What would you like for AoS 3

[Sleboda]

7 hours ago, Enoby said:

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

I get ya. I wasn't clear enough.

I'm saying it's just a bad feeling by the player, and thus placing the blame on the rule is as misguided as being upset that the kicker of your favorite team lost the game at the end by missing a kick.

Both are just feelings based on the observer not understanding what happened, not based on the rule itself being bad.

It is my opinion that making things worse to appease the feelings of a person who didn't understand what actually happened is not the right call.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Sleboda

[EMMachine]

38 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Why can't you hide?

With this as Line of Sight rules, it is basicly not possible to hide

Quote

MISSILE WEAPONSIn order to attack with a missile weapon, the model using the weapon must be in range of the target unit (i.e. within the maximum distance, in inches, of the Range listed for the weapon making the attack), and the target unit must be visible to the model with the weapon (if unsure, stoop down and look from behind the shooting model to see if a model from the target unit is visible). For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its unit.

Try to hide a Alarith stone mage. Thanks to the Stone he is sitting on, he is way above the regular units (or you see at least the horns) and if you put him behind a Alarith Spirit of the Mountain you will most likely see the rock behind the legs.

We basicly need an more abstract rule (shooting through another init in x") so hiding is even possible.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

With this as Line of Sight rules, it is basicly not possible to hide

Try to hide a Alarith stone mage. Thanks to the Stone he is sitting on, he is way above the regular units (or you see at least the horns) and if you put him behind a Alarith Spirit of the Mountain you will most likely see the rock behind the legs.

We basicly need an more abstract rule (shooting through another init in x") so hiding is even possible.

I'd like to see this change, too.  If only because it would remove the concern of modeling for advantage, and the related concern about modeling in spite of disadvantage (putting your hero on an elevated piece of scenery on your base).

In fact, there are already two abstract rules for cover in the game.

The obstacles rule from the core rules:

Quote

When a missile weapon targets an enemy unit that has all of its models within 1" of an obstacle, then the target unit receives the benefit of cover if the attacking model is closer to the obstacle than it is to the target unit.

And the sight blocking rule from stuff like Prismatic Palisade:

Quote

A model cannot see another model if an imaginary straight line, 1mm wide, drawn from the centre of its base to the centre of the other model’s base passes over this model.

 

[Clan's Cynic]

14 hours ago, Beliman said:

Note: AoS turn-roll is not "unique". LotR, Malifaux (flip instead of roll), Conquest,  Asoiaf... have a roll each turn to see who starts too.
Imo, the main diference between them and AoS is that the later has the most debastating double turn between all of them (IGYG and a ranged/magic meta seems to help too).

I wouldn't say "IGYG helps" I'd say IGYG is the entire reason that it doesn't work well in AoS. All of the games you've listed use Alternating Activation/Alternating Phases.

Since those other games are AA, winning that roll is generally desirable once armies are both stuck in, but it doesn't make that big a difference in the grand scheme of things and can actually be a hinderance in early turns when trying to position for future charges. If I'm in a relatively equal melee in Conquest or ASOI&F where we both want to go first to potentially wipe out an engaged enemy, I at least immediately get to react with a different unit even if the one I wanted to activate is wiped out, and if it's not I can swing back (albeit potentially with a weaker unit). Hell, in ASOI&F there's an entire faction (Baratheons) themed around getting revenge for losing roll-offs.

In those other games, a single dice roll to determine a turn can absolutely be important or even game winning depending on the circumstances, even if it does just come down to one unit. The difference is that those situations are rare, because there's always counterplay and sometimes, especially before most of the army is engaged, it can actually be a hinderance as it allows the opponent to dictate positioning. 

In AoS meanwhile, I get to spend another ten to fifteen minutes watching them make free attacks against my whole army without any chance to react until it's all over. Even if I'm able to counter that and win the day, from a purely player perspective it is NOT fun to watch and spend another turn sat on my ****** doing nothing.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Clan's Cynic

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, Grimbok said:

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. 

I'm leaning this way myself. As much as I love GW, this "let's make things cool by having them break existing rules" is a decades-long failing of theirs. I don't know if they just run out of ideas, if a designer gets too cute and "in" for his own good, or what, but for a very long time now they have made great games that work really well and are really fun when they first come out ... and then the cleverness mucks things up.

My favorite example is Man O' War. That boxed game was pretty darn great. Then they added Sea of Blood and Plague Fleet (I think those were the names), and rather than just relying on the excitement of new fleets to carry the day, they had to give the new stuff special rules that not only over complicated the game, but also messed with (not to their benefit) core mechanics. Our group eventually skipped the new stuff and just played with core stuff.

AoS feels like that. The game has solid mechanics, but it feels like GW's way of introducing new, interesting stuff is to give it "clever" ah-ha(!!!) rules that ****** up things for everyone else.

I just wish they would keep shooting in the shooting phase, combat in the combat phase, and so on.

Monsters don't feel tough enough (for example)? Don't let them fight in the hero phase, or add a new stat, or whatever. Just give them more Wounds. That sort of thing is much preferred for me.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Sleboda

[Beliman]

@Clan's Cynic Yep, it can be said as that too

[Ragest]

The problem with shooting is just that the 2.0 core rules are not prepared to hold that amount of power. And, of course, stop giving new armies tons of resources (Seraphon with 6+CPS) or powerful weapons that are completely free and with no counterplay (tp with any interaction, invoking, 2+ strong effects or mortal wounds for free) 

[Lich King]

Getting rid of double turn (initiative roll ) completely and allow scoring at the end of of Battle Round 2. This way the first turn has less relevance ( you can’t score yet) until the battle really starts while also getting rid of the dreaded double .

[Skreech Verminking]

Just take away the one drop option for battalions.

 

[Vasshpit]

I hear a lot about the LotR rule set, has anyone tried to apply it to AoS and if so how did it go?

I'm definitely in the boat about simplifying. 

I'd like to see artifacts purchasable or just allow every non-named hero to take one. 

If a hero has a command ability, allow it to use it once free per turn. 

Remove "predatory" from endless spells. We pay for it, damnit!

Allow wizards access to all lore spells during play. 

One thing I always thought may work is finite ammunitions for ranged units. This could alleviate some of their OP-ness and add more actual strategy per game. 

Way less MW spam and more focus on rend. 

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, EMMachine said:

With this as Line of Sight rules, it is basicly not possible to hide

Oh, I get that it's hard to hide models behind models (as it should be) sure, but terrain? We don't really have issues hiding anything but the largest models when we play. Knowing the rules, making and using effectively imposing (large) terrain is key (and fun!).

🤷‍♂️

[Kadeton]

31 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

Remove "predatory" from endless spells. We pay for it, damnit!

One thing I'd actually like to see is to make endless spells be actually endless. There's all this lore about them going wild and rampaging across the realms causing havoc, but what actually happens in the game is that some wizard just dispels them, usually right before casting them again.

What I'd prefer is: You cast your endless spell, and it comes into play as a Bound version under your control. Nobody (not even the wizard who cast it!) can dispel an endless spell once it's in play, but they can (by successfully "dispelling" it) cause it to become no longer Bound. The side that paid for the warscroll can make a casting attempt in order to make it Bound again.

(This is just for "Predatory" spells, obviously, which would be synonymous with "Endless". The rest - the ones which only ever benefit the caster - would just be spells that happen to have models.)

[azdimy]

Since we wishlisting:

Provide rules for terrain and units to block/impede los rather than true line of sight.

(Re)introduce a penalty for move and shoot,

Make the center piece heroes in games  be the army generals they are in the narrative.

Introduce mechanics to speed up the pile in/combat phase.  Having to pile in models indivisually in a horde unit is not efficient

Make asf and asf units alternate to fight like in the regular combat phase

Add miscast to casting attempts

Make battleshock matter again

[RedMax]

44 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

 "predatory" from endless spells. We pay for it, damnit!

Or the opposite: You no more "pay" for endless spell but select one per wizard instead (or in addition) of the faction lore spell.

I love the idea that the one getting second turn having an advantage as counterpart, but as said, I don't like paying for a Endless spell that may benefit to the enemy, so it end up by not using some of the ES at all.

 

[Sällsam]

1. Remove the double turn. It's not fun. 

2. More terrain and better (no random effects) rules. 40k is great now, so would love something like that.  

3. Rework Look Out Sir. 

4. Roll for who goes first. 

[Planar]

Less Ardboyz, more Brutes and more Cabbages

Less hordes. More monsters and characters. Loved it back then when AoS felt like a semi-skirmish game

[Kasper]

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I get ya. I wasn't clear enough.

I'm saying the bad feeling by the player, and thus placing the blame on the rule is as misguided as being upset that the kicker of your favorite team lost the game at the end by missing a kick.

Both are missed feelings based on the observer not raising 6 what happened, not based on the rule itself being bad.

It is my opinion that making things worse to appease the feelings of a person who didn't understand what actually happened is not the right call.

From my own experience there are so many people (especially less experienced players) that are completely blind as to why they lost the game and truly believe they played perfectly/flawlessly but the loss was entirely due to 1) losing priority and the opponent gets a double turn, or 2) the opponents army is OP

It is rough though - I get what you mean that changing something due to feelings is not the right call, but it does seem to discourage alot of players and potentially cuts quite a few newish players from the game early which kinda sucks.

Im a big fan of the double turn personally and I think it adds a lot to the game, from list building to the table when deploying and planning your moves.  

[BigNStinky]

1 hour ago, azdimy said:

Add miscast to casting attempts

As much as I would love to have miscasts back it would just be punishing the already lacklustre factions without turbo casters as they have rules and bonuses that would heavily negate miscasting possibilities (rerolls, huge casting bonuses, free casts ala teclis). Unless there was a clever way of introducing miscasts regardless of bonuses or rules I can't see it working with the current system.

 

 

Magic is a bit of a mess in AoS

[Televiper11]

As someone who lost dozens of games in my first year playing, rarely was the double-turn the sole reason. Getting double turned on def sucks as a new player but then getting to do it yourself can really teach you how to maximize your army, as well as how to defend against the double turn. And the latter is the key take-away: I stopped losing when I started learning how to screen properly and use my movement to create charge threat bubbles to prevent absorbing too much dmg on a double turn. I think it’s a great mechanic and I hope they don’t get rid of it

[Clan's Cynic]

Even if you ignore the win/loss implications, I feel the biggest problem with Double Turn is that it's incredibly unfun to stand/sit there whilst your opponent takes another entire turn. It's already one of the biggest criticisms of IGYG systems and Double Turn then compounds even further.

"Oh finally I get to do somethin- oh."

Edited February 2, 2021 by Clan's Cynic

[Mcthew]

Double-turn-off could be mitigated with alternating activations, for the whole turn not just the combat phase... but do we really want that?

Edited February 2, 2021 by Mcthew

[Ragest]

50 minutes ago, Televiper11 said:

As someone who lost dozens of games in my first year playing, rarely was the double-turn the sole reason. Getting double turned on def sucks as a new player but then getting to do it yourself can really teach you how to maximize your army, as well as how to defend against the double turn. And the latter is the key take-away: I stopped losing when I started learning how to screen properly and use my movement to create charge threat bubbles to prevent absorbing too much dmg on a double turn. I think it’s a great mechanic and I hope they don’t get rid of it

Double turn works fine with melee, you can screen and you have alternating activations.

But what about magic and shooting? That’s the real problem to me, not double turn per se.

[Enoby]

1 hour ago, Kasper said:

It is rough though - I get what you mean that changing something due to feelings is not the right call, but it does seem to discourage alot of players and potentially cuts quite a few newish players from the game early which kinda sucks

Yeah, this is what I'm trying to get at. It's not that it's a bad mechanic on its own or that new players are totally blind to why they lost (though they might be) but rather it's a very discouraging and unfun way to lose that looks like it was completely random on the surface.

To give an example (from a game I had with a new player), I played Slaves to Darkness (no marauders or Archaon just knights and warriors) and they played Ossiarchs. They scored about 2-3 points from objectives because they just seemed to forget about them or they were very easy to 'bait' way from objectives with flanking knights. That said, unit wise, I was beaten by the fifth battle round (not at 0, but much worse off than he was). However I had far far more points than he did so I won. He had a lot of fun because his army did something and seemed powerful, even though he lost very 'badly' points wise. It was easy to tell him afterwards how to improve as well.

I was against another newer player (think they were playing Stormcast) and I was playing Beasts of Chaos in Slaanesh. To be fair, I probably went to harsh on him list wise (I know BoC aren't great but bestigors are kinda scary in Slaanesh and an un-nerfed Keeper was silly), but this would have happened with any killy list. I had a two drop list (one keeper the rest beasts, including bestigors and bullgors) and let them go first. I think they moved a bit forward (just running up, not really caring about positioning). On my turn, I charged them, wiped out whatever was at the front, then got the double turn and wiped his army down to one ballista. He lost and wasn't happy about it. In a way, tactically, it was his fault for running everything up so most of my army could charge and then charge again. On the other hand it didn't really encourage him to play the game because he felt like he'd wasted his time putting his models on the table. Looking back, I shouldn't have used a keeper, but like I said, any killy unit would have likely done the job - no summoning was involved either.

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I get ya. I wasn't clear enough.

I'm saying it's just a bad feeling by the player, and thus placing the blame on the rule is as misguided as being upset that the kicker of your favorite team lost the game at the end by missing a kick.

Both are just feelings based on the observer not understanding what happened, not based on the rule itself being bad.

It is my opinion that making things worse to appease the feelings of a person who didn't understand what actually happened is not the right call.

I definitely get what you mean, and would normally agree, but I've seen so many bad feelings caused by this rule (and a lot of exasperation at AoS as a whole, with a few going on hiatus because of a few bad games) that I'm inclined to disagree in this case. 

New players tend to be bad players and don't always get why they lose, but they're still players who want to enjoy the game without having to understand the most complex (in action) rule of the game. 

I'm more in favour of modifying the double turn to give the 'victim' much higher defences to stop situations like this. 

In my opinion, a game should 'serve' its players, and so if a rule is unenjoyable (even if it's really good tactically), it should be modified or scrapped. Some people really enjoy the rule, some really don't - I've personally seen more bad feelings towards it when playing but that's anecdotal.  I think the feelings of the player base is what decides on whether a rule is good or not. If everyone hates a particular rule (for a daft example, needing to do trigonometry before movement to align pin point accurate charge and shooting advantages) even if it adds a lot tactically, it's a bad rule. That said, I'm not sure what the consensus is on the double turn for all AoS fans.

As a side note, I really do wonder, if 'no double turn' was a fleshed out optional matched play rule (with some abilities changed to work in this case), what version between double turn and not would get played more often? Especially in tournaments. Obviously you can houserule it now, but very few pick up games are comfortable with house rules.

[Juicy]

1 keep the double turn, love this mechanic
2 Move and shoot = -1 to hit
3  better protection for low wound heroes. Something like convert wounds to nearby units if this hero is within 3 inch of a unit with 5+ models.

4 for the player who goes second let them have something. Like we do with the endless spells or objectives. 
5 better balance team.. Like come on. Most of us could make this FAQ with very little hours of work.

6 personaly i never liked to play with realm/terrain rules al that much. Yes i played it on tournaments but for me it can be optional.

 

[Kasper]

56 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I was against another newer player (think they were playing Stormcast) and I was playing Beasts of Chaos in Slaanesh. To be fair, I probably went to harsh on him list wise (I know BoC aren't great but bestigors are kinda scary in Slaanesh and an un-nerfed Keeper was silly), but this would have happened with any killy list. I had a two drop list (one keeper the rest beasts, including bestigors and bullgors) and let them go first. I think they moved a bit forward (just running up, not really caring about positioning). On my turn, I charged them, wiped out whatever was at the front, then got the double turn and wiped his army down to one ballista. He lost and wasn't happy about it. In a way, tactically, it was his fault for running everything up so most of my army could charge and then charge again. On the other hand it didn't really encourage him to play the game because he felt like he'd wasted his time putting his models on the table. Looking back, I shouldn't have used a keeper, but like I said, any killy unit would have likely done the job - no summoning was involved either.

It sounds like the game was lost regardless if a double turn happened or not, since you were able to run up and wipe half of his army with no damage in return.  But yeah, this sounds like a typical example of someone blaming the double turn, rather than looking at their lack of measurements of your threat range or using screens to prevent their good stuff being charged.