What would you like for AoS 3

[Enoby]

With a lot of speculation that AoS 3 is coming this year, and all AoS armies having a 'proper' battletome, I think it'd be interesting to discuss what we actually want to see from AoS 3. 

I don't think many would argue that AoS 2 is perfect - though it's certainly very good - but many don't agree what the problems are. The double turn? Few defences against shooting? Battleshock being poorly designed? 

Personally, I'd like to see battleshock be reworked. Personally I think that it feels either like a non-mechanic (boundless immunities) that's disappointing if your army has bravery reducing abilities (which often feel like wasted points), or it can be too much against elite armies that lack an immunity but have low bravery. I'd like to see it become a proper phase that can't be skipped with one ability, but is more balanced for big hordes. 

I'd also like to see damage becoming less extreme. This could be achieved in multiple ways, but so many games now have units delete other units - damage has scaled far more than defence has overall. I did a daft game of Chaos Dwarves vs Hedonites (using just Slaanesh marked Slaves and Beasts of Chaos and no summoning and no marauders) and even with two relatively weak armies, every time a unit was charged it died, and it felt like the game went too quickly - units didn't really get a time to shine. I'd like to see some sort of defensive play, but I'm not really sure about the best way to go with this. Obviously too far and it becomes a slog, but a bit more than current would be nice - and this isn't even accounting for MW.

I hope that monsters and small combat heroes get a buff to make them more survivable and viable compared to hordes without needing ridiculous rules.  

What about you, what would you like to see in AoS 3? 

 

 

[Rakthen]

Personally I'd like to see double turns gone. They're just a feel bad mechanic when its used against you. Morale needs to be reworked as well, coming from 40k i kinda like the new mechanic they're using but its not perfect either. The new secondary stuff from 40k could be fun too just so factions can play differently and still have a chance to win. In all honesty aside from double turns, as someone who is coming from 40k to AoS I enjoy almost everything else.

[Eldarain]

It's too big a change given their rules release model but relative speed of things annoys me.

When we can launch units from one edge of the table to the other it feels like more of a CCG than a wargame to me.

Realistically mainly quality of life changes to terrain and missions from what they've done in 40k would be nice.

A change to double turn with either it's removal or really integrating it (missions, Endless Spells, how CP is generated etc. Make it a really tough call whether the double is worth it)

[Doko]

-look out sir changed to you are inmune to shooting

-behemots with double wounds than now

-double turn gone

-free sumon gone so we dont have games of 2k vs 3k

[Morglum StormBasha]

Aos3 changes I’d like

1. Battalions to have to be deployed in one drop (speeds game up and reduces some of the advantage)

2. Additional artefacts to be purchasable for 50 points

3. Core movement rules regarding flying and moving over height to be revised 

4. scenery rules to be changed to remove magical scenery and replace it with more   Things like obscuring and exposed from 40k

5. Introduce percentage caps on unit selection eg up to 50 percent heroes or up to 50 percent battleine and introduce the concept of rare and special battlefield roles.

6. Retain the double turn which is the core mechanic which makes the game interesting to play.

 

[Morglum StormBasha]

Oh and 7. Make it impossible to shoot into combat from outside a combat

[OkayestDM]

I agree that Battleshock could use a rework, and I would also like to see shooting tweaked to make it less oppressive, preferably with rules to give players ways to defend themselves against it so it becomes more interactive for both players.

I'd love for the game to be ratcheted back so that min-sized units were actually perfectly viable, and units didn't get as many bonuses for being fielded in-large groups.

 

Things I'd like to see but doubt will ever feature are "simultaneous combat" mechanics, or at least something like in Apocolypse where damage was handled at the end of combat, allowing most units to have their moment to shine, even if they did get deleted off of the table.

Some sort of subterfuge rules would be cool, particularly for factions like Tzeentch and Skaven, which have those themes baked into their lore. Abilities that allowed armies to hide assassins or small units inside enemy units, then pop them out at tactical moments. This could be countered with units like Witch Hunters or Lord Veritants, It doesn't currently make a great deal of sense to have them on the battlefield from a lore perspective, but might if they were given rules to root out spies, assassins, or traitors within their own ranks. That;s pure wishlisting though, and I can't see it ever happening.

[Ragest]

1- improved “look out sir”, you can only shoot at heroes if they are the closest target.

2- when teleporting shooting units, they can just shoot 9”.

3- you deploy your army and then both players roll a dice, the one that gets high score starts.

4- all tps, double fight/shoot and every gamebreaker combos should come with a waste of resources (CA, high difficult spells, prayers...)

5- take off bound endless spells.

6- rework on realms and scenery, inspired battleplans.

7- rework on batleshock

8- revision of fly, not letting moving up a scenery to make a charge of 1” or 2”

9- getting points at the end of battle round, not in each player’s turn

Edited February 1, 2021 by Ragest

[Overread]

Few things I'd like to see:

1) Double turn gone

2) Predatory Endless Spells no longer swap owners. Right now you pay points for them like a model, but casting and using them is potentially random (dice rolls) and then you can lose control. So everyone either doesn't use them; or only uses them in regions where if they do swap control it doesn't matter. So it restricts them. Considering Ossiarchs have bound spells I think its a change GW is willing to go with since Ossiarch spells haven't even been registered as a blip in balance chat so its clearly not abusive to have them. 

3) More unit type variations. Right now we've leaders, troops, monstrous and artillery and many armies don't have any artillery and limited monsters (with a good few being leaders+monsters at the same time). I'd love to see it start small, even just breaking off Cavalry into their own block (and cavalry equivalents). I think this links into Morglums point of unit restrictions based on type.
I wouldn't expect to see many and if anything just break off Cavalry at this stage since lots of armies still lack diverse options in other slots right now (eg artillery is very thin). So do it with Cavalry and then steadily add more each edition as armies get more and more diverse in general. 

4) I'd second and welcome the lethality lowering a bit. I think this pairs well with a lot of other areas like speed of units moving into fast assaults; the dangers of powerful ranged armies and also things like battleshock. High lethality creates fast kills, but in a game of alternating turns like AoS it puts sooo much power into a powerful first strike system. Especially as we are starting to see more ranged units appear; at least with close combat it swaps over during the turn; but with ranged it doesn't. 

5) Terrain to include more generic concepts and options. I get that GW wants their proprietary terrain concept to sell, but at the same time I'd love to see regular hills, rivers and such become more of a thing without having to have a "warscroll" for each terrain feature and such. 

 

[NinthMusketeer]

Above all, KISS.

 

Remove random initiative from matched, keep it for narrative/open. Failing that, at least push the first roll back to round 3.

A simple (read: one paragraph or less) rule to penalize alpha strike without eliminating it. 'Fog of War' that imposes a -1 penalty to shooting Heroes (stacks with Look our Sir) and to charges in the first round could do it. Maybe make it a thing for some scenarios but not others.

A decent selection of basic terrain warscrolls. Forests, rocky ground/rubble, obstacles, shallow water, and ruins would do it.

Change the current 'overgrown' rule to a simplified 'can see into and out of but not through' format, and make it so fliers only ignore this if both they AND the target fly.  Also make it so the fly rule is lost if a move begins or ends in overgrown terrain, because you ain't flying in terrain that dense.

Rework ethereal. It doesn't work like it does in the fluff, and it creates balance issues which simply cannot be resolved via points. For starters, making it so units can move through terrain but not enemies as opposed to straight-up fly (units could still be given fly on top of this).

Rework battleshock. As others have mentioned it is currently far too easy to simply ignore entirely. And actually mention that it can also represent models being overwhelmed in combat or crumbling rather than just running away.

This isn't a core rules change but it is a design philosophy; less MWs, more rend. There are more units (FAR more) that deal MWs than have rend -2 and that is absurd. Abilities that are dealing MWs on hit rolls should transition to either wounding automatically or dealing the MWs from the wound roll instead. Dealing MWs on the hit roll should be extremely rare and limited to units actually designed around the mechanic (spirit hosts, for example). Also, spells don't HAVE to be dealing MWs all the time; they can make normal attacks, or inflict automatic hits/wounds at a specific rend/damage profile.

Related to the above; holy ****** stop making abilities that add extra damage or rend on a hit roll of 6. It is irritating because it means those wound rolls have to be made separately and slows down gameplay for no appreciable benefit. Have them happen on the wound roll instead.

Refine the narrative realmscape rules. A lot are fun, others are game-deciding on their own for certain matchups. Ditto for the spells (and reducing them down to just three+signature would be nice). Keep the separate matched realmscape rules, having those split off is great.

When shooting into melee at a non-monster/war machine, make it so missed shots can hit friendlies.

Add keywords for infantry, cavalry, etc. This will help overall rules design a lot.

Make 1+ saves rendable, because holy ****** is the way it works now unfun.

[Arzalyn]

I think we are mostly on the same coin on things we would like to change. Just reinterating with some of my hopes:

- Change or adjust the "who go first" system. The battalion are cool in theory, but bad in pratice with how battletome dependent it is (having a battalion that fits the majority of your army, that have the powerfull units, things like that).

- Make taking/giving the double turn more of a choice. I'm not a huge fan of the mechanic (mostly because it make one person do near nothing for a long time), but I can see how it add to the game. Still, taking the double turn should be more of a choice than it is nowadays. There should be more of a risk of taking it than just "I was unlucky with the dices and didn't kill as much as I hoped". Some mechanics even make loosing the roll off even worst (we you are balanced taking in consideration things like healing/bring models back at the hero phase). Lowering lethality would help here too.

- Balace the payoff of habilities better, avoid giving core mechanics to random rolls. Things like the bad moon, core ability linked to casts going out (sylvaneth woods, mostly of the slaves denial effects come to mind here). It is important to give some randoness to the game and it should have good and powerfull effects tied to it, but It shouldnt  be something that is the basic thing the army should be doing,  otherwise you have on side playing as normal and the other having to give up basic things just to make its rules function a little better. 

- Make units have proper roles inside each faction.  Its tiresome to see new releases and keep seeing the same "foot hero with 5 wounds that wants to fight", "big monster that should be a heavy hitter but do little damage after taking 1-3 wounds", "5 units that all basically do the same thing, but will either be useless because what it does is week or just 1 of them will be worthy it because it's the best one with buffs/have the better stats".  Things like small combat hero and monsters have many disvantages thanks to the game mechanics, give them more interesting/powerfull abilities to make them a actual option.

-Rework how battleshock and terrain work, those things should be much more relevant.

-Tone down damage, specially mortal wounds. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Arzalyn

[Mattrulesok]

Honestly I feel like if you want the double turn removed AoS is not for you, it's a core mechanic of the game and one that separates it from other similar games, I do agree however with the sentiment that more can be done to balance it, more battle plans like the blades edge that add layers to the turn mechanic would be very welcome.

I'd also love to see changes to the way first turn is decided, I like there being a benefit for teams that set up first as it adds an extra layer to list building but I'd prefer it to be something along the lines of a roll off to determine order with first to setup getting plus one or option to reroll. Feel like removing the absolute certainty of deciding turn order for teams that set up first removes some of the power from 1 drop power shooting lists. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Mattrulesok

[Icarion]

When Broken Realms: Morathi came out I was certain that AoS 3 was coming this year (considering it's release date lining up with a similar timeframe to the start of Psychic awakening), but considering how large the gap has been between Morathi and Teclis (best guess is a March release) I'm starting to doubt that GW will be able to pump out all the Broken Realms books/Battletomes due before the next edition, by the end of this year. 

I'm starting to think Broken Realms could be spread out over the whole year, and we wont see AoS 3 till next year. 

[Sleboda]

What I would like for AoS v3 is about another three years to go by before it comes out. A new edition will negate every single paper product I've purchased for the game, especially if some of the more radical (and imo needless) ideas like removing the current determination of turn order get implemented.

I'm not ready, or willing, to jettison all my materials yet (especially collectors edition tomes).

[Neverchosen]

I would honestly like the update to be more of a 2.5 update of the game. I would like some small adjustments and tweaks to battleshock, terrain, command points, battalions and allies (I would like the 1/4 style City of Sigmar rules for all allied armies). I think that the Realms need better fleshed out rule mechanics that make choosing a battlefield or place of origin for your army more integrated into play. Also I will echo the issues with endless spells as I currently cannot justify getting them for my armies as they seem like a waste of points and money. Most of all I would be interested in further game styles like crusade and siege options included in the next edition. However, those are very minor and would not need a drastic overhaul of any existing battletomes. 

[Ludicola]

I certainly agree that the choice of taking the double turn should be more meaningful. That said, they can't simply remove it at this point. Unless they wanna do a full enormous FAQ blast to make tons of stuff change to work in that system.  And they couldn't even be arsed to do a proper winter FAQ so i'm doubtful. That said, some things to make it feel better could be something like, units cant fire shooting in two consecutive player turns because they're reloading. Or even just giving them hit penalties, for doing so, would help a lot I think. I also agree that a smidge less lethality would be a good thing overall.

[Chikout]

 

I definitely agree that the double turn is fundamental to AoS. That doesn't mean there isn't flexibility within that structure. Making shooting alternating activation would be one possibility. Another idea that is more out there is giving the player a selection of reaction points to use when it's not their turn. So they could move a unit or cast a spell or shoot in  the other players turn, with the caveat that they then won't be able to do that thing in their own turn. 

That might be overly complex but it would preserve the spirit of AoS while giving players a lot to think about while they are waiting to go. 

 

Personally though I would like to see a 2022 release. Give people a solid chunk of time to play with the broken realms books. Introduce updates for slyvaneth, BoC and nighthaunt ( make their core ability that the negate immune to battleshock) including updated warscrolls like we saw for idk.  Do a proper points balance in the summer and give people time to enjoy playing the game as it is. 

[someone2040]

6 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

(I would like the 1/4 style City of Sigmar rules for all allied armies)

There is already that restriction for allies. It's just matched play imposes a point limit on it as well.

 

I don't have too many complaints about the system, although I don't generally play too much nor at a high level. If you asked me, I think many of the issues could just be solved in the GHB rather than making a new edition.

I'd personally like to see terrain be pushed a lot more. The mysterious landscape features as they are (even with 2 tables) are fine, but nobody tends to bother identifying terrain as garrisons, obstacles, etc. Part of the reason I guess is that they basically don't tend to do much.

Some of the effects in the second terrain chart perhaps should just become generic terrain effects which can be applied to terrain (Such as entangling and overgrown) to make terrain more relevant to the game above "If I go over there am I going to get A) Cover or B) a benefit to my unit".

 

Battleshock I agree needs to be tweaked somehow (and perhaps not something that really makes sense in the GHB - changing such a core rule of the game). Maybe part of what makes it a non-starter at the moment is there are a lot of armies with extremely high bravery, but also the fact that units tend to go in and wipe the floor with the enemy unit, and then if there are any left they tend to get inspired or the remainder flee.

 

Double turn I can live with or without. It's definitely a talking point, there are definitely key initiative rolls in the game, but I don't play at a level whether I get too bothered by it. I think I'd prefer it gone, but wouldn't be fussed.

 

Otherwise just stuff that should've been tidied up editions ago. In matched play, either detach artefacts/traits from battalions, or allow you to pay points to purchase extra ones in the same way you can command points. I've hated it since AoS1 (Where there was a HUGE imbalance between factions that had battalions and those who didn't) to even now that you're tied to taking a battalion if you want to get an extra cool artefact. Some armies just don't have very interesting battalions, and for the most part I don't really enjoy how battalions force you to take certain units (Like all the Cities ones force you down certain paths, and each city only has a single battalion).

 

A lot of the other things ultimately come down to changes in battletomes, and well... they can print new battletomes and models for that. Basically, I think given the simplicity in the AoS core rules, there's not a huge need to 'a new edition'. Give us a new starter box for sure if that's what they want, but not necessarily sure a new edition is necessary at this point.

[yukishiro1]

Honestly, the best solution would be to just change it so there's no possible double turn until T3.  This strikes a good compromise between keeping the unpredictability it introduces, without making games literally end at the start of T2. If both players are guaranteed two turns before anyone can get a double, it allows meaningful interaction before you get blown off the table, and also allows the player who doesn't get the double the chance to make a meaningful dent in their opponent's force before they just stand there for 20 minutes getting mowed down. 

Whatever they do, right now the interaction between shooting and the double turn creates a joke situation with shooting-heavy armies, and that surely, surely has to change. 

In addition to that and independent of it, characters need to be more protected from sniping. It's terrible, unfun design to create a game where your heroes just get focused down in a turn or two and immediately killed. Stuff like 30" non-LOS shooting that does mortal wounds on a 5+ is mind-bogglingly bad game design and it really makes me question how the same company can be responsible for Lumineth Sentinels and the Morathi book, as they are such polar opposites in quality of design. 

Finally, terrain needs to make a bigger difference to the game. Move away from "on a 6 X mostly irrelevant thing happens" to actual terrain effects that are reliable and impactful, above all LOS-blocking. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Neverchosen]

41 minutes ago, someone2040 said:

There is already that restriction for allies. It's just matched play imposes a point limit on it as well.

Oh cool, I didn't know that. In that case I would simply drop the arbitrary point limit in matched play. I feel like if someone wants to invest a massive dump of points into an allied unit that should be their choice. However, I think for balance reasons it would pose a greater question as to which armies could ally with each other and rules writers would have to evaluate and scrutinize such choices even further and as such it could be a terrible idea. I will argue that is fairly possible with all of my points, but I was mostly wish listing with little thought attributed to my major points. 

[Twisted Firaun]

Chaos Dwarfs(the often mentioned "Furnace Kings" preferably) and Grotbag Scuttlers army wise, a shift from Nagash and co lore wise.

[Skreech Verminking]

I’m actually hoping that we might see a 3.0 edition for aos in maybe 2-2and a half year.

But would like to see some minor changes per generals handbook.

like for example a newer and better look out sir rule against shooting, and maybe the removal of the double turn.

yes the double turn is something that made aos uniq to 40k but considering how damaging many units are currently (how they are able to destroy-kill a unit per turn) it is starting to just feel like a nuisance.

and make those secondaries be actually worth points.

just giving you the option to win on a tide game seems unnecessary, since it might happen about a twentieth of the time.

 

 

[Brakh]

It is just wishlist, right? So unrealistic ideas are accepted as well I hope. Based on other games Iwould like to see:

- bury the double turn, most ridiculous idea I have ever seen in  the tabletop

- I go, you go system instead of I go, you go get your coffee in the meantime.

- CC shooting penalties

- new mechanics introduction which will discourage from frequent teleports across the table

- first turn priority roll to encourage more diversity into list building which will be unhindered by the drops number.

- long term goal, to review useless warscrolls and bump those pretty minis so they will be still relevant in games

- limit power creep, do not make single team responsible for balancing new faction around itself but rather to get all of current factions and balance new vs existing ones.

- get rid of power creep coz now army released two years ago is completely useless in current meta

- give yourself some overall balancing tools other than just points, its not enough

- introduce some point costed additions to army building like banners, unit upgrades, etc.

Flatten statwise and abilitywise differences across units from different armies for easier game balancing in the future.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Brakh

[zilberfrid]

Clarity in what model lines get supported and what gets dumped.

Listening to playtesters. Things like Petrifex and spell in a bottle were widely seen as overly powerful/hard to balance with the rules preview, and to no surprise of anyone, turned out to be just that.

Stop trying to break the game as a starting point for creating a new faction. Looking at Lumineth and especially Ossiarch.

Rework battleshock or remove it entirely.

Less mortal wound output.

Less dependency on mortal wounds (looking at you, bastilladon).

Either parity in batallions, or make their impact on turn priority less.

Monsters count as more for capping.

Better rules for Underworld and Warcry models.

Cheaper rulebooks, cheaper models.

[Bosskelot]

The issue with double turn is that it is never, ever used as a reason to play the game. It is only ever brought up by people disliking it and the hardcore AOS fans trying to defend its inclusion. It is the single biggest reason I see for new players bouncing off of the game and dropping it. 

If GW and the diehards are so married to the idea of this weird janky priority system then just make the game have the structure as LOTR, because there it works brilliantly. Alternating phases and priority, with heroic actions being able to disrupt the usual flow, works really really well. It keeps both players engaged and avoids long stretches where one player does absolutely nothing, leads to more tactical and dynamic gameplay and allows for more countermoves. If 3.0 comes out and the double turn is essentially unchanged I personally think it would be disastrous for the game as a whole.

Other issues are the aforementioned MW spam which feels incredibly egregious at times. 40k and AOS both have a lethality problem, but with 40k it's down to normal weaponry often being too strong and not the prevalence of MW's, but that in itself feels a lot better as MW's as a mechanic often feel like you have little to no counterplay vs them (because some armies have 0 counterplay to them)

There also needs to be a restructuring of unit design. Threads have been made on here about the flattening of defensive profiles leading to a lack of diversity and spam in the game, because big monsters or elite troops just aren't tanky or impactful enough when normal mainline infantry can potentially be wounding things on a 2+. For one, some of those types of buffs really need to be reigned in a bit. But in general, unless there is a complete overhaul of unit profile design (like for instance actually reintroducing S and T as stats) there needs to be more incentive to take and differentiate between different unit types. This goes back to the lethality problem above where certain armies are all about finding the most efficient damage dealer and spamming it because really what else do you need? Why bother taking an elite unit when unless they have some kind of insanely strong defensive tool on their warscroll, they'll be getting wounded on 2's and 3's by pretty much everything in the game.

I also am not personally a fan of damage overspill but I don't see GW getting rid of it.

Oh and Look Out Sir should just be the 40k rule.