What changes/new mechanics would you add if you were in charge of making AOS?

[commisarh]

Lets say you somehow manage get put in charge of changing AOS and allowed to make any changes you wanted to the game. (Warscrolls, core mechanics, changes phases, etc.) What would you add/change about the game? Personally the changes I would make would be:

1. Debuff individual character units and remove certain lesser hero units (e.g. Exalted Heroes of Chaos, Cain Wraiths, all the Stormcast Knights, every beatstick character) HOWEVER let the ones removed them join units of roughly the same type (foot, Calvary, etc) as a unit upgrade (e.g. Exalted Heroes of Chaos joining a group of Chaos Warriors) and allow leader units to take a bodyguard unit (e.g. a Chaos lord with a group of Chosen around him). This not only make Herohammer less powerful, allows you to make units more unique and reduces the amount of heroes certain factors have, reducing redundancy)

2. Make unit facing matter. Each unit would have a 'face number' from 1 depending on how disciplined they are in the lore (Clanrats and other chaff= 1, Liberators and other well trained units = 3, Paladins and other elite units = 3) and each unit will have 4 sides, resembling a square. At the beginning of the game both players will have to state which of the four direction their unit if facing equalling their face number. (e.g. Clanrats can say they are facing forward, Liberators can say they are facing forward and the left, Paladins can say they are facing forward, left and backwards). At the beginning of each movement phase, the player whose turn it is will be able to change the facing of each unit. If the unit is charged, shoot at or attacked by another unit in a direction they are facing they will receive +1 save and, if successfully charged, all models that would be in range of the charged unit will be able to make one, and only one attack immediately. If they are charged shot at or attacked in a direction they are not facing the suffer -1 armour and bravery. This not only make flanking and manoeuvring more important, making unit such as Calvary and deep strikers better, make board control more important and make positioning more important.

What do you think of these changes? Would would you do if you were in charge of designing AOS?

[EccentricCircle]

Alternating activation.

That is all.

[yukishiro1]

AA obviously, but assuming we're not talking changes that big:

1. Move all MW on 6s to the wound roll. MWs on 6s to hit are terrible design because they render all defense irrelevant. MWs on 6s to wound at least allow Look Out Sir to do something, and make minuses to hit more valuable generally. 

2. Introduce universal base-and-height-based LOS rules. In other words, rather than using true LOS, LOS is determined by whether you can see a unit's base, and, if not, the unit's height characteristic compared to the scenery they are behind. Each piece of terrain is given a height characteristic to blocks line of sight up to - a 3" wall blocks LOS for models with a height of 3" or less, which is on their unit card. Now you don't have to worry about "modeling for advantage" because there is no advantage, hobbyists everywhere rejoice, and drawing LOS becomes a much easier, less contentious thing to do, while you can also open up more visually interesting terrain options while still having an in-game effect. This opens up LOS becoming a relevant part of AOS while still allowing freedom to hobby the way you want to. 

3. Clean up the terrain rules generally. They are literally unusable in a lot of edge cases, people just wave their hands and make stuff up because that's your only real choice. Like how do you actually move through Sylvaneth Wyldwoods? Do you pay movement to go up and down those little slopes? Do you not pay movement? What if your model is a foot model but too tall to not hit the branches? Can you just not move through at all? Can you ignore the branches and pretend they weren't there and just "counts as" being somewhere your model doesn't actually fit? Do you have to go on top of the branches? Can you end movement on the slopes even though your models fall off when placed there? Can your foot model end movement standing on top of the branches? Even if we put aside the branches and assume they don't matter, can you make a wood out of three of the small pieces that simply can't be charged into by models on 100mm or larger bases because they can't fit between the trees from any angle - even flying ones, since if they go on top they can't come down afterward? This is an integral part of a faction that revolves around moving to and from these terrain features, but the rules literally don't work on the most basic level. 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Popisdead]

3 hours ago, commisarh said:

 Would would you do if you were in charge of designing AOS?

Make it so people cannot complain about rules changes when a new edition drops unless they've played at least a couple dozen games.  

[Neverchosen]

I would develop robust siege rules that permited people to develop their own scenery and also have the miniature department work on some modular towers and walls to be sold individually or as a set. 

I would develop my rules by having a list of general scenery types (e.g. wall, tower, house, gate) each having a set 'wound' characteristic, then I would have a list of material (eg. wood, stone, reinforced, mystical) each providing a different save value. 

I would also put a bit more emphasis and play testing into multiplayer battles. I would use this as a place where grand alliances still hold some impact on the game giving certain synergies for having a shared grand alliances. 
 

[Slayerofmen]

5 hours ago, commisarh said:

Lets say you somehow manage get put in charge of changing AOS and allowed to make any changes you wanted to the game. (Warscrolls, core mechanics, changes phases, etc.) What would you add/change about the game? Personally the changes I would make would be:

1. Debuff individual character units and remove certain lesser hero units (e.g. Exalted Heroes of Chaos, Cain Wraiths, all the Stormcast Knights, every beatstick character) HOWEVER let the ones removed them join units of roughly the same type (foot, Calvary, etc) as a unit upgrade (e.g. Exalted Heroes of Chaos joining a group of Chaos Warriors) and allow leader units to take a bodyguard unit (e.g. a Chaos lord with a group of Chosen around him). This not only make Herohammer less powerful, allows you to make units more unique and reduces the amount of heroes certain factors have, reducing redundancy)

2. Make unit facing matter. Each unit would have a 'face number' from 1 depending on how disciplined they are in the lore (Clanrats and other chaff= 1, Liberators and other well trained units = 3, Paladins and other elite units = 3) and each unit will have 4 sides, resembling a square. At the beginning of the game both players will have to state which of the four direction their unit if facing equalling their face number. (e.g. Clanrats can say they are facing forward, Liberators can say they are facing forward and the left, Paladins can say they are facing forward, left and backwards). At the beginning of each movement phase, the player whose turn it is will be able to change the facing of each unit. If the unit is charged, shoot at or attacked by another unit in a direction they are facing they will receive +1 save and, if successfully charged, all models that would be in range of the charged unit will be able to make one, and only one attack immediately. If they are charged shot at or attacked in a direction they are not facing the suffer -1 armour and bravery. This not only make flanking and manoeuvring more important, making unit such as Calvary and deep strikers better, make board control more important and make positioning more important.

What do you think of these changes? Would would you do if you were in charge of designing AOS?

Currently not playing 3rd but this just sounds like you want to play old warhammer, you are describing a rank and flank game

[Grimrock]

I'd put a lot more work into the scenery rules to make sure it plays a bigger role in the game. Currently they seem to be more or less content with slapping on some extremely generic rules and hoping that the mysterious terrain table is enough to keep things interesting. GW themselves figured out a way to make terrain more interesting and impactful in 9th edition 40k, so it really boggles the mind that we still have it so bad in AoS. At the very least simple rules like extended vertical engagement range, breachable, and obscuring should absolutely be a thing already. 

[Doko]

1-remove random priority and changed to regular turns(as 40k or fantasy)

2-heroes with 5 wounds or less cant be shooted if they are within 3" of a friendly unit

3-mortals wounds removed from almost all,and only spells and breaths of dragons or monsters do mortals

4-objetives are grabed by number of wounds of the models and not by the number of models

5-changed cost of units of the actual fixed cost by 5\10\15 models etc to a cost per model sistem as 40k

6-add options of upgrade per points to units,as a shield to a model for 2 extra points or a pistol for 3 points or a rune of strength for a +1 hit etc

7-a similar sistem of anvil of apottheosis(i think was the name) in each tome that let us give many options to heroes so we can have fun doing our personal hero

8-combat changed to the two first ranks attack(or attack the models with actual rules and models of that unit at 1" of the attacking models too can attack)

9-unleash hell,redeploy......or better every 3.0 new cp removeds

10-save stacking deleted 

 

Many changes lol but im sure that i can think of many more haha

[yukishiro1]

2 hours ago, Grimrock said:

I'd put a lot more work into the scenery rules to make sure it plays a bigger role in the game. Currently they seem to be more or less content with slapping on some extremely generic rules and hoping that the mysterious terrain table is enough to keep things interesting. GW themselves figured out a way to make terrain more interesting and impactful in 9th edition 40k, so it really boggles the mind that we still have it so bad in AoS. At the very least simple rules like extended vertical engagement range, breachable, and obscuring should absolutely be a thing already. 

I really don't like the effect the 40k terrain rule approach has on hobbying. When you have terrain rules so restrictive that TOs tell you you can't swap out the terrible flight stands GW provides for custom ones that look cooler (e.g. smoke trails for jetpack units) because that's "modeling for advantage" because even the slightest deviation in height or model profile has gameplay effects, that's not a good set of terrain rules. How your model is posed should have no impact on the game rules, everything should be keyed off the base and uniform vertical height dimensions. I get that technically this applies to AOS too, but nobody cares about LOS rules in AOS because they're essentially irrelevant. 9th has some moderate steps in that direction w/ obscuring, but they still use the basic framework of true line of sight, which is just a terrible game mechanic in a hobby game. 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Kamose]

Two things: 

1. Change combat ranges to function (almost) like it does in 40k. A weapon's range determines how far it needs to be from an enemy model in order to attack OR how far from another model in it's own unit that is with it's weapon range.

2. Release Path to Glory campaign books like the Crusade campaign books in 40k.

That is all.

PS: Complexity in games is like aging. It's inevitable and it kills all games eventually. The game designer should try to simplify as much as possible for accessibility and streamlining because as time goes by and new rules are added the game will become more complex on its own. Needlessly adding complexity just increases mental load and makes games frustrating. This is my main complaint with 40k and why I find AoS to be the better game.

[Skreech Verminking]

3 hours ago, Slayerofmen said:

Currently not playing 3rd but this just sounds like you want to play old warhammer, you are describing a rank and flank game

Ah don’t we all miss the good ol’ times?

 

and should I have a say in all this matter, I would give the skaven the update they truly deserve.

I would reduce the range of anything not an artillery down to a max. Range of 20 (especially sentinels, (Excluding sniper units, so stormcast snipers don’t suffer that problem))

Anything that is a mortar or a catapult would be given the rule to be able to shoot at units not visible.

anything that isn’t a catapult or mortar and has that rule would loose it.

I would give anything that looks like a halberd, spear, great weapon carrying unit or looks like a monstrous infantry unit, a 2inch range.

I would swap the to wound and to hit value of the great weapon carried by the unit of grave guards, because it is very implausible how a great weapons can hit its target with ease, yet seems to be unable to wound much.

it makes more sense when it can’t hit it’s target as easy as a one handed lighter weapon, but wounds better thanks to its weight.

I would add in a rule where armies like Gitz and Skaven gain 6-8 reinforcement points instead of only 4

and I would increase the min. Size of plague monks and stormvermins to 20.

I would add a rule where out of the phase shooting (exlcuding unleash hell) can no longer be used.

I would add a rule where a save roll can never be successful on 1-2, unless the unit already has a unmodified save characteristic of 2+, in which case only a 1 would fail.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Skreech Verminking

[Tervindar]

Clean up the amount of wordiness around rules and the sheer amount of rules and books. After playing other games, Bolt Action, One Page Rules, ASoIAF, and Conquest, there is a beauty to simplicity in the sense of how you write rules for armies and units. Not every unit needs various paragraphs of special rules, just condense it down. I feel right now there is so much bloat to this that it is a turn off. 

Completely re-do command abilities - feel like this just bogs down the game. 

Alternating or random unit activations with the removal of phases - make each unit have 2 actions that they can do, such as move and shoot etc. 

 

[Chikout]

Honestly I hate the facing rule. Gw are bringing back the old world. They can keep that kind of rule there. 

I wound change mortal sixes to the wound roll but only for shooting attacks. 

I would give the megas the same degrading profile as Kragnos. I would make the sentinels bird ability once per battle.

I would change Morathi's rule to 4 wounds per phase.

I would give all the squigs and spiderfang  the moonclan grot keyword. 

I would give dankhold, mirebrute, sloggoth, and  dragon ogors the monster keyword. 

 

I would change the combat range rule to directly in range or in range or in range of a model that is directly in range. This would let units fight two ranks deep. 

 

I would put the line of sight rule from the Christmas rules in the regular game. 

 

This is all pretty reasonable. 

One the more extreme end I would keep the double turn but with adjustments. Hero phase stays the same, moving and shooting are alternating activation but if you move or shooting in the first turn of the round, you can't in the second. 

This might need a few tweaks but  it increases the interactivity and keeps some of the tactical options that a double turn provides. 

[Wraith01]

Simplify it back to how it was when the original Generals Handbook came out, it's getting too rules heavy. I do like some of the new stuff they've introduced but I miss the faster pace of when I got into the game.

 

I also have to point out that: I love rolling for initiative every turn! It makes the game more fun and less predictable.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Wraith01

[Dingding123]

All-Out Attack: +1 hit, -1 save
All-Out Defense: +1 save, -1 wound

Heroes can issue command abilities to all other units within 3" of the hero, or 6" of a hero that is a general.

[crew4man]

@commisarh As SlayerofMen put it, that's just old warhammer. And nothing wrong with that, just most people didn't want to play it, as @Chikout mentioned. 
@Kamose It's interesting that we've gotten to the point where complexity is a concern, since one of the major goals of AoS was to murder rules creep by destroying the game. @Wraith01 wisely points out that a key draw was it's original pretty simple nature. 

I highly recommend the goonhammer on this: https://www.goonhammer.com/age-of-sigmar-a-5-year-retrospective

On the note of simplicity though, just because the game continues to add rules or mechanics or explanations or clarifications doesn't actually mean the game is collapsing under the weight of rules if the fundamentals are still clear in most cases. Twilight Imperium to me is a good example of a game with alot of rules but is still actually fairly simple at the end of the day, or a Dota 2 -- the basics of what you're doing are easy enough, there's just a huge swathe of details that you learn as life moves apace. In contrast, a game like Twilight Struggle or Europa Universalis IV are just complex and even figuring out what the shape of the game is like requires some homework. 

@EccentricCircle & @yukishiro1 mention AA. But I'm willing to say that switching from IGUG to AA is such a fundamental switch as to just have made a different game, and at that point you would not be in charge of making AOS, but some different game 😛 And there's more opportunity than ever to play on the other turn. 


In terms of my own thoughts? More should be done with the whole 'mortal realms' aspect of the setting.

[Battlefury]

6 hours ago, Doko said:

1-remove random priority and changed to regular turns(as 40k or fantasy)

2-heroes with 5 wounds or less cant be shooted if they are within 3" of a friendly unit

3-mortals wounds removed from almost all,and only spells and breaths of dragons or monsters do mortals

4-objetives are grabed by number of wounds of the models and not by the number of models

5-changed cost of units of the actual fixed cost by 5\10\15 models etc to a cost per model sistem as 40k

6-add options of upgrade per points to units,as a shield to a model for 2 extra points or a pistol for 3 points or a rune of strength for a +1 hit etc

7-a similar sistem of anvil of apottheosis(i think was the name) in each tome that let us give many options to heroes so we can have fun doing our personal hero

8-combat changed to the two first ranks attack(or attack the models with actual rules and models of that unit at 1" of the attacking models too can attack)

9-unleash hell,redeploy......or better every 3.0 new cp removeds

10-save stacking deleted 

 

 

This, plus:

a) use strength vs toughness to calculate wound rolls

b) remove any mechanic, that interacts with objectives points ( move it, score 5points per model, etc. )

c) create a consistent method of point calculation, that will be used for all armies in the same way

d) create game mechanics ( abilities, etc. ), that are present for all armies ( not meaning, that each armies got all of them in a similar way )

e) re - evaluate all point cost

f) write new BTs

[zilberfrid]

Clear up all instances of "wound" and "damage" wording.

Remove mortal wounds as a mechanic.

Rework bravery.

Alternate activation.

Rework coherency.

Simplifying and balancing the game are core values.

Change measurements to metric.

Start listening to feedback from playtesters.

Give Fyreslayers at least two more unit choices, perhaps at the cost of a few heroes (they could box 5 of their heroes as a unit, and it would improve variety).

Give Fireslayers a warscroll for unmounted a magmadroth non-hero monster.

Shuffle Kharadron conditional battleline a bit.

Make a Kharadron ship based hero.

Give Cities a new foot General sculpt. Give them a new demigryph General sculpt. Change ranks for those Generals to avoid confusion. Refresh guards, crossbowmen and fanatics, perhaps phoenix units.

Refresh the entire Seraphon range save Carnosaur, Underworlds and Kroak.

Refresh about as much for Skaven.

Similar treatment for Beasts of Chaos. Put Kragnos there, perhaps taking swamp orcs with him.

Make Death less boring in lore. 

With the departure of Kragnos, put a few different gods in destruction.

Make dwarves and elves for every alliance. Humans for Destruction.

Make Ogroids more a thing.

Edited January 10, 2022 by zilberfrid

[zilberfrid]

Oh, and give Idoneth a hermit crab with its bottom in a ship like this:

[Painbringer]

Changes I would like to see the most:
- terrain that has different effect on movement (water, mud, ruins, etc.) or LoS (provides cover or negative modifier to hit)
- facing similar to one in Warmachine/Hordes (180-degree front arc)
- Models with larger bases blocking LoS to models with smaller bases

 

[JackStreicher]

3. Remove 89% of Mortal wounds from the game and change them to:

Devastating Wound: This is an automatic wound with a rend of -2. A bonus to the save can‘t be applied versus this wound. (This ignores ethereal) Roll the save for each Devastating Wound suffered as usual.

 

this closes the gap between normal dmg and mortal wounds. It allows for more interactivity. It’s a soft solution to save stacking while giving expensive units with a good save at least a chance to survive.

 

Example: The charge rule of Annihalators would cause crushing Wounds, while the explosion when they die causes mortal wounds.

Ranged Attacks that cause Mortal wounds could be changed to Devastating Wound, toning those units down a little (Longstrike Raptors, Melusai, Sentinels)

——

 

If more complexity is required you could also make Devastating Wound tiers with rend 1 to 3 etc. However: the simpler the better.

Edited January 7, 2022 by JackStreicher

[Scurvydog]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

Remove 89% of Mortal wounds from the game and change them to:

Something like this, Or an automatic wound with 2 more rend to the weapon being used. This still makes rend relevant and still makes saves relevant. This might be enough to keep things on hit as they are, otherwise with the current MWs they should be moved to wound rolls, to allow for the line of defense from hit and hit modifiers.

Remove Battle Regiments or/and first turn should not be dictated by drops, the 1 drop list building being very meta right now is so boring and discourages interesting lists and promotes the same cookie cutter lists, especially for those armies that want the alphas. First turn should just always be random or at best a +1 or -1, no seize the initiative stuff after deployment as 40k had, what a horror show.

Remove any and all fight or shoot twice mechanics to something else and adjust points accordingly where needed. Nobody likes having all their fun pieces gone turn 1 from longstrikes, bowsnakes etc. Fight or shoot twice mechanics are just too much of a multiplier. Except for StD on chaos lords, but that is because they have terrible warscrolls 

Rework battalions or the battleline system to somehow prevent shoot spamming outside select factions. The game is turning into 40k pew pew and that is not really all that enjoyable. Ranged units should never be battleline except for KO for example and should have a pitched profile tag for "missile unit" with a cap of 33% of army or something. TLDR find ways to reduce ranged spam. Don't want the ranged units to do pitiful damage and just be useless, so limiting their availability instead might be a way to go.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Scurvydog

[Dogmantra]

There are quite a few ideas in here where people are giving an end goal without saying how they'd achieve it, which is fair as a general design philosophy but I think it's more interesting to see how we get to that point.

Here are some guiding principles I have for the changes I'm proposing

• This is a hypothetical 4th edition, or 3.5 edition refresh
• The changes should be as small as possible to effect the desired outcome, people like AoS because it's AoS, completely changing subsystems to attract new players at the expense of old ones is something that really turned me off other games
• Each change should have a clear reason and address a specific issue with the game
• I'm not going to propose individual changes to models/factions, only core changes and common mechanic changes

Core Rule Changes
What I'm not doing
I actually think AoS is a pretty good core ruleset and not much really needs changing. I know that many people would prefer alternating activations over the current phase based I go, you go system, and I think there's a very compelling argument for at least changing to alternating phases (so player 1 resolves their whole hero phase, then player 2, then player 1 resolves their whole move phase, etc etc), but on the other hand I do also quite enjoy the tactical challenge of knowing how much to hold back. One of my other favourite miniatures games, SAGA, is also an I go you go system with plenty of reactive stuff to do on your opponent's turn, and I don't think it suffers for it at all, so I will tentatively say that in my hypothetical 4th edition, it will stay phased.

Terrain & Line of Sight
I don't think anyone is happy with the terrain rules as they are. Terrain is surprisingly hard to get right, but I think AoS has an advantage in that it's (ostensibly) primarily a melee game, so LoS rules can be quite simple. This is the one thing that I would probably totally rework, with the goal of making terrain matter, provide a tactical advantage and challenge, and not slow the game down too much.

• Terrain comes in two types: ground and obstructions. Ground is types of ground (mud, rivers, etc), obstructions are everything that has a height.
• Obstructions come in three sizes: Small, Medium, and Large. These denote specifically heights, not the overall footprint. They are named this way so that they correspond with model heights. Obstructions all have a base (just the outline of their footprint if they don't have a physical base), and this is where measurements are taken from.
• Obstructions are impassable. Grounds are freely passable.
• Models are also all given a height tag: Small, Medium, and Large (GW would probably put this in the keywords or abilities, but I would put it with the core stats)
• Line of sight is measured base to base, taking into account the size of terrain and models involved.
• To determine if you have line of sight, draw lines base to base, if a line can be drawn from base to base that does not cross any obstructions, you have LoS.
• If all possible lines base to base pass over an obstruction, LoS is blocked. You may ignore obstructions that are smaller than one or both models for the purposes of LoS.
• If any possible line of sight passes over an obstruction (even if it is smaller than either model), the target has cover. Cover is -1 to hit (possibly -1 to wound or +1 save as well/instead, tweaks would be required with testing!)
• If a unit is in base contact with an obstruction that is equal to or smaller than the unit, it can ignore this terrain when determining if the target has cover.
• For simplicity's sake, ground can take on the mysterious terrain rules. I think they're fit for purpose.
• For abstraction's sake, hills should be treated as ground rather than obstructions and provide no benefits/downsides to line of sight.
• No more climbing in the core rules. Climbing universally adds 1000% complexity to terrain rules for very little benefit in most cases, and it's much more appropriate to a skirmish game than a unit based game. Move climbing/falling/jumping rules to the narrative play section.

This is the biggest change that I'd make to the whole system, and it's not that different. It makes terrain modelling a bit more free as you don't have to worry about gaps in terrain. It gives monsters less ability to hide, smaller foot units have an easier time with it, and it's a very easy abstraction to remember. The majority of models will be medium, and there should be a decent mix of small and medium terrain with a couple of large pieces per table. Shooting will, as a general rule be easier to gain cover against, or even totally block LoS. This ought to a) make it less powerful which addresses a common complaint, and b) make it more interesting where you deploy shooting units as they need to have good lines of fire as well as be in range.

 

Command Abilities
I really like the added command abilities in 3rd edition, I like that they give you a chance to do a bit on your opponent's turn. I would like to lean into that and add a couple more/revise the ones we have:

• Tactical Move - At the start of your opponent's movement phase, choose a unit to receive this command. At the end of this phase that unit can make a normal move. (a way to play a bit of a positioning war with your opponent, but the fact you're forced to say who is doing it at the start of phase allows your opponent some counterplay, it may add in some mind games)
• Countercharge - At the start of your opponent's charge phase, choose a unit to receive this command. At the end of this phase, that unit may attempt a charge if it is within 9" of an enemy unit that successfully charged this phase. (like the tactical move, this is for mind games and area denial as much as it is allowing the inactive player a chance to have a charge. You can deny the ability if you don't end a charge within 9" of them, but then they've denied you charging in that area. The countercharge is deliberately allowed against anything in range)
• (possibly) Return Fire - At the start of your opponent's shoot phase, choose a unit to receive this command. During this phase, when a unit within 6" of the unit that received this command is chosen as a target of a shooting attack, you can say that you will return fire. If you do, after resolving the shooting attack, the unit that received this command may resolve a shooting attack against the enemy unit that attacked. (this is only a maybe - I don't want to make shooting into a dominant force, and it really depends on how much the LoS rules curbed the power of shooting as to whether this one would make it in, ideally it's a way to protect vulnerable targets of your own, but it may end up just making shooting more powerful.)

 

Combat Changes
There's a thread on whether Strength vs Toughness should be imported into AoS from 40k. I am generally against it because I think it reduces the individuality of both games, but I think it has some merits in differentiating units. I made a long post there proposing an alternative of two save values, an armour and a willpower save. I don't think I'd implement this into my hypothetical 4th edition because I think it's a very bold change to make, and I'm not sold that it's 100% necessary. I think we can do a lot with just the abilities and ideas that are already in the game.

Standardisation!
There are lots of battletomes written at all different times with different wordings. This hypothetical 4th ed requires a whole rewrite of every battletome already, so let's standardise things. Stick to a standard wording, and add many keywords with simple definitions, much like they did with wards in 3rd ed. MWs on 6s could simply be called "Hunter" for example to give an easy one.

Conditionality
In order to give target priority more depth than simply pick the thing that can do the most damage and point it at the thing that needs to die the most, giving conditional bonuses changes the effectiveness of units vs different types of unit. At the moment, specific hunter units don't get picked very often because there's often something that does the same or a similar job unconditionally. I say make pretty much everything conditional, and make unconditional powers much rarer and cost a higher premium. I would combine this with standardisation to create some templates which wouldn't be treated as a design straitjacket where you pick from a premade list of abilities, but the majority of units would ideally have something recognisable that if you were familiar with the ruleset you could understand it. Conditional defensive abilities would also be helpful, preferably "soft" conditionals, where they don't call out anything specific, but they have limits simply based on the properties of the unit attacking (for example, reducing number of attacks on weapons by 1 to a minimum of 1 is much more effective against 2-attack hordes than it is against 1 attack elites, without specifically calling out hordes, thus "soft" conditional). Here are some examples:

• MWs on 6s to hit (or wound, undecided) vs Monsters
• +1 attack for every 5 models in the target unit
• To wound value of this attack is the same as the target's unmodified save value.
• +1 save vs mounted units
• Wound rolls of 3 or lower always fail vs this unit
• Ignore the damage from the first failed save each phase

Quite a few of these are already in the game, and you can see how you could mix and match quite a few of these. Change the MWs on 6s to vs Heroes, or units with a wound characteristic of 3 or less, depending on what you want them to be better at. All of the above examples are conditional in that they don't affect some units, and do affect others.

Small Foot Heroes
This seems to be a bugbear for many people, myself included. I'm a Stormcast Eternals player so I feel the pain of having quite a few fun sculpts and concepts for heroes that I can just never justify spending 120 points and a battle regiment slot on. I think one issue is that they fight separately and don't pack enough of a punch to prioritise when choosing your first fight. You're unlikely to just send a little foot hero in, and if you send something alongisde it, then your opponent can often focus down the hero before it gets a chance to activate. My solution is a couple of new abilities to add to most foot heroes, one or more of them. The general rule would be that a little foot hero should be exceptional in some way to not have one of these (e.g. unconditional MWs, super fighting ability, non-combat hero like a priest or wizard).

• Bodyguard - this already exists in some forms, but the one I'm thinking would be that you can transfer damage from the first failed save per phase onto a nearby (very nearby, maybe 2 or 3") unit that matches the keyword. Guaranteed, not a ward, forces opponents to commit resources to finish off a hero in one go, but can be overcome, and can be countered. It also subtly pushes the narrative towards brave foot heroes seeing their comrades fall around them before they are the last left fighting.
• Companion - When a friendly X (can be keyword, can be non-hero foot unit, can be unit with wounds less than 3 etc) unit is chosen to fight in the fight phase, after that fight is resolved, this unit may immediately fight. All of its attacks must be assigned to units that the previous unit fought, and this counts as the unit's fight activation for this fight phase. Basically allows small heroes to "buddy up" and fight with a unit.

 

------------------

 

That's it for now, but I don't think I'm done. I'll probably come back and add more.

[Wired4War]

17 hours ago, Doko said:

1-remove random priority and changed to regular turns(as 40k or fantasy)

2-heroes with 5 wounds or less cant be shooted if they are within 3" of a friendly unit

3-mortals wounds removed from almost all,and only spells and breaths of dragons or monsters do mortals

4-objetives are grabed by number of wounds of the models and not by the number of models

5-changed cost of units of the actual fixed cost by 5\10\15 models etc to a cost per model sistem as 40k

6-add options of upgrade per points to units,as a shield to a model for 2 extra points or a pistol for 3 points or a rune of strength for a +1 hit etc

7-a similar sistem of anvil of apottheosis(i think was the name) in each tome that let us give many options to heroes so we can have fun doing our personal hero

8-combat changed to the two first ranks attack(or attack the models with actual rules and models of that unit at 1" of the attacking models too can attack)

9-unleash hell,redeploy......or better every 3.0 new cp removeds

10-save stacking deleted 

 

Many changes lol but im sure that i can think of many more haha

That sounds like all the stuff I don't like from 40k. So I'd only be okay with them doing this to AoS, if they then took all of this stuff out of 40k so I still had something to play.

[PJetski]

3rd edition is pretty good, but I think there's room for improvement https://docs.google.com/document/d/18sspa6xR9xnVAX0g5_jvWpzh5ENyUP6MC2QgWdRwXCA/edit?usp=sharing

Here's the highlights