AoS optional rules for fun - a Nuzlocke for Sigmar

[KrrNiGit]

In my previous brain dump I went over the importance of the 3 ways to play. When discussing Open Play a particular thought struck me and I have been mulling it over since. Open play begs us as players to take hold of our play experience and change it and make it our own. 

This feeling has been echoed in recent discussions around Commander/EDH on Warhammer Weekly (Vince Venturella on YouTube) and Smorgan’s AoS Nuzlocke idea (AoS List Labs on YouTube). EDH and Nuzlockes are different game modes for Magic the Gathering and Pokémon respectively, created by their respective communities that have taken off. Both change the rules to enhance the game experience for the players. Both create something new with the building blocks already available. Sounds a lot like our Open Play to me…

 

I don’t really play magic so let’s look at what Nuzlocke does to Pokémon and see if there is anything we can learn from that for our game. A Nuzlocke run is a play through with additional player chosen restrictions that aim to do 3 things: increase player engagement, increase the stakes and increase the game’s difficulty.

It increases player engagement by restricting the number of Pokémon you get (one per route) and making you give a nickname to each one you get. These two things work together to make each Pokémon feel more special and feel more yours. 

It increases the stakes (and therefore the emotional impact) by requiring players to get rid of any Pokémon that feints. When playing Nuzlocke, they haven’t just fainted they’ve DIED. Pokémon are already in short supply and now they can be lost from a single mistake. The simple interaction of fighting a random trainer on the trail now has real stakes. They could kill one of your Pokémon that you have named, trained and looked after all this time. Non-important filler content is made into potential tension filled emotionally engaging content.

These changes work to increase the game’s difficulty. Players are challenged more, they need to adapt more and they need to play better to succeed. Players need to adapt on the fly, to deal with the random hand of Pokémon the game deals you. You can not just play the way you always have, you need to try new things to overcome old challenges. Hammering a nail is not particularly difficult, unless you have no hammers. Restricting and randomising your Pokémon creates new and interesting problems for you to overcome. Failure is also now an option. As you lose a Pokémon when they feint you can easily be left in a position where you don’t have enough Pokémon to continue or at the very least none that will help you progress in the game. Failure is really an option. Something that is harder to succeed at is more satisfying, succeeding at something with no real chance of failure is not.

These 3 changes help in another important way. They bring the game play closer to the narrative of the Pokémon world. In Pokémon manga or cartoons, Ash Catchem cares about his Pokémon. They aren’t just battle monsters but beloved pets. By playing Nuzlocke you are encouraged to care for your Pokémon. You are encouraged to act and feel like a real Pokémon trainer in that world would act and feel. The game’s mechanics don’t enforce any of these, in fact it encourages you to do the opposite. You are encouraged to grind out your Pokémon, to catch 100s of the same one to ensure it has optimal stats and characteristics. Feinting is easily recovered from for free. Playing the game optimally doesn’t feel like a true Pokémon experience, or at best maybe a very watered down one.

 

So what are some ways we can better align the narrative of our game with the experience of playing it? What player based restrictions can we add to make it a better experience for us as we play it.

One idiom I have heard around the table is referring to the player as the general of their army. We often talk about this as a hypothetical, but what if we make it real? How can we make this true on the table?

Other games do make it real. In Chess if the king is captured you lose. You could easily make this change in your AoS games. If your nominated general dies you lose (I would also restrict it so that they can’t be unique either – so no Archaon, Morathi or Nagashes). If they die you shake hands, you forfeit, you lose, no matter the score or what else is going on in the game. When playing that way would you willingly put your hero up front where they would be most effective but also most at risk? Would you think more when you move them each turn? Would them taking a few wounds here or there have more of an emotive effect on you as the player?

By consciously aligning yourself with your general you will be more engaged with the game. You have an avatar on the table. This should help draw players in to the world of the game, more than just being people playing at the table.

Making the death of the general an instant lose condition will also increase the stakes of your games. No matter how dominant you are most armies can kill a single hero if they try hard to. If you are careless with your general you could easily lose from any position. Each and every turn it gives the players something else to consider. In reverse if you do go all out to kill their general and fail, have you over extended yourself leaving yourself vulnerable to their counter attack?

Playing this way would definitely impact how you build and play your army. Keeping your general safe becomes a priority. Now you need to balance the ability for them to be an impactful piece in the game with the risk of them dying and you losing. It is a new puzzle to be overcome. This constant tension and risk makes the games more challenging. There is a constant risk of losing it all.

There are new issues to consider both in list construction and during the game. Generally the general is a central force multiplier. They give buffs and push their armies forward. Doing so puts them usually requires them to be upfront and central, putting them at risk however. Now you would also need to consider how safe to keep them. Do you go all out for defence or synergy? Or build a beat stick general and they might kill a lot but if they die after then you still lose. This risk poses new questions for list builders to consider.

Finally, this also helps players follow the narrative of the game better. Narratively this is not a game about scoring points but rather about armies fighting battles. Mechanically however in the game the winner is decided by who scores the most. While some of these points are scored for doing narratively aligned things, some are really not (e.g. run 3 units). When you choose to identify yourself with a character on the battlefield you tend to play like that character would. Adding in an instant lose condition gives this choice real consequences, adds real tension and therefore should enhance the experience of the playing the game.

 

 

That is the theory anyway. Would adding this change make you feel more engaged? Would it raise the stakes and tension in your games? Would it create new and interesting challenge? Maybe… guess we’ve got to play them and find out.

 

[Abstract_duck]

This seems fun! Although I would worry about the powerlevel of certain units. Say, a Sneaky'd in group of 9 bolt Boyz sniping you out right away. Or, even more likely, Sentinels being sentinels. More to the point, I'd try this if ranged units are very limited both in numbers and potential. So.. seems awesome in the right matchups!

[KrrNiGit]

16 hours ago, Abstract_duck said:

This seems fun! Although I would worry about the powerlevel of certain units. Say, a Sneaky'd in group of 9 bolt Boyz sniping you out right away. Or, even more likely, Sentinels being sentinels. More to the point, I'd try this if ranged units are very limited both in numbers and potential. So.. seems awesome in the right matchups!

Yeah the last thing we need is making sentinels more powerful ...

i think maybe with some additional list restrictions like Smorgan suggests in his YouTube video or maybe in something softer like a Path to Glory campaign this could really add some extra spice. 

It isn’t fair or balanced but hopefully it’s fun.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

I have been thinking a lot about similar stuff recently. I think AoS would do well to have a more casual variant. Currently casual play is just competitive play, but less optimized. That's not really good, because when someone brings a well-optimized list (maybe even by accident), it frequently ends up being not very fun for everyone involved.

That said, I am not sure if Nuzlocke is the best inspiration for a casual AoS ruleset. I think Nuzlocke works in Pokemon as a variant to make the single player experience more challenging and engaging. But nobody is playing multiplayer Nuzlocke, and AoS is exclusively multiplayer. So a lot of what might be fun about Nuzlocke runs just doesn't carry over to AoS even in the abstract.

I'm also not 100% sold on making losing your general be a loss condition. I like the idea that it would bring the narrative and the gameplay closer to one another, and probably get you more invested into your general. I even think it would work pretty well if all players at the table engage with this game mode in good faith. But I think it will be a problematic rule once there is a player who really optimizes for it by bringing a super tough to kill general plus a bunch of long-range mortal wounds. Because that's surely the ideal list in this game mode. One thing that is nice about Commander as a more casual game mode for Magic is that you can optimize within the rule set fairly extensively, but it still works as a casual format due to how the rules are set up. The deck building rules of Commander make Commander decks less consistent than regular decks, and being a 4 player format, if one player starts getting ahead too much, the others often ally against them, so it self-balances in a way. I don't think that you get a similar effect from having to keep your general alive in AoS. The rule doesn't encourage a more casual game mechanically.

[JackStreicher]

I like the ideas in general. However killing a general to win does not work. Too many armies can shoot the general within 1 turn

[Maddpainting]

Most of GW narrative games already have means in place to kill off or hurt units on your roster and needs to be replaced. 

There is also Highlander rules in place and has been for many years, you might be interesting in that.

Combine them and you basically got what you are asking for. 

[KrrNiGit]

@Neil Arthur Hotep I can see where you are coming from with commander vs Nuzlocke. Commander does seem the better fit, I just don’t have the experience with it to use it as the basis of my thoughts. I’d be very interested in a Commander mod for AoS though. Sounds like a great time. 

If you did a version of Commander for AoS would you restrict it to one of each warscroll and no reenforcements (except battleline)? Maybe using the the Triumph and Treachery rules as a base?

[KrrNiGit]

16 hours ago, Maddpainting said:

Most of GW narrative games already have means in place to kill off or hurt units on your roster and needs to be replaced. 

There is also Highlander rules in place and has been for many years, you might be interesting in that.

Combine them and you basically got what you are asking for. 

Thanks, I will look into it. Where can I find a copy of the Highlander rules?

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

3 hours ago, KrrNiGit said:

@Neil Arthur Hotep I can see where you are coming from with commander vs Nuzlocke. Commander does seem the better fit, I just don’t have the experience with it to use it as the basis of my thoughts. I’d be very interested in a Commander mod for AoS though. Sounds like a great time. 

If you did a version of Commander for AoS would you restrict it to one of each warscroll and no reenforcements (except battleline)? Maybe using the the Triumph and Treachery rules as a base?

I believe if we really want a more casual community format for AoS, we need to keep the specific properties of AoS that set the game apart from other games in mind. MtG's Commander format has a restriction on the number of copies of a card that you get to take (1 instead of the usual 4 of most other Magic formats) along with a larger deck size (100 cards instead of 60), and in that game that leads to less consistent, more varied decks with a reduced power level. But I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that this should mean that a casual AoS format also needs to restrict duplicate warscrolls or reinforcements. AoS is not exactly like magic, even though they both have a list/deck building component.

If we restrict duplicate warscrolls or reinforcement in AoS, that will not have the effect of generally making the playing field more even. It will shake up the meta, and some armies will come out better than before while others get worse, but it will not have the effect of generally de-tuning lists. Some armies have no problem running no duplicates and not reinforcing anything except battleline. I could write you up a Gravelords tournament list right now that doesn't contain duplicates at all, and it would be one of the hardest, most frustrating to play against lists around. At the same time, the change would hurt some armies that are already weak, particularly those with small unit rosters. And then there are all those edge cases that skirt around that rule on a technicality. "No man, I didn't bring four units of Dracoths. I brought one unit of Desolators, one unit of Tempestors, one unit of Concussors and one unit of Fulminators!"

There is some cool stuff in Commander worth thinking about, though. For example, Commander doesn't just make your decks weaker. In a way, Commander is a way to play more powerful cards compared to other formats. In Commander, you don't just have a larger, less focussed deck than normal. You also have a, well, Commander. Your commander is a legendary creature which you always have access to. When it dies, it goes to a special zone and you can keep bringing it back onto the field (at a rising mana cost) over the course of the game. So you will always have at least one powerful creature that you can count on having access to at the ready. You always have one card you can be sure that you can build your combos around. On top of that, players have 40 points of life in Commander, as opposed to the usual 20. This has the effect of making the game go longer and weakening rushdown strategies. One player just won't have the punching power to quickly beat down three others at double life points.

I think in AoS a big thing that a casual format should strive for is to allow people to just play with their collections. AoS is not like Magic or even Pokemon, where making a new deck or team is easy. Making a new list is difficult, and getting a fully painted army ready takes time. Unlike in Magic or Pokemon where there are thousands of cards or 800+ monsters to choose from, AoS armies only get, like, 25 warscrolls or so, frequently fewer. If a card is unplayable in Magic, you have other choices so it's no big deal. If a model is unplayable in AoS, you feel how that limits your options straight away. So I would say enabling players to use the models they like should be a priority.

With that in mind, my personal design goals for a more casual AoS format would be this:

 

• Allow people to play whatever lists they like (including spam lists)
• Enable new, interesting lists that you would not normally see at the table (don't just make the game mode "weak list matched play")
• Aim for a game that goes the full 5 turns in general, and make sure that all players get to stick around until the end (so that everyone has a chance to actually play the game)

For me, the starting point to get this going would be a 4 player format at a lower point value. Something like 1250, which I find is generally powerful enough to feel like you are playing a real list that can do some cool thing, but not so powerful that you can just bring anything you want. A multiplayer format has the upside of limiting some of the worst excesses of current AoS. No army can produce enough mortal wounds or ranged damage to shoot three opposing armies off the table, for example. To win, players will generally have to make deals and try to outplay each other.

But that's just a high-level overview. I have not really delved into the specifics yet. I think it would be cool to have something similar to a commander in this game mode. A hero model that you can choose to keep bringing back to the game by using a ressource (probably an increasing command point cost). Something you can build your whole strategy around. But I have no idea how that would look in practice.

[Gitzdee]

U could limit the rules for list building like little cup in pokemon or the different competitive leagues. Restrict all leaders to having a centain number of total wounds (10 or something like that). Or a game where 25% of your army must be from every grand alliance (i actually would like to try this). Could also pick 12 leaders from your collection from any faction with point cost up to 200 points or something and roll 2d6 untill u get 5 leaders and do the same for units with a cost up to 200 points. Should get a random close to 2000 point army. 

Could even go crazy and do something like a mtg draft with friends. Make a pile of random models/ units and everyone take turns to pick a thing they like until the pile runs out and go play a 2 vs 2. Could do all kinds of crazy things with open play.

Could even go crazier and do a capture the flag style game where u can only use leaders to capture the enemy flag and try to bring it home, when carrying the flag halve your movement stat and when defeated the flag drops at the slain model and the leader respawns at the base next turn (could make some crazy unreal tournament/warsong gulch style terrain for this).  Time to go back to work now XD.

Edit: I think i'll do this Nozlocke thing when my wife decides she wants to restart an old pokemon game again. Sounds like fun. Might even do it in the new one this week.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Iksdee

[Maddpainting]

19 hours ago, KrrNiGit said:

Thanks, I will look into it. Where can I find a copy of the Highlander rules?

Should be able to google it easily, it is a very common way to play.

Basically it is only 1 of each unit unless it is a core/troop/battleline unit and then you can pick a 2nd one as long as you picked another core/troop/battleline already (Caveat if you only have 1 eligible then a max of 3). 

For league version you normally are not allowed to add any units ether unless you already went through all your units. 

[Beliman]

On 11/16/2021 at 10:44 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

• Enable new, interesting lists that you would not normally see at the table (don't just make the game mode "weak list matched play")
• Aim for a game that goes the full 5 turns in general, and make sure that all players get to stick around until the end (so that everyone has a chance to actually play the game)

This two points have the same feeling of old "thematic/alternative" lists for Warhammer Fantasy: A restricted lists with "maybe" some bonus. It could work something akin the Rivals format from Warhammer Underworlds.

The ultimate competitive format: 1 premade list vs 1 premade list. Only dice and skills are going to carry the game. Remove list-building or armies with low/high number of warscrolls.

Not sure if something like that could exist, but it could solve A LOT of problems

Edited November 18, 2021 by Beliman

[KrrNiGit]

On 11/16/2021 at 8:44 PM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I believe if we really want a more casual community format for AoS, we need to keep the specific properties of AoS that set the game apart from other games in mind. MtG's Commander format has a restriction on the number of copies of a card that you get to take (1 instead of the usual 4 of most other Magic formats) along with a larger deck size (100 cards instead of 60), and in that game that leads to less consistent, more varied decks with a reduced power level. But I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that this should mean that a casual AoS format also needs to restrict duplicate warscrolls or reinforcements. AoS is not exactly like magic, even though they both have a list/deck building component.

If we restrict duplicate warscrolls or reinforcement in AoS, that will not have the effect of generally making the playing field more even. It will shake up the meta, and some armies will come out better than before while others get worse, but it will not have the effect of generally de-tuning lists. Some armies have no problem running no duplicates and not reinforcing anything except battleline. I could write you up a Gravelords tournament list right now that doesn't contain duplicates at all, and it would be one of the hardest, most frustrating to play against lists around. At the same time, the change would hurt some armies that are already weak, particularly those with small unit rosters. And then there are all those edge cases that skirt around that rule on a technicality. "No man, I didn't bring four units of Dracoths. I brought one unit of Desolators, one unit of Tempestors, one unit of Concussors and one unit of Fulminators!"

There is some cool stuff in Commander worth thinking about, though. For example, Commander doesn't just make your decks weaker. In a way, Commander is a way to play more powerful cards compared to other formats. In Commander, you don't just have a larger, less focussed deck than normal. You also have a, well, Commander. Your commander is a legendary creature which you always have access to. When it dies, it goes to a special zone and you can keep bringing it back onto the field (at a rising mana cost) over the course of the game. So you will always have at least one powerful creature that you can count on having access to at the ready. You always have one card you can be sure that you can build your combos around. On top of that, players have 40 points of life in Commander, as opposed to the usual 20. This has the effect of making the game go longer and weakening rushdown strategies. One player just won't have the punching power to quickly beat down three others at double life points.

I think in AoS a big thing that a casual format should strive for is to allow people to just play with their collections. AoS is not like Magic or even Pokemon, where making a new deck or team is easy. Making a new list is difficult, and getting a fully painted army ready takes time. Unlike in Magic or Pokemon where there are thousands of cards or 800+ monsters to choose from, AoS armies only get, like, 25 warscrolls or so, frequently fewer. If a card is unplayable in Magic, you have other choices so it's no big deal. If a model is unplayable in AoS, you feel how that limits your options straight away. So I would say enabling players to use the models they like should be a priority.

With that in mind, my personal design goals for a more casual AoS format would be this:

 

• Allow people to play whatever lists they like (including spam lists)
• Enable new, interesting lists that you would not normally see at the table (don't just make the game mode "weak list matched play")
• Aim for a game that goes the full 5 turns in general, and make sure that all players get to stick around until the end (so that everyone has a chance to actually play the game)

For me, the starting point to get this going would be a 4 player format at a lower point value. Something like 1250, which I find is generally powerful enough to feel like you are playing a real list that can do some cool thing, but not so powerful that you can just bring anything you want. A multiplayer format has the upside of limiting some of the worst excesses of current AoS. No army can produce enough mortal wounds or ranged damage to shoot three opposing armies off the table, for example. To win, players will generally have to make deals and try to outplay each other.

But that's just a high-level overview. I have not really delved into the specifics yet. I think it would be cool to have something similar to a commander in this game mode. A hero model that you can choose to keep bringing back to the game by using a ressource (probably an increasing command point cost). Something you can build your whole strategy around. But I have no idea how that would look in practice.

Big fan of these changes and your design direction. I think returning heroes sounds like great fun. 

[Nacnudllah]

On 11/16/2021 at 4:44 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

With that in mind, my personal design goals for a more casual AoS format would be this:

• Allow people to play whatever lists they like (including spam lists)
• Enable new, interesting lists that you would not normally see at the table (don't just make the game mode "weak list matched play")
• Aim for a game that goes the full 5 turns in general, and make sure that all players get to stick around until the end (so that everyone has a chance to actually play the game)

I feel like they were aiming for something like this with Meeting Engagements, but it was a bit of a miss.

If I were trying to accomplish these goals, I think I would do something like

• have list-building be unlimited
• give the General some extra wounds (giving them a Ward would be too swingy as a Wounds multiplier instead of additive)
• have all other units respawn when wiped out (everyone except the General and other named heroes)
• have multi-step narrative objectives (find the scroll > decipher the scroll > cast the spell)

That way nobody could get tabled, named characters would feel extra unique, and you'd have a lot of leeway on how to build your list and accomplish your objectives.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

22 minutes ago, Nacnudllah said:

I feel like they were aiming for something like this with Meeting Engagements, but it was a bit of a miss.

If I were trying to accomplish these goals, I think I would do something like

• have list-building be unlimited
• give the General some extra wounds (giving them a Ward would be too swingy as a Wounds multiplier instead of additive)
• have all other units respawn when wiped out (everyone except the General and other named heroes)
• have multi-step narrative objectives (find the scroll > decipher the scroll > cast the spell)

That way nobody could get tabled, named characters would feel extra unique, and you'd have a lot of leeway on how to build your list and accomplish your objectives.

All of those sound like fun ideas that would definitely merit some play testing

In my experience, a multiplayer format already does a lot to prevent people from getting tabled, because being super aggressive and nuking one opponent is not a winning strategy in multiplayer. Sure, you might be able to destroy that one guy, but the other two players will probably team up against you because you are now the biggest threat. Obviously, that doesn't help the player that was tabled in that one game very much, but players are dissuaded from playing hyper agressive long term because it just doesn't win games very often.

[Fairbanks]

I like how the spiritual format we already have is mostly hated by the community:

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

44 minutes ago, Fairbanks said:

I like how the spiritual format we already have is mostly hated by the community:

I think that's because Stillmania really doesn't offer any solutions to problems that people have with normal games. It just tells you to ignore the problems. "Just play whatever and don't care about winning." is great if it works for you. But it's not really a remedy to people who want to play somewhat seriously but just wish the general gaming environment was a little less cutthroat than the default.

Not to mention a lot of the original Stillmania recommendations are not even applicable if you want to play outside of a fixed play group at all. I have only been back into Age of Sigmar for a bit more than two years, but my original list is already invalid in several ways. The faction is no longer supported (Legions of Nagash), the unit composition is now illegal (reinforcements), it would be over 2000 points and it wouldn't even be able to do the thing I originially built it do anymore. Unless I find a group of people willing to play 2nd ed AoS exclusively forever, building a 2000 point list and never touching it again just isn't possible.

[Marcvs]

5 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

building a 2000 point list and never touching it again just isn't possible.

the hobby-side of that mode ("collect and paint the army [...] never touch it with a paint brush again") is also such a chilling statement for new hobbysts that I cringe every time I read this, leaving aside the modelling artefacts on characters (hope you're good with stripping and hacking away at each change of universal artefafcts and/or battletome and/or warscroll keywords and/or...)

[whispersofblood]

The interesting thing about nuzlock is that it is entirely player driven limitations rather than mechanical changes. 

There is nothing stopping you from catching that tasty Pikachu you see second in an area; except your own will power and pride.

If I was to design a nuzlock that can be used in all the play modes I would do something like.

Players cannot target a general eligible for LoS! from further than 12" away.

The general must receive the first artefact

The general must have the highest bravery

Heroes with a mount trait cannot select an artefact.

Units with missile weapons with range greater than 18" must deploy with at least half the models in the unit on the back board edge. 

The first battleline unit must be reinforced, and cannot be a conditional battleline pitched battle profile. 

The first endless spell must have a faction key word, if none are available the first must be less than 50 points.

Edited November 18, 2021 by whispersofblood

[NinthMusketeer]

I have my own Nuzlocke. Create a single-drop army, pick second turn, and never take a double. It's like playing the game without cheat codes!

[KrrNiGit]

The more I think about it the idea of a multiplayer casual game mode resonates more with me than adding some personal restrictions to make the game harder... I’m not that good a player without giving myself extra handicaps 😛 

 

Making a commander type rule set I think I’d do something like give everyone 1000 points for their army and 500 points for their commander. Any of the 500 you didn’t spend on your commanders warscroll you could buy enhancements with (also I might try scraping the rule limiting how many enhancements you can give to your commander).

i also love the respawn your dead commander rule @Neil Arthur Hotep thought up. Maybe the first time it’s just a CP to bring them back, then 2, then 2 + your heroic action?

finally I think you’d need to come up with some special battleplans... something to help force the players to interact more and not just turtle up somewhere... that or just use the fortnite one... 

[KrrNiGit]

On 11/19/2021 at 3:13 AM, whispersofblood said:

The interesting thing about nuzlock is that it is entirely player driven limitations rather than mechanical changes. 

There is nothing stopping you from catching that tasty Pikachu you see second in an area; except your own will power and pride.

If I was to design a nuzlock that can be used in all the play modes I would do something like.

Players cannot target a general eligible for LoS! from further than 12" away.

The general must receive the first artefact

The general must have the highest bravery

Heroes with a mount trait cannot select an artefact.

Units with missile weapons with range greater than 18" must deploy with at least half the models in the unit on the back board edge. 

The first battleline unit must be reinforced, and cannot be a conditional battleline pitched battle profile. 

The first endless spell must have a faction key word, if none are available the first must be less than 50 points.

I like how you’ve restricted yourself without limiting the warscrolls available to you. I think it strikes a nice balance

[Beliman]

A 6th edition Tournament was played. It was a 1500p tournament, and I jsut asked why 1500 and not 2000 points, and it was completely made on purpose: 

• 2000 points gave you options to take another Rare Unit and a Commander. And both options are already 500 points.
• That means that at 1500 points, it's a bit hard to have Big Boss characters and the strength is focused on troops: 3 troops for 1500 or 2000.

I know it's Fantasy, but the basic structure of the game can turn a 4 Bloodthirtser list to something more close to Khorne Army (whatever that means), and use troops to do the work instead of "throw archaon there and kill stuff" (as 70% of AoS armies do).

Not sure how this could be translated to AoS, but it could be a good step in (imho) right direction.

[OkayestDM]

I've been toying with a 3rd turn reinforcement rule for games that I want to run longer.

The simple version is that during the 3rd turn you can bring back all of your units that have been wiped out. They are treated as coming out of reserve (allowing factions with special reserve rules to be able to use them.)

For slightly more complexity - especially for those who have big collections and like to play with all their toys - you don't bring back the slain units, but instead assemble a completely new force based on the point value of your slain troops and bring them in as reinforcements. 

I've yet to try it out or play around with the idea, but my hope is that it'll be a fun way to change up the game.