What would you like for AoS 3

[yukishiro1]

31 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

The issue about magic and shooting heavy armies tabling people on the double isn't a flaw with the double turn, it was a failure of the book writers to balance things properly. The double turn predates the worst offenders, and it seems the writers at GW didn't see the issue of giving shooting focused armies low drops.

 

I don't disagree in the abstract...but this is the game we have. And it's not just one army. It's a consistent pattern that's been replicated with every ranged army release since the KO tome, and it's getting worse - hello 30" non-LOS shooting with mortals on a 5+ to hit, possibly even with rerolls to hit! - not better.

So there comes a point where you have to admit that the double turn doesn't work with what they have turned AOS into, even if it worked with what AOS used to be. One option is obviously going back to what AOS used to be, but that option is completely at odds with the direction GW has shown every indication that it wants to take the game in.

So to fix the problem they could fundamentally rework at least three (edit: oops no, four, even giving CoS the benefit of the doubt and not including it - KO, LRL, Tzeentch, Seraphon) factions that all got tomes within the last year...or they could remove the double turn on the T1 to T2 transition. One's super complicated and difficult and requires GW to admit that the direction it's been sending the game in for the last year was a big mistake...the other is simple and easy and doesn't require admitting that. I'd prefer they tone down shooting on a fundamental level too, don't get me wrong - but if you make me choose between leaving things as is or fixing the auto-lose that is getting double turned by a ranged army if you don't have the capability to cripple them with a T1 alpha, making the game work is more important to me than keeping the double turn unchanged. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Ganigumo]

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

I don't disagree in the abstract...but this is the game we have. And it's not just one army. It's a consistent pattern that's been replicated with every ranged army release since the KO tome, and it's getting worse - hello 30" non-LOS shooting with mortals on a 5+ to hit, possibly even with rerolls to hit! - not better.

So there comes a point where you have to admit that the double turn doesn't work with what they have turned AOS into, even if it worked with what AOS used to be. One option is obviously going back to what AOS used to be, but that option is completely at odds with the direction GW has shown every indication that it wants to take the game in.

So to fix the problem they could fundamentally rework at least three factions that all got tomes within the last year...or they could remove the double turn on the T1 to T2 transition. One's super complicated and difficult and requires GW to admit that the direction it's been sending the game in for the last year was a big mistake...the other is simple and easy and doesn't require admitting that. I'd prefer they tone down shooting on a fundamental level too, don't get me wrong - but if you make me choose between leaving things as is or fixing the auto-lose that is getting double turned by a ranged army, making the game work is more important to me than keeping the double turn unchanged. 

I actually do think this could be fixed with points to some extent, at least tzeentch. Personally I don't have any experience with lumineth. these shooting armies basically need to be pointed out of being 1-3 drops. With Tzeentch it would be easy just by nerfing changehost more, at this point it basically needs to be nerfed into unplayability. Changehost was definitely a mistake.

With KO reverting their point drops would help, I don't think they're overly out of line? Certainly they cause a lot of NPE though.

Armies exist that can counter heavy shooting, and part of our issue is that things have been locked down, and the meta not evolving as a result. In particular armies that are fast and durable, but not necessarily particularly hard hitting, as many shooting armies have low defense. Although maybe we should add a penalty (like -1 to hit) for shooting into melee to bring them in line a bit.

 

[Ragest]

I think people have not played vs alpha strike Big Morathi + Blob of 20 stalkers with free teleport and 80 shoots with mortal output at 6.

Try it and I promise you can’t come there not looking for solutions about double turns, dr+shooting and mortal output all in one.

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Ragest

[yukishiro1]

Yeah, Morathi was a good book overall, but they seem to have screwed up and created yet another option for an oppressive shooting army, which brings it to five (six if you include CoS). 

Balancing it via points doesn't really work, because if you nerf the points enough that most armies don't auto-lose to a double turn on T1/T2, you end up with a situation where if that army doesn't get the double turn, now it gets stomped. The basic dilemma is that having two turns in a row is just too powerful with the way shooting (and magic, to a lesser extent) are set up in this game. If your opponent didn't fight in your fight phase, the same would be true there; the reason the double turn works with combat is that your opponent can interact during your turn. 

Disabling the double turn on the T1/T2 transition only - i.e. allowing T3 to be the first chance for a double - fixes the problem with ranged armies neatly, without the need for a huge amount of balancing. It retain the element of chance people like about the double turn, it just puts it off long enough into the game that both players are guaranteed to be able to do something meaningful in the game before the winner is determined. It's just brutal to play an army without a big T1 alpha strike capability that gets doubled on by a ranged army - you literally do nothing in the game besides one turn of movement, maybe a few token wounds...and then the game's effectively over before you even get to move another model. I can't imagine anyone actually enjoys this gameplay pattern. I am convinced that even most big fans of the double turn would actually agree if they try it that the game is better with the first double turn coming on T3, not T2. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Mutton]

1) Reduce the number of battleline needed for 2k to 2. Battleline are just tax annoyances for some armies or complete freebies for others, just let us build our armies more freely.

2) Do away with the entire "drops" mechanic AND/OR reduce the efficiency of battalions. Battalions offer too much for books with better options.

3) Maximum of -1 to hit/wound on any roll. No more -2 or -3 to hit NPE bollocks.

4) All named characters count as owning artifacts.

Also, keep the double turn. The double turn is one of the really interesting parts of the game. Going back to a monotonous 40k priority system would only make the game highly predictable and liable to end earlier due to "mathing out" the rest of a match. What GW needs to do is investigate more game mechanics that offer genuine incentives to pass off the double-turn.

[SeanMaguire1991]

I'll throw my hat into the shooting argument and say do it like Old Fantasy did it.

Can't shoot while in engagement range (instead give stand and shoot charge reaction)

Can't shoot into combat (unless you're Skaven)

Only make exceptions where applicable (example, Araknarok goblins can shoot out of combat cos they're in the howdah)

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

Was going to stay out of this one as I am relatively agnostic about the double turn which seems to be the main focus of discussion.  That said I think there’s been some good suggestions out there for retaining it but making it less decisive.  Blade’s Edge is currently my favorite battleplan given the choices it forces so obviously favor more mission designs along those lines.  But a simple fix does seem to be some basic cover rules that make it simpler to protect against Shooting Phase (and Magic for that matter as majority of spells seem to include visible to caster).

That said, per @Televiper11’s request it would be nice if some of the mechanics that currently “make my brain hurt”  were less headache inducing and Movement/Charging is definitely one of those interactions.  What, for example, is the logic behind a unit only able to move 4” in the Movement Phase being able to Charge potentially 12” (or more w/bonuses such as drummers or horn blowers)?  Similarly what is the logic behind a unit that can move 14” or more in the Movement Phase being restricted to a 12” Charge?  I appreciate the simplicity of AOS so I accept this brain pain as part and parcel and move on but if we’re talking fixes I don’t think it has to be that complicated a solution.

AoS already comfortable with tables so thus could be easily solved by a table along the lines of:

- if your movement is 6” or less roll 1d6 to Charge

- if your movement is 7” to 12” roll 2d6 to Charge

- if your movement is 13”+ roll 3d6 to Charge

I don’t think it’s that complicated but if you want it even simpler make a charge your move plus 1d6.  I prefer the former but I’d accept the latter...

... Particularly if failing a charge became more consequential.  Again, overall I prefer the straight forward mechanics of AoS to the abstractions in the name of realism that ultimately define (and ultimately break so many of them) but coming from a historical perspective originally having the only consequence of a failed Charge being you stand still seems a wee but paltry.  

Or maybe too binary is a better way to put it.  My solution?  If you fail a charge your unit has to move forward the distance rolled with each model moving that distance towards the nearest enemy model.  How’s that for a coherency problem?  But reflects the disarray a failed charge really would be.  

But, you might say, even a failed charge could still get you into combat range of 3”.  Again, reflecting the disarray any unit that fails a Charge any unit that fails its Charge would “fight last”.  This gives your opponent an opportunity to “counter-charge” with their pile-in.

What I really like about this is it forces more choices by increasing the risk of trying for a crazy long charge.  Plus I feel it keeps us closer to Generals, as opposed to Gods.  A General can’t be sure the Charge will land before ordering it.  Only a God can look into the future and then hold it back.  My one concession would be I’d extend the Reroll Charge CA to alternatively allow you to stay still.  Can’t have both (so either reroll and take your chance or call it off) but a strong leader might see how things aren’t going right and be able to call them back/restrain them.

While we’re on the subject of mental mindbenders I am still baffled by the way AoS allows Shooting into Combat.  My simple solution?  If you are firing into a unit inc Combat with friendly units than on an unmodified Hit Roll of 1 you hit that friendly unit.  (Ifmore than one friendly unit engaged the unit hit is the closest to the unit Shooting.  If two units are equidistant it is player’s choice.). Make wound rolls and saves as normal for the friendly unit.

All this said I’m not per se asking for any of this.  If I could ask for one thing it would be no AoS 3.0 until Summer 2022 because darn it I want to get my Tzeentch army into a live game before they change everything on me!  (Ironic with TZ I know...)

[Riff_Raff_Rascal]

1) Faction specific secondary objectives and/or generic ones for matched play. I believe it will help push for a more balanced match-up in some of the current unfair ones out there. 

2) The new realm rules are inconsequential. We should take another crack at it. Getting rid of artifact options alone hurt all the armies that needed some support, even if a handful were legitimately worthwhile. More options, more choice is healthy for a game. There's also narrative play and the hero forge concept they introduced that would benefit the most from this. 

3) Remove points from faction books. Please make them easily accessed on GW's website. Keep it simple to update. 

4) Recall the FAQ that causes a hard-lock on a model so they are unable to pile in if multiple enemies are equidistant. Just let the player choose which one they can move. 

5) For the love of the Great Horned One please update non-hero monster charts to be more in line with the SoB ones. Monsters don't have to be good, but what one monster is good at and is taken for, shouldn't diminish after something sneezes at it. Let non-objective holding, under-powered, lack-of-command ability monsters have fun.

[Sleboda]

On 1/31/2021 at 9:57 PM, someone2040 said:

Basically, I think given the simplicity in the AoS core rules, there's not a huge need to 'a new edition'.

I think this is a big key to keep in mind. I'm one of those oddballs who really liked the 4-page rules version. It has everything you needed ... yes, including the full rules for handling terrain (to discuss elsewhere if you disagree and want to).

Army building and game play were so clear. Now it's getting complex, and needlessly so. While I understand the desire for things like limiting shooting to every other turn (no offense to the person who suggested it!), stuff like that just adds yet another small book keeping task that, when added to the heap, makes the experience feel less like a fun 3 hour game and more like a tedious 5 hour chore.

As much as I really, really enjoyed old Warhammer Fantasy, I don't want AoS to continue its seeming slide back into a complex beast like that was, and as I read many of the wishes here and elsewhere, the thought keeps going through my mind: "These ideas surely do feel like people just want to play WFB instead of AoS."

[EMMachine]

In case of the double turn discussion. Does it really change anything if the rule is removed?

If the shooting unit has range 12" or less maybe yes, if it has more more likely no.

If the shooting unit has 16-18" range and you didn't fokus on cavalry (for example Fyreslayers) see what happend. He moves his unit to the 16" mark (if he has to move at all, for example because you started) and shoots at you. You move your 4-5" and try a 11" Charge most likely to fail, or run to get closer.

Guess what happens next. He moves back to be at 16" again shoots you a second time (and you are in the same situation as in the battleround before). Without the doubleturn your units will get shot 2-3 times before you even get into combat (and if he can't retriet further), he can still shoot, charge you and attack before you if you he doesn't have a better target (or charges you with another unit).

With the doubleturn (and you as the second player) you could move + run in the first round and than move and charge in the next turn so you maybe only get shot once before being in combat.

For such situations a minus 1 to hit (not the old fantasy rule where long range is the upper halve to maximal range but maybe 12"+ could help in such a situation.

WHFB made shooting very underwhelming because most the time you were basicly hitting on a 6+ or 7+ rarely on a 5+, but your units were as strong as the close combat once, because (they had the basic strength and could have shields as well), so they often were more expensive close combat units with the option to stand and shoot.

Edited February 2, 2021 by EMMachine

[CeleFAZE]

If they don't want to introduce strength and toughness for 3.0, at the very least they could introduce a mechanic where certain tougher monsters and units have a malus on being wounded. Call it something like "resilience" and make it a thing that can allow for larger models with worse saves to still be a challenge to take on.

For instance, a mancrusher gargant could have resilience 1, resulting in a -1 on wound rolls, and a mega-gargant could have resilience 2, providing a -2 to the wound roll. This gives them some of the benefit of the Str vs T system without having to rework the whole ruleset to compensate, and they could retroactively apply it to units with a warscroll update. I imagine that resilience 1 would be the most common, with 2 being rather rare and limited to things that can't be fielded en mass, and go no higher than that.

The only possible downside is that much like rend, I can see the distribution of this being rather uneven and certain armies getting more or less of it on a fairly arbitrary basis.

[Sleboda]

22 hours ago, Enoby said:

There are many reasons a new player can lose, but the double turn is the most obvious to the new player.

That's like when casual football fans, and even some broadcasters, say that when a kicker misses a field goal at the end when the team was down by two points, the kicker "lost the game."

No, he didn't.

A thousand other moments were just as equally to blame. Bad play call by a coach four minutes into the game. Dropped pass before half time. A running back missing the hole midway into the third quarter. A ref getting a call wrong. And so on.

All of that contributed to the loss. It's just that the timing and the clarity of a missed kick as time expired is simple and easy to blame.

A double turn is too easy to blame for our own (or the Dice Gods') failings.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Sleboda

[Eldarain]

13 minutes ago, CeleFAZE said:

If they don't want to introduce strength and toughness for 3.0, at the very least they could introduce a mechanic where certain tougher monsters and units have a malus on being wounded. Call it something like "resilience" and make it a thing that can allow for larger models with worse saves to still be a challenge to take on.

For instance, a mancrusher gargant could have resilience 1, resulting in a -1 on wound rolls, and a mega-gargant could have resilience 2, providing a -2 to the wound roll. This gives them some of the benefit of the Str vs T system without having to rework the whole ruleset to compensate, and they could retroactively apply it to units with a warscroll update. I imagine that resilience 1 would be the most common, with 2 being rather rare and limited to things that can't be fielded en mass, and go no higher than that.

The only possible downside is that much like rend, I can see the distribution of this being rather uneven and certain armies getting more or less of it on a fairly arbitrary basis.

They've been experimenting with "can't be wounded on better than a 4+"  in 40k

Wouldn't mind that being used to give the monsters a little more staying power.

[yukishiro1]

Except that you often do lose because the double turn in AOS as it exists today, period. Not because of a million other things. That's the basic problem with it: quite often in modern AOS, that one priority roll at the beginning of T2 does determine the game. 

If you come up against a low-drop ranged-focused list, many lists will simply lose if they win the roll-off and get a T1 to T2 double turn. There's nothing to be done - you just lose, because they won that roll-off and deleted more than half of your army before you have a chance to do anything meaningful. Now I guess you can say "but you lost that game at the list stage, because you didn't take a 1-drop or at max 2-drop list." But that means that the number of viable lists in the game by that definition can probably be counted on one hand. 

I think most of the opposition to the double turn would go away if we had the mythical version of AOS a lot of the double-turn promoters envision where you don't get effectively removed from the board before you take your second turn with no counterplay. But that's not the actual game we have right now. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by yukishiro1

[EMMachine]

6 minutes ago, CeleFAZE said:

If they don't want to introduce strength and toughness for 3.0, at the very least they could introduce a mechanic where certain tougher monsters and units have a malus on being wounded. Call it something like "resilience" and make it a thing that can allow for larger models with worse saves to still be a challenge to take on.

Strength and Toughness will create an entirely different problem.

How will you prevent that a shooting unit is equal as good as a close combat unit + having ranged weapons.

This was the problem of WHFB. all humans had a strength of 3, so a model with a sword and shield or Spear had the same strength as a model with a crossbow or Handgun.

The system we have now gives us the chance to say that someone who has a ranged weapon doesn't wound as good as someone with a close combatweapon.

The Handgunner that wounds with his dagger on a 5+ compared with the Swordsman wounding on a 4+.

 

It would as well basicly mean. Every warscroll has to be changed with a strength value for the model, a toughness value for the model. A value for each weapon, if the weapon gives a bonus (if the weapon itself doesn't have the strength), a ruling how strength and toughness should be compared and we still will have modifiers to either the strength or the woundroll. And this bloat of rules with the only reason, because we want that monsters get tougher?

Make a rule that monsters are targeted with -1 to wound if the attacker is not a monster as well.

3 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

If you come up against a low-drop ranged-focused list, many lists will simply lose if they win the roll-off and get a T1 to T2 double turn. There's nothing to be done - you just lose, because they won that roll-off and deleted more than half of your army before you have a chance to do anything meaningful. Now I guess you can say "but you lost that game at the list stage, because you didn't take a 1-drop or at max 2-drop list." But that means that the number of viable lists in the game by that definition can probably be counted on one hand. 

Than it isn't the doubleturn, but the case that the player with the shooting list  and 1 drop can deside to go second on first round. This could be fixed with rolling of on first turn (and giving the player with the 1 drop initiative in case of a draw), so basicly the rule they had at first in the corerules before changing it with an FAQ if the last point wasn't seen as it's own thing but as a tiebreaker with the start of the sentence after it isn't its own sentence but a part of the sentence of "if the roll-of is a tie, ...").

Quote

At the start of each battle round, the players must roll off, and the winner decides who takes the first turn. If the roll-off is a tie, then the player who went first in the last battle round can choose who goes first in this one, but if it is the first battle round, the player that finished setting up their army first chooses who has the first turn.

Quote

BATTLE ROUNDS

Q: Does the player that first finished setting up their army always choose who has the first turn in the first battle round, or is it only if the roll-off is a tie?

A: The player that first finished setting up their army always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the battleplan that is being used.

This was a ****** up of the FAQ team, not of the rules itself.

 

Still, you will get shot twice if you remove the double turn, the point that you are most likely unable to charge in second turn because the shooting units have moved back will make no real difference. You lose your chance to get the charge in the second turn with only getting shot once for being shot twice anyway.

[Shearl]

Even before the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns I didn't find myself playing very consistently, but one thing that always stuck out to me as weird is the rule surrounding first turn initiative. I feel like rolling for first turn might be a better system, as the focus on minimizing drops along with artifacts has put battalions in a odd spot. I'd rather a battalion be thematic and provide subsequent buffs or abilities rather than being intrinsically tied to other elements of the game.

Also as many others have said it would be nice for monsters to get some kind of change. I wanna put some big cool models on the table and better rules would help incentivize that. 

Lastly, I'd love for alternative activations to be included, but I realize there is no chance at all of this happening any time soon. 

[Enoby]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

That's like when casual football fans, and even some broadcasters, say that when a kicker misses a field goal at the end when the team was down by two points, the kicker "lost the game."

No, he didn't.

A thousand other moments were just as equally to blame. Bad play call by a coach four minutes into the game. Dropped pass before half time. A running back missing the hole midway into the third quarter. A ref getting a call wrong. And so on.

All of that contributed to the loss. It's just that the timing and the clarity of a missed kick as time expired is simple and easy to blame.

A double turn is too easy to blame for our own (or the Dice Gods') failings.

I addressed this in the post you replied to - it's not that it does actually cause the new player to lose (that could be a million other things), but rather it feels very bad to have it happen to them and the purpose of a rule should be fun. If the most tactically detailed rule required hard maths to use, it might provide a more competitive game but it wouldn't be a very good rule for casual players who didn't want to bust out the quadratic formula every time they moved. 

As I mentioned, a double turn is very hard to plan for (especially against shooting armies). When the response to new players who've just had their army shot off the board turn 2 and their only contribution to the entire game was moving their models forward, saying "you should have played better" isn't going to make them enjoy themselves. Losing can be fun if both sides feel like they did something but a new player getting double turned often didn't do anything besides wait around for an hour while their opponent got to play the game.

Imagine if there was a combo attack rule where if you got X number of Y and Z type units into an enemy unit, it instantly died. It might make for some very interesting positional gameplay and baiting, but it wouldn't necessarily be very fun for a new player to have their best unit deleted because of very good positioning from their opponent. Imo, the quality it brings to tactics is secondary to the quality it brings to fun in a game like AoS. 

This is what I mean by casual unfriendly - it's a hard rule to play around that feels bad to lose to if you fail to play around it. It's not the only reason why the new player lost, but it's what will stick in their minds as "oh yeah, AoS, that game where I moved forward and my opponent got to go twice and killed everything good I had" rather than "maybe I positioned badly". This is compounded by high lethality and potent shooting and magic. 

AoS has removed many rules from Fantasy to keep it more casual friendly and easy to play, so it's a shame that from all of the new players I've helped teach the game, they all have a very negative opinion of the double turn. I can say "screen better" to them, but they don't enjoy the rule enough to learn it and screening is a game by game basis anyway. 

[CeleFAZE]

1 hour ago, EMMachine said:

Make a rule that monsters are targeted with -1 to wound if the attacker is not a monster as well.

This would also suffice. I mentioned strength and toughness as things that the system would have to rebuilt from the ground up to reflect, and as you showed that wouldn't be in the spirit of the game as it stands. That's precisely why I wrote that a - to wound would be an optimal compromise, since it would be a unilateral way of ensuring that there is something to differentiate a monster with a 5+ save as more substantial than its woundcount in grots, which is becoming increasingly apparent as the meta moves more towards shooting. Your suggestion for the wound penalty for attacks from non-monster to monsters would work well enough, and be easier to incorporate than warscroll updates.

[Grimbok]

The basic rules are fine. Keep them simple, they work just fine. Maybe a tweak or two, Don’t make it like 40K, that’s a mess. 

 

Shooting rules are fine, it’s more about a few broken units and abilities. Nothing wrong with Blood Stalkers, Longstrikes etc, but shoot in hero phase i just bad design. Longstrikes are pretty much overpriced garbage outside of anvils. Flamers and KO are just about points. There are so many bad shooting units. It’s not the basic shooting rules that are the problem here...

Many bad rules in armybooks needs to be corrected, especially out of phase rules, like hero phase combat and shooting, 6” pile in no need to charge, strike first, strike twice, shoot twice etc. 

Drop the number of drops nonsense, and make first turn a roll off. No one army should know if they go first or second. It would also help the double turn issue and shooting dominant armies. 

More double turn interactions in missions and predatory spells (which they ruined completely).

Drop some or all of the generic command abilities. No need for immune to battleshock or reroll ones. Game would be better without them all. 

Better and interesting terrain rules. Water features, forests, rubble etc. Not 40K complex, just to spice up the board. 

Less mortal wound, output and not on basic units like sentinels! Keep it to monsters and heroes and a few magical effects. 

 

The problems in AoS is mostly just power creep and some stupid powerful armies. Most can be corrected with points, like KO, changehost, sentinels and Seraphon. 

 

Grimbok

[EMMachine]

4 minutes ago, CeleFAZE said:

Your suggestion for the wound penalty for attacks from non-monster to monsters would work well enough, and be easier to incorporate than warscroll updates.

At least it could be a corerule of some sort instead of a warscroll update. Which could be similar to fly or the cover rules.

Which makes me wonder why we needed the construct on the Warscrolls "Fly This model can fly" instead of making FLY a keyword like wizard or Monster. The rules would have worked the same way.

46 minutes ago, Enoby said:

AoS has removed many rules from Fantasy to keep it more casual friendly and easy to play, so it's a shame that from all of the new players I've helped teach the game, they all have a very negative opinion of the double turn. I can say "screen better" to them, but they don't enjoy the rule enough to learn it and screening is a game by game basis anyway. 

Looking at this point, the line of sight rules could be a problem as well. How are you able to screen if you only need to see a part of the shield or head to shoot at the unit. This is something where an additional rule maybe could help. Something like a -1 to hit (to show that it is harder to hit a unit that is behind another one (unless the unit behind is a monster or the Storm-shield rule of the Protectors (being in cover when behind another unit).

 

4 minutes ago, Grimbok said:

Drop some or all of the generic command abilities. No need for immune to battleshock or reroll ones. Game would be better without them all. 

This would strip small heroes of most of their support character if they don't have a bubble Ability, because most of them don't have Command Abilities on their own.

How about takting the bravery of the hero for the battleshock test instead of being immune. Command Abilities are basicly orders the Characters can give.

[Grimbok]

Give the small heroes a command ability... in most new books thay have. But an aura of using the heros bravery is fine.

 

Grimbok

Edited February 2, 2021 by Grimbok

[Enoby]

Just now, EMMachine said:

Looking at this point, the line of sight rules could be a problem as well. How are you able to screen if you only need to see a part of the shield or head to shoot at the unit. This is something where an additional rule maybe could help. Something like a -1 to hit (to show that it is harder to hit a unit that is behind another one (unless the unit behind is a monster or the Storm-shield rule of the Protectors (being in cover when behind another unit).

I agree something like this could help. I'm not necessarily for getting rid of the double turn full stop, but I'd like to get rid of the lethality of the double turn especially to shooting. Playing bad or not, it's no fun to sit through a double turn of teleporting MW shooting watching your army melt away, nor is it really any fun to be charged and then charged again (though this is much more avoidable). 

I think it's more a lethality issue than a double turn issue; new players don't mind as much being double turned when they're just being charged by chaos warriors who hit like pool noodles, but the vast majority of units hit like ballistic missiles. It's likely nostalgia, but I do miss the times in AoS 0 were -1 rend was considered good (rather than baseline), and 2/4/4/-/1 was considered pretty normal infantry rather than poor. Games were longer, but felt like playing a battle rather than rocket tag.

[Sleboda]

16 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Now if AOS had 40k-style terrain rules and you could hide from shooting, this would change. But the combination of ranged attacks you cannot hide from 

Why can't you hide?

[Ragest]

12 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Why can't you hide?

If you have a tall mini is impossible . I’ve tried to hide my stonemage thousand times, but the other player just have to see 0,0000001mm of the model to shoot him, so good luck.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Ragest

[Clan's Cynic]

Alternating Activations but that probably won't happen. 

If not that, then Alternating Phases ALA Lord of the Rings (I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, etc).

I still hold to the belief that the Middle Earth SBG is the best game GW have made and it's a damn shame AoS didn't rip far more from it mechanically.