What would you like for AoS 3

[Kadeton]

3 hours ago, Marcvs said:

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.

This discussion isn't about balance, but okay. My main beef with the current state of shooting isn't that it's too strong, it's that it's nothing like the role that shooting plays in medieval warfare, and its produces outcomes that are inconsistent with the heroic-fantasy tone of AoS.

3 hours ago, Marcvs said:

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.

Not inherently. That sounds pretty unbalanced, but that doesn't have to be mitigated by making support heroes easy to kill. It could also be balanced by, for instance, breaking or removing all the interactions which allow for "untouchable" melee units to become overwhelmingly strong. Support heroes shouldn't be "kill this model or lose" power level, but they should also be allowed the chance to play the role they're supposed to play in your army.

3 hours ago, Marcvs said:

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"

Personally, if I were designing it, I would make support characters attach themselves to a unit when you build the army list, and become a permanent model in that unit. Only the unit they were attached to would benefit from their leadership effects. Then, bring back the Challenge mechanics from the old WHFB. You can shoot their unit but you won't hit the character (indiscriminate), and if you want to kill them before you wipe out their whole unit then you'd better get one of your own characters in there to deal with them (heroic). But that's just me - I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives that would work well.

[Yondaime]

10 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.

Good luck defeating Fireslayer without sniping theyr heroe

[Yondaime]

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

This discussion isn't about balance, but okay. 

 

it literally is, if you want to play your rule in your house you can do it,

but rules have to sacrifice a bit or realism for the sake of balance, and this makes the game more challenging and fun, because FS have to posiiton his heroes very well or he will most likely lose

i can give you multiple example why you have to put balance first

ataching a hero to a unit will bring so many rules problems

Edited May 14, 2021 by Yondaime

[Kadeton]

58 minutes ago, Yondaime said:

Good luck defeating Fireslayer without sniping theyr heroe

Oh, I didn't realise Fyreslayers were literally unbeatable before the ranged meta started to dominate, my bad.

53 minutes ago, Yondaime said:

it literally is, if you want to play your rule in your house you can do it,

No, this discussion is literally about what we'd like to see in 3rd Edition.

53 minutes ago, Yondaime said:

but rules have to sacrifice a bit or realism for the sake of balance, and this makes the game more challenging and fun, because FS have to posiiton his heroes very well or he will most likely lose

i can give you multiple example why you have to put balance first

ataching a hero to a unit will bring so many rules problems

You can design any rule concept-first, and then find a way to balance it. What do support heroes do? is a question of balance, and if the answer is "Die with negligible impact" then support heroes are extremely poorly balanced. If the answer is "Win the game unless your opponent can snipe them" then they're also poorly balanced. The answer we should aim for, in my opinion, is "Make a contribution commensurate with their points cost before they die."

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

It won’t happen this way (though it does sound like there will be changes to this in 3.0) but much earlier in this thread I espoused my dislike of the “god funnel” when it comes to shooting as it just completely takes me out of the game to think that somehow 30+ shots are being targeted at one small model surrounded by many other models.  There are lots of simple fixes.  To offer up another one maybe something like this:

Heroes w/in 3” of a unit containing 3+ models cannot be directly targeted.  If a unit within 3” of a hero is targeted the player shooting can choose to have unmodified Hit Rolls of 6 go into the hero.  Separate wound and save rolls will then be made.  If the shooting unit has another ability that is triggered on unmodified Hit Rolls of 6 (e.g. MWs) the player must choose whether they want this ability to apply to the originally targeted unit or to apply the above instead.

[zilberfrid]

Shooting could be solved by making the game less killy.

This gives melee units more time to close, and when there they have an advantage, but it's also not that when your big monster can reach one toe of your unit, it can wipe them all from over there.

[Chaos Shepard]

Here is a solution that may work. Since AoS doesn't have a toughness system one could pass attacks after the wounding step. So here is my proposal, heros are fully targetable, but after hit and wound before save roles, eligible heros can pass these wound onto a unit within 3" on a role of 2+.

[PJetski]

57 minutes ago, Chaos Shepard said:

Here is a solution that may work. Since AoS doesn't have a toughness system one could pass attacks after the wounding step. So here is my proposal, heros are fully targetable, but after hit and wound before save roles, eligible heros can pass these wound onto a unit within 3" on a role of 2+.

You are describing bodyguards.

Weren't you against this idea just a little over 24 hours ago?

[zilberfrid]

Or, with mortal wounds being spammed nowadays, we get a second save just for them.

So a Runelord could have 2+ vs mortal wounds and 4+ vs regular.

[Chaos Shepard]

3 hours ago, PJetski said:

You are describing bodyguards.

Weren't you against this idea just a little over 24 hours ago?

My issue was with a dedicated bodyguard unit for each army. I have nothing wrong with the mechanic in broad terms. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Chaos Shepard

[Skreech Verminking]

7 hours ago, Chaos Shepard said:

My issue was with a dedicated bodyguard unit for each army. I have nothing wrong with the mechanic in broad terms. 

This would be an interesting concept.

although Considering it is going to be a new edition I’m not sure that there will be many or any warscroll changes.

Something Gw can do is a core battailon that gives that rule as an ability.

this would give those faction that never had an Ability like this or had to take a commandtrait to get such a buff for a single hero a chance to keep those weak little race-things alive that bit more.

Bodyguard units won’t be considered useless, and many more factions will be able to join that part of the game.

although a small chance to the look out sir would be nice, although I’m currently struggling for a good idea

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Jaxler]

Can we remove the double turn? It makes the balance problems even worse. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Jaxler

[japaricio]

7 hours ago, Jaxler said:

Can we remove the double turn? It makes the balance problems even worse. 

First of all, most people talk about that double turn, but the real mechanic it's called Priority Roll. It can be made better, but it is one of the defining characteristics por AoS. Some days may be frustrating and some days may save you the day, but if you play taking it into account, you can play around it using it in your favor.

[Beliman]

19 hours ago, japaricio said:

First of all, most people talk about that double turn, but the real mechanic it's called Priority Roll. It can be made better, but it is one of the defining characteristics por AoS. Some days may be frustrating and some days may save you the day, but if you play taking it into account, you can play around it using it in your favor.

There are a lot of skirmish and war games that have double turn too, it's not unique and a defining characteristic for AoS. Imho, the main diference between other games that have double turn and AoS seems to be that AoS has a lot more time without interaction between players (you can only participate in the fight phase and just be in the receiving end in the hero phase, shooting phase and battleshock) and that becomes a bit teddious when someone takes a double turn.

AoS 3.0 presentation had some hints that this, maybe, will change, but not by removing double turn, but giving more choses to take first or just go second (get more Command Points) and Command Points interacting with diferent abilities in diferent phases that will turn in to less down time during each round for both players.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Beliman

[Carnelian]

I JUST WANT AOS3 NOW

[Greybeard86]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:26 PM, Kadeton said:

Personally, if I were designing it, I would make support characters attach themselves to a unit when you build the army list, and become a permanent model in that unit. Only the unit they were attached to would benefit from their leadership effects. Then, bring back the Challenge mechanics from the old WHFB. You can shoot their unit but you won't hit the character (indiscriminate), and if you want to kill them before you wipe out their whole unit then you'd better get one of your own characters in there to deal with them (heroic). But that's just me - I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives that would work well.

But this would be great and thematic. It makes no sense that a tiny human general on foot would stand aside and wave a flag to make it easier to be identified and get shot to pieces.

Of course, if you are riding a ginormous megamonster, then you cannot hide among your minions, but hopefully there is some risk-reward element that is well balanced.

The current implementation only makes sense in a low shooting setting, but that isn't the game anymore. It is also not a skirmish game anymore

Edited May 18, 2021 by Greybeard86

[Baron Klatz]

I just want some buffed up Realmscape rules for the standard. Maybe even bring back the 2019 ones for Narrative but I can just reuse those so that's low priority.  

Also would like more models like the recent special Stormcast heroine that gets a bonus in the Realm of Shadow with her augurie enhanced armor guiding her as a upgraded version of Vanguard leader's realm compass.

Very fluffy and a lot more they can do with that to make Realmscapes a more integral part of the gameplay.

Otherwise they hit my other checkboxes(going by Gravelords)on reducing/capping hordes, simplifying weapon rules, making armies more "elite" and keeping the Double Turn but with extra benefits. Feeling like AoS1 steamlined again.

Looking forward to the Era of Beasts and fighting to spread Order's light over the realms again.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Baron Klatz

[RetconnedLegion]

I’m not too fussed on the rules side of things so my wants are mainly focused on the narrative - and it appears I’m getting what I want in the game.

Mainly more development of the Destruction side of the background, with more than a singular God as it’s focus. Which Kragnos appears to be providing. 
And more Order cities getting some details, which again seems to be the case.

Now I just need Chaos Duardin fleshed out and I’m completely satisfied.

[Lucio]

Late to the party so probably don't have a huge amount to add. However I'd like to see shooting reduced somewhat in effectiveness. My prefered route would be to limit shooting in combat to heroes only, so a ranged unit doesn't get two chances to wound an enemy unit. Instead buff their melee profile a little to make them closer to a dedicated melee unit but not quite as good still.

 

I'd also consider a -1 penalty for not shooting the closest visible unit, with some elite units ignoring it.

 

[MitGas]

11 hours ago, Lucio said:

My prefered route would be to limit shooting in combat to heroes only, so a ranged unit doesn't get two chances to wound an enemy unit. Instead buff their melee profile a little to make them closer to a dedicated melee unit but not quite as good still.

You sport the symbol but you seem to be an agent of Nurgle! 😡 😉

Problem is that the shooting unit would need to be less squishy too then. Cause if a decent CC unit gets you, your shooters die in droves usually - I'm pretty sure that if a unit of flamers shoots a unit of say Ardboys and they then get into CC with the flamers, your flamers are dead while the Ardboys lost like 4 dudes (3 from shooting, 1 in CC if you're lucky). Yes, we got screens ideally and obviously changehost is a problem (hence why I never use it) but if you nerf shooting too much, you simply turn the problem around as the CC profiles are usually rather worthless. It's a very tricky situation. I do hope we get a fairer game /don't need to be in S tier but if possible I don't want to end up at the bottom of the tier list either, I had that for 8 years with Thousand Sons ) but I'm not sure if crippling shooting units is the actual way to go. Perhaps removing cult bonuses (like the -1 rend) and other buffs that turn shooting units into unfair pieces of poopoo would be way more effective than removing their shooting if they're in CC (else the profiles need to be changed completely)?

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by MitGas

[Rors]

Going in a different direction to most of the conversations here but I'd like to see the barrier to entry drop. It's an expensive game that requires time to build, time to paint and reps of games to learn.
I'd like more easy to build stuff but actually designed to give new players functional lists that are relatively cheap and quick to paint.

 

[Rachmani]

After careful consideration I've decided that I'm ready for all the answers.

GW, you have my blessings. Release all information on 3.0!

[Skreech Verminking]

1 minute ago, Rachmani said:

After careful consideration I've decided that I'm ready for all the answers.

GW, you have my blessings. Release all information on 3.0!

Wait another ten days and we will very likely get some informations.

I’m personally going to guess that the countdown is meant to give us a date for the release as well as a 1-2weeks heavy preview.

Although I’m just guessing 

[Gitzdee]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:26 PM, Kadeton said:

Personally, if I were designing it, I would make support characters attach themselves to a unit when you build the army list, and become a permanent model in that unit. Only the unit they were attached to would benefit from their leadership effects. Then, bring back the Challenge mechanics from the old WHFB. You can shoot their unit but you won't hit the character (indiscriminate), and if you want to kill them before you wipe out their whole unit then you'd better get one of your own characters in there to deal with them (heroic). But that's just me - I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives that would work well.

I would love this. This was great fun. Getting to challange another champion felt like a small battle within the bigger battle. It also made some otherwise meaningless unit more dangerous. Dont know if deathstars would be a thing again though.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Iksdee

[zilberfrid]

20 hours ago, Rors said:

Going in a different direction to most of the conversations here but I'd like to see the barrier to entry drop. It's an expensive game that requires time to build, time to paint and reps of games to learn.
I'd like more easy to build stuff but actually designed to give new players functional lists that are relatively cheap and quick to paint.

I agree. Dropping points on armies as a balancing tool looks fine, but it raises the barrier of entry for that army step by step.