The State of the Game

[JackStreicher]

Very interesting, well formulated opinions so far. Thanks for all the participation!

[Flippy]

13 hours ago, Enoby said:

I appreciate it's very difficult to make creative rules that don't just boil down to mortal wounds, pluses to hit, ward saves, and battleshock immunity

Is it, though? I’ve never even tried to design such rules, but a number of interactions between mechanics are still barely touched; you have rend / strike first – last / pile-in, so why not:

 

-                 increase rend on certain hit / wound rolls;

-                 choice: increase rend in return for strike last effect;

-                 choice: increase pile-in distance for the price of rend decrease;

-                 choice: obtain strike first but lose rend…

the options are there, and you can easily support them with the fluff (war dances, combat drugs, shapeshifting, various weapons etc.). The main problem I see is the overuse of MW, which are almost always better than any fun and thematic rules you can design. The Volturnos sword rule is really nice – but it’s still essentially “a worse MW” .

Edited March 9, 2022 by Flippy

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Flippy said:

Is it, though? I’ve never even tried to design such rules, but a number of interactions between mechanics are still barely touched; you have rend / strike first – last / pile-in, so why not:

 

-                 increase rend on certain hit / wound rolls;

-                 choice: increase rend in return for strike last effect;

-                 choice: increase pile-in distance for the price of rend decrease;

-                 choice: obtain strike first but lose rend…

the options are there, and you can easily support them with the fluff (war dances, combat drugs, shapeshifting, various weapons etc.). The main problem I see is the overuse of MW, which are almost always better than any fun and thematic rules you can design. The Volturnos sword rule is really nice – but it’s still essentially “a worse MW” .

100% this!

That remind me of some Horus Heresy mechanics (old War40k editions). Appart from clunky rules, rare interactions and too much USR, the Horus Heresy has a really good (and diferent) base stats/profiles that can make a unit stand out over others without new abilities.For example, Rend (AP) completely ignore armor (Ex.: Ap2 means that Saves of 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+ and 6+ can't be used to block this attack). Sounds crazy, but it creates units with dedicated roles. 

80% of (Space Marine) troops have 3+ saves, so, you will always have 3 options:

1. Dedicated AP3 weaponry, but it's a bit expensive, restricted range and with some conditions (1 every 5, only unit captains, etc...)
2. A bucket of low-quality attacks. Easy to shoot (hit/wound) weaponry. Cheap or even free, can be used by everybody. 
3. AP 2 or better weapons. Expensive, with some conditions (a few melee weapons, only terminators, canons or heavy vehicle weaponry, special relics, Legion specific weaponry, etc...).

I know it's not the same, but the point is that base stats and weapon profiles are a good start to build a unit with enough personality. Look at poor vampires, they have 4A with 3+/3+/-1/1D3, and then look at Killaboss with his 4A with 3+/3+/-1/2... Not fair!

Common GW, it's your game, believe in it!

[novakai]

9 hours ago, Kadeton said:

I agree with this, but the thing is that a lot of players are really attached to their hammers. We had a period there (before the current surge of high-rend attacks) where you could legitimately run certain units as anvils, and it just resulted in a bunch of complaints like "Save stacking is ruining the game!" because suddenly hammer units couldn't just blow through anything in a single combat phase. Much of the mathhammer analysis you'll see is based purely around raw damage output, and it becomes the dominant factor by which a given unit is judged to be either "competitive" or "unplayable". The overwhelming message, which GW seems to be receiving loud and clear, is that players just want bigger hammers and don't care about anything else.

 

I think this was also attribute to people liking big smashy monster and generally how unwieldy it was to play and play against infantry blobs/ horde units. I felt like GW must have saw that there was a big base for that kind of stuff every since BCR and FEC gristlegore.

[Doko]

We have many options for new rules that never have been used.

 

Per example after play totalwar.....some as friendly fire.

So units as irondrakes in place of the rule of double shooting without unit in melle and dont move,why dont double shooting if they can get a lane betwen irondrakes and enemy and we havent any friendly model betwen?

 

This is new and is similar to friendly fire and is more lore friend that the double shooting id you dont move(because irondrakes cant fire if they are moving but others archers can?)

 

Also some rule to affect to new cp as unleash hell and not only bonus to stomp

[yukishiro1]

7 hours ago, Flippy said:

Is it, though? I’ve never even tried to design such rules, but a number of interactions between mechanics are still barely touched; you have rend / strike first – last / pile-in, so why not:

 

-                 increase rend on certain hit / wound rolls;

-                 choice: increase rend in return for strike last effect;

-                 choice: increase pile-in distance for the price of rend decrease;

-                 choice: obtain strike first but lose rend…

the options are there, and you can easily support them with the fluff (war dances, combat drugs, shapeshifting, various weapons etc.). The main problem I see is the overuse of MW, which are almost always better than any fun and thematic rules you can design. The Volturnos sword rule is really nice – but it’s still essentially “a worse MW” .

Increasing rend on an X is bad because it makes dice rolling more fractured and take longer. GW used to do this; it has now changed to just increasing rend period or giving MWs on an X because both of those don't involve bracketing out the future dice pool. 

The problem I see with those choice mechanisms is that they also extend game time by forcing the person to make a decision, but it is a decision that typically has a clear right answer in a given situation and just depends on mathing it out to see which is better. From a game design perspective I think it is usually just better to give a unit X ability than give them a choice between two due to the delay the latter causes, at least in games like these that run for several hours. 

I think a lot of GW's design choices are motivated by a recognition that they are up against the 2.5 hour barrier in both 40k and AOS at this point and therefore anything that adds time to the game has to be compensated by something else that reduces time.

Now of course you can say there are better ways to reduce the length of games that GW hasn't taken - cloud coherency is a super obvious one that would cut huge amounts of time out of the game that GW has stubbornly resisted, for example - but that's GW for you, they are very resistant to adopting design innovations pioneered by other companies.

FWIW I don't disagree that there is more room to give stuff more interesting rules. I just think it's a bit more complicated than it looks at first glance to come up with mechanics that are interesting but don't bog the game down. 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Flippy]

Yes, you made a very good point. I can see this tension between flavourful rules (at least the ones that involve more rolling with separate piles) and the GW’s aim to make the game more streamlined. So, in this optic, the prevalence of MWs (MWs on the charge, MWs on 6s; MWs from spells, MWs near the Wyldwood…) is a deliberate choice made to speed up the game.

Now, while I understand the choice, I will not fully endorse it. This streamlining has a price, and I guess that’s why we’re having this conversation (sidenote: a great one) and why some people in this thread compared AOS with a computer game. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to solve this – my experience with AoS is very short, nowhere near the time spent with WFB. I can remember well where the excitement was: the War Dancers (choice reflecting fluff), the loooong list of magic items (choice, customization); the Winds of Magic (side game with cards) etc. But I can also remember that the length of the games was one of the reasons for leaving the hobby at that time. I miss the spice, but you are right – too much might change the game.

 

 

[Arzalyn]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

I think a lot of GW's design choices are motivated by a recognition that they are up against the 2.5 hour barrier in both 40k and AOS at this point and therefore anything that adds time to the game has to be compensated by something else that reduces time.

I agree with you, I think the generalized points increase in each 3rd tome released so far also looks like a strategy to reduce game length by reducing number of units you can field. Some other changes, like picking battle tactics can have the opposite effect, but their effect on time is probably reduced the more games you play and start to memorize/get used to the tactics available.

8 hours ago, Flippy said:

Is it, though? I’ve never even tried to design such rules, but a number of interactions between mechanics are still barely touched; you have rend / strike first – last / pile-in, so why not:

 

-                 increase rend on certain hit / wound rolls;

-                 choice: increase rend in return for strike last effect;

-                 choice: increase pile-in distance for the price of rend decrease;

-                 choice: obtain strike first but lose rend…

the options are there, and you can easily support them with the fluff (war dances, combat drugs, shapeshifting, various weapons etc.). The main problem I see is the overuse of MW, which are almost always better than any fun and thematic rules you can design. The Volturnos sword rule is really nice – but it’s still essentially “a worse MW” .

Yeah there is a lot of space to explore mechanic wise. With mortal wounds been everywhere I can imagine its hard to implant those changes without making they been see as a nerf to the faction. To a degree, the general outcome of all of those is increasing your damage output. This make them look worst at first glance them mortal wounds, as they are actual damage and not just a buff to your potential damage like rend or first strike.

5 hours ago, Beliman said:

I know it's not the same, but the point is that base stats and weapon profiles are a good start to build a unit with enough personality. Look at poor vampires, they have 4A with 3+/3+/-1/1D3, and then look at Killaboss with his 4A with 3+/3+/-1/2... Not fair!

If I'm not mistaken, this is the new "foot hero standard profile" (3+/3+/-1/2). They seen to be standardizing those kind of profiles as well, letting the number of attacks, abilities the hero has or the traits/artefacts of the factions be what make them different.

[CommissarRotke]

2 hours ago, Doko said:

We have many options for new rules that never have been used.

 

Per example after play totalwar.....some as friendly fire.

So units as irondrakes in place of the rule of double shooting without unit in melle and dont move,why dont double shooting if they can get a lane betwen irondrakes and enemy and we havent any friendly model betwen?

 

This is new and is similar to friendly fire and is more lore friend that the double shooting id you dont move(because irondrakes cant fire if they are moving but others archers can?)

 

Also some rule to affect to new cp as unleash hell and not only bonus to stomp

it would definitely be interesting to see more movement-based rules, I know there's a shield wall ability in OBR somewhere which could work as a universal ability as well.

Not Running
Not Charging
Not Moving

could all be ability triggers

[yukishiro1]

They have a bunch of those in Cities for ranged units. usually +1 attack if there's nothing w/in 3" and they didn't move. 

[CommissarRotke]

Oh perfect, so then Shield Wall could look something like:

"If this unit is equipped with shields and has not moved, it may choose to Brace itself after being charged or shot at"

edit: and then whatever buff gets applied to assist in being charged or shot obv

Edited March 9, 2022 by CommissarRotke

[yukishiro1]

Iron Golems get +1 save if they didn't make a normal move, too. Which is odd with the new AOS3 rules because it says normal move, so you can run or retreat and still get the +1 save, but not move normally. 😁

LRL Wardens get some kind of buff for being charged, too. I can't remember if it's a bonus to rend or wound or maybe both? 

GW can be quite creative when they want to be. The sin vs bin thing is oversimplified but it does feel like GW still suffers from the writers having different levels of enthusiasm for different factions and that coming out in the rules. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Doko]

1 hour ago, CommissarRotke said:

Oh perfect, so then Shield Wall could look something like:

"If this unit is equipped with shields and has not moved, it may choose to Brace itself after being charged or shot at"

edit: and then whatever buff gets applied to assist in being charged or shot obv

That was the shield wall of ironbreakers,lomgbeards of dispossesed had.

 

If the unit didnt run or chargued they could reroll saves.

 

But when they got the merge into cities of sigmar they lost it

[Skreech Verminking]

15 hours ago, Doko said:

That was the shield wall of ironbreakers,lomgbeards of dispossesed had.

 

If the unit didnt run or chargued they could reroll saves.

 

But when they got the merge into cities of sigmar they lost it

Something I enjoyed in the latest warhammer fantasy edition, was the idea of shield wall giving the dwarfs a 5+ shield shrug save against any melee weapons attacking them from the front or sides.

if gw ever decides to do a city where only dwarfs of all kind can be taken, I would actually like to see the shield wall rule for any duardin equipped with shield being added.

allowing those units to get a 5+ ward save against missile and melee weapon, yet they would loose the chance of being able to run.

If you add in a second city rule something like resolut to magic: if a duardin unit gets affected by any spells, role a dice and on a 5+ ignore those effect's, we would actually

 have perfectly fluffy rules for dwarfs.

 

 

[The Red King]

Since the quality of their digital offerings is related to the state of the game. Am I the only one who's app is crashing everytime they enter the list builder after the update?

[Gaz Taylor]

9 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Since the quality of their digital offerings is related to the state of the game. Am I the only one who's app is crashing everytime they enter the list builder after the update?

Just updated on iOS and tried this and it’s working okay for me. Suggest you check that you have all your updates but if still happening let GW know.

EDIT - here’s the survey link for feedback. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/3DSRJ8N?utm_source=WarhammerCommunity&utm_medium=Post&utm_campaign=TryOutWarhammerAgeofSigmarTheAppandtheStormForgeArmyList-buildingToolRightNowforFree15092021&utm_content=TryOutWarhammerAgeofSigmarTheAppandtheStormForgeArmyList-buildingToolRightNowforFree15092021

Edited March 10, 2022 by Gaz Taylor

[CommissarRotke]

1 hour ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Just updated on iOS and tried this and it’s working okay for me. Suggest you check that you have all your updates but if still happening let GW know.

EDIT - here’s the survey link for feedback. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/3DSRJ8N?utm_source=WarhammerCommunity&utm_medium=Post&utm_campaign=TryOutWarhammerAgeofSigmarTheAppandtheStormForgeArmyList-buildingToolRightNowforFree15092021&utm_content=TryOutWarhammerAgeofSigmarTheAppandtheStormForgeArmyList-buildingToolRightNowforFree15092021

I've barely looked at the app because when it doesn't crash it still takes a while to load up, thanks for the link so I can let GW know

[readercolin]

4 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

If you add in a second city rule something like resolut to magic: if a duardin unit gets affected by any spells, role a dice and on a 5+ ignore those effect's, we would actually

 have perfectly fluffy rules for dwarfs.

Do be aware that Hallowheart has the rule "eldritch attunement" which lets any CoS units ignore spells on a 5+ (if they want to), and there is another spell that they can cast that changes that from a 5+ to a 4+ within 12" of the caster.  So if you want your "traditional dwarven" army that ignores spells, amusingly enough it is the wizard city that does it for you.

[Skreech Verminking]

16 minutes ago, readercolin said:

Do be aware that Hallowheart has the rule "eldritch attunement" which lets any CoS units ignore spells on a 5+ (if they want to), and there is another spell that they can cast that changes that from a 5+ to a 4+ within 12" of the caster.  So if you want your "traditional dwarven" army that ignores spells, amusingly enough it is the wizard city that does it for you.

I want a mixed only dwarf city with rules for a shield wall.

Hallowheart is fun and all, but there are better cities out there to make a interesting dwarfen city.

also what dwarf likes wizard, last time I checked, the book of grudges was full of magical names.

maybe it is time

to walk the path of Grugni, let the magic feel our resolut march

[CommissarRotke]

31 minutes ago, readercolin said:

Do be aware that Hallowheart has the rule "eldritch attunement" which lets any CoS units ignore spells on a 5+ (if they want to), and there is another spell that they can cast that changes that from a 5+ to a 4+ within 12" of the caster.  So if you want your "traditional dwarven" army that ignores spells, amusingly enough it is the wizard city that does it for you.

Maybe I should run my Hallowed Knights as Hallowheart then  

[readercolin]

1 minute ago, CommissarRotke said:

Maybe I should run my Hallowed Knights as Hallowheart then  

The fact that Gardus only buffs hallowed knights and not also hallowheart is a bit of a travesty.  I mean, Aventus buffs hammers of sigmar AND hammerhall, why can't other named characters also buff specific cities as well?

Yes, give me the Hallowheart Gardus Castle.  Give me that wall of Ironbreakers with a 3+ save, 5+ spell ignore, and 5+ ward!  Why CAN'T I have that?

Heck, lets expand this out.  Why would ANYONE take a knight-heraldor right now?  Ok - give him an ability to buff charge rolls for nearby Cities of Sigmar units (or non-stormcast units).  They can't think of a role for their... 43? hero warscrolls?  First, they probably should make fewer stormcast hero's.  But failing that, they should give them roles outside of "pure stormcast" armies.  Its not like most of them are going to see play in a Stormcast army anyways with the pitiful stats they've been giving them.

[Riff_Raff_Rascal]

State of the game: Terrain rules need a big glow-up, GW needs a faster turnover for books (which we shouldn't blame them considering production and distribution issues) but overall the game itself remains streamlined enough for new players. 

Hot take: Battle Tactics are bad for the game; time played, new players inundated with choice and some armies just naturally better at them. Its a whole 'nother conversation about the rise of faction specific tactics diluting the value of the generic ones. 

Generally everyone has some interesting ideas about what could change, I only wish to point out that as a player, we are very good at finding things that are wrong at the game, the vast majority of us are not game designers and thus not great at finding solutions. 

[Enoby]

I think this recent White Dwarf Khorne update is a great example of why people may be falling out of love with AoS, so I thought I'd break it down:

- Khorne, for a long while, has had pretty substandard rules, often not portraying him as the Blood God should be, with weak attacks that aren't particularly becoming of his lore.

- Despite this, when Broken Realms came around, they updated every army except Khorne.

- Some thought this may be a sign that they'd be getting something soon, but that hope never materialised.

- Around them, other battletomes got stronger stats that left the Blood God's warriors on the lower end of the spectrum, close to bog standard skeletons in skill. 

- Many people were upset with the state of Khorne, thinking that they didn't have the offensive or defensive capabilities to stand up to the majority of armies. 

- Finally, they got a White Dwarf update. Unfortunately all it did was give them a weak spell shrug shuffle and around their scenery piece rules. It didn't make the warriors and more deadly, or make them significantly more defensive - those playing Khorne will be stuck with pathetic attacks for longer.

I think this suggests a disconnect between the rules writers and what many players want. This isn't always a bad thing as sometimes players' wants aren't feasible or thought out, but at the same time, it does leave the impression that there's not much to look forward to in an update. By this I mean, the complaints of Khorne players were ignored for some random ad-on abilities, and it means for future updates of any armies, there's a good chance that you'll not be helped that much. 

Sometimes they get it right (like Beasts of Chaos) and everyone gets excited, but sometimes they get it wrong and it feels like no one tried to get it right, which leaves fans questioning the quality of the rules.

[Arzalyn]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

I think this suggests a disconnect between the rules writers and what many players want. This isn't always a bad thing as sometimes players' wants aren't feasible or thought out, but at the same time, it does leave the impression that there's not much to look forward to in an update. By this I mean, the complaints of Khorne players were ignored for some random ad-on abilities, and it means for future updates of any armies, there's a good chance that you'll not be helped that much. 

Sometimes they get it right (like Beasts of Chaos) and everyone gets excited, but sometimes they get it wrong and it feels like no one tried to get it right, which leaves fans questioning the quality of the rules.

I think this is more a problem of how GW approach rules changes for AoS. Big updates happen almost exclusively with the releases of a new tome or a some other form of book. Minor changes happen a little more frequently, been it in form of nerfs in the GHB/Winter FAQ or now the tome celestials. Also, its much more common to see changes nerfing an over performing faction than buffs to a under performer.

When the faction rules are good (be it by capturing the flavor of the faction well, having a good balance between the units or simply been powerful), its all good and well, you got good rules to play for the next couple of years. Those minor updates and points changes are generally enough to change some things or give the factions rules the little push it need. If the minor update you get isn't very good you will probably just forget about it and move on. The problem start when you don't get good rules to start with.

If your tome has any sort of major flaw, it will probably will not be fixed for the next 2~3 years until the next faction book drop. Examples are more common them they should be, by it with bad flavor rules, simple having week rules or having rules with constrains that were abandoned as an edition developed/changed. Just changing some some points or giving a new rule isn't enough in those cases and each minor update fells like a missed opportunity. For the world we live nowadays, 2~3 years for a update is a lot of time, specially when you start to compare it to other game systems.

[Fairbanks]

As much as I collect of everything, my play experience of 3.0 is relatively limited. This is because... I don't think I like the 3.0 ruleset.

3.0 feels like it's trying to fix the perceived problems of 2.0. But for each fix, there's new issues or an added layer of complexity that doesn't make the game feel faster.

- Unit Coherency 'fixes' the snaking back of a line of models, but so does reducing unit size, including more 'Wholly Within' spells/abilities. But it just makes combat feel bad (why can't all six of my cavalry or ten of my infantry get into combat?)

- The entire bulleted section of 6.1 needs to be written into the warscrolls, not be a piece of text I'm going to ignore in a casual setting and frustrate me in a competitive setting.

- Generic command points slowed the game down when I started, and then I realized I kept using the same few on the exact same units every turn. So why aren't these abilities just scattered into the warscrolls?

- Heroic actions, and monstrous rampages are the exact same as generic command points, but are also an attempt to make 5 wound heroes and monsters not bad. Why don't we fix the warscrolls?

- The rest of the rules seem like there's five times more words there than there needs to be.

- Army building has one minor problem: The Core Rules themselves refer to using Battlepacks to build your army, but do not refer to where Battlepacks might be found (Open/Narrative/Matched Play of the Big Book each have one, and the General's Handbook Pitched Battles 2021, which does a poor job of pointing out that the core section of the book is a Battlepack).

- Loss of Warscroll Batallions (which are fluffy) for Core Battalions (which are generic)

The problem is that if I rely on my usual go-to for removing complexity for a casual game (Ignore rules), I never practice the rules/habits/things I need to do if I want to play in a more competitive setting (Going to a tournament is still a bucket list item for a casual gamer).

I miss a little bit of the 1.0 ruleset, where the abilities for the models were mostly on the warscrolls.

I've only seen the Warclans book, but as far as battletomes go, I feel like we're missing out on a lot of rules we had. I'm glad to see Warscroll Battalions there as my Lizard-Brain appreciates the list of 'Here's what a full army looks like', but sad the individual battalions offer no unique rules.