What would you like for AoS 3

[Chikout]

8 minutes ago, Vaporlocke said:

So crush the unit then crush them. As it stands in the current gunline meta there is no point in taking support heroes in competitive games, which hurts some armies a lot more than others.

 

Shooting needs to be toned way down, there are literally no drawbacks to it for some factions and from just the brief glance we've seen GW isn't going to acknowledge this or do anything meaningful about it. 

I genuinely believe shooting isn't a problem. The lack of line of sight blocking terrain is the problem. The way to fix shooting is to force those units to move to find a better angle. If you want to protect your buffing heroes hide then behind a piece of terrain. 

Almost everyone I've heard talk about playing on tables with good scenery said it massively improved the game. The changes that were made to 40k significantly changed that game to the point that Tau are currently the worst faction. I'd love to see some aspect of those rules come over into AoS. This will also have the nice side benefit of toning down magic too, as a lot of spells need line of sight. 

[Beliman]

7 hours ago, Vaporlocke said:

As it stands in the current gunline meta

I would suggest to stop using current meta for rules that will come in one or two months, with two new armies.

I don't know, just imagine what kind of crazy stuff can be done (without taking in consideration any balance):

• Heroi Action: You can't allocate enemy mortal wounds to your hero unless they come from an enemy Hero unit.
• Shooting Phase Reaction: -1 to hit if targeted.
• Look Out Sir: We already have that (-1 to hit).
• Core Batallion: 1 Hero+2 battlelines. Battleline units from this batallion recieve the bodyguard ability. That can only target the Hero from the same batallion that have 9 wounds or less characteristic with their Bodyguard ability.

(Bodyguard: Target Hero within 3" of this unit only. Before you allocate a wound or mortal wound to that Hero, on a roll of 4+, instead, you must allocate them on this unit).

Note: Before someone says that's OP or whatever, it's just to illustrate how some rules (or even tweaks) can change our current meta.

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Beliman

[Mcthew]

13 minutes ago, Chikout said:

I genuinely believe shooting isn't a problem. The lack of line of sight blocking terrain is the problem. The way to fix shooting is to force those units to move to find a better angle. If you want to protect your buffing heroes hide then behind a piece of terrain. 

Almost everyone I've heard talk about playing on tables with good scenery said it massively improved the game. The changes that were made to 40k significantly changed that game to the point that Tau are currently the worst faction. I'd love to see some aspect of those rules come over into AoS. This will also have the nice side benefit of toning down magic too, as a lot of spells need line of sight. 

Completely agree. Enough with the cruise missile strikes. LoS is poor in AoS. Even the haphazard rule of looking from your model is unworkable. We use a laser pointer but that doesn't help when your opponent says they are flying and shooting. 

And mortal wounds on shooting when the unit is behind cover is utterly ridiculous. Do you even have something like that in 40k??? 

I play as KO, or DoT, Skaven or CoS/SCE and I have heavy shooting armies. I try to be fair but it's too easy to shoot units that have one or two models out of cover in a 20 man unit. The all or nothing approach to terrain is a bit embarrassing really. Will it change for AoS 3.0?

Hoping that terrain rules will nerf it a little as the new table sizes leaked will make shooting even stronger.

But like others, I'm sceptical LoS will be finessed.

[Kadeton]

17 minutes ago, Chikout said:

I genuinely believe shooting isn't a problem. The lack of line of sight blocking terrain is the problem. The way to fix shooting is to force those units to move to find a better angle. If you want to protect your buffing heroes hide then behind a piece of terrain.

I think what several people are suggesting, as a potential solution to both those perceived problems, is to allow your units to act as line-of-sight-blocking terrain for heroes. There's no particularly good reason why hiding behind a crowd of people should be less effective than hiding behind a stand of trees.

And it does nothing to resolve the opposing side's complaint either, which is that buffing heroes are too powerful and if they're made "invincible" (whether that involves hiding behind units or hiding behind terrain presumably doesn't matter) then they render the game unwinnable. It's apparently important to some people that support heroes should die before they ever get the chance to use their support abilities.

[Mcthew]

8 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I think what several people are suggesting, as a potential solution to both those perceived problems, is to allow your units to act as line-of-sight-blocking terrain for heroes. There's no particularly good reason why hiding behind a crowd of people should be less effective than hiding behind a stand of trees.

And it does nothing to resolve the opposing side's complaint either, which is that buffing heroes are too powerful and if they're made "invincible" (whether that involves hiding behind units or hiding behind terrain presumably doesn't matter) then they render the game unwinnable. It's apparently important to some people that support heroes should die before they ever get the chance to use their support abilities.

Agree with this. A Freeguild general on foot behind 40 guard shouldn't be targeted, nor a Clawlord in a pack of 40 clanrats. Look Out Sir isn't enough (or maybe Look Out Sir should increase modifiers based on bodyguard unit size?).

For terrain I'd like to see a standard 5+ save on mortal wounds from missile and most spells. That can build on existing MW saves. For example a Chaos Warrior gets 3+ MW save if also in cover (terrain MW save, plus their Runeshield MW save).

Edited June 3, 2021 by Mcthew

[Greybeard86]

2 hours ago, Kadeton said:

buffing heroes are too powerful and if they're made "invincible" (whether that involves hiding behind units or hiding behind terrain presumably doesn't matter) then they render the game unwinnable.

Then nerf support heroes. But the ability to snipe officers from range is immersion breaking and frankly a feel bad moment.

[Enoby]

I agree that if there was no way to kill support heroes the game would be unhealthy in other ways, but the problem is that these issues aren't in all armies but they affect all armies.

For example, if someone has a Skink Priest giving massive buffs to a big unit of skinks, not being able to snipe them is just going to make the skinks too good. However, if someone has a Chaos Lord trying to buff some warriors, they're shot off nearly as easily (with MWs), but would not be too strong if they had some protection.

In addition, not every army has sniper like shooting. In fact, most don't and so can't deal with that Skink Priest anyway. So we're in a situation now where some armies have problematic support pieces that need problematic shooting to deal with, but when these problematic units come across something that isn't an issue, they seem overpowering. 

I suppose the true answer would be to not have these problematic units in the first place, but that's easier said than done.

How would people feel about more regular (once every 3-6 months) warscroll changes?

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

4 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I agree that if there was no way to kill support heroes the game would be unhealthy in other ways, but the problem is that these issues aren't in all armies but they affect all armies.

For example, if someone has a Skink Priest giving massive buffs to a big unit of skinks, not being able to snipe them is just going to make the skinks too good. However, if someone has a Chaos Lord trying to buff some warriors, they're shot off nearly as easily (with MWs), but would not be too strong if they had some protection.

In addition, not every army has sniper like shooting. In fact, most don't and so can't deal with that Skink Priest anyway. So we're in a situation now where some armies have problematic support pieces that need problematic shooting to deal with, but when these problematic units come across something that isn't an issue, they seem overpowering. 

I suppose the true answer would be to not have these problematic units in the first place, but that's easier said than done.

How would people feel about more regular (once every 3-6 months) warscroll changes?

I think the game would be in a better place if GW was more willing to update warscrolls outside of Battletomes. The BR books are an OK step in this direction, but oncd the Battletome treadmill starts up again in AoS 3, I doubt we will keep seeing "patch books".

It's OK to want to let the metagame mature for 6 months or so between updates, be it points or warscrolls. Frequently, units and armies look too strong/weak at first glance but are actually more balanced than they appear. But sometimes there are units like Slaangors and Black Knights where it's apparent fairly quickly that they just don't have enough of a niche to see play. Or there are cases like Plague Monks who just do too much. And there are cases like Sylvaneth, where an army just needs more than points changes to be good (and most importantly fun).

I think such changes should be more rare than point changes, but it would be nice if they were made when needed.

[Enoby]

1 minute ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

But sometimes there are units like Slaangors and Black Knights where it's apparent fairly quickly that they just don't have enough of a niche to see play. Or there are cases like Plague Monks who just do too much. And there are cases like Sylvaneth, where an army just needs more than points changes to be good (and most importantly fun).

I agree. I'd personally be against any quick nerfs; I don't think Sentinels or Flamers should get changes in the first 6th months, it's too soon and too much of a knee ****** (though giving them a change a year later may be more on the cards). 

However, making Black Knights and Slaangors even slightly better would be great; unless they drop the ball in the other direction, they shouldn't shift metas - all they'll do is give people a reason to use the models on the table.   

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

But sometimes there are units like Slaangors and Black Knights where it's apparent fairly quickly that they just don't have enough of a niche to see play. [...] And there are cases like Sylvaneth, where an army just needs more than points changes to be good (and most importantly fun).

The best thing about changes like these is that far more people are happy with them. People really hate having their good units nerfed, especially if it's six months or so after release, when the notion starts to rear its head that GW "tricked" people into buying armies that are now "unplayable" (i.e. no longer top of the competitive meta). Meanwhile, other players are mad that it took GW far too long to take action to correct the "obvious" problem. Negative vibes all round.

When bad units get buffed up to par, though, it's generally joyfully received by the people who owned and perhaps played those units already. Other players tend to be happy for them, not particularly care, or jump on the hype train for the army that they had always wanted to get into but avoided because it was trash. Good times.

I think nerfs to stronger-than-intended units are obviously needed, but it would do a lot of good for the other end of the spectrum to get similar attention at the same time.

[PJetski]

Warscroll changes are tough because GW relies on printed rules and invalidating them with constant erratas makes it difficult to keep track of the current state of the rules.

Pitched Battle Profiles exist as a way to tweak unit strength without modifying warscrolls. If Skinks are too good then you can increase their point cost. In this case the issue is more likely that blobs of 40 Skinks are too efficient at using buffs, so perhaps the solution here is to reduce the max unit size from 40 to 30 and increase the cost of the support heroes slightly.

I would strongly prefer that units get strong and interesting warscrolls which are reigned in with increased point costs instead of weak and boring warscrolls that either stay useless forever or keep getting their points cut until you can spam the unit.

[treeclimber]

I want all monsters to interact more with objectives. I personally think all monsters should count for as many models as they have wounds left. A monster with 12 wounds would count as 12 models, but when it start taking damage that drops, making it harder controlling the objective. Then certain armies, like Gargants, could have special rules where they can never count for less than 10-20 models or something.

[Vaporlocke]

6 hours ago, PJetski said:

 instead of weak and boring warscrolls that either stay useless forever or keep getting their points cut until you can spam the unit.

Describing the entire BoC battletome in one sentence.

I think the biggest problem is still relying on printed material for rules and warscrolls. If that side was app based, with regular updates and adjustments, a lot of issues would absolutely disappear and the game (and sales of miniatures) would benefit. 

 

[MitGas]

13 hours ago, Enoby said:

How would people feel about more regular (once every 3-6 months) warscroll changes?

This would help so, so much... but I fear many wouldn't buy the battletomes this way anymore or the guys with physical copies would be annoyed by it. But for the game it would be a true blessing. Might not fix some problems like Petrifex but it could especially help many unused units find a spot on the table or nerf some of the most unfair warscrolls. 

[Kadeton]

12 hours ago, PJetski said:

Warscroll changes are tough because GW relies on printed rules and invalidating them with constant erratas makes it difficult to keep track of the current state of the rules.

5 hours ago, Vaporlocke said:

I think the biggest problem is still relying on printed material for rules and warscrolls. If that side was app based, with regular updates and adjustments, a lot of issues would absolutely disappear and the game (and sales of miniatures) would benefit. 

Yeah, the dead tree format is a huge anchor around GW's neck. They would do well to venture into the modern wargaming era and embrace digital distribution for rules.

[PJetski]

37 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Yeah, the dead tree format is a huge anchor around GW's neck. They would do well to venture into the modern wargaming era and embrace digital distribution for rules.

They probably make a lot of money from printing books

[zilberfrid]

3 hours ago, PJetski said:

They probably make a lot of money from printing books

Well, they sell the digital version for as much as the physical one. Margins on that must be higher.

[Kadeton]

5 hours ago, PJetski said:

They probably make a lot of money from printing books

Compared to digital distribution of the same material? Extremely doubtful. All the development, editing, layout and artwork costs are roughly the same, but physical books have a significant cost per unit to print and transport. There are still some logistical costs with digital books, but they're massively lower than physical ones. I doubt GW's margin on books is a significant earner compared to model sales.

Businesses far smaller than GW are able to simply write off the costs of producing high-quality rulebooks and distribute them digitally for free.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Kadeton

[Kirjava13]

If they're going to switch to more regular updates to warscrolls- and they should, patching is healthy, especially when they rush updates out and battletomes don't all seem to have been written by the same team with the same vision at the same time- then they have to ditch these expensive books and warscroll cards. Nothing is more irritating than splashing out (and €25 definitely isn't nothing!) on the warscroll cards for an army only to find out a month later that ten of them need you to print something else out or refer to an additional PDF on your phone or tablet, to use them, and for another five to become totally obsolete when a supplement book is released a year after. I love GW's chunky beautiful battletomes but they should be used for things that aren't going to be invalidated.

[Sleboda]

7 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Yeah, the dead tree format is a huge anchor around GW's neck. They would do well to venture into the modern wargaming era and embrace digital distribution for rules.

Dear gosh no. Physical books are a hot, and a big part of what I like in my hobby.

Offer digital options, sure, but keep books.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Sleboda

[CDM]

I'm all for having away with battletomes. All faction rules should be done at point of edition release for free. 

Want more flavourful army rules and abilities? Then release more content like battalions artifacts etc in broken realms/malign portents style books which can be released more often.

I reckon they must make money on books but I think mostly they keep them around because people are still tied to having a gorgeous looking book to thumb through. I do too! But

I'd much rather see rules separate from fluff. Helps balance the game better as it takes to much resource and time to get these battletomes/codexes out.

[Chikout]

I would love to see gw change how the approach points changes. 

If I was GW, I would do a monthly thread on Twitter or the community site. I would ask everyone to vote for their 3 most overpointed and underpointed warscrolls. After a week I would compile all the info. 

I would then increase the points of the 10 warscrolls most voted as underpointed by 5% and decrease the top 10 overpointed warscrolls. 

If a warscroll stays in the top 10 for six months it gets a rewrite. 

This would leave most warscrolls unchanged but gradually push the points towards the fat middle. 

If  a gamer complained about a warscroll or some points, I (as gw)  could just direct them to the thread. 

 

[Kadeton]

44 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Dear gosh no. Physical books are a hot, and a big part of what I like in my hobby.

Offer digital options, sure, but keep books.

Other wargaming companies I've dealt with have had printed books as an option for those who don't mind them going stale quickly. They still offer all their rules online, updated any time an errata is needed.

The point is not "Get rid of books," it's "Stop letting the deficiencies of physical media dictate your update cycle."

[RexHavoc]

2 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Other wargaming companies I've dealt with have had printed books as an option for those who don't mind them going stale quickly. They still offer all their rules online, updated any time an errata is needed.

The point is not "Get rid of books," it's "Stop letting the deficiencies of physical media dictate your update cycle."

Perhaps the point should rather be 'Stop letting a company dictate the update cycle of your hobby'.

If people stopped buying into the update cycle as it is now, it would force GW to make better effort to have books/points/warscrolls/rules done correctly at release and not need to be redone every 6 months or so.
 

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

Compared to digital distribution of the same material? Extremely doubtful. All the development, editing, layout and artwork costs are roughly the same, but physical books have a significant cost per unit to print and transport. There are still some logistical costs with digital books, but they're massively lower than physical ones. I doubt GW's margin on books is a significant earner compared to model sales.

Businesses far smaller than GW are able to simply write off the costs of producing high-quality rulebooks and distribute them digitally for free.

They are really not that much lower. Digital books have a lot of 'behind the scenes' costs past the initial design & sale that people tend to forget about, and knowing GW don't exactly have a crack IT team as it is (They can't even keep the website up & running on the one day a week it needs to be) I can imagine the amount man hours wasted bringing digital books for sale mounting up to close to that of a physical book.



 

[Eternalis]

2 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Compared to digital distribution of the same material? Extremely doubtful

 

4 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Well, they sell the digital version for as much as the physical one. Margins on that must be higher.

They only sell it in english. Books are sold in English, French, Italian, German, Japanese...