What would you like for AoS 3

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yes, it is a fault of the rules. Saying "well if you use totally different terrain from the terrain GW clearly intends you to use based on what they sell for use with the game, you can hide" is not an argument that the rules are fine, it's an argument that you can get around the inadequacies of the rules by using a totally different kind of terrain. 

Just because GW sells terrain kits for those who want convenience doesn't mean the rules aren't good. People forget that GW selling prefabs at this level is a relatively recent thing. For decades White Dwarf ran articles on making your own terrain. Even today we see them encouraging creative terrain making in various ways. 

Choosing to pay for terrain kits that don't give you the blocking you want isn't a problem with the rules or with GW. It's a valid thing to do, of course, but blaming the rules rather than embracing this aspect of the hobby feels, to me, like lazy excuse-making.

BTW, several other companies make larger terrain kits, so you have can the best of both worlds - ease of use and rules functionality.

 

[yukishiro1]

That's not the point. The point is that the kits GW produces are indicative of the kind of terrain they expect you to use. When the rules don't work with GW's own models, it's undoubtedly a problem with the rules. The fact that you have to use other models to make the rules workable is a good clue there is a problem with them. 

Again, they explicitly said they were changing the rules in 9th for 40k precisely because the rules didn't work with the kind of terrain they were producing. This isn't me editorializing, it's just me literally quoting GW itself. 

The fact that you can somewhat mitigate the design problems in the current AOS ruleset by plonking down huge LOS-blocking walls doesn't mean there aren't design problems with that ruleset. GW is not secretly expecting you to use huge LOS-blocking walls while simultaneously making none of them. 

The fact is that the current AOS terrain rules do not allow for meaningful LOS blocking unless you play the game in a way that is not intended by GW, even if it is technically allowed under the rules (largely because there are no rules at all on the subject). I mean you could say: "There's no problem with the rules for shooting at all, just play on a board with 50+ paper-thin walls that block off all LOS every 3"! That's allowed under the rules!" But I doubt many people would find that a convincing argument. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by yukishiro1

[zilberfrid]

6 hours ago, Popisdead said:

Oof   I don't recall 4x8 (as a kid I think we played Rogue Trader on 4x8 but i didn't play 2nd or 3rd ed).  I am aware of the distinction of feeling even 2k is a skirmish level game.  

I  wonder if GW has a misconstrued intent.  "make games smaller, make armies smaller so people can get player faster" that turns into "have a giant collection to play cause we dropped the points on everything".  

This has the side benefit of selling more models. It also ups the barrier of entry.

[whispersofblood]

10 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yes, it is a fault of the rules. Saying "well if you use totally different terrain from the terrain GW clearly intends you to use based on what they sell for use with the game, you can hide" is not an argument that the rules are fine, it's an argument that you can get around the inadequacies of the rules by using a totally different kind of terrain. 

Incidentally, it's also an argument GW itself rejected in the way it changed terrain rules for 40k 9th edition - they explicitly announced they were changing the rules because they didn't work with the kind of terrain GW makes and wants the game to be played with. 

The original AoS terrain and azyrite ruins all have a solid walls... I know because my local invested heavily at the launch of AoS.

[EMMachine]

3 hours ago, Kadeton said:

To somewhat counter the shooting meta, I'd like to see something that had an effect on target priority without making shooting worthless. Something as simple as -1 to hit when targeting anything other than the closest enemy unit would still allow the shooting armies to make a tactical choice, but would allow their opponents to "screen" at least somewhat, much like it's possible to screen against melee.

Deepkin can still keep their superior version of this to totally dictate targeting (though they should lose their 2+ rerollable saves, let's not have any 2+ in the game please) but it would give everyone else a bit of a leg up.

Looking at something like target priority. Do you think it should be as strict as the Pile In rules (so litterally next target in inches) or more a form of obsticle?

As an example:

The green unit wants to shoot. Should their be a -1 to hit for the orange unit because the red one is closer or should their only be a -1 on the purple/blue unit because it is behind the red unit?

40k has still problems like this in case of their "look out sir" rule if the conditions are met but not in the way it is intended.

At least in case of the blue/purple unit it would make sence, the orange one, not so much.

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

The original AoS terrain and azyrite ruins all have a solid walls... I know because my local invested heavily at the launch of AoS.

Are we talking about the same azyrite Ruins? Try to hide behind these lovely doors, windows and fallen pillars.

The two at the button are the only ones where models can actually hide. The others are at best obsticles to get the +1 Save.

The only real LOS Blockers are the two massive ruins in the Azyrite Townscape

In fact their is only 1 work around for the Azyrite Ruins to be LOS-Blockers, its basicly playing all ruins with the rules for Overgrown but I would have to look if those ruinwalls are even 1" .

Edited February 3, 2021 by EMMachine

[Enoby]

12 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

The green unit wants to shoot. Should their be a -1 to hit for the orange unit because the red one is closer or should their only be a -1 on the purple/blue unit because it is behind the red unit?

40k has still problems like this in case of their "look out sir" rule if the conditions are met but not in the way it is intended.

At least in case of the blue/purple unit it would make sence, the orange one, not so much

I think you've touched on something here and raised a good point - LoS rules aren't very easy to write, and even simple sounding rules can end up in weird situations.

I think my favourite LoS rules come from Malifaux, though it would require either an addition to all warscrolls or some sort of base conversion chart (which could lead to some weird niche cases where a small model has a big base). This works by each model and terrain having a size value; terrain casts a shadow equal to its size (e.g. size 4 casts a 4" shadow) and models standing in the shadow with a smaller (or maybe smaller or equal) size than the terrain are hidden and so cannot be shot at if the LoS is drawn from the middle or side of the models' bases crosses the terrain. I think models may cast shadows too - so you can hide small models behind big ones. This makes it much easier to say for definite if something is in LoS or not, and much easier to position your models out of LoS rather than the current situation where the unit is wiped out because one guy forgot to move his sword in a little bit.  

I think more concrete rules are needed on LoS - there are so many nice terrain pieces that have holes in them for windows and doors that mean they're not suitable for LoS blocking. Being able to say azyrite ruins have a height of 4 and freeguild guard have a height of 2 so can stand hidden behind them would make things so much easier. Plus, current rules often cause arguments where one player can see a single weapon and so shoot, whereas the other feels like that's not in the spirit of the rules - there's no clear answer here.

[whispersofblood]

58 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

Looking at something like target priority. Do you think it should be as strict as the Pile In rules (so litterally next target in inches) or more a form of obsticle?

As an example:

The green unit wants to shoot. Should their be a -1 to hit for the orange unit because the red one is closer or should their only be a -1 on the purple/blue unit because it is behind the red unit?

40k has still problems like this in case of their "look out sir" rule if the conditions are met but not in the way it is intended.

At least in case of the blue/purple unit it would make sence, the orange one, not so much.

Are we talking about the same azyrite Ruins? Try to hide behind these lovely doors, windows and fallen pillars.

The two at the button are the only ones where models can actually hide. The others are at best obsticles to get the +1 Save.

The only real LOS Blockers are the two massive ruins in the Azyrite Townscape

In fact their is only 1 work around for the Azyrite Ruins to be LOS-Blockers, its basicly playing all ruins with the rules for Overgrown but I would have to look if those ruinwalls are even 1" .

There is also the ophidian gateway and the other generation 1 terrain. But, the point was GW has produced AoS specific LoS blocking Terrain, if you want to pay for it.

[stratigo]

16 hours ago, EMMachine said:

I had played whfb since 7. Edition to somewhere after start 8. Edition + some years 9th Age and it was often a 6 with moving and still being in long range (or Darkaelfs with multiple shots, moving and long range.

And strange their is so much stuff with a move of 4-6". Rolling a 12 on charge is anything else than guarenteed. Not every army has a fokus on cavalry.

(In case of AoS, I had 5 games 2 of them solo, and all against Khorne).

It is far more common for long range to be the only penalty.

 

 

And in AoS, if you are playing a melee army that cant go from 18 inches to a charge, you're playing a bad army. Sorry. Khorne can EASILY push 18 inches. The vast majority of AoS melee armies have bonuses to move, extra moves, bonuses to charge, run and charge, or just high movement. If you can't make that charge, play a better army, or learn the rules of the army you are playing better.

14 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Nobody's talking about getting double turned by that dude with a single weirdnob shaman. Kroak can hit anything anywhere on the board. Teclis can portal and then cast through it, on minimum 10s and on 12s if he really wants to, hitting potentially your entire army twice. KO will drop an uncounterable WLV on you and have it go off 3x before you can do anything about it if they get the double. A LoC's average casting roll is about a 9.5, or an 11.5 with the trait to reroll casting rolls. Shooting focused-armies all have either teleports that don't even require a casting roll (KO, Tzeentch, Seraphon) or 30" range and ability to ignore LOS (LRL). 

Not trying to be rude here at all, but it sounds like you don't play against the sort of competitive ranged lists people are discussing, because you absolutely cannot screen them out, and you absolutely cannot weather their firepower for two turns of their whole army going at you. These lists are all capable of destroying over 50% of the opponent's force over the double turn. 

 

You can screen out KO for a turn. But you can't for two,

[Eternalis]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

And in AoS, if you are playing a melee army that cant go from 18 inches to a charge, you're playing a bad army.

Sure. I'll say that to my SCE players, they should spam more CP with Sureheart. 5" move, 1 CP for a +3 to charge, still a charge at 10, easy charge indeed... Sure they can deepstrike at 9", but without Sureheart (again) it's far from being a guaranted charge.
Ok some armies can make ONE unit run and charge (including SCE), but if you're playing a melee focused army, that's kinda poor.

And I don't think that saying "play a better army" is a solution.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Eternalis

[EMMachine]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

It is far more common for long range to be the only penalty.

 

 

And in AoS, if you are playing a melee army that cant go from 18 inches to a charge, you're playing a bad army. Sorry. Khorne can EASILY push 18 inches. The vast majority of AoS melee armies have bonuses to move, extra moves, bonuses to charge, run and charge, or just high movement. If you can't make that charge, play a better army, or learn the rules of the army you are playing better.

I enjoy the world of AoS but not the way people force to minmax armies. I'm most likely more a narrative player where an optical theme and the ability to tell a story from the battle is more importent than spamming just the best units. Because of that I don't play that much because it's not really fun to play against a maxed out army.

17 minutes ago, Eternalis said:

Sure. I'll say that to my SCE players, they should spam more CP with Sureheart. 5" move, 1 CP for a +3 to charge, still a charge at 10, easy charge indeed... Sure they can deepstrike at 9", but without Sureheart (again) it's far from being a guaranted charge.
Ok some armies can make ONE unit run and charge (including SCE), but if you're playing a melee focused army, that's kinda poor.

And I don't think that saying "play a better army" is a solution.

Especially after you are forced to take Hammers of Sigmar rules to even use him.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

57 minutes ago, Eternalis said:

Sure. I'll say that to my SCE players, they should spam more CP with Sureheart. 5" move, 1 CP for a +3 to charge, still a charge at 10, easy charge indeed... Sure they can deepstrike at 9", but without Sureheart (again) it's far from being a guaranted charge.
Ok some armies can make ONE unit run and charge (including SCE), but if you're playing a melee focused army, that's kinda poor.

And I don't think that saying "play a better army" is a solution.

It's not a solution in any way, but I think it's fair to say that SCE are not a good offensive melee army by current standards.

Too low damage, too little rend, too immobile. Compared with actually strong melee armies, they just can't compete right now.

It's true that all the really good offensive melee armies should have little problem covering 18" and charging in a turn, which is what was the issue at the start of this comment chain if I am not mistaken.

That does not mean SCE is not in need of an overhaul, though.  SCE are probably the army with the biggest gap between their top competitive and average lists right now.  That goes both in terms of power level and playstyle.

They probably should be a good offensive melee army. They definitely look and feel like one. It's weird that shootcast is the best way to play them at the moment.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Popisdead]

9 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

This has the side benefit of selling more models. It also ups the barrier of entry.

Yeah, i guess my failed communication of the point I was saying.  It's a paradox of GW.  "hey kids, $50 gets you into the game, it's also easy to just build up a small force" which turns into "oh if you want to play this seriously it's 100+ models."    

[Skreech Verminking]

14 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

seriously it's 100+ models."

Was somebody talk-squeaking about the skaventide race???

[Popisdead]

1 minute ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Was somebody talk-squeaking about the skaventide race???

That's the best example of 8th ed.  200-300 models for an army that did really well.  just to play.  egads..

[Doko]

Only saying that fyreslayers are one of the best(maybe the best) melle armys......and they have big problems to cover that 18" move in first turn and 100% charge.

Sure if we use the vostarg alegiance we can run6 and charge(even then it is 10" move and a charge that have as 44% sucess at 18").

And the most used alegiance is hermdar where we have a melle army with 4" move and only can have a +2 move in one turn in all the game.so the best melle army of the meta with the best list have at best 6" move one turn and 4 the other 4 turns.

So it is false that every melle army can move 18" in one turn and that armys that cant do it are weak.

Fyreslayers are the best example of this

[stratigo]

3 hours ago, EMMachine said:

I enjoy the world of AoS but not the way people force to minmax armies. I'm most likely more a narrative player where an optical theme and the ability to tell a story from the battle is more importent than spamming just the best units. Because of that I don't play that much because it's not really fun to play against a maxed out army.

Especially after you are forced to take Hammers of Sigmar rules to even use him.

SCE are a dated book in a poor position.

 

I'd be happier if every army in the game got a slash to its movement and offensive output, but that's not gonna happen in any reality. It'd require either them pulling a 40k 8th (or raging hordes) and doing away with the battletomes available to start at 0, or deliberately cycling down the power of new releases, crushing a lot of the hype of getting a new release and taking YEARS to finish anyways. So what we will get is SCE buffed to competitive awesomeness whenever their next book releases.

 

But if your complaint is "Ugh, my bad melee army can't chase down a competitive shooting army, so we have to nerf all shooting super hard" I have no sympathy. It isn't the inability to catch them that makes shooting strong. Indeed most shooting armies focus on going hard in the enemy's face in an alpha strike, because if they don't, then by turn three the entire shooting army has been run down and is dead. LRL kinda fudge this because they have 30 inch range and teclis. So do Seraphon with cast anywhere kroak (and let's make no mistake, seraphon lean hard on the magical artillery of kroak). But KO can't afford to let the enemy army charge them without having already delivered a crippling blow.

 

 

 

 

[yukishiro1]

You can't really run away from the enemy in AOS as a strategy.  Board size is too small, movement numbers are too big, and, above all, you lose the game by doing so because you need to sit on objectives to win. 

Later in games stuff like teleports (coincidentally given mostly to ranged factions, GG G-dubs) is very powerful, but more as a tool to jump onto another objective that's empty than as a tool to let you run away and still shoot. 

[Eternalis]

4 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

It's not a solution in any way, but I think it's fair to say that SCE are not a good offensive melee army by current standards.

I know, i'm a DoK and SCE player, there are huge differences between the 2. But, even for DoK, 18" is a lot and far from being a guaranted charge.

Let's say I want to charge with 10 witch aelves, the target is at 18". I will make a move of 6" and a run of 4". It's still 8" to cover with a charge. That's not a "guaranted charge".

Edited February 3, 2021 by Eternalis

[EMMachine]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

But if your complaint is "Ugh, my bad melee army can't chase down a competitive shooting army, so we have to nerf all shooting super hard" I have no sympathy. It isn't the inability to catch them that makes shooting strong. Indeed most shooting armies focus on going hard in the enemy's face in an alpha strike, because if they don't, then by turn three the entire shooting army has been run down and is dead. LRL kinda fudge this because they have 30 inch range and teclis. So do Seraphon with cast anywhere kroak (and let's make no mistake, seraphon lean hard on the magical artillery of kroak). But KO can't afford to let the enemy army charge them without having already delivered a crippling blow.

Ahm, look at my comments, I see the double turn as a chance for slow melee armys to get into combat before they get shot multiple times and one of the only nerfs for shooting would be that they get -1 to hit when shooting through another unit so screening is possible (or maybe -1 if the target is in combat).

The people you want nerf shooting to death were other people.

Edited February 3, 2021 by EMMachine

[stratigo]

8 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

Ahm, look at my comments, I see the double turn as a chance for slow melee armys to get into combat before they get shot multiple times and one of the only nerfs for shooting would be that they get -1 to hit when shooting through another unit so screening is possible (or maybe -1 if the target is in combat).

The people you want nerf shooting to death were other people.

those are hard nerfs, that only ever hit mundane shooting, and so much of the game is magical artillery. 

 

A double turn is bad, and doesn't help a slow army, because a slow army is a bad one and they are gonna lose against a good army even with a double turn. 

[EMMachine]

6 minutes ago, stratigo said:

those are hard nerfs, that only ever hit mundane shooting, and so much of the game is magical artillery. 

So it is a hardnerf if you would have a -1 on the red guy, instead of hitting him on the same value of as the green guy (because it is how the game works at the moment). The minus 1 would in this case make the game a little more tactical.

Their are other people who want to bann shooting into a combat or shooting when you are in combat completely (and that would be way to much)

Edited February 3, 2021 by EMMachine

[Kurrilino]

12 hours ago, EMMachine said:

Looking at something like target priority. Do you think it should be as strict as the Pile In rules (so litterally next target in inches) or more a form of obsticle?

As an example:

The green unit wants to shoot. Should their be a -1 to hit for the orange unit because the red one is closer or should their only be a -1 on the purple/blue unit because it is behind the red unit?

 

Just by logic you would think people shoot at a unit close enough to charge you.

Nobody would keep firing on the orange target when the red is already beating you with swords and axes.

Orange should be -1

Red should is fine

Blue should be -2

We need finesse and tactic for close combat with screens and movement, why not apply that for shooting?

People have to be forced to think about where to position the shooters and people will have tools to deal with it exactly like in close combat.

It would open another layer to the game instead of just having a shooting phase without any skill involved.

 

[Ragest]

Lovely -1s and -2s to hit.

Let me introduce you the fancy “unmodified hit of 6 inflicts 1MW”

[LuminethMage]

On 2/3/2021 at 2:02 AM, 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.

I think this is complicated. There is a lot of talk about NPE, but we also all want our own models to feel powerful sometimes. People also complain if their models aren't  working like in the lore. E.g. a Stormcast player sometimes wants to wade through an opponents force, killing stuff left and right. You want your Keeper to slash through things. A good double-turn can also make you turn around a game that you thought you surely lost - which is a great feeling. 

If it's about new players, there are also just options we all can do by ourselves. Like starting with smaller armies and not using top lists like you mentioned. It's also ok to just play without the double turn with new players to ease them into the game and avoid real feel-bad situations. Or just explain to the player what would happen if you'd take the double-turn and then let him go. That's the great thing about board games, we can change the rules on the fly. You don't necessarily have to change the official rules for that, which might work well most of the time, but not all the time. 

In non-tournament settings (and even in - if you are the organizer), these things should always play a role. E.g. if I know my opponent has no means of dealing with 40 Sentinels, then I shouldn't bring them. That approach of course also has drawbacks (both players don't really know how powerful their armies are etc.), and you can also easily argue that a big company that makes a good profit should be able to make better rules, and make it possible so that you can feel powerful without feel-bad moments most of the time.

I don't mean this as a "rebuttal" to what you say. It think it's totally right to be concerned that the more rules and extra abilities armies get the more bad experiences for players, especially new ones, can occur. 

But often the same abilities can lead to fist-pump moments too. So there is a balance to be struck, and I think on forums people (not specifically yourself) seem to be often too focused on NPEs only in threads like this one, but demand that their own units feel "powerful" or "like they are in the lore" in others. And there is a tradeoff here. I like that the Lumineth can dish out a lot of MW, because it fits with their "magical" background, and sets them apart from other factions. But on the other hand, it definitely can make for feel-bad moments, especially when you roll well on the attack rolls, and the other player just has to take away a bunch of models without being able to do much about it at all. It can be good/exiting and boring/feel-bad at the same time. 

It often cuts both ways. I wouldn't have had much interest in playing AoS until recently, because magic was so weak. But for other people the game has become less fun since the power of magic increased, because often it's one of the less interactive parts of the game. 

I personally think, because this is not a single-player computer game where you are the hero, you have to accept feel-bad moments sometimes. I think it's pretty much unavoidable if we want a variety of playstyles, a lot of distinct armies, and fun, exciting abilities. If you want glass-cannons in the game for example, they sometimes have to be able to be a cannon (causing feel-bad moments in others), and sometimes you have to suck-up the glass part. 

When judging if an ability or rule is good,  causing feel-bad moments for some people should not be the deciding factor in my view (but be part of the evaluation). 

[Kadeton]

17 hours ago, EMMachine said:

Looking at something like target priority. Do you think it should be as strict as the Pile In rules (so litterally next target in inches) or more a form of obsticle?

As an example:

The green unit wants to shoot. Should their be a -1 to hit for the orange unit because the red one is closer or should their only be a -1 on the purple/blue unit because it is behind the red unit?

40k has still problems like this in case of their "look out sir" rule if the conditions are met but not in the way it is intended.

At least in case of the blue/purple unit it would make sence, the orange one, not so much.

I would think of it in terms of the unit being focused on the closest threat, not as an obstacle. Sure, you can turn your back on the red unit to fire at the orange, but your archers will be distracted by the immediate danger coming in right behind them, and that will make them less accurate.

We have precedent in the way the Idoneth work. If the red, blue and orange units were Idoneth, the green unit would only be able to shoot at red. That's by far the simplest model to adopt for this, just make it less restrictive. Shoot at red, no penalty. Shoot at anything else, -1 to hit. Anything more fiddly than that is over-complicating the rule, IMO.