What would you like for AoS 3

[Frowny]

Things I'd want to see

1) Change first turn from lowest drops to a roll-off, with +1 for the lowest drops. Would take a lot of wind out of the race to the bottom for more drops, and I think ultimately balance turns a lot- if you weren't SURE you'd get top of T1 (or bottom of T1), you couldn't deploy to maximize it as much. This would indirectly nerf the early double turn as well.

2) Better Scenery rules. 40k has some reasonable ones. Lets just take those (or something similar). Rolling for everything is seldom meaningful and takes way longer than deciding that big walls are impassible and woods are obscuring, for example. 

3) Better Pile in rules. Again 40k does well here. Its a lot less fiddly, dependent on b2b with a model in b2b rather than trying to maximize the number of models within 1', which is fiddly and slows down the game.

4) 40k style coherency rules. Pretty easy to understand. I think they add something and minimize conga lines. 

5) Balancing of faction/warscroll points and rules. The game is in a pretty great place overall, I think. Most of the changes I think are more warscroll/faction problems rather than game rules per say. Even some problems overall like bravery being pointless is more a problem with individual factions just ignoring it rather than the AOS rules themselves. Stop making grots fearless. OBR is already LD10. You didn't need to ALSO make them fearless too. Thats a faction problem though, not an AOS rules problem. I hope they DON'T overcomplicate it and try to change fundamental rules instead of fixing their own writing. 

Things I DONT want to see

1) No removal of double turn- I like it, it adds a ton of tactical depth. I think the game would be more broken in favor of shooting without it. While the double with a shooting army is incredibly strong, without the possibility of getting a double against them, you'd never do real damage to their gunline, instead of fighting endless screens

2) Not much more complexity- AOS is pretty clean and simple right now. Add too much and it will be far less fun and playable. 

3) No major changes to CP. The 40k system is WAY more complicated. Its kinda interesting, but comes at significant cost and lots of gotcha moments for newer players. Keeping command abilities on warscrolls seems reasonable to me. Indeed removing some of the gratiutus 

4) The missions- They are great. Little fiddles and a few new ones/changes are great, but the overall style of holding points is way way better than in other games I've played. This is a good area to mix-it-up while keeping to the current excellent formula. For example, scorched earth would be still excellent with 6 or 10 objectives instead of 8.

5) Fix things that aren't broken. I really like the game now. If anything it mostly needs a mix-it-up slightly and definitely not a big rewrite. I hope they don't do too much here. 

[Gauche]

4 hours ago, lare2 said:

I'd like to see the unit coherency rules from 40k cross over. It's a real neat way to ensure units don't conga across the board. This would also mean there's no need for "wholly within." 

In truth, there's a lot in 9th ed. 40k which I think would transition over well. Time was AoS would influence 40k but I think with this edition, we should get some ideas flowing back this way. 

Strong agree with this. The 40K Core Rules are almost perfect, they're easy to understand and get the job done. The main issues come into play with things like Multi-Level Terrain (much rarer in AoS from what I've seen) and Special Rules interactions (doesn't apply to AoS). Where that game gets into trouble is the Codexes, they're horribly written and introduce a huge amount of rules bloat.

I've seen some dislike for the 40K version of Look Out Sir but it's by far the best way to do it of any game I've ever learned. Joining units is fiddly and hard to keep track of. Having them screened makes sense on the table and in the mind's eye. You simply introduce ways to get around Look Out Sir, for shooting armies that can be sniper type effects, fast armies can get around the back/flank, Magic armies can nuke them, etc. Otherwise you have a game where Support Characters cannot exist because no Modifier is enough defense and even though AoS isn't as shooting heavy as 40K is, it's still shooting heavy enough.

I think 40K Rules with a few tweaks on top of AoS would be GW's best game. Take all the benefits of Battalions away except their actual effect, make Artefacts/Traits purchasable in some manner, and tie CP to something else or make it purchasable. I'd play that game and nothing else.

[Carnelian]

Maybe they can nerf the double turn by ruling that the player who takes the double cannot spend or generate command points during that turn

[Vomikron]

I would like to see a Warcry influence on Age of Sigmar. Warcry has by far been my favorite GW game and I think wandering beasts would be a great wild card in games. 
 

I would like the game to move away from Heroes and big monsters and centerpieces. I understand that this is a huge draw for a lot of players so I don’t hold out much hope for that. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Vomikron

[Nullius]

I think battle standard bearers are about to be a thing. Models with the totem keyword will give you a bunch of bonuses relating to command points and will form the linchpin of your battle line.

[Vomikron]

2 minutes ago, Nullius said:

I think battle standard bearers are about to be a thing. Models with the totem keyword will give you a bunch of bonuses relating to command points and will form the linchpin of your battle line.

I think this would be pretty cool actually. Lots of cool design possibilities from a modeling perspective.

[PJetski]

15 hours ago, Carnelian said:

Maybe they can nerf the double turn by ruling that the player who takes the double cannot spend or generate command points during that turn

This would end up empowering lists that don't really care about command points. The double turn is so potent that people would start tailoring lists to exclude dependence on command points

[Skreech Verminking]

26 minutes ago, PJetski said:

This would end up empowering lists that don't really care about command points. The double turn is so potent that people would start tailoring lists to exclude dependence on command points

So beasts of chaos, Khorne deamonkins (the aos version of that), some skaven lists, and many more armies that are doing currently poorly

sounds like a great balance to me😜
(Nah I’m just messing with ya mate.

it could be problematic with some armies )

Edited May 12, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Carnelian]

4 hours ago, PJetski said:

This would end up empowering lists that don't really care about command points. The double turn is so potent that people would start tailoring lists to exclude dependence on command points

No doubt. But if it was enacted with a conscious ability to make the most powerful abilities cost command points (e.g. Teclis casting ability), it could be interesting

[Vaporlocke]

On 5/11/2021 at 10:59 AM, PJetski said:

That would make heroes immune to damage until you kill the rest of the unit, and as I stated I am not in favour of that.

It worked fine in WHFB since you could direct attacks in melee, it was just a lot harder to snipe them out. 

[Kadeton]

4 hours ago, Vaporlocke said:

It worked fine in WHFB since you could direct attacks in melee, it was just a lot harder to snipe them out. 

Yeah, I'd like to see this come back. Archery is pretty indiscriminate on a battlefield - if you want to take out a hero, you need to go and deal with them personally, in hand-to-hand combat.

[EnumaEilish]

17 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Yeah, I'd like to see this come back. Archery is pretty indiscriminate on a battlefield - if you want to take out a hero, you need to go and deal with them personally, in hand-to-hand combat.

Adopting 40k’s version of the Look Out Sir rule would pretty much have the same effect

[Yondaime]

6 hours ago, EnumaEilish said:

Adopting 40k’s version of the Look Out Sir rule would pretty much have the same effect

this will make heroes too strong tho, immagine you cant snipe a cathallar or if i put a chaff unit on a loreseaker 

[Marcvs]

1 hour ago, Yondaime said:

this will make heroes too strong tho, immagine you cant snipe a cathallar or if i put a chaff unit on a loreseaker 

or block of hearthguard berserkers where you can't turn off their 4+ FNP by killing the heroes

[Skreech Verminking]

18 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

or block of hearthguard berserkers where you can't turn off their 4+ FNP by killing the heroes

Yeah that can be a problem.

although if just a few selected units are able to shoot heroes no matter what, and every shooting unit can select a hero to be shot when that hero is within 12inches of the unit that wants to shoot him, this might be an idea.

[Yondaime]

2 hours ago, Marcvs said:

or block of hearthguard berserkers where you can't turn off their 4+ FNP by killing the heroes

oh god i didnt think about that XD

 

1 hour ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Yeah that can be a problem.

although if just a few selected units are able to shoot heroes no matter what, and every shooting unit can select a hero to be shot when that hero is within 12inches of the unit that wants to shoot him, this might be an idea.

Problem is, aos always had simple rules, rules like this overcomplicate for the sake of it, for this reason i dont like charge reaction rules, the beauty of aos is that it stared with a 4 page pdf, easy to learn, very hard to master all the rules

[Chaos Shepard]

7 hours ago, Yondaime said:

this will make heroes too strong tho, immagine you cant snipe a cathallar or if i put a chaff unit on a loreseaker 

 

5 hours ago, Marcvs said:

or block of hearthguard berserkers where you can't turn off their 4+ FNP by killing the heroes

I will argue that is kind of the point. Why have buff hero's if they can easily be picked off? Its also worth mentioning than not all armies have the ranged fire power to pick off heros from a distance, giving some armies a unique advantage.

[PJetski]

28 minutes ago, Chaos Shepard said:

I will argue that is kind of the point. Why have buff hero's if they can easily be picked off? Its also worth mentioning than not all armies have the ranged fire power to pick off heros from a distance, giving some armies a unique advantage.

The key word here is "easily". 

Heroes shouldn't be immune to damage until you kill 30+ chaff, but they  also shouldnt die to a handful of arrows. There is a lot of middle ground here and a -1 to hit with missile weapons isn't quite there.

As I've mentioned a few times in this thread I think the answer is bodyguard units for every faction. The easiest way to introduce the bodyguard mechanic to every army is through Core Battalions.

[Chaos Shepard]

I think a few dedicated sniper units would make more sense than dedicated bodyguard units added to every army.

[Phasteon]

Also it would just make that bodyguard battalion the new „must take“

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

5 hours ago, PJetski said:

The key word here is "easily". 

Heroes shouldn't be immune to damage until you kill 30+ chaff, but they  also shouldnt die to a handful of arrows. There is a lot of middle ground here and a -1 to hit with missile weapons isn't quite there.

As I've mentioned a few times in this thread I think the answer is bodyguard units for every faction. The easiest way to introduce the bodyguard mechanic to every army is through Core Battalions.

I have to disagree.  That's what those chaff are there to do.  They ARE the bodyguard unit in the event that AoS adopts 40k's Lookout, Sir! rules.  Which I really don't see as that big of a problem.  Hero units are like that are supposed to buff a unit.  My limited experience has been its only one unit as well since lots of buffs in AoS are wholly within 12" or so (which is usually that chaff unit forming a very symbiotic relationship).  Which very much forces the hero to be in certain places to worthwhile. Which is something an opponent can predict, and if they can predict it, they can form plans to counter it.

On the countering side, I am not super familiar with every faction, but are there lots of factions that don't have fast, flying or teleporting units that can in some way flank and absolutely have to rely on withering ranged attacks to bring down these heroes?  I have only played my Slaves to Darkness army.  It has practically no ranged attacks (Warcry cultists ranged attacks and Arcane Bolt basically).  A very unreliable teleport (I have only successfully cast it once), as well as; not especially good speed or damage (lots of Warriors and Knights).  That said, I have still managed a surprising number of hero kills (mostly with my heroes for that sweet, sweet Eye of the Gods roll). 

I mean it could be my opponent's positioning, but 6'x4' is a lot of area and chances are there are going to be gaps in the line for fast movers to get in a flank attack to catch these heroes. I am not seeing that big of an issue with heroes have 40k levels of protection.  Worse comes to worse, make heroes like 20%+ more expensive across the board or something.  I think that's a far better fix than creating basically a whole new class of units (bodyguards) to patch the issue.

My Slaves to Darkness army hasn't been affected by ranged attack sniping of my heroes (at least not yet).  Even with me running a bunch of foot Lords (both warrior and wizard types) it usually easy enough keep them safe Round 1 and after that ensure they can some protective magics (Oracular Visions works great). 

I just find it kinda distasteful how easy it can be to remove one of the few things that flavor an army.

[Kadeton]

17 hours ago, Yondaime said:

this will make heroes too strong tho, immagine you cant snipe a cathallar or if i put a chaff unit on a loreseaker 

We don't have to "imagine" - for many armies, that's just reality. We don't have the shooting to snipe out a Cathallar or a Loreseeker, or Fyreslayer heroes, or any other lynchpin heroes. We just have to live with the fact that those heroes can do the job they are supposed to do against us, and play accordingly. There's no good reason why they shouldn't be able to do their job against your army as well.

[Chikout]

I really think the biggest change I'd like to see is to scenery.  Having scenery that actually blocks line of sight would reduce the power of the two biggest problems people have, namely powerful shooting and magic. 

I think that one change would improve the game a massive amount. 

[EMMachine]

The problem I see with the 40k Look Out Sir, is that it is quite cumbersome and GW needed two editions + FAQs to get it to its actual state (and still it is not free of holes).

Quote

Change this rule to read:

‘Models cannot target a unit that contains any Character models with a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon while that Character unit is within 3" of any of the following:

• A friendly unit that contains 1 or more Vehicle or Monster models with a wounds characteristic of 10 or more.
• A friendly non-Character unit that contains 1 or more Vehicle or Monster models.
• A friendly non-Character unit that contains 3 or more models.

In all cases, if that Character unit is both visible to the firing model and it is the closest enemy unit to the firing model, it can be targeted normally. When determining if that Character unit is the closest enemy unit to the firing model, ignore other enemy units that contain any Character models with a Wounds characteristics of 9 or less.’

Here an example:

The case above is how it was most likely intended (the way it was wrote in the FAQ).

But the character (orange) would also be immun in the case below, because the hero is in range of red and purple is closer to the green unit.

In worst case with the 40k rules red and purple could be behind walls or inside a would and the hero would be immun to shooting as long as the hero is in 3" of red and purple is closer (because it is only stated that the hero has to be visible and the closest unit.

From a lore perspective it would really make more sense if shooting trough another unit is punished instead of a single character standing in the open, dancing and screaming: "You can't shoot me because there is a unit closer you can't see".

A ruling like the wildwood would make more sense:

Quote

Models are not visible to each other if the closest point of the two models crosses over more than 1" of another unit. The rule doesn't apply if either model can fly or has the Monster Keyword.

That way, with the example above, the in the first example the hero (or other type of unit would be blocked) but not in the second case. It would allow to activly screen a unit.

[Marcvs]

5 hours ago, Kadeton said:

We don't have to "imagine" - for many armies, that's just reality. We don't have the shooting to snipe out a Cathallar or a Loreseeker, or Fyreslayer heroes, or any other lynchpin heroes. We just have to live with the fact that those heroes can do the job they are supposed to do against us, and play accordingly. There's no good reason why they shouldn't be able to do their job against your army as well.

the problem with this argument is that it gives the impression that you are not arguing in favour of balance, but in favour of a different unbalanced system.

If you reduce the importance of shooting and make it impossible to snipe support characters you create (again) the sitaution where buffed melee units, in particular those who can fight at the start of the combat phase / make you strike last (plus, sometimes, fight twice) are untouchable and impossible to deal with if you don't have access to the same tools.

What I am saying is that I believe that the present situation works too much against support characters, but the balanced point is somewhere in between "support characters are sitting ducks" and "support characters are virtually unkillable without killing everything else before"