only a personal wishlist of changes for next edition

[Doko]

-double turn removed(end of games won by luck)

-shooting units cost reduced a 30%(they are overcosted now due to the chance of double turn and get two turns of free shooting)

-magic phase changed to after move

-get objetives changed from numer of models to number of wounds(now monsters and multiwound models dont feel useless)

-monster get a increase of 40% in their wounds(not behemats because they have the wounds per points that the others monster must have) 

-range of melle weapons deleted and changed to attack two ranks in melle

-foot heroes with less than 7 wounds can go inside one unit and figth together

-the battletactics and strategys from diferents books deleted and everyone only can use the same from the generals(more balanced)

-mortals wounds removed from every army and unit and it is only some special as from magic or breaths of monsters

-free sumons deleted,bring back models died is ok but only bring units free is umbalanced

-can spend some extra points in each unit to upgrade it(style to fantasy,so we can get to 2000 points without do tetris)

-removed the penalty for double 1 on spellcastings stoping the hero of cast more spells(its stupid and only a huge penalty to models overcosted as nagash)

Edited August 17, 2023 by Doko

[Beliman]

I like some of your points, but not sure about others (magic after moving, mw with magic, ranged points reduction, etc...). But what I really want is a solid game structure. Wall of text incoming:

• Polish basic concepts and core mechanics:
  • Write a "Bravery check" mechanic and use it when it matters (magic phase, some terror shenanigans, battleshock etc...). No need to write each time a bravery check is needed to "roll 2D6 and add X, if the result is more than bla bla bla).
  • Critical Hit and Critical Wound: Unmodified 6 to hit/wound always succeed (we already have that). Use this concept as a main mechanic like "If this unit has this ability, hit rolls made by Unleash hell targeting this unit only succeed on a Critical Hit".
  • Attach Character (new rule) : Same as Warhammer 40k. Remove all bubbles, abilities that target units wholly within or within 3" and all this stuff. Only Avatar units can have bubbles, auras or wholly within abilities(read below)

 

• Core Keywords: We have Hero, Wizard, Priest, Totem, Monster and Warmachine. Some of them have inner abilities/tables (Wizard, Priest, Hero, etc...), and some of them have some interactions with other mechanics (Totem, Warmachine, etc...). What about other keywords?
  • Mounted Hero: Can only be attached to "Cavalry" units (no need to arbitrary say that models with X wounds or less).
  • Horde: Add 1 to bravery for every Y models that this unit have
  • Monster X+: Can only be wounded on a roll of X+. Remove Monstruous Rampage and writte some of this rampages to their warscrolls (if needed).
  • War Machine: Ignore Monster X+ when targeting a Monster.
  • Transport X: Friendly Faction X Units can Embark and Disembark
  • Cavalry: Can run + Charge/shoot
  • Chariot: Mw at the end of charge phase
  • Infantry: No bonus.
  • Hero: Add that can be attached to Infantry units.
  • Avatar: Can't be killed with abilities that "slain a model", can issue a comands like a Hero/Mounted Hero, and have their own "Monster X" (pseudo-Primarchs for AoS, write this in any God-like or Gotrek-like warscroll).

 

• Add another role: Fast Attack 0-3 (1000p games) and 0-6 roles (2000p games).
  • Chariots and Cavalry are going here. Some Heroes or flying units too if needed.

 

• Command Abilities:
  • Rally: Can only target Horde units.
  • All-out Defense: Can only target units with [SHIELDS] (see below).
  • Challenge: Only Heroes/Avatar/Mounted Heroes. In the combat phase, you can pick 1 enemy Hero/Avatar/Mounted Hero within 6" of this HERO. Until the end of the turn, ignore the melee range characteristic for both HEROES, but each HEROE must target the other one when they are selected in the fight phase. Wounds allocated as part of this Command Ability must be completely allocated to the models in the same Challenge, even if they have a retinue for being Attach Characters. All wounds that are not allocated to the enemy Hero are discarded.

 

• Rewritte all warscrolls abilities. Add or combine abilities to make all of them follow the same structure, but that doesn't mean that one Hero or one special unit could still have their own weird ability. All this abilities are still Warscroll Abilities (exactly as we already have), not USR persé or Keywords. But having a [LABEL] attached to an ability make the whole process of playing the game a lot easier for players and designers. Issues like RAW vs RAI will be easier to fix with just a FAQ:
  • Rewritte all abilities that have mortal wounds made on hit and wound rolls: [TOXIN X]: On a unmodified wound rolls of X, that attack (profile) causes a number of mortal wounds to the target equal to the weapon’s Damage characteristic and the attack sequence ends.
  • All breath attacks, gas attacks, etc: [BREATH] Each time an attack is made with this weapon, that attack automatically hits the target.
  • All units with shields: [SHIELD] Add 1 to Save characteristic (and can interact with All-Out Defense, see above).
  • All deploys, movement shenanigans, setup shenanigans:
    • [AMBUSH]: During deployment, if every model in a unit has this ability, instead of setting up this unit on the battlefield, you can place it to one side and say that it is set up in ambush as a reserve unit. At the end of your first movement phase, you can set up any friendly reserve units that are in ambush on the battlefield, wholly within 9" of the battlefield edge and more than 9" from all enemy units
    • [SCOUT X"]: At the start of the first battleround, after chosing the first player, if every model in a unit has this ability, you can make a X” move with this unit.
    • [INFILTRATE]: During deployment, if every model in a unit has this ability, then when you set it up, it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" horizontally away from the enemy deployment zone and all enemy models.
  • Add any ability that can interact with what we already have:
    • [BEASTHUNTER] Ignore Montser X.
    • [MARKSMAN] Can target Attached Characters with ranged attacks.
    • [PARRY X] Can't be hit with better rolls of X+ to hit.
    • [BULKY X] Count as X for Transport keyword.
    • [PIKE FORMATION] Only units with Pikes/Spears: Enemy units that charge a unit with this ability can't use any Charge Bonus.
    • [SHIELD WALL] Only units with [SHIELDS]: Enemy units that charge a unit with this ability can't use any Charge Bonus.
    • [CHARGE] Lance Profiles: Add 1 to rend and damage characteristic when the unit charge.

My whole vision is to polish the game, make core mechanics, keywords and warscrolls abilities part of the same layer of rules. There are more things that I would like to see changed or tweaked (buy artifacts with points,more customizations options, ranged profiles that can't target engaged enemy units, rules for terrain, etc..) but my main issue at the moment is that the game doesn't feel finished and it seems that there are a lot of layers of rules that don't need to be separated from the main game.

 

Edit: I edited a bit my brainstorming of possible abilities that I would like to see in the future. There are 2 rerolls (rerolls 1 to hit for ranged and for melee attacks), but I think it's enough to make some units truly "Elite":
 Brainstorming_WarscrollAbilities.pdf

Edited September 29, 2023 by Beliman

[Chikout]

Ok. Here's my thoughts from a very causal player. 

4th edition objectives - reduce complexity and NPE while retain tactical flexibility and opportunities for skill expression. Allow for a lower skill floor will keeping a high skill ceiling. Increase game speed and reduce player downtime. 

1- keep the priority roll. Removing it would make the game boring and predictable. 

2- make moving alternating activation, but you can only move once per battle round. 

3- remove all shoot twice abilities and change all mortal wound abilities on shooting  or melee to auto wound or auto hit. Keep mortal wounds to magic or special abilities. The problem with mortal wounds is the lack of interactivity so  maybe  add a command ability that grants a 6+ ward save which can be used after  mortal wound are caused. 

4- change melee fighting so that a model can fight if it is in range or in range of a model that is directly in range. This way models with 1 inch weapons can fight in two ranks, those with 2 inch range can fight in three ranks etc. 

This will shift the game back towards melee and make fights faster as more models are fighting at once. 

5- Change all 4+ rallies to a 5.

6- Remove all re rolls of any kind. 

7- Make one pool of 20 battle tactics but make them all genuinely hard to get. Getting the maximum should be genuinely difficult. 

8- grand strategies should be secret and give rewards for things that don't help you win the game. Eg 'doesn't know when to die' a unit is charged twice but survives each combat, or 'david and Goliath' kill a 10 wounds or more hero with a 6 wounds or less hero in melee or 'I tried' fail to cast a single spell 4 times in a game, or 'noble sacrifice' get your general killed by the end of turn 2. 

9- Make a full ghb sized battle pack for beginners that has no grand strategies, battle tactics or sub faction abilities and has a progressive sequence of battleplans that teach you the game. Make this a free download when the game launches. 

Improve terrain rules. At least 2 Line of  sight blocking pieces in the centre of the board in every game. 

Bring back digital books. This is my number one change! 

Make warscrolls free again on the website. People can go elsewhere to see them already. 

[Marcvs]

27 minutes ago, Chikout said:

6- Remove all re rolls of any kind. 

one important exception IMHO: reroll charges. Without it, you're creating a very big disincentive for melee which doesn't seem to be your overall goal

[Chikout]

8 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

one important exception IMHO: reroll charges. Without it, you're creating a very big disincentive for melee which doesn't seem to be your overall goal

Yes. Good point. 

[Tonhel]

On 8/17/2023 at 9:22 AM, Beliman said:

I like some of your points, but not sure about others (magic after moving, mw with magic, ranged points reduction, etc...). But what I really want is a solid game structure. Wall of text incoming:

• Polish basic concepts and core mechanics:
  • Write a "Bravery check" mechanic and use it when it matters (magic phase, some terror shenanigans, battleshock etc...). No need to write each time a bravery check is needed to "roll 2D6 and add X, if the result is more than bla bla bla).
  • Critical Hit and Critical Wound: Unmodified 6 to hit/wound always succeed (we already have that). Use this concept as a main mechanic like "If this unit has this ability, hit rolls made by Unleash hell targeting this unit only succeed on a Critical Hit".
  • Attach Character (new rule) : Same as Warhammer 40k. Remove all bubbles, abilities that target units wholly within or within 3" and all this stuff. Only Avatar units can have bubbles, auras or wholly within abilities(read below)

 

• Core Keywords: We have Hero, Wizard, Priest, Totem, Monster and Warmachine. Some of them have inner abilities/tables (Wizard, Priest, Hero, etc...), and some of them have some interactions with other mechanics (Totem, Warmachine, etc...). What about other keywords?
  • Mounted Hero: Can only be attached to "Cavalry" units (no need to arbitrary say that models with X wounds or less).
  • Horde: Add 1 to bravery for every Y models that this unit have
  • Monster X+: Can only be wounded on a roll of X+. Remove Monstruous Rampage and writte some of this rampages to their warscrolls (if needed).
  • War Machine: Ignore Monster X+ when targeting a Monster.
  • Transport X: Friendly Faction X Units can Embark and Disembark
  • Cavalry: Can run + Charge/shoot
  • Chariot: Mw at the end of charge phase
  • Infantry: No bonus.
  • Hero: Add that can be attached to Infantry units.
  • Avatar: Can't be killed with abilities that "slain a model", can issue a comands like a Hero/Mounted Hero, and have their own "Monster X" (pseudo-Primarchs for AoS, write this in any God-like or Gotrek-like warscroll).

 

• Add another role: Fast Attack 0-3 (1000p games) and 0-6 roles (2000p games).
  • Chariots and Cavalry are going here. Some Heroes or flying units too if needed.

 

• Command Abilities:
  • Rally: Can only target Horde units.
  • All-out Defense: Can only target units with [SHIELDS] (see below).
  • Challenge: Only Heroes/Avatar/Mounted Heroes. In the combat phase, you can pick 1 enemy Hero/Avatar/Mounted Hero within 6" of this HERO. Until the end of the turn, ignore the melee range characteristic for both HEROES, but each HEROE must target the other one when they are selected in the fight phase. Wounds allocated as part of this Command Ability must be completely allocated to the models in the same Challenge, even if they have a retinue for being Attach Characters. All wounds that are not allocated to the enemy Hero are discarded.

 

• Rewritte all warscrolls abilities. Add or combine abilities to make all of them follow the same structure, but that doesn't mean that one Hero or one special unit could still have their own weird ability. All this abilities are still abilities, not USR persé or keywords. But having a [LABEL] attached to a warscroll ability make the whole process of playing the game a lot easier for players and designers. Issues like RAW vs RAI will be easier to fix with a FAQ:
  • Rewritte all abilities that have mortal wounds made on hit and wound rolls: [TOXIN X]: On a unmodified wound rolls of X, that attack (profile) causes a number of mortal wounds to the target equal to the weapon’s Damage characteristic and the attack sequence ends.
  • All breath attacks, gas attacks, etc: [BREATH] Each time an attack is made with this weapon, that attack automatically hits the target.
  • All units with shields: [SHIELD] Add 1 to Save characteristic (and can interact with All-Out Defense, see above).
  • All deploys, movement shenanigans, setup shenanigans:
    • [AMBUSH]: During deployment, if every model in a unit has this ability, instead of setting up this unit on the battlefield, you can place it to one side and say that it is set up in ambush as a reserve unit. At the end of your first movement phases, you can set up any friendly reserve units that are in ambush on the battlefield, wholly within 9" of the battlefield edge and more than 9" from all enemy units
    • [SCOUT X"]: At the start of the first battleround, after chosing the first player, if every model in a unit has this ability, you can make a X” move with this unit.
    • [INFILTRATE]: During deployment, if every model in a unit has this ability, then when you set it up, it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" horizontally away from the enemy deployment zone and all enemy models.
  • Add any ability that can interact with what we already have:
    • [BEASTHUNTER] Ignore Montser X.
    • [MARKSMAN] Can target Attached Characters with ranged attacks.
    • [PARRY X] Can't be hit with better rolls of X+ to hit.
    • [BULKY X] Count as X for Transport keyword.
    • [PIKE FORMATION] Units with Pikes/Spears: Enemy units that charge a unit with this ability can't use any Charge Bonus.
    • [SHIELD WALL] Units with [Shield]: Enemy units that charge a unit with this ability can't use any Charge Bonus.
    • [CHARGE] Lance Profiles: Add 1 to rend and damage characteristic when the unit charge.

My whole vision is to polish the game, make core mechanics, keywords and warscrolls abilities part of the same layer of rules. There are more things that I would like to see changed or tweaked (buy artifacts with points,more customizations options, ranged profiles that can't target engaged enemy units, rules for terrain, etc..) but my main issue at the moment is that the game doesn't feel finished and it seems that there are a lot of layers of rules that don't need to be separated from the main game.

I would be very, very happy if AoS 4th edition looks like this. All what you have written makes sense!

Parry X (I would change to -2 to hit in melee) and ofcourse a Critical hit always count. Vampire and Aelves heroes should have this as default 🙂

Edited August 19, 2023 by Tonhel

[Gitzdee]

4 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

All what you have written makes sense!

This is what i would like most from GW.

[CDM]

For a game that's mostly melee orientated I'd like to see the end of double turns and I go you go. Something I've not saw in AoS 3  as much compared to AoS 2 Is clever positioning games. 

Alternative activations but all units can trigger a charge or shoot or defence during the battle round. Command points could be used for extra strategic use .

When units meet make them fight immediately, just thematically could see unit A defeats unit B , Unit B could flee or hold, player decides to hold and suffer battleshock losses, however he has unit C close by for a counter charge so wants to Keep unit A locked up for an undefended charge and will gain bonuses on said charge.

Losses in combat must come from within range of weapon so no clever model removals

Edited August 19, 2023 by CDM

[Debello90]

The double turn should be maintained, it's the only thing that prevents many lists from winning once the line-up is over. However, the battalions that allow a mono-drop must be eliminated, in fact I would eliminate the battalions altogether and make each player deploy his entire army together.

A dice is roll and whoever wins decides whether to deploy first or second, whoever has the least points in case of a tie decides.

Shooting should be handled like the melee phase to get both players to play and eliminate almost all possible mortal wounds with shooting.

[RyantheFett]

After playing a lot of games in AoS I think the double turn it is more of a problem then it is worth. I find a lot of my games get decided by that dice roll since both sides play aggressive and bet everything on going first next turn. But it seems that has been a big split in the community over that feature for a long time. GW also seems to really want to buff going second to mixed results.

Mortal wound spam is also just so boring for the game and has really gotten out of hand.

Edited August 19, 2023 by RyantheFett

[Leseron]

On 8/19/2023 at 8:17 PM, RyantheFett said:

After playing a lot of games in AoS I think the double turn it is more of a problem then it is worth.

This. I will never understand why some of us appreciate the double turn.

[Leshoyadut]

Personally, I love the double turn. It provides an interesting strategic element to the battle as far as aggression and list building go. List building is obvious: if I don't want to get double turned, I need to lower my drops so I can control the double turn; if I can't lower my drops without severe restrictions on my list, then I need to think about that, too, by having things like screening units and the like. In the actual game, I need to think about how far I'm pushing forward, and whether I'm overextending in the event of a double-turn, or if it's worth the risk depending on my position relative to my opponent. There's also the question of whether I should even take the double turn if it's available to me, whether I'll be able to do enough with it to be worth giving my opponent the chance for one later. This ends up being far more interesting, I think, than not having the possibility of it.

Mortal wound spam is too high, for sure, though. I appreciate why they started leaning into them more, but they've definitely crossed the line of it feeling bad.

[Gitzdee]

20 hours ago, Leshoyadut said:

Personally, I love the double turn. It provides an interesting strategic element to the battle as far as aggression and list building go. List building is obvious: if I don't want to get double turned, I need to lower my drops so I can control the double turn; if I can't lower my drops without severe restrictions on my list, then I need to think about that, too, by having things like screening units and the like. In the actual game, I need to think about how far I'm pushing forward, and whether I'm overextending in the event of a double-turn, or if it's worth the risk depending on my position relative to my opponent. There's also the question of whether I should even take the double turn if it's available to me, whether I'll be able to do enough with it to be worth giving my opponent the chance for one later. This ends up being far more interesting, I think, than not having the possibility of it.

Mortal wound spam is too high, for sure, though. I appreciate why they started leaning into them more, but they've definitely crossed the line of it feeling bad.

Imho its the reverse. Having to think that way when building lists limits how u can build varied lists. For me its a bad thing. It forces u to play and build a certain way. One could also take a gamble and try to profit of the double turn. It feels bad to take have to use a game mechanic like that. It also doesnt make sense to me why an army would stand still and do nothing for 2 turns. Yes the double turn adds something to the game to play around with, but they could achieve the same effect in many other ways. 

[Marcvs]

14 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

It also doesnt make sense to me why an army would stand still and do nothing for 2 turns.

My personal main issue with the double turn is that, because of how the game plays, it's incredibly boring to sit and watch my opponent play for more than one hour (only to occasionally have to wake up to utter "redeploy", "all out defense"). But that's more related to my general issue with an AoS game being just too long with the length of turns not being adapted to a "I go/you go" system.

[Gitzdee]

9 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

My personal main issue with the double turn is that, because of how the game plays, it's incredibly boring to sit and watch my opponent play for more than one hour (only to occasionally have to wake up to utter "redeploy", "all out defense"). But that's more related to my general issue with an AoS game being just too long with the length of turns not being adapted to a "I go/you go" system.

Yes i agee.

I am a great supporter of alternate activations. I was a supporter of a 3.5 edition but the closer we are getting to 4th the more i hope we get a refresh. It has been a good edition imho but the flaws are really starting to show.

[Chikout]

It's weird that everyone keeps talking about the double turn as if it is a mechanic. The mechanic is the priority roll which gives an option for a player to go first or second in the battleround. The positive of this is that it creates a wide range of different possibilities which in turn lead to a wide variety of tactical desisions a player has to make. It's a mechanic that I think adds a lot to the game and also makes it stand out from other game systems. 

The problem is not that it causes games to be decided by chance but rather that it has a steep learning curve. The top players in the world win 80-90 percent of their games but they certainly don't win that many priority rolls. 

The second problem is that it potentially introduces long periods of downtime. That's why I suggested making the movement phase alternating activation. 

I'm sure a smarter person than me could create a better hybrid of the priority roll and alternating activations to keep the positives of the mechanic while mitigating the negatives. 

[Marcvs]

22 minutes ago, Chikout said:

The problem is not that it causes games to be decided by chance but rather that it has a steep learning curve. The top players in the world win 80-90 percent of their games but they certainly don't win that many priority rolls

While I am neutral as to the mechanic (downtime aside, as mentioned above), I don't think this is a fair argument. We simply lack the data, but my feeling is that the double turn does cause games to be decided by chance once you look outside the competitive events -which as always, represent small portions of the players.

This is not an argument to delete it, but IMHO it's an argument to listen to the part of the community that does not like it.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Marcvs

[JackStreicher]

23 hours ago, Leshoyadut said:

I love the double turn. It provides an interesting strategic element

It's only two options it provides:
Aggressive - You will steamroll if you get it. You will get Steamrolled if you don't
Defensive - You get it not much changes. You don't get it it minimizes your losses. 
It either speeds up a game by a lot (double aggressive Turns) or it slows it down needlessly (defensive play)

It's basically two choices interacting with the enemy choices. So I don't get why so many claim it'd be an interesting strategic element. Imo it's a whack mechanic destroying more games than it saves. It's a pure gamble to mask balancing issues. "Oh I've been utterly destroyed but I could get back if I get to double you" - WTH? I can get back if I get a legal cheat, nice, feels good.

 

The new CoS is the first faction that can somewhat play actually tactically around DTs by using their orders and building actual traps.

 

 

 

I agree with most other suggestions though:
fused basic rules for reocurring interactions like bravery checks etc.
Reduction of MWs
etc.

Keep it up guys!

Edited August 24, 2023 by JackStreicher

[Mikosan]

In regards to the priority roll, its definitely the most divisive mechanic AoS has.  I will say that my enjoyment of Sigmar went up exponentially when I managed to embrace the double turn as an integral part of the game.  I've played in some large two day competitive tournaments, small one dayers, and also narrative events full of fun and wacky randomness, and I have found that the double turn almost never turns a win to a loss.  By that I mean that in my experience if I lose to a double, I was going to lose anyway, it just happens a turn sooner than it might have otherwise.  Getting the double has kept games I might be losing more exciting more often than not, and conversely losing a priority has kept games I'm winning from a being a runaway smashing.  Whatever changes in the game, I'm fairly certain that the priority roll stays and I think an IGOUGO turn sequence is boring and puts the game on rails as far as possible outcomes once deployments are made.  Some kind of alternating activations sequence within turns would certainly pique my interest though.  

So changes I'd like to see:

-I agree with everyone that mortal wounds need reeled in drastically.  Maybe they should universally be on the to wound rolls instead of hit rolls?  Only ever be on a 6 in the case of exploding zombies and such.  A spell like Merciless Blizzard should not exist either.  I don't want to take it but with everyone else taking it you really are knee capping yourself if you don't also have the threat of it at least and that sucks.

-More alternating activations.  The combat phase is in my opinion, the most fun and engaging phase of the game because its alternating.  More of this would be great though I'm sure there is all sorts of consequences I'm not able to puzzle out, it could be a great way to still have the priority roll but have a more subdued impact for the folks that don't like it.

-As I've said in another thread, I'd like a whole edition where the parameters of battletomes are consistent throughout.  Stormcast are terrible right now because their battle tactics are awful and their sub-faction and allegiance abilities have been left in the dust by more fun, interesting, and game affecting abilities that almost all of the books since have.  Stop it GW. Please.

Thats pretty much it for me. My time for games the last year or two has been limited by work, teenage kids, and life in general but when I do get to play I still love the game.  I'd be happy with a 3.5 edition, and I'm sure I could find enjoyment in a 4.0 with bigger changes too.  It will be interesting to see where GW goes with it.

[Flippy]

4 hours ago, Chikout said:

The second problem is that it potentially introduces long periods of downtime. That's why I suggested making the movement phase alternating activation. 

I see this mentioned time and time again and I would like to offer a different perspective. The game is already on the lengthy side - are you not afraid that any alternating activation will make it even longer? I don't mind the "downtime" as this is ultimately a social game and I much appreciate the IGOUGO approach - you get "your" stuff done and then sit down, have a drink and chat a bit. I can make occasional redeploy or some unbiding rolls, but the need for constant focus that comes with alternating activation would change AoS a lot.

[Marcvs]

2 minutes ago, Flippy said:

I see this mentioned time and time again and I would like to offer a different perspective. The game is already on the lengthy side - are you not afraid that any alternating activation will make it even longer? I don't mind the "downtime" as this is ultimately a social game and I much appreciate the IGOUGO approach - you get "your" stuff done and then sit down, have a drink and chat a bit. I can make occasional redeploy or some unbiding rolls, but the need for constant focus that comes with alternating activation would change AoS a lot.

My feeling about this is (and I want to stress, this is necessarily down to personal preferences): if I want to have a drink and chat a bit I do not need the excuse of playing a game which will take an entire afternoon/evening or more (when I play with my non-competitive-oriented clubmates, a game always takes at least 4 hours). This will leave me more time to enjoy my drink and the conversation

If I want to play a game I want that time to be dedicated to... playing a game, not to spacing own (because my opponent is trying to recall their rules, not forget anything etc so it's not a great conversation anyway) for 50%+ of the time.

On alternating activation: the games I play with alternating activation (ASOIAF, Legion) or with both players much more involved in the opponent's turn (Infinity), can be played in a much shorter amount of time than AoS. Others with IGYG (like SAGA) manage to have much shorter turns so that the downtime is limited.

[RyantheFett]

4 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

The new CoS is the first faction that can somewhat play actually tactically around DTs by using their orders and building actual traps.

CoS has a lot of cool rules and ideas that I hope we see in other armies for 4th.

At the same time they will also get destroyed in some match ups if they lose that role off. They work a bit too closely like LRL in that if they don't get that 5 ward bubble up then they are in trouble lol.

Of course that is more about GW and balance/rules issues, but I have little fate that they will be able to find a good solution. The fact that they keep throwing rules at it implies that they know that it is a problem??

[Flippy]

17 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

My feeling about this is (and I want to stress, this is necessarily down to personal preferences): if I want to have a drink and chat a bit I do not need the excuse of playing a game which will take an entire afternoon/evening or more (when I play with my non-competitive-oriented clubmates, a game always takes at least 4 hours). This will leave me more time to enjoy my drink and the conversation

If I want to play a game I want that time to be dedicated to... playing a game, not to spacing own (because my opponent is trying to recall their rules, not forget anything etc so it's not a great conversation anyway) for 50%+ of the time.

On alternating activation: the games I play with alternating activation (ASOIAF, Legion) or with both players much more involved in the opponent's turn (Infinity), can be played in a much shorter amount of time than AoS. Others with IGYG (like SAGA) manage to have much shorter turns so that the downtime is limited.

This is very much a personal preference. I have some very fond memories of long Talisman sessions - and I loved them exactly because the game had a lot of downtime and allowed for plenty of social interaction over the game table. Regarding the impact of alternating activation on the game, there were some nice WH40k-based observations on how any reactions affect the game length. In short, unlike the combat phase (where choices are usually simple), the alternating movement forces you to make more meaningful decisions more often. It's fine if you like crunchy games. I don't and I think it would turn AoS into even longer experience (the difference with other games may be due to many different factors).

[Gitzdee]

Double turn is just no fun for casual gamers and feels bad to new players to the point that they never want to play again. At least that is my experience.

[Ganigumo]

On 8/19/2023 at 2:17 PM, RyantheFett said:

After playing a lot of games in AoS I think the double turn it is more of a problem then it is worth. I find a lot of my games get decided by that dice roll since both sides play aggressive and bet everything on going first next turn. But it seems that has been a big split in the community over that feature for a long time. GW also seems to really want to buff going second to mixed results.

Mortal wound spam is also just so boring for the game and has really gotten out of hand.

 

1 hour ago, Gitzdee said:

Double turn is just no fun for casual gamers and feels bad to new players to the point that they never want to play again. At least that is my experience.

On the one hand I get it, on the other its mostly because players don't play around the possibility or think of it at all. From their perspective they're playing a game and the double turn just "falls out of the sky" and hands them a loss. HeyWoah's video on this is really good.
Sometimes, if you're behind you need to gamble on that 50% to turn the game around, but if you're just blindly throwing yourself into a position where a dice roll will lose you the game thats a skill issue. If it looks like its going to rain, and you go for a run you might get rained on.
I'm not trying to be dismissive here, but we should really do a better job of explaining it to new players. For tons of outsiders double turns fall from the sky, and the nuance of controlling drops, or even stopping to consider that if you go second you can't get doubled, is lost. Its also a massive problem that the core rules say you roll for priority on t1, it actively makes the game worse. At the very least they could've let you roll before you deploy. The core rules even have unified battalions, that do literally nothing unless you're using drops to determine priority. There's also plenty of situations where you actually want to give away double turns, either passing up on them, or choosing to get doubles. At least twice in the past couple weeks I've forced my opponent to double me.

Also people thinking shooting will be less impactful without the priority roll is just flat out wrong. Without threat of a double you can hide safely behind your screen without the risk of a double smashing open your castle. Alpha shooting, like 40k will be far more common. Shooting armies take second more to protect their shooting units than to auto-win on a double turn. Shooting just becomes so much more reliable when the board state becomes more predictable, since you don't need to worry about things like making charge rolls, or how you're going to get over the screen.

Also I'll list the things I want to see:

• Entire secondary system gutted, no BTs, or GS. Instead build a secondary scoring system into each battleplan.
• Removal of Monstrous rampages and heroic actions. Just make the scrolls good. Turn the army specific ones into abilities they can still use though.
• Rework of battalions. Current ones suck. More unique effects, like bodyguards, as the extra cp ones are clearly bad. Unified battalions should only have 3 units in them tops.
• Removal of miscast. Its narrative but also dumb. Autofail on snake-eyes is fine, but it shouldn't prevent you from casting more spells, even after I got blasted by nagash over the weekend
• Removal of Rally. I get it, but the narrative is dumb, and its supposed to be anti-shooting, but it only feels worth it if you get it on a 5+ or 4+, and that was so problematic it had to be capped to 10W of models. Lets just get rid of it.
• Remove Triumphs, or incorporate them into the game in a better way. They might be interesting if you could take them as an enhancement and use them regardless of the points difference. Sort of like special 1/game commands
• Do Not Change Battleshock. Battleshock sucks, its just a terrible set of rules, but if it was impactful at all it would be worse, losing like 1/3rd of your army because a spell splashed d3 mortals around isn't fun. There just isn't a way to make battleshock impactful that doesn't make the game less fun. Its also not at all fairly balanced across armies. you'd think its a way to help kill hordes, making a bunch of them run away, but death and chaos are just nearly immune to it because bravery 10 narrative reasons, tons of armies are effectively immune, because they have like bravery 8 and small unit sizes, and so it ends up only being strong vs destruction, BoC, and Skaven. Anecdotally I had 3 super buffed gore gruntas run from 2 longstrikes and 2 dracolines over the weekend, because I decided all out defense would be better than inspiring presence, then I rolled a 6.
• Rewrite the enhancements section, maybe just remove it and write good artefacts and command traits for the actual armies, or use it to set a proper baseline for the power of artefacts across the edition. There's no excuse for something like kruleboyz where all of their artefacts are worse than the generic ones.
• Keep priority roll
• Removal of reinforcement points entirely. It hurts like 2 armies in the game that aren't broken, and nobody else cares. The rule just does nothing. They wrote the 3e book intentionally to nerf horde armies, because they wrote the rules during the 5 minutes in aos2 when hordes were good.
• Removal of behemoth, and artillery limits. We can keep the roles, if we want to interact with it, but really we don't have a problem with spamming these things. Most artillery in the game is just bad, and even if we had good artillery it would only be a problem if those scrolls were problematic in the first place. So many behemoths become battleline now to dodge the limit, and we have armies of entirely behemoths too. I think the leader limit should stay, but I'd be fine getting rid of it. There might be some cheese with running like 20 individual webspinner shamans or something.
• bring old coherency back. Current coherency sucks. They had already fixed conga-line buffs when they released the 2e books and changes buff ranges to wholly within instead of just within. Sure there's still a little cheese to be had with that, but its better than the current wierdness.