What would you like for AoS 3

[Kadeton]

If we're doing outlandish wishes, then I'd like unit-based alternating activations. (If we're keeping IGYG, then do more to make the double turn work as a catch-up mechanic and not a win-more mechanic.)

More down-to-earth, AoS could stand to steal several mechanics from 40K at this point, especially morale, characters, and the +1/-1 cap on most modifiers. Also the superior missions and army objectives.

General design consistency would be good too. For instance, if we want to represent "this unit is really tough", is that achieved by a penalty to wound rolls against them, a better armour save, more wounds, damage reduction, or an after-save? Just pick your mechanic and stick with it across the board, instead of reaching into the random grab-bag of rules every time and seeing what falls out. Similarly, figure out how a shield works once, and then apply that same rule to every shield in the game. And so on.

[EMMachine]

I think I would like to see some clean ups.

• Stuff like how "wholly within", "battalions & allegiance", how "start of phase & end of phase" abilities are handled, should be described in the rules, not only in the FAQ.
• Give Battalions faction keywords (that way it would save FAQ and Errataspace if a Battalion can be used in more than 1 allegiance).
• make endless spells part of the corerules (so the rules are in the corerule pdf) and change predatory endless spells from activating alternated by players to a role if you have control over the spell ("at the start the battleround, role a dice for each of your casted endless spells on a 3+ you control it otherwise your opponent gains control until the end of the battleround). That way we would still have the nature of the spell but it would be a disadventage if only one player uses a predatory endlessspell.
• Rework prayers, so we have corerules with a pool how many a priest can use (at the moment Fyreslayers and Khorne can speak up to 3 prayers each round (with the oppenent can't do anything about it) while wizards are bound to 1 or 2 spells. (it can include the ruling for dispelling/unbinding as well).
• I could see a change on battleshock, the way 40k does. (you role for your bravery, if you lose 1 model flees and all other models that unit have to role if they flee too).
• An "rare rules" secton, where stuff like if a unit has attacking at the start of the and at the end of the phase at the same time.
• not a corerule entirely, but changing if a model get's attacks for each model in x", that the attacks have to target that unit (so if you are in contact with unit 1 having 3 models in range, unit 2 with 5 and unit 3 being a hero, that unit 1 is targeted with 3 attacks, unit 2 with 5 and the hero with 1 instead of making 9 attacks on the hero).
• In my oppionion the overhaul should stay (because it can discripe how a single attack can kill multiple units at the same time) but things should be more specialized some times. (Decimators that are good against hordes but not good against elite or Monsters). Often stuff that is good against hordes is as good against elites. Units that are specialized against monsters or heroes, getting a bonus only when attacking those.

  7 hours ago, Overread said:

  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. 

  I don't know if I like that idea. It would mean that it is not possible anymore to play a 100% cavalry army as an option.

Edited February 1, 2021 by EMMachine

[SirSalabean]

What’s most likely going to be the box set armies? 

[Enoby]

Regarding the double turn, I don't mind it as much for very competitive games (besides in a shooting spam meta) as there are ways to defend against it, but I've found it to be an incredibly casual-unfriendly mechanic. I've played with a lot of new and inexperienced players and their reaction to getting double turned is always very negative and defeatist, usually because a massive chunk of their army is now dead. When the argument against their defeatism is basically "git gud", it often just puts them off the game (or at least that rule). Yeah, you can plan around it, but it's very difficult to plan around and often inaccessible to new players who aren't confident at screening. Yes, encouraging improvement is good, but when a mechanic is difficult to improve upon (effective screening is harder than just sticking good units at the back) and being poor at it means you lose a large proportion of the time, it's a very casual-unfriendly mechanic and they tend not to be suited to AoS.

There are many reasons a new player can lose, but the double turn is the most obvious to the new player. Poor positioning, ignoring objectives, and poor unit choice can have an equal or greater effect on losing, but all of them are easier to improve upon and don't feel like their fate was on a single dice roll.

I would either like to see double turns only become a thing turn 3 onwards, or massive defensive buffs to an army that's forced (key word being "forced") to go second to stop armies being wiped off turn 2. Things like a +1 save, -1 to hit against them, 5+ stackable oversave, and possibly more to ensure the benefit of the double turn is more about positioning and tidying up already injured units, rather than total annihilation. 

[Mattrulesok]

2 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

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. 

That's a pretty ludicrous reasoning and patently unfair to those of us that prefer the double turn. No one ever uses it as a reason to play? Of course not, imagine trying to convince your friends to play a game and leading with "sometimes you get to go twice" rather than showing off the minis and the armies. That's like trying to sell a beautiful suit and starting by talking about the buttons. The double turn informs the structure of this game, how you move how you plan, how you build your army etc. So when those of us who like the double turn sell the game we sell the strategy, the need to think 3 steps ahead as well as the chance for the whole game to turn on its head based on some good/bad luck and simply framing that as fanboys just accepting whatever GW tells us is spurious. I mean just look at my posting history I'm heavily critical of most everything GW but I play AoS for 2 reasons, I like the models and I like the game play (which includes the rules) it's not that I wouldn't tweak some things here and there but I love the core of this game. If you don't like the core of this game I'm genuinely curious why you play it? 

[Umjammerlama]

I would like to see a ‘crusade’ type system, similar to the one in 40K. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

I think the three most contentuous issues in the game are the double turn, battleshock and shooting. I believe those three should definitely be adressed somehow in the next editions, simply due to the amount of discussion they provoke.

Double turn:

The double turn is pretty devisive, but it serves a function: Mitigating first turn advantage. So I would not just want to see it removed without replacement, since in my opinion that would lead to an even more alpha strike heavy meta. I think what people most dislike about the mechanic is the randomness of it and the long period of non-interactivity it forces for the player getting double turned. I think the solution to the randomness would be to make the double turn more interactive. Maybe change the rules so that you are able to spend ressources to get bonuses on the roll/take control of priority. Or tie the priority mechanic to secondary objectives somehow, so that players can try to take control of priority through in-game decisions/tactics. The non-interactivity is hard to deal with without major rules restructuring (alternating phases, for example), but something could be done about it by giving players the opportunity to do things on the opponent's turn more often.

Reworking how battalions work also relates to this space. Currently, they provide a very large advantage, but I believe much of their strength would be mitigated if double turns were more controllable by the player going second. Still, I like the suggestion of forcing battalions to deploy as one drop. That would still make them strong, but attach a bit of a tactical downside to them.

Battleshock:

I think the comlaint here is how much of a non-mechanic battleshock effectively is, since every army can use inspiring presence, and many have battleshock immunity in some form. The immunity issue is not something that can be fixed in the core rules, but it's a design principle worth revisiting when new battletomes roll around. Inspiring Presence could be weakened in a number of ways (or just removed entirely). It could just be a bonus to bravery (setting bravery to 10?) instead of immunity. Or there could be more ways to spend command points, which would make using them for Inspiring Presence less attractive.

I have also seen the complaint that battleshock hits elite units harder, but after doing some preliminary math, this does not seem to be true. In elite (multi-wound) units, battleshock is harder to trigger and loses you overall fewer wounds/points when it does (given equal bravery). While losing an expensive 4 wound model to battleshock sucks, elite players are not at a mechanical disadvantage.

Finally, since losing troops to battleshock is not the most positive play experience in the world, the mechanic could be redone entirely. Maybe failing battleshock could force a unit to retreat in the next round, with all that entails.

Shooting:

Probably the hardest to fix, since the core rules for ranged combat are not the root of the problem. It seems like some armies just have an overtuned long range damage output, especially those that can deal lots of mortal wounds at range. Buffing Look Out, Sir! is probably one thing that makes sense, as that would at least make the 5 wound foot heroes many armies rely on more playable again. But it's a bit of a double edged sword, since those heroes are frequently the source of battleshock immunity bubbles, and ranged/magic damage is one of the few ways to remove them in a targeted way.

Rules clarity:

I think my biggest thing, though, would be to publish an in-depth rules document, separate from the core rules. In that document, I would like the rules to be set out more clearly and more detailed. MtG does this well, where there is a document that details how exactly their individual steps and phases work. AoS could use the same kind of thing, so that people who care about this kind of stuff are actually able to answer in-depth questions and don't have to piece together the principles at work behind particular instances of the rules themselves to do so. I fully recognize that one of the strengths of AoS for the average player is that the rules are short and fairly simple. I would not want to change that and go back to the days of 100+ pages of core rules. But it would be good if a more detailed explanation was available for those who want to understand the game at a deeper level.

Here's an example of what I am talking about: As of GHB 2020, a unit can't attempt to negate a wound more than once. Except that's not actually true. You can't attempt to negate an assigned wound more than once. You are still allowed to attempt to negate unassigned wounds as much as you like. There are abilities that let you do this, like the OBR Aegis Immortal battalion ability. I am sure that 99% of players don't even know that the distinction assigned/unassigned wounds even exists. It would be nice to have a document that tells you this mechanic is even a thing. Or take something like the question of what happens if you revive a defeated unit (like LoN or Hammers of Sigmar). Is that treated as a new unit, or is it the same one from before? This matters for battlefield role and "until the end of the game" buffs and debuffs. You can kind of piece together an answer to this from existing information, but it's case-by-case. We don't really know how resurrection mechanics are supposed to work in principle.

[Sorceress]

what if players gained command points at the start of there opponents hero phase rather than there own. Everyone would start with one remove them and artifacts from battalions then at the start of your opponents hero phase you gain one.  This would give you a extra tool to weather your opponents turn and make the double turn include delaying gaining command points

[dmorley21]

I'd like to see the rules simplified. There's so many extra rules that it really makes it hard for people to get into the game - I've been trying to get some friends into the game for a couple of years now. I love the simplicity of the core rules, but wish things like realm rules were part of narrative play (the concept is really neat!) and not part of matched play. I could also do with less terrain rules. 

The game is really fun and will always be extremely complex with the different armies and interactions, however it could be more approachable. 

[Janevit]

- i dont mind so much the concept of double turn but the implementation could be improved. Player should be incentivised to take the bottom turn so decision on going first or second provide just about equal advantage. Perhaps more battleplans that let player going second remove an objective or perhaps player going first do not generate a command point. There are ways to do this i hope GW get it right.

 

- some penalty to teleport+shooting combo.

 

- remove bound endless spell.

 

These three will be a good start!

[Frowny]

-Real cover rules. None of this reroll 1s or on 6's do a thing. Just normal regular stuff like blocking line of sight, giving +1 to save or something. You know. The stuff cover does.

-Rules for how things move up and down and fight on levels. Ideally simple ones. 

-Range in combat determined by number of bases you can fight across rather than actual measuring. 40k Does this quite cleanly, and its much faster and less controversial. Also would buff everything on bigger bases, which is I think needed. 1 inch weapons= must be in base 2 base of target. 2 inch weapons= base to base of that model, 3 inches 1 further. In 40k its a lot less fiddly, without as much bother trying to position every model. Its also much less easy to abuse. 

-Battalions must be dropped all together or separately. No getting the best of both worlds, dropping 1 thing at a time and then still plunking down the rest for 1st turn.

-Drops no longer determines turn order. Turn 1 is a roll off, with lowest drops winning ties. A lot of armies are less abusive when they can't guarantee turn 1 for the alpha or turn 2 for the possible double. It would also tone down the strength of the double when you can't plan for it.

-Shooting into combat, including if you are in it is -1. Give shooting a slight nerf. Its already pretty strong right now. 

Bigger than all of these things

A Coherent and careful communication policy from GW. The FAQ being delayed 2 months only for them to not do anything is just ridiculous. I'd understand if they didn't want to change anything given covid and everything, but then why wait 2 months? Clarity about which armies are getting upgraded and dropped, More thorough FAQ clarificications (the rules ones, not the balance changing ones). There are a ton of good questions I've heard posted here without clear rules answers that GW never addresses. This should be relatively easy to do. 

[Griffounet]

"might is right" being a generic rule for all monstruous infantry ( Troggoth, dracoth, minotaur, dragon-ogor, etc. )

[Beliman]

We talk a lot about that with friends. What  I want to see  is a polished core mechanics, cleaned rules and make the game feel more about "war".
[Wall of text incoming]:

1. Timing sheet. I know that we already have something like that, but I want some better, more stable that catch everything in this game.
   No more "doubts" about when this finish, or when that takes damage, what's the diference between dieing, suffering the last wound, or allocating wounds before or after save after save... 0 doubts = less problems. An example from a friend that ryied to make it for current AoS:
   Spoiler

   

     
2. Use a global templates to writte warscrolls (magic, abilities, spells, prayers, etc...).  An example of something like that:
   Spoiler

   

    

3. Terrain:
   Same as other people already said, we need modular rules to build warscrolls for our terrain.
   Imho, all the terrain should give some type of defensive bonus (break LoS, reduce movement, -1 hit, +1 save, etc...). We already have A LOT of dmg, I find a good solution to use it as a defensive tool.
    
4. Teleports, re-deploys, set-ups, etc...
   Make it clear what it is, and then use the same logic for others (9" away from enemy, can't be used if engaged with..., etc).

• Re-deploy before the game starts: Can't deploy outside of your own territory.
• Teleport (remove a unit and set-up again): Use range to stop them teleporting around the table (ex.: can only be set-up wholly within 24" of it's previous position).
• Ambush: Must be set-up wholly within 6" from any edge.

There are some other teleports, but you get the point.

5. Profiles: not sure how, but maybe some type of "Ravening Hordes" book could help.

• Re-rolls: Early AoS we saw how some units had better "thougness" using save, wounds and abilities. one of the main examples are the Liberators. They have the same "save" even if they carry a shield or not, and giving them double weapon doesn't give them more attacks. Instead, we have rerolls (Shields= rerolls to save, and paired weapons means rerolls to hit).
  Imho, we don't need that many re-rolls. I believe that giving them +1save for having a shield (like some other profiles already have) and giving more attacks for Paired Weapons could be healthier. Same could be carried to other warscrolls.
• Mortal Wounds: Everything does Mortal Wounds: Fire, magic, electricity, venom, etc... Maybe use other mechanics like Auto-hit, Auto-wound, throw two dice and take the higher, etc... With terrain (point 3) giving some protection, this new interactions could help to spice the game (-2 to hit, wait for my dragon to spit fire that Auto-hit!!!).
• Rend: Imo, Rend should be given to High Quality profiles to break 2+/3+saves. We don't need specialist weapons as 40k have, but something to use our units a bit more carefuly should be always be considered.

6. Bravery and bravery Checks:
As everyone already said, a new type of mechanics will always be good. Imho, the Inspiring Presence should be a bonus, not something like "ignore a phase" (imagine if we had: this unit ignore the fighting phase). And I would add that some abilities should focus on Bravery Checks too (we had the ol'KOs Earbuster and some screams from Banshees and FEC units, but that's a bit poor).

7. Roles and generic abilities:
Don't know how, but every role should recieve some type of ability that gives them a bit more "personality". Not sure as something "generic" (as Look Out Sir) or something that every warscroll could have in it. Example:

• Leaders:
  (>9 wounds & Monster) Look out Sir (as 40k or soemthing like that).
  (<9 wounds & Monster) More range for Inspiring Presence (point 6).
• Battleline: Capture objectives better.
• Behemoths: Stop Battleline units to capture objectives better.
• Artillery: Bonus kill Monsters.
• Cavalry: Can run & charge or any other variation.

8. Shooting: 
Imho, I think that Shooting in to melee should only be allowed for the units that are part of the fight (you can't shoot any unit that is engaged with one or more friendly units unless your shooting unit is engaged with the target too.).
We could even try an alternate shooting phase like our current fighting phase. It could be fine to have Sylvaneth (?) with the "Lighting Reactions" from the Luminth but just for the shooting phase.

9. Customization: 
Maybe it's just me, but I really want to build Heroes and buy artefacts. Not sure if it will help the game  but...

• Anvil of Apotheosis:  Polish all the tables (that 5atks with 2+/2+/-3rend/5dmg for example) and give more abilities, prayers, magic, CAs, etc...  to buy (maybe locked behing a battletome even). 
• Artefacts and traits: As everybody already said, just give us the option to buy more artefacts. Give all Artefacts a Label like Malign Sorcery had with Weapons and Relics, and every hero could bring two of them (one from each Label).

A lot of wishlist, I know.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Beliman
Grammar

[Maddpainting]

Didn't we have one of these threads a few months ago?

-Streamline the 12 types of terrain
-Endless spells support and non magic support (way to easy to be all or nothing in magic)
-Limit damage of range abilities (maybe over 18" -1 to hit or something) 
-Double turn if stays, other player gains something like a free Triumph, 2 CP, or something.
 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Maddpainting

[Nullius]

Definitely do NOT want them to remove the double turn. That would turn AoS into a fairly elementary game like 40k where the most important determinant of outcome is the list you run. 
 

rather I would suggest that the real problem with  the double turn is shooting. 

 

best way to fix shooting is to simply have one shooting phase at the beginning of each battle round. Starting with the player going second (like endless spells), players would alternate firing with each Shooting unit on the table until  they’ve all fired. This way the shooting abilities of units would never be influenced by the double turn in either way. Every unit would still fire once per round. Furthermore you have to actually be tactical with shooting units and plan to position them during the previous turn so that they will be able to take their shots in the next shooting phase. 
 

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Nullius

[stratigo]

24 minutes ago, Nullius said:

Definitely do NOT want them to remove the double turn. That would turn AoS into a fairly elementary game like 40k where the most important determinant of outcome is the list you run. 
 

rather I would suggest that the real problem with  the double turn is shooting. 

 

best way to fix shooting is to simply have one shooting phase at the beginning of each battle round. Starting with the player going second (like endless spells), players would alternate firing with each Shooting unit on the table until  they’ve all fired. This way the shooting abilities of units would never be influenced by the double turn in either way. Every unit would still fire once per round. Furthermore you have to actually be tactical with shooting units and plan to position them during the previous turn so that they will be able to take their shots in the next shooting phase. 
 

 

 

The most important determinant of victory in AoS is the list you run. A tourney list won't be beaten by a casual list. There's a reason you see the same lists in tournaments over and over. 

[Mattrulesok]

1 hour ago, Frowny said:

Drops no longer determines turn order. Turn 1 is a roll off, with lowest drops winning ties. A lot of armies are less abusive when they can't guarantee turn 1 for the alpha or turn 2 for the possible double. It would also tone down the strength of the double when you can't plan for it.

This is something I've been thinking about as being a great quality of life change. I'd even go as far as to say the team that drops first gets to choose to rerooll their roll for first turn, that's gives them a 66% chance of winning, good odds but not good enough to base your entire list on for a 5 game tournament? It feels like there is a fine line between rewarding clever list building verse punishing armies with subpar battalions. 

[Mcthew]

10 hours ago, someone2040 said:

 

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".

- I'd 2nd that. Models should interact with the scenery much more than they do. And that also includes line of sight and scenery. AoS seems to be one of the only systems that doesn't do this well enough, which is heresy for a GW game.

So I'd like to see more about the scenery.

- I can live with the current 'look out sir' rule. It works just fine for me  either as kharadron player or on the receiving end of those flying dwarfs!

- The double turn should stay, IMHO... but with changes. It shouldn't just be luck that decides initiave but other influences. For example, scoring more victory points in that turn should +1 to a player's iniative roll. Or a themed scenery piece or an artefact or allegiance ability could provide modifiers. It doesn't guarantee a decision goes a player's way, but it's an advantage that could be worth hunting for?

[Galas]

I would like for shooting, movement and damage to be toned down a bit. 

 

The good and competitive stuff shoots too much, is too fast, and hits way too hard. But even the "bad" units do the same. I miss the action starting in turns 2-3, and units being engaged in meele for 2-3 meele phases instead of "Oh I touched you, you are dead". It feels less like a battle and more like playing catch. If other kid touchs you first you lose.

[mojojojo101]

3 hours ago, Sorceress said:

what if players gained command points at the start of there opponents hero phase rather than there own. Everyone would start with one remove them and artifacts from battalions then at the start of your opponents hero phase you gain one.  This would give you a extra tool to weather your opponents turn and make the double turn include delaying gaining command points

Would it not be easier / simpler if it was at the start of the battle round rather than your opponents hero phase? If you only gain on your opponents turn going first, especially on the very first turn, seems like it would be an absolute nightmare.

 

Biggest thing for me would be just some rule simplifying / tidying. I think the game is just better / easier/ more enjoyable the less we have to argue about the particular way a particular rule works for each particular army if that makes sense.

After that, some way to make monsters slightly more valuable. I think the way to do this is probably to just make bracketing far less punishing across the board. 

For more pie in the sky thoughts I could see a situation where you could argue that we should reset the spiralling arms race a bit. A lot of stuff does a huge amount of damage which leads to stuff needing high saves to cope which means you need tonnes of MWs to get through it. Could be worthwhile to try and slow that down a little

As for the double turn. I desperately hope it stays and doesn't get huge changes. If we need to fiddle with it as light a touch as possible please.

Edited February 1, 2021 by mojojojo101

[Lich King]

Completely remove double turn. Many players ( which I know personally) would flock back to the game. Everything else is up in the air.

[TheCovenLord]

Things I would like to see:

-Overhaul bravery/battleshock. It either is either completely ignored or feel-bad crippling. It messes with unit pointing etc. Move to the 40k system or something make ignoring it difficult.

- Make the choice for the double turn matter more. More and more armies are given endless spells that either cannot affect themselves or cannot be controlled (which I like as they cost points). But there are fewer and fewer advantages to going second. Make scoring differences significant. Make shooting less effective if you seize 1st, or magic less effective. Make it so its a real choice that a player has to think about because right now its just a roll off to win and go. I do like the double turn. But I have also been on the bitter receiving end of a double turn that closed me out of a game by turn 2 without me being able to do anything but pray to the dice gods that my opponent whiffs every single 3+ rerollable hit roll he/she has.

- Get rid of horde bonuses/discounts. Units are hyper effective and discounting them makes it worse. It also is not applied evenly. Seeing it on BoC or skaven make sense but then we get it on things like elite hearthguard and then not on other elite-ish units is very strange and adds random power to certain units I suspect it was a balance choice at first but it is a bit non-sensical and could definitely be applied more evenly by using....

- Keyword unit roles. Give units specific keyword roles. Elites/Behemoths/Battleline should all come with inherent rules that define their role. Make elites baseline very powerful so that they can operate "outside the influence" of cheerleader buff units OR special rules that give them utility beyond killyness that battleline would struggle or just not get. Make battleline more dependent on having leaders nearby. Make behemoths damage double vs X+ number of infantry or specifically battleline to represent their crushing presence. Do something with those keywords to really make the units shine at specific activities. They have sort of started doing this with ogors and giants abilities with regards to objective capping now they just need to standardize it as a generic keyword. Within this we could also introduce unit caps (ex: 1 elite unit may be taken per X battleline units etc.) to give another balancing lever.

-Make shooting into combat impossible. Either make it so units cannot fire into their own combat (allowing melee units to rush and lock up ranged units) or make it impossible for units to fire into combats involving friendlies for fear of hitting them. Something needs to be done about shooting  and this is a potential solution. Make it so either it harkens back to eras past where if a ranged unit got locked in combat they had to resort to their awful melee profile with knives/fists OR make it so the fear of hitting friendlies prevent them from focus firing units pinned in place off the board. Either one would do wonders to help mitigate some shooting lists (still doesn't fix hard 1st turn alphas but that may have to be a tome by tome basis). I did consider making it so that units run the risk of dying to shots fired into a combat with friendlies. However, it encourages a rather toxic playstyle of pinning with cheapest chaff (you don't care about) and shooting it anyway (regardless of fluff) OR putting a unit that is just too difficult to kill by the source of shooting and shooting into the combat anyway. Without how good shooting is at the moment I'd be very doubtful that using "misses" as hitting your own units would be much of a detriment to people who invest heavily in the shooting game.

-Rework magic/prayers. Right now its the haves and the have nots. Either a tome has powerful casters with multiple casts and huge bonuses (Kroak, Nagash, Arkhan, teclis, even cheap skaven Grey seers etc.). Or they have awful single casters with few to no bonuses. I know personally if I am not running hallowheart I just no longer allocate points to wizards anymore as it is extremely futile to attempt to unbind or even cast anything. The same goes for prayers. Some armies have access to them. Some do not. And they are not interactive whatsoever. For how prominent the gods are in taking an active hand in the mortal realms I believe most factions should have access to prayers of some sort if they are going to hand them out to some factions and not others. It is kind of odd how they handle them as well. Completely uneven even within grand alliances. Khorne has prayers as well as skaven however Tzeentch (probably fluff reasons) and Slaanesh do not (so far). Some argue that prayers are for factions that have limited casting to help make up for it (Fyreslayers) but this is patently untrue as many factions have access to both (DoK, Skaven, Mawtribes etc.). I feel they should either be more accessible or should be interactive with your opponents (denying their prayers or making their pleas go unheard or some such).

 

-Rend over mortal wounds - I feel mortal wounds are too cheap and plentiful. Once again this would likely require individual warscroll changes over many tomes rather than a sweeping change from an edition change. Go back to rend being a way to mitigate armor rather than just ignoring it completely by dumping mortal wounds onto every 6 to hit/wound.

 

-Pipedream - Reduce lethality - I feel like lethality could be reduced a little bit. But the game has developed in such a way (and been painted into a bit of a corner) with some units being "tanky" even in the current hyper death environment which would make them mathmatically impossible to kill (they already approach it with the 5 turn limit with current rules). There would have to be complete overhauls of individual warscrolls across all factions to get out of this and I doubt it will happen particularly since tomes like Lumineth are likely here to stay IF 3rd ed happens soonish.

Edited February 1, 2021 by TheCovenLord

[Televiper11]

Personally, I love the double turn because it gives weaker armies (like my BoC) a chance to actually win games! It could use some incentive tweaking though. I like the idea that the person who suffers the double turn gains a CP to spend on things like Inspired Presence or you get an auto-ability like “Dug In” that lets you pick one unit to either auto-pass Battleshock or get +1 Save, forcing you opponent to make hard choices.

Speaking of Battleshock, I def think it needs an overhaul: 1) too many units (sometimes whole armies) are immune to it for the whole game now. As a mechanic, Battleshock immunity can be very fluffy but it needs to be used sparingly, like the Oathstone. It should always be a CP spend, IMO.

I don’t want to roll more dice, ala making Battleshock rolls for each model in a unit. But I don’t really know what would work better. Nothing is more backbreaking to me, as a BoC, player than to have 20+ Ungors run away.

I have issues with mvt too, particularly failed charges. @Beer & Pretzels Gamer has some good thoughts on fixing that. Maybe he will share.

I’d also like to see melee weapon range & rend standardized to reflect the model. Mega-Gargant melee profiles really revealed how flawed many of the game’s melee weapon profiles are.

If they are gonna squat models, units, or armies, I’d love some advance notice.

Overall though,  I’m happy with how AoS has evolved. If they revised Path To Glory to be more like 40K Crusade, I’d be ecstatic! More narrative gaming is always a plus.

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Televiper11

[Overread]

The only way I could get behind the whole "doubleturn gives a weaker army a chance to win" was if instead of a single dice roll at the start of a turn; it actually pinged based on the game state itself. Ergo that you got a double turn if you had, say, 50% less points on the board (and reserve) than your opponent. Though I've no idea how to easily measure that during a game without snarling it up with calculators every 5 mins to keep counting the points up. 

 

Otherwise its a single all powerful dice roll that has as much chance to give the underdog a chance to win as it does to give the power player just more power. 

 

If they could change it to actually be involved with the game perhaps it might work better, but so far I never see it really working to the advantage of the underdog.

[Galas]

"My army is so bad I need two consecutive turns to have a chance to win"

 

As a guy that played a full khorne-minotaur army for a year and ended up last in a couple of 40+ people tournaments I can say that it never feels good to get the double turn when you are behind and win with it, it feels like you need a special help to even win..  And when they get it agaisnt you then... yeah.