Jump to content

What would you like for AoS 3


Enoby

Recommended Posts

I would love to a bit of a leveller for all the armies in AoS 3. Seraphon, LRL, Tzeentch have all pushed towards a shooting meta with magic dominance, those two things feel very oppressive to play against. I think a move away from shooting would be healthy but they aren't simply going to reprint every shooting warscroll.

I think the best we can hope for is some new good scenarios & better terrain rules. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Been a min on this one but this just came to mind while thinking about the new Gravelords. 

I'd like spirit hosts to become universal battleline choice across all death armies. Maybe even with a rule of "only one unit" counts towards that. 

Thematically this would be awesome! 

They're already sprinkled across other factions model ranges as well. 

  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vasshpit said:

Been a min on this one but this just came to mind while thinking about the new Gravelords. 

I'd like spirit hosts to become universal battleline choice across all death armies. Maybe even with a rule of "only one unit" counts towards that. 

Thematically this would be awesome! 

They're already sprinkled across other factions model ranges as well. 

Death more than any other Grand Alliance's factions feel rather arbitrary. Thematically and aesthetically the armies make perfect sense but in terms of Vampiric lords, ghostly mages and bone constructs I do not see any of them really turning down a horde of zombies, ghosts or skeletons in their battles. 

But I am with you on spirit hosts in particular they are such a classic unit for Vampire Counts and would feel sorely missed from the faction. Also their models fit well with Nighthaunt but also have a unique feel to them that seems appropriate for mixing and matching. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2021 at 3:01 AM, AaronWilson said:

I think the best we can hope for is some new good scenarios & better terrain rules. 

Not picking on you, Aaron, but this is as good a quote as any to use for my question.

I'd love to know what people think needs to be changed in the terrain rules that would not be solved by people just using better actual terrain. From my games, it's my view that the rules are fine - but we play with stuff of a good size, appropriate for these heroically scaled models.

Even the original 4-pager had sufficient rules* to cover things if you just used nice terrain and applied all the rules.

 

*I'm aware they didn't really call out the rules as a guide for terrain, but what you needed was there.

Edited by Sleboda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2021 at 8:01 AM, AaronWilson said:

I would love to a bit of a leveller for all the armies in AoS 3. Seraphon, LRL, Tzeentch have all pushed towards a shooting meta with magic dominance, those two things feel very oppressive to play against. I think a move away from shooting would be healthy but they aren't simply going to reprint every shooting warscroll.

I think the best we can hope for is some new good scenarios & better terrain rules. 

I still believe shooting in general is gonna be hit with a serious nerf hammer

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Characters can join units, as per old fantasy. 

Shooting cannot be done into combat. 

Shooting through your own units, even if you can 'see' the target is a flat -1.

Single heroes cannot be targeted by shooting unless they are the closest target. 

Teleporting units cannot shoot or charge following a teleport, the same rule shouldn't apply to summoned or ambushing units. 

Bring back % restrictions. Armies should IMHO look like armies, Nagash or Archaon shouldn't wandering around with 20 dudes. Not sure how this can be fixed, cos the cat is out the bag now, but it's ****** and makes the game look and feel lame. 

Fix prayers, they are OP, too reliable and cant be unbound.

Fix overly complex warscrolls for specific terrain pieces, which almost no one uses and make decent universal terrain rules.

Fix rules for moving over terrain, steam tanks shouldnt be able to climb trees. Obvs.

Go back to 6 simple, dynamic and actually effective mystical terrain rules.

 

 

Edited by warhammernerd
  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see the Mechanics of the Game itself dictate how it plays rather than them be twisted into weird shapes by Army Book formulae etc but it won't happen. 

By which I mean fir example Dudes who are 8 feet tall and clad in plate mail should be more durable than naked fanatics. *Everyone* now basically gets a deathless minions roll for the most flimsy definition of faith or zeal or whatever,its absurd. 

It feels like GW's capacity to use the rules they have themselves created to communicate the themes of an army is just totally lacking unless they can effectivley ignore them. 

AOS basically boils down to a few key concepts

Heroes, Magic, Summmoning, Movement, Shooting, Combat. 

If they focussed on ensuring each army was a specialist in one or two of those criteria , average at a few others and actively compromised on the rest it would be a vastly more balanced and engaging game.

I think it's really interesting that in spite of their astonishing sucsess as a minis company *no other wargames system* has the approach GW do with 40k and Fantasy with Army Books and Faction terrain. That's partly because they dont have the resources to commit to that approach of course, but I think its mainly because from a perspective of designing a game it is utterly counter intuitive to spread the rules for it across like 12 books.

But of course GW are hawking a license and selling a universe, so it's not really about developing a game in that sense. But the game mechanics being a secondary focus over "theme" is in reality what leads to Stormcast having to act as a Sniper Corps to stay competitive, an army of Giants being less destructive than an army of goblins, a Treelord  being easier for a regiment of ten people to kill than ten people with no  clothes on etc on account of all the weird buffs in place.

If you're looking to play the best form of your faction on the table, then thematically it's likely to be utterly non representative of them in the fiction, or, as with LRL and say FEC so accurate that the rules barely tether them to the game anymore. 

But as I say, selling armies is the goal, not making a good game, so it's not going to happen. Which is totally fine of course. Their prerogative is to make and sell the best model soldiers and AOS as a vehicle for that is remarkable.

Pound for pound in terms of ratio of money spent to the value of your figures within game rules across the system and to you and your opponent's experience within matched play, it's among the worst wargames system there is  

 

Edited by Nos
  • Like 4
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've chimed in with a few things I want for AoS 3.0, but now for what I don't want, because we know GW does read this forum.

I reckon some of you out there have heard about what happened with the recent Kill Team release (re boxed old kit, with reduced contents but prices whacked up by 20% to name just one thing).

Since the new 40k edition there appears to be a steep price rise = less content that might make any AoS 3.0 release a costly affair. I would love there to be an AoS 3.0 Soulwars box*, but I wouldn't be prepared to pay £120 for it, particularly if it had less models than Soulwars. At the moment GW pricing is all over the place so I look at AoS 3.0 with measure of scepticism.

This isn't a post to set hares running, but I'm gonna be pretty cautious about any AoS 3.0 release, and the new Cursed City release will be a bench mark (52 minis and lots of other goodness, but leaked prices show a massive jump).

*Although pretty stoked to see what the Ruination chamber is gonna look like. Grim-darker stormcast anyone?

Edited by Mcthew
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of the stuff already mentioned (ditch double turns, tone down shooting, tone down damage overall, revised terrain rules, etc etc), but the biggest and least likely thing I'd like to see is ditching discrete player turns altogether and instead going with alternating activations in every phase the way the combat phase currently works.  At the moment long player turns can leave the other player with relatively little engagement for long chunks of time.  Obviously the double turn makes this dramatically worse and ditching it would be an improvement, but ditching separate player turns altogether would be a much bigger fix, imo.

As for toning down shooting, maybe this was suggested already, I admit I haven't read through the entire thread, but in addition to no shooting into combat and bigger penalties for targeting heroes near units, one thing to consider could be moving the shooting phase to before movement instead of after.  This would effectively cut down the range of missile weapons across the board and make it a lot easier to use terrain to block line of sight to characters and smaller units.

Edited by Sception
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not agree, double turn must leave, cant have a balanced tactical game when 1 only dice has so much power. Sure you can play around it and minimize the lossed a bit, but still 1 only dice shouldnt be so important.

 

So for me is:

 

-bye bye double turn

- magic after move

- foot heros cant be shot unless they be closest to firing unit.

- standar melee ranges not based on bases, since rigth now every small base figth like a spear despite having a litle knife, and some huge 2 hand units in 32 bases only fight in 1 row, is stupid. Something like 40k where 2 rows can fight despite base size, make spears figth with 3 or 4 rows per example.

-monster wound increase , a 350p beast cant have 12-14wounds, is nuts. They should have 20-30w  etc

Sure it would need rebalance of armyes, but it would be a more tactical game and less skirmish game

Edited by Kitsumy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also can't have a fun game when one player stands around doing very little for half an hour because it's the other player's turn... then loses a priority roll and has to stand around doing very little for ~another~ half an hour because it's the other player's turn again.  You can argue tactics and strategy and whatnot all you want, but waiting around that long potentially doing nothing more than rolling saves and putting dead guys away just isn't fun.

I prefer magic before move, though.  In fact, as already mentioned, I'd put shooting before move as well.

Edited by Sception
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i mean if they make the game board smaller like they did in 40K (which everyone seem certain that it will happen) they may have to do something with the priority turn  mechanic since smaller board would just make getting double turn much more worse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kitsumy said:

- magic after move

- foot heros cant be shot unless they be closest to firing unit.

Umm, maybe I misunderstood what you are saying, but killing heroes with magic instead of ranged weapons... I'm not sure about that.

Edited by Beliman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sception said:

Lately alternating activations, sort of the way the combat phase works, are more common ime.  And that's certainly the direction I'd like GW to take, though I don't at all expect it.

Alternating activations is good IF you do everything during your units activation e.g. Move, Shoot, Fight like in Warmahordes.

I think AoS would benefit from a system like LotR SBG, where there is priority rolls but no double turns as such. Its one player does all their movement then the opponent does theirs and continues as such for the rest of the phases. Also you can interrupt this with heroic actions.

Now that I type this I can see some real appeal to this system. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vasshpit said:

I have minimal experience with other miniature tabletop games. Are most you go, I go rules without a potential double turn mechanic?

As far as I know there are no other Wargames with a double turn mechanic. 

I see people here bleet endlessly about how it makes the game unique. In my opinion as the rule currently is, its an anchor around the games neck thats holding it back from its true potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sception said:

Lately alternating activations, sort of the way the combat phase works, are more common ime.  And that's certainly the direction I'd like GW to take, though I don't at all expect it.

Alternate activations would also make army building more interesting.

Where one player might limit drops to get the initiative for that first unit move, another might go for more units to give them more options vs their opponent (and less counter moves).

However as units get wiped off the table it does mean that subsequent turns could get very boring for the player left with one unit of battleline and a single hero.

Swings and roundabouts, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...