatures, but playing exactly the same things. I don't think anyone really wants that...and if they did, they would just play historical games. Why do you think these games are balanced as hell ? Because the base is essentially similar - a human will be played mostly the same, no matter the army it's in it. Special rules and equipments may change a bit, but the core doesn't change.

 

Quote

I honestly think most of those who argue in favour of imbalance are either arguing from a point of ignorance/having not thought it through; or they are simply looking for the easy win and see imbalance as a means by which they can buy the best and not have to think any further than that. Which is fine for them, but its a selfish approach to the game and not good for the game nor community's health. 

You're being reductive, here. While I don't think one-sided battles are fun in themselves, trying to solve that by putting balance above all else is the wrong solution to me. Because the risk is to make everything play the same, and thus we'll end up with no variety in terms of rules. The truth is, an unbalanced game is the real way to have unique armies  play differently. The key is to control that unbalance so that it keeps being fun. Some try to put that in the core rules...other use the social contract between players to make sure games keep being interesting. That means acting on the list building itself, but I have found it's a very sensitive subject for the competitive scene when you're touching their freedom to build their lists as they want, with all the spam and abuse it implies.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Sarouan

[NinthMusketeer]

I think getting into high-level conceptual discussion of balance is losing sight of the reality. When people argue in support of balance in an AoS thread, they are saying they want AoS to have better balance than it currently does. Anything talking about an ideal or near-ideal state of balance has already veered off to a different topic entirely, because it simply is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. It goes from a discussion of desired changes to a discussion of a theoretical game state that could not exist until multiple years from now at minimum.

Such a topic is entirely valid and worthy of discussion, but it also a distinctly separate topic from discussion on alterations of the present game state.

Edited December 30, 2020 by NinthMusketeer

[Overread]

I'd point out that a fair amount of unique faction abilities are the same ability renamed. Unlike Magic the Gathering, GW uses different terms for the same ability. Heck even within the same army they can have different names. 

Slaanesh - Wheels of Excruciation has "Swirling Death" whilst Dreadful Visage has "Swooping Horror"

Both are the exact same rule, only the name and the fluff description change. 

This is repeated around the game and makes it feel bigger and more diverse when in actuality its repeating the same ability. By and large AoS and 40K are like this; you have a lot of core abilities and faction unique abilities, but also a lot of copy-cat abilities that are the same or nearly the same yet worded with a different name.

 

 

And yeah no one is asking for perfect balance, that can honestly only be achieved with identical armies. However what can be done is balancing to avoid huge swings - ensuring that Slaanesh doesn't have insane power with a leader focused depravity list; ensuring Ossiarchs don't get a blanket +1 save to every single model etc... Indeed many of the biggest imbalances in the game are things players spot within hours to days of the codex/battletome going live. These are not subtle elements or slight variations in power; these are big swings that make big difference on the tabletop. That's where many of us would like to see smoother balance. A new army is interesting and should be interesting to buy beyond being overpowered and the "best ever army". Because as much as that might sell that army in that moment, it makes others who are neve going to buy that army start to pause and think "eh my army is now useless, meh" and at best the "might" move to another game or such under the GW umbrella; or they just give up and burn out. For many they aren't buying and selling armies, they buy and invest into their armies and if they see those big chunks of cash "go to waste" then they are more likely to drift out of GW than they are to buy into another force - because that other super-powered force will go just the same way - become depowered and weak compared to the next new hotness. 

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

4 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

An easy way to implement this as a house rule would be something like this: At the start of a round, before the priority roll-off, any player can spend a command point to gain priority without rolling. The opponent can then deny this by spending another command point. Players may keep trying to gain priority in this manner until one of them does or they run out of command points. If no player gains priority this way, proceed to roll-off as normal.

This allows a player to force a priority/a double turn by conserving command points. In particular, it almost guarantees the double turn after an alpha strike, which are usually very command point hungry.

Two words: OBR and Seraphon...

One would never be able to do this as they don't use command points and the other generates more than any other army just by existing.

I know these are just 2 of like 20+ armies in the game but they're both popular and tying priority control to a resource that some armies actively manipulate or ignore entirely is poor design. 

[PlasticCraic]

47 minutes ago, Overread said:

it makes others who are neve going to buy that army start to pause and think "eh my army is now useless, meh" and at best the "might" move to another game or such under the GW umbrella; or they just give up and burn out. For many they aren't buying and selling armies, they buy and invest into their armies and if they see those big chunks of cash "go to waste" then they are more likely to drift out of GW than they are to buy into another force - because that other super-powered force will go just the same way - become depowered and weak compared to the next new hotness. 

I'm not sure this assertion stands up in the real world.  New books blasting straight onto the podium (before going on to get their wings clipped) are not a new thing, and I'm not seeing any evidence that the player base is declining because of it - quite the opposite in fact.  

As much as some people (myself included) might get annoyed by the boom and bust cycle, I just don't see the evidence that most people follow through on their threat to rage quit - or if they do, that they stay away from the game long term.  If you've got evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to be persuaded I'm wrong, but it's not what I'm seeing. 

My experience is that in practice, people are already too invested in the system through the dollars pumped into models, the hours spent painting and perhaps above all the friendship group they are part of.  So even if they get seriously upset, they end up staying, via one of the following methods:

- Threaten to rage quit, but don't, and harbour a simmering resentment towards GW as a company for years to come

- Threaten to rage quit, do it, then come back after a while (for example because their faction gets boosted back up with a new book, or the other game system they sought refuge in dies out / has an insufficient player base to keep them engaged)

- Retreat from competitive play as a way of squaring the circle (they are still playing the game, but check out of keeping pace with the meta, and either play against like-minded people with similar armies, or steel themselves for the underdog challenge and the occasional giant-killing feat)

- Take a conscious break from AOS for a while, and then come back refreshed (something I'm personally doing right now)

1 hour ago, Overread said:

And yeah no one is asking for perfect balance, that can honestly only be achieved with identical armies. However what can be done is balancing to avoid huge swings - ensuring that Slaanesh doesn't have insane power with a leader focused depravity list; ensuring Ossiarchs don't get a blanket +1 save to every single model etc... Indeed many of the biggest imbalances in the game are things players spot within hours to days of the codex/battletome going live. These are not subtle elements or slight variations in power; these are big swings that make big difference on the tabletop. That's where many of us would like to see smoother balance. A new army is interesting and should be interesting to buy beyond being overpowered and the "best ever army".

Totally agree with all of this, however.  Which makes me wonder if I've misunderstood the second half of your post in some way?

[Overread]

2 minutes ago, PlasticCraic said:

 

My experience is that in practice, people are already too invested in the system through the dollars pumped into models, the hours spent painting and perhaps above all the friendship group they are part of.  So even if they get seriously upset, they end up staying, via one of the following methods:

- Threaten to rage quit, but don't, and harbour a simmering resentment towards GW as a company for years to come

- Threaten to rage quit, do it, then come back after a while (for example because their faction gets boosted back up with a new book, or the other game system they sought refuge in dies out / has an insufficient player base to keep them engaged)

- Retreat from competitive play as a way of squaring the circle (they are still playing the game, but check out of keeping pace with the meta, and either play against like-minded people with similar armies, or steel themselves for the underdog challenge and the occasional giant-killing feat)

- Take a conscious break from AOS for a while, and then come back refreshed (something I'm personally doing right now)

 

Most certainly the investment can make many hang around, but its not just that, people really do like their armies. They like the models, the lore, the rules, the creativity, the work they've put into them, the money they've put into them. GW wins on almost every single front save for the rules. So for many they can indeed get grumpy, but still hang around.

 

Thing is GW is also very clearly keen to recruit new people; heck GW HAS to because for the most part they are the only major firm in the industry who is active in recruitment outside of geek circles. Most other firms don't have the resources to have the outreach options GW has; heck most rely on local stores to market for them and local customer led schemes to promote the game. 

But for as much GW can have school promotions and staff in their own shops, the biggest thing and draw is the community. You don't want grumpy players hanging around "wanting" to enjoy the game, but knowing that there are big issues and passing those on as early impressions to new gamers. You don't want Dave and his mates who've been into 40K for 10 years to be telling Dan and Bill at 13 years old when they start joining in that "Oh yeah its a great game, but eh the rules are funky and your army might end up useless for years, heck my army hasn't had a rule book in 2 editions". 

That's bad marketing, but its something GW was very slow to react too. 8th edition and AoS have addressed rule release speed (9th would have too save for Corona messing everything up); and rule balance in AoS does seem better (we seem to get a bigger diversity of armies at competitive events); but there's room to keep improving. 

 

I would say its a subtle thing that doesn't cause instant outrage, but does contribute to people burning out and leaving for a while. It's a slow burn issue, but one which GW can resolve and improve and work toward fixing. Thing is its also an issue fully in GW's court. Gamers and such can give input and reviews and feedback, but its really all on GW to improve rule design to start with; improve betaplayer feedback*; improve resources and training to rules staff; improve the feedback and changing of rules after release (yes they've now got regular FAQ and Errata and annual updates - and yes we have seen changes here like Ossiarchs losing the +1save to all models). 

 

*form what I can tell from those who have done betas for GW, they are often not listened too when they point out the big issues; but also they aren't given full rules but instead two premade armies with stats and told to see how it works. So there are issues there with regard to not only the quality of data it can generate, but also the feedback system itself.

[Sarouan]

16 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I think getting into high-level conceptual discussion of balance is losing sight of the reality. When people argue in support of balance in an AoS thread, they are saying they want AoS to have better balance than it currently does.

Yet what have these people proposed as solutions when they ask for that ? Mostly nothing. They also usually don't want to think too much about the real causes and consequences of what they're asking. While I agree I'm getting a bit too much in details on that point, I think it's important to understand the roots of the problem and what it may imply if we go further that road.

What bothers me about the people advocating for balance is that they usually want it applied to everyone playing, not just the competitive scene. Like Overread said himself : he thinks balance is good for everyone. I don't agree with that. I don't want to play scenarios that are always symetrical and give the exact same chances to both sides all the time (because balance doesn't stop at just the battletomes...if you don't have scenarios and victory conditions that are balanced as well,  then your work is meaningless). I don't want all rule mechanisms deemed "unabalanced" disappearing because a small minority of players wanting balance at all costs is making their voice louder. The same way I don't like competitive players wanting to apply all their ideas to the core rules because they don't care about the other players.

I don't think balance is good for everything in the game. The best games I remember are games where I was in a tough situation from the start, against an opponent being clearly superior to me in terms of points or having a scenario that isn't symetrical. Some I won, others I lose, but you can feel a different intensity when playing against the odds. In WFB, I still remember my siege battles, when I play half the points of my opponents while having the advantage of holding a fortress. It was totally unbalanced as well, yet how fun it was to see that horde walking with siege towers and battering rams and trying to take the walls while I was defending them dearly ! I'm not even talking about the campaign mode - Warcry is a good example of what happens when you put too much balance in the evolution of the warbands ; it gets blank and nothing really matters. Mordheim was unbalanced as hell, sure, but the atmosphere while playing at that game was very unique and deadly feeling. That's not what you will be able to play in a perfectly balanced game system at all times, and I believe that's a mistake.

And if you're talking about AoS' current "siege battles" rules where walls are so trivial that they hardly matter...well, when I see what I was able to play in WFB, I can't help but think balance isn't worth it when it puts its nose everywhere with no discernment.

Edited December 31, 2020 by Sarouan

[Overread]

10 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

 

I don't think balance is good for everything in the game. The best games I remember are games where I was in a tough situation from the start, against an opponent being clearly superior to me in terms of points or having a scenario that isn't symetrical. Some I won, others I lose, but you can feel a different intensity when playing against the odds. In WFB, I still remember my siege battles, when I play half the points of my opponents while having the advantage of holding a fortress. It was totally unbalanced as well, yet how fun it was to see that horde walking with siege towers and battering rams and trying to take the walls while I was defending them dearly ! That's not what you will be able to play in a perfectly balanced game system at all times, and I believe that's a mistake.

And if you're talking about AoS' current "siege battles" rules where walls are so trivial that they hardly matter...well, when I see what I was able to play in WFB, I can't help but think balance isn't worth it when it puts its nose everywhere with no discernment.

Here's the thing, if you start from a baseline of imbalance then everyone - those who want it and those who don't want it - have to live with it. Furthermore because its not generic imbalance, but is specific to certain armies then some people who have one or two armies are always going to be stuck with the same imbalance within their forces for at least the duration of an edition (and longer). 

 

You talk about enjoying the increased challenge of some situations, however I'd say one that score there's two things to consider

1) Your opponent. The challenge in a balanced game should come from your opponent and their army together. The armies should be balanced (if both well built of course); and that means the challenge comes from you as players. If they out think you' if the dice roll in their favour more than normal; if the terrain and their choices put you in a tight corner etc.... That's a challenge.

 

2) Modification to the rules. If you start with balance and you know that two 2K armies have equal chance to win that creates a fair match on paper where the challenge in skill is between players. But if you want to go further you can! You could do 2K vs 2.5K. Now you've got that imbalance that you want, that added challenge. Plus because the system is more balanced you can more easily do this because when you add or subtract you've a better idea of how much it might affect the game. 

 

I totally get your desire to be challenged and to enjoy out-of-box ideas that aren't typical. I just think that the best approach for a company and a playerbase is to start with a flat balanced system that is even and gives equal mathematical chances to win; and then tweak it. Rather than a system that begins with imbalances regardless of player desire and skill. 

[Lord Krungharr]

Has anyone tried playing AoS but Apocalypse style, where all damage is taken at the end of the turn?  I haven't but it SOUNDS like a good system.  

That said, I don't mind the double-turn mechanic.  It presents an epic challenge for whomever gets the sharp end of it....but if everyone's in combat usually it's more watered down in harmful effects for the double-turnee.  I don't think whoever wins the previous turn roll off should win ties however, that's a bit too much. 

To get that first turn choice people usually have to invest quite a few points in battalions and tax units for the low drop count.  Some tomes require many points invested in that, some not so much.   I think the power creep factor can also be attributed to the evolution of battalions, sorta like what happened when 40k had formations.  The new Morathi book has really benefited some armies in this respect (hooray for Troggoths!!)

But as a gamer investing in minis I like that hopefully don't suck in the game too much, we must be patient as we are in the stock market.  The long game says someday your army will pay off!  Or you can resell them on eBay and buy new stuff that doesn't suck!  So don't spend too much time painting.  Contrast paints help with this.

 

[NinthMusketeer]

I'd say you are vastly overthinking it Sarouan; people just want more balanced point costs, GW to actually do the math when designing warscrolls, and maybe for a handful of obviously broken artifacts/abilities to be fixed. They don't mention specific changes because they are rather self-evident. Going back to what I said before, the concerns you have will never occur and I would say you have nothing to worry about. That is simply not how GW designs games, nor is it realistic to expect any company to create such a 'stale' balance with the number and pace of releases.

Sidenote; if you want a lopsided narrative-driven scenario there are TONS of them across the various GW releases. They outnumber matched play scenarios (by far). Or you can use the regular realmscape rules to throw a wrench into normal matched play scenarios. Or use the open play battle generator. Even in a perfect balance state these things would still be there, and still throw things out of whack to get the cinematic effect you are describing. For players not looking to find well-balanced matches the tools GW provides are mind-boggling in their quantity, diversity, and quality.

For players who ARE looking to find a well-balanced match... good luck. Literally, because double-turn is a thing.

Edited December 31, 2020 by NinthMusketeer

[Overread]

Apocs damage at the end of a turn is a very interesting mechanic. It makes perfect sense in Apoc where things are a bit on the extreme side and you've got huge knights and titans in the game and where you can blast a huge amount of stuff in one turn. Moving damage to the end of a full turn after both players deal damage is a neat move; it allows for retaliation attacks and also means that your opponent doesn't just blast your favourite things off the table in their first turn before they get to do anything. 

 

I'd welcome GW experimenting with that idea in 40K and AoS. I think it favours toward ranged heavy games with single turn mechanics because its often ranged that lets you do insane stuff. AoS already messes with close combat by alternating it each turn and so far hasn't got the most powerful ranged options in many armies so ranged hasn't become an issue - as yet. 

[stratigo]

On 12/29/2020 at 5:10 PM, Sarouan said:

I don't think balance truly improves sales. An active competitive scene does help though, especially about selling new rules and extensions rather than just miniatures. Having a team of rule designers being reactive to the feedback does inspire trust on the well-being of the game.  It's more about the attitude and showing the game is alive and faring well, I believe.

The forced break with the pandemic would be interesting to analyze when it's done to see what's the real impact about, let's say, the 9th version of 40k. We can then see if it really hurts not having competitive tournaments around.

 

About the "power creep"...To be honest, you can see the options in the battletomes tend to be having similar effects in some shape. The very unique ones are becoming less common than before.

That tends towards balance, because it's easier to balance things when both sides have access to the same options in terms of rules. What is really upsetting the balance is when you introduce unique mechanisms never showed before - see what happened when the Ossiarch Bonerepears came with their "not command abilities" rules. In other words, when you try to make a faction really different from the others in their rules.

Balance always comes with a sacrifice. It's not a hazard we get less weapon options on the heroes than at the beginning - sure, it's fitting the new kits, but also it's easier to balance / put the points right when you only have a couple of different weapon combos rather than ten.

To me, what we have to lose for the sake of perfect balance from the start isn't worth it. Especially if it's just to cater for people who will always complain about how unbalanced -insert new battletome here- is when it's released.

Better to take some time, send feedback and let GW correct the situation if it's really problematic for the competitive scene like they're doing currently. It doesn't work so bad in the end.

 

The competitive scene under COVID is still faring better than the scene under Kirby as a note. GW still provides more support and the cottage industry of blogs and (*hurk*) professional coaching add life even when the biggest cons get cancelled. 

 

On 12/30/2020 at 2:12 PM, Overread said:

One thing I notice EVER so often when watching battle reports on youtube - whoever gets the doubleturn nearly always wins. It's one thing I REALLY REALLY wish GW would get rid of from the core rules of the game - shift it to open play. We already have had years of discussion on how a single turn can be supremely powerful and doubleturn lets you do that twice - its just too much power! But that's a rant for another thread.

 

 

 

I've never understood the whole "balance makes things boring" aspect. If anything it should make things far more exciting and interesting. You get far more diversity of armies; far more options and choices on the table. That means far less predictable results; far fewer repeat matches and far more freedom for players. In addition it means that more factions have a chance and it pushes the chance to win away from purely army list building and back to where it should be - player skill  and choices. Besides, as I've noted before, if you're imbalance then at the top end of the competitive circles you'll just see mirror matches with the current best metal lists any way. So the worse the balance the far more predictable results you'll get; the far fewer options and the simpler you make the game. 

You devalue the player and choices and put everything in the army list; which for a game that can last several hours, that's a sheer waste of time to put all the weight on the army list. 

I honestly think most of those who argue in favour of imbalance are either arguing from a point of ignorance/having not thought it through; or they are simply looking for the easy win and see imbalance as a means by which they can buy the best and not have to think any further than that. Which is fine for them, but its a selfish approach to the game and not good for the game nor community's health. 

 

You know, any time I make this comment on a youtube channel, it's "nuh uh" from the video uploader XD

On 12/29/2020 at 6:09 PM, Maddpainting said:

The mechanic isn't bad, its how they implemented it that is bad, having a unit with fight first is not bad, heck having a full army with it is not either if it was balanced to doing that. FeC fight first double fight on a giant damaging monsters with insane speed is a good example of it being bad, but if it say was on BoC chariots "if a chariot charges they always fight first" well no one would care and I can 100% guaranteed you it would not be good b.c that unit is not very strong. 

GWs bad balance doesn't make a rule bad.

 

Charging chariot isn't sourced from a command ability. It would be baked into the warscroll, and thus able to be balanced through point changes to that warscroll.

 

It is hard to balance a mechanic when it's coming from an ability. A keeper of secrets can make itself double fight or a squad of 10 demonettes double fight. But one is dramatically more impactful than the other. Adding plus 1 attack to a squad of 5 models verse a squad of 40 is a huge difference. It is difficult to point these options fairly.

 

On 12/30/2020 at 9:22 AM, Yondaime said:

Imho yes and no, its the only way some shooting armyes are in meta and also the only way some melee can counter punch

The only problem is, its random, and annoying

For example, i play khorne often and a friend of mine play kharadron i usually give him the first turn because i have 2/3 drop max, do you know how 9/10 game go?

If i get double, my bts+ skarbrand absolute destroy everything on the table, if he wins initiative, my bts get shoot down into oblivion, either way, game is often over turn 2

Problem is not double turn per se but  whole armyes built around it, specially in this annoying shooting meta

aother problem is, if dices are not in your side, losing like 4 initiative roll (and it happens a lot more than in should) your will to play is destroyed

I can't describe the number of KO games I have watched (and the couple I have played in the COVID world) where the game is decided by the KO double. A strong alpha leaves the bulk of the KO army in a vulnerable position, but they get a double and blow the opponent off the table.

 

On 12/30/2020 at 8:47 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I have said this elsewhere before, but I think these house rules just make worse the problems a lot of people have with AoS already.

Going from the double turn to I-go-you-go makes alpha strikes better, because those usually carry the risk of getting double turned. Of course, another system might work better than the double turn at keeping alpha strikes in check.

Making the shooting phase alternate like the combat phase just means that oppressive shooting armies get to shoot twice as much. It especially makes things worse for armies without any shooting.

 

No, double turns make alpha strikes worse if you can push down your number of drops. So you get the battalion arms race so you can justify going second to get the double chance and win. An alpha strike that can win turn 1 wins regardless of doubles.

 

On 12/30/2020 at 9:36 AM, Maddpainting said:

But the problems it creates outside of it are even worst. Lets take my tournament army, 15 Scourgerunners and 2 Hurricanium with 40 bodies for screens. If I knew every game there was no double turns I would not have to hold back turn one ever and you would get my full force of shooting every turn rather than for 2-3 turns. Those double turns are keeping full alpha strikes in check, which can be A LOT.

You would also know the outcome of almost every game for the most part by the end of turn 1.

 

40k managed to solve alpha strikes in 9th without double turns. Turns out better deployment rules, better terrain rules, better objective rules, and less wild mobility make alpha strikes less an issue. 

 

 

[stratigo]

4 hours ago, Overread said:

Apocs damage at the end of a turn is a very interesting mechanic. It makes perfect sense in Apoc where things are a bit on the extreme side and you've got huge knights and titans in the game and where you can blast a huge amount of stuff in one turn. Moving damage to the end of a full turn after both players deal damage is a neat move; it allows for retaliation attacks and also means that your opponent doesn't just blast your favourite things off the table in their first turn before they get to do anything. 

 

I'd welcome GW experimenting with that idea in 40K and AoS. I think it favours toward ranged heavy games with single turn mechanics because its often ranged that lets you do insane stuff. AoS already messes with close combat by alternating it each turn and so far hasn't got the most powerful ranged options in many armies so ranged hasn't become an issue - as yet. 

Nah, Apoc is a straight better system than 40k. Too bad GW decided it wasn't worth supporting.

[NinthMusketeer]

I think any system based off players putting 2500+ points on the board is going to be a niche product at best no matter how good it is. The impracticality of fielding that much stuff gets in the way of the appeal (literally, more often than not).

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

4 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I think any system based off players putting 2500+ points on the board is going to be a niche product at best no matter how good it is. The impracticality of fielding that much stuff gets in the way of the appeal (literally, more often than not).

Not to mention the $100 price tag on the box.  I am interested in playing Apocalypse, but I not almost 2 other board games interested in playing Apocalypse.  That box had little reason to be more than $60 to me.

[stratigo]

11 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I think any system based off players putting 2500+ points on the board is going to be a niche product at best no matter how good it is. The impracticality of fielding that much stuff gets in the way of the appeal (literally, more often than not).

Apoc is a better game than 40k at 2000 points too

 

the rule set is just tighter and more balanced. It could still do with improvements, but the core concept is just better than I go you go. I did a push for playing apoc over 40k, but it didn’t go anywhere in my local community, which bummed me out

 

7 hours ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

Not to mention the $100 price tag on the box.  I am interested in playing Apocalypse, but I not almost 2 other board games interested in playing Apocalypse.  That box had little reason to be more than $60 to me.

This is probably the worst offender of the set. This plus limited card availability to this over prices set kills the game pretty hard. GW could have done more to make apoc work. They just didn’t want to

[yukishiro1]

As a new AoS player, I have to be honest: the biggest problem with the game is the lack of terrain rules, not the double turn. To my surprise, I've found the double turn is only really problematic with magic and shooting, and those in turn are really problematic only because terrain is utterly useless in this game. It probably worked fine back before shooting and magic were big sources of damage, but now that they are, it feels like playing 40k on planet bowling ball, but even worse, because if a shooting army gets the double turn they can literally delete an entire opposing army before it gets to do anything. 

I don't see any way the double turn can survive in such a shooting-and-magic-heavy environment, unless they bring terrain rules into the game and actually allow LOS-blocking in a meaningful way. 

I also don't think it's a coincidence that the most powerful armies mostly take advantage of the lack of terrain rules by going heavy into shooting and magic. 

So far, my games between predominantly melee armies have been a lot of fun and feel tactical, whereas the ones with shooting armies feel like mostly just rolling dice to see who wins. 

[Dingding123]

From what I can tell it's the terrible duality of unanswerable offense and impenetrable defense.  Some stuff can kill everything on the charge.  Some stuff just doesn't take combat damage.  Some stuff says "I don't need to get close to you to hit you with my entire army" and/or "your wizards are 100% useless". 

Gimmick armies being overpowered and stomping eachother while folding to gimmick lists is a bad time for everyone.  GW needs to find a way to incentivize players to deploy more than just a firing squad or a pure deepstrike army as well as a way to make a handful of elites not quite as daunting to a thematically sensible army.  Nothing's fun about wondering what on earth within your faction overcomes 2k points worth of a single gimmick by turn 2.  I get that the game is simple but earning this much of an advantage just by picking ultimately braindead armies is pretty silly.

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Dingding123

[Eldarain]

@yukishiro1 is porting over 40k's terrain rules worth trying out? Going from memory they seem mostly compatible.

[Greybeard86]

Increased lethality seems to be the answer to the simplified morale rules. Units need to be able to move out of combat (in this case, be deleting the enemy) because in 4-5 turns game (1 turn movement, 1 charge and combat, move 1 turn more, fight another, that's a couple of fights per battle?) otherwise they could easily be wasted just from having one bad encounter.

[Neverchosen]

6 hours ago, Eldarain said:

@yukishiro1 is porting over 40k's terrain rules worth trying out? Going from memory they seem mostly compatible.

I would want additional rules for destructible terrain for siege purposes.
I think that there could be a chart for materials e.g.: Wood, Stone, Metal, Magical and Reinforced. 
Then a chart certain garrisonable types of terrain e.g.: Natural feature (Cave, Woods, Dense Thicket), Ruin, Building, Wall. Tower.

[Maddpainting]

You can add taller terrain, the Major GT's i go to has LoS terrain, maybe its a problem with your local? 

[NinthMusketeer]

Right now the LoS block of forests (wildwood, overgrown terrain feature) is weird because if you or the target can fly it's ignored. I get the idea is that fliers can see over it but... that doesn't really make sense. A unit within a cluster of trees would be *less* visible from above, not more.

IMO, fliers should only ignore the LoS if both they and the target are outside of the terrain piece in question. Units should lose the Fly rule while they are inside forests for that matter; they have to land to go in.

[yukishiro1]

I don't understand why fly lets people ignore LOS like that in a game where every flying unit can be charged by any unit on the ground. If the game is willing to abstract things for game purposes to the degree that that dragon isn't allowed to stay high enough to avoid the attacks of 1-foot-tall nurglings, why does it insist on allowing the dragon to see over overgrown terrain as if it's above it? 

I think all you really need to do to fix AoS terrain is to put overgrown on most terrain by default and remove the FLY exception. Ideally you'd also port over 40k's rule that lets infantry move through most terrain without paying movement for it too. The rest is not a problem with the rules but a problem with the terrain pieces being used themselves - too many roundish objects, not enough long skinny wall type things.