What would you like for AoS 3

[EMMachine]

9 hours ago, Bluesummers said:

-Free summnoning gone! When 2nd released they said that free summoning was implemented as an overall point increase in each army using it. Again this is not the case and ended be such a ridiculous experience. I guess they wanted to sell more models...

The Summoning is not for free. Most have an alternatiting currency. It's only that some factions summoning is easier than others. The only free summoning was in 1.0 when Wizards had cast a spell to summon units.

9 hours ago, Bluesummers said:

-Design armies and miniatures with rules in mind and not the other way around, so all armies are well balanced and have plenty of choices. This info i got from an interview i have watched and if i remember correctly (correct me if i am wrong) they mentioned that first they deisgn the miniatures and then they try writing the rules for them.

Well they have to look how to field the new Model into the lore, so they write the lore first and than the model with the rules.

 

9 hours ago, Bluesummers said:

-Battalions gone! Poor choice of battalions for most armies intestifies unbalance and adds to the double turn problem. Let players roll for 1st turn maybe with a bonus for the player finishing deploy first. Also battalions lock you on what kind of units you can field. I guess here is another marketing choice with certain battalions forcing you to field a couple of uninteresting weak units that wouldn't sell otherwise...

Well, Battalions are basicly a way for GW to show how an army (or a part of it) should look like. Some represent this better others do not. This is the reason why they lock you on what kind of units you can field.

Their is also the rumor that Battalions like we know them will be open and narrative only, and their will be generic Matched Play Battalions, with all armies having Access to them.

9 hours ago, Bluesummers said:

-Battletomes gone! Welcome to the modern age. Free rules online that can be updated on the fly. Also instead of point adjustments start fixing some useless or problematic warscrolls (you did it we KO and thunderers). Points don't solve useless rules becauses they can be reduced or increased up to a point. Free rules help new (and existing) players see can an army can do before buying. Keep books for lore, narrative and campaigns.

Do you think they will give you all rules for free. It's more likely that people are forced to make a subscription if you want to play, so you rent the rules instead of owning them (or that you still have to buy the book to get a code to unlock the rules).

In the end I'm buying the books mostly for the lore.

[PJetski]

3 wound Stormcast 

[Enoby]

18 minutes ago, PJetski said:

3 wound Stormcast 

I'd like to see wounds go up in general, thinking about it

[PJetski]

3 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I'd like to see wounds go up in general, thinking about it

Lately I've been thinking that damage spillover shouldn't be a thing any more, 1 attack = 1 dead model like in 40k. Certain models (maybe MONSTER?) could still spill over damage with melee attacks.

Requires a lot of work but a new edition is the perfect time to do it

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

6 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Lately I've been thinking that damage spillover shouldn't be a thing any more, 1 attack = 1 dead model like in 40k. Certain models (maybe MONSTER?) could still spill over damage with melee attacks.

Requires a lot of work but a new edition is the perfect time to do it

That has the weird effect of making small stuff tankier, though.

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

That has the weird effect of making small stuff tankier, though.

Sure but that could be accounted for in unit sizes, point costs, etc. Units would have to be designed with that rule in mind; it's not something you could just slap on top of the current ruleset.

40k does this really well with D3/D6 Blast weapons that automatically roll high when shooting at hordes.

[Enoby]

35 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

That has the weird effect of making small stuff tankier, though.

I think it works in 40k because of strength and toughness, with hordes being less susceptible to big weapons due to fewer attacks, but more susceptible to small arms fire as they have lower toughness.

I know there's something to be said about keeping AoS simple, but sometimes it feels like its outgrowing its simplicity - adding complex rules that don't quite balance properly in such a basic framework.  

Edited May 6, 2021 by Enoby

[Holy_Diver]

Hi, boyz!
I haven't read all the posts in the thread, so probably some (or all) of my preferences have already been covered by someone else. However, I write my wish list:

1) The big one: alternate turn, like Warcry (leaving the hero phase detached from the genetic phase, where you can move and/or attack). It is quite a utopian thought, but achievable.

2) Customizable sub factions, like space marires custom chapters. 
Let's face it: who is it that renounces the rules of a sub faction to simply have a trait from the generic table? 

3) Warscroll battallions only for narrative.  

4) Command trait included for special characters, like 40k.

5) Inspiring precence once per battle. The bravery of the heroes usable by the units within 3".

6) Objectives scored at the end of the battle round.

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

3 wound Stormcast 

60rat strong clanrat units max. Size for 270points

[NinthMusketeer]

Sub-factions did indeed move very quickly from 'optional thematic choice' to 'mandatory for the army to be viable' but I think all three people that were surprised by that have gotten over it by now. Still sucks.

[Skreech Verminking]

16 hours ago, PJetski said:

Lately I've been thinking that damage spillover shouldn't be a thing any more, 1 attack = 1 dead model like in 40k. Certain models (maybe MONSTER?) could still spill over damage with melee attacks.

Requires a lot of work but a new edition is the perfect time to do it

yeah that would actually be an interesting addition.

The current spilling over damage just has gotten out of control.

Edited May 7, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[stratigo]

On 5/5/2021 at 3:21 PM, NinthMusketeer said:

I really hope the limitation on debuff stacking does not come true. A limit of -1 is just lame and leads to all sort of stupid situations like where a unit has run, is shooting through obscuring cover at a unit with it's own penalty ability and... -1! In practice it serves to remove the effect of abilities from the game and make shooting in particular super reliable because deploying a counter is essentially saying that shooter has free reign to stack on as many penalties as they like with no consequence. AoS has the added problem that there are a large number of units with abilities already offering +/- 2 in a single ability. Additionally, stacking penalties is generally difficult to do and requires a large enough investment to be fair. Certainly it is less of a problem than stacking saves or simple MW spam.

A cap of -2 I could get behind as a decent compromise though.

I'd like to see GW reign in buffs and debuffs to make them feel more meaningful for the units that get it. 

 

And not, like, hand them out as a subfaction ability cause that's totally the best way to balance it.

[NinthMusketeer]

11 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

yeah that would actually be an interesting addition.

The current spilling over damage just has gotten out of control.

Much of the damage spilling over is from MWs, specifically multiple instances of 1 mortal wound. Removing damage spillover would just make those elements, already the strongest, even more dominant.

Edited May 7, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[NinthMusketeer]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

I'd like to see GW reign in buffs and debuffs to make them feel more meaningful for the units that get it. 

 

And not, like, hand them out as a subfaction ability cause that's totally the best way to balance it.

Well they thought +1 to all saves was an appropriate subfaction ability so it could be worse!

[Aeryenn]

Just to add my 2 cents.

Basically anything that will change double turn from execution.

Give the player who takes double turn a penalty -1 to hit as a fatigue or whatever or give the defender a +1 save.
Or give the defender more ways to counteract like ability to cast 1 spell or ability to retreat a unit on a 5+ or something. That's a job for mathematicians to calculate what is fair and balanced. Anyone who faced a double turn from a shooting army (I have Kharadron myself) knows this is far from fun. Annoying at best.

Or move away from double turn completely.

I'd also move away from the lowest drops gives you to decide who goes first. It greatly limits build variation as everyone tries to have the lowest drops and all lists among one army look pretty much the same.

Random dice roll should be enough.

I would also empower charging units to fight first or something.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

20 hours ago, Enoby said:

I think it works in 40k because of strength and toughness, with hordes being less susceptible to big weapons due to fewer attacks, but more susceptible to small arms fire as they have lower toughness.

I know there's something to be said about keeping AoS simple, but sometimes it feels like its outgrowing its simplicity - adding complex rules that don't quite balance properly in such a basic framework.  

I personally would also like if there was more of a distinction between having many small attacks vs. one big attack. Right now, the only difference between one damage 5 attack and five damage 1 attacks is that the one big attack is more swingy/feast or famine. I suppose the two different profiles also benefit differently from +1 attack/+1 damage, which is something.

But I think implementing a rule that damage does not spill over would overall be a move in the wrong direction, because in my opinion big monsters with large attacks need buffs in order to feel like they should, not nerfs. And being able to only kill one goblin at a time with a swing of their huge claws sort of moves into a bad direction for me, as far as that is concerned.

I suspect removing damage spillover would require a larger change than it seems. Right now, big blobs of small models are still the best type of unit in AoS. In order for the game to support this rule change, we would need a lot more good reasons to take big monsters first.

Edited May 7, 2021 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I personally would also like if there was more of a distinction between having many small attacks vs. one big attack. Right now, the only difference between one damage 5 attack and five damage 1 attacks is that the one big attack is more swingy/feast or famine. I suppose the two different profiles also benefit differently from +1 attack/+1 damage, which is something.

But I think implementing a rule that damage does not spill over would overall be a move in the wrong direction, because in my opinion big monsters with large attacks need buffs in order to feel like they should, not nerfs. And being able to only kill one goblin at a time with a swing of their huge claws sort of moves into a bad direction for me, as far as that is concerned.

I removing damage spillover would require a larger change than it seems. Right now, big blobs of small models are still the best type of unit in AoS. In order for the game to support this rule change, we would need a lot more good reasons to take big monsters first.

Yeah that is true, and I doubt gw will be introducing aos to toughness and strength although I would prefer that

[papary]

5 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Yeah that is true, and I doubt gw will be introducing aos to toughness and strength although I would prefer that

i hope no, having to work out s/t seems to slow the game down in my opinion

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, Aeryenn said:

Give the player who takes double turn a penalty -1 to hit as a fatigue or whatever or give the defender a +1 save.
Or give the defender more ways to counteract like ability to cast 1 spell or ability to retreat a unit on a 5+ or something. That's a job for mathematicians to calculate what is fair and balanced. Anyone who faced a double turn from a shooting army (I have Kharadron myself) knows this is far from fun. Annoying at best.

What if...
...the rumor about new Generic CA: Charge Reactions can only be used when you are second in a double turn?
...and there are new Generic CA: Shooting Reactions too?

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Beliman

[Aeryenn]

14 minutes ago, Beliman said:

What if...
...the rumor about new Generic CA: Charge Reactions can only be used when you are scond in a double turn?
...and there are new Generic CA: Shooting Reactions too?

 

If not it will only empower shooting armies. Your shooting unit is charged? Retreat with a command point. That would be a total disaster with a Kharadron Ironclad escaping every fight.

[pnkdth]

6 minutes ago, Aeryenn said:

If not it will only empower shooting armies. Your shooting unit is charged? Retreat with a command point. That would be a total disaster with a Kharadron Ironclad escaping every fight.

Unless it follows the rules that we have for retreating, e.g. you cannot shoot or charge after retreating.

Assuming the leaks are correct a single D6 is very swingy and if it functions like in the past if the unit is caught it is wiped out. Suddenly that retreat move is both very risky and limits them in the following turn.

This is without taking into consideration other eventual limitations on shooting.

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, papary said:

i hope no, having to work out s/t seems to slow the game down in my opinion

Well I don’t mind a game that goes on till round 5.

My last three games all ended turn 2, and with the exception, of the player winning the game, the other was well not so amused about having had no chance to play his army at all

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Well I don’t mind a game that goes on till round 5.

My last three games all ended turn 2, and with the exception, of the player winning the game, the other was well not so amused about having had no chance to play his army at all

I think he meant that it slows down the game in terms of minutes played, not in terms of rounds played.

I agree with your sentiment, though. AOS armies overall have became far too lethal and far too mobile, to the point where you can determine a winner with the dice roll for round 2 in almost every game.

[Enoby]

4 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I personally would also like if there was more of a distinction between having many small attacks vs. one big attack. Right now, the only difference between one damage 5 attack and five damage 1 attacks is that the one big attack is more swingy/feast or famine. I suppose the two different profiles also benefit differently from +1 attack/+1 damage, which is something.

But I think implementing a rule that damage does not spill over would overall be a move in the wrong direction, because in my opinion big monsters with large attacks need buffs in order to feel like they should, not nerfs. And being able to only kill one goblin at a time with a swing of their huge claws sort of moves into a bad direction for me, as far as that is concerned.

I suspect removing damage spillover would require a larger change than it seems. Right now, big blobs of small models are still the best type of unit in AoS. In order for the game to support this rule change, we would need a lot more good reasons to take big monsters first.

I agree that, with no other rules changes, no spillover would be bad for the game. They could fix that with a 'sweep' ability present on all monsters/behemoths that lets damage carry over. But that's more minor rules to keep remembering and I'm not sure if the buff to hordes would be healthy.

2 hours ago, papary said:

i hope no, having to work out s/t seems to slow the game down in my opinion

I'm not sure if it would slow the game down much at all. It adds an extra step maybe once or twice in the game that's no slower than asking 'rend?"

The difference, when using 40K 9e S/T, is:

Without: roll hit, roll wounds, opponent asks for rend, they roll saves

With: roll hit, ask for toughness, roll wounds, opponent asks for rend, they roll saves

It should take an extra ten seconds at most, and after a few rolls you should remember the toughness. I think the small bit of extra time is a well worth the advantages 

[PJetski]

If they would be willing to redesign every warscroll and pitched battle profile from scratch I would strongly prefer playing a version of AOS where damage spillover wasn't the norm. It would require printing a new rule set and new Grand Alliance style books with temporary warscrolls to tide you over before the full Battletome release.

Unfortunately I don't think GW values AOS enough to justify spending the time and resources to make such a big change. They definitely value 40k to that extent...