3rd Edition Rules Retrospective

[Gitzdee]

16 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Agreed, they don't feel like heroes, but like champions with a buff aura/rule. A Goblin basically being as good and sometimes even better than a Vampire Lord breaks the illusion completely for me. They've steered into a corner in which all foot heroes are the same except for their model which imo is an issue.

The same goes for ridden Monsters: A Monster that does not deal solid damage feels utterly bad. Don't make monsters primarily buff pieces (looking at you Thalia).

 

Imo this video kontributes to this discussion

 

I get that, but some Goblins cost the same as a vampire or other hero. They have to lower the point cost for weak heroes and create these horde armies again. And i am glad i dont have to spend triple the money to build a force with the same point total like how it used to be with whfb. Dont know if i explain this well enough.

[JackStreicher]

Just now, Gitzdee said:

I get that, but some Goblins cost the same as a vampire or other hero. They have to lower the point cost for weak heroes and create these horde armies again. And i am glad i dont have to spend triple the money to build a force with the same point total like how it used to be with whfb. Dont know if i explain this well enough.

Sure but one usually doesn't even pay for the combat profile but for the utility (the buff aura, special rules etc.), because the combat profile is neglectable.

[Satyrical Sophist]

I do like the idea of 40K leaders, where they can join units. I think you would want more line operatives than in 40K though. I think that would help differentiate between classes of leader as well. I like the idea of weight kings being able to join and buff death rattle units, maybe keeping vampires as lone operatives. 

[RyantheFett]

24 minutes ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

I do like the idea of 40K leaders, where they can join units. I think you would want more line operatives than in 40K though. I think that would help differentiate between classes of leader as well. I like the idea of weight kings being able to join and buff death rattle units, maybe keeping vampires as lone operatives. 

A big advantage of of heroes joining units is that it allows armies to spread out more. Most AoS armies want you to form bubbles to get the effects off. I play LRL, Stormcast, and Cities and they pretty much all want to form a big ball for those auras.

The only real down side is that you got to often buy two of every hero lol.

[Lich King]

The best part of 3rd edition was that it finally made me move to OPR : Age of Fantasy, a real game.

[JackStreicher]

3 hours ago, RyantheFett said:

buy two of every hero lol.

GW executive starts to get the shivers of anticipation reading this

Edited January 18 by JackStreicher

[Bosskelot]

3rd ed is weird in that, for me, AOS has never been my primary game, just a supplemental one for my main ones (40k mainly, but LOTR and various squarehammer games) so it's always been a more casual experience compared to those.

Except 3rd ed really hasn't been constructed with that in mind. It is very awkwardly complex is many areas and the GHB during 3rd has only added to that. The amount of gotchas and and very extreme rules changes across months make it very difficult to play as a secondary game.

But I also don't want to say that should all be changed (mostly, I think a lot of the concepts in the GHB were straight up bad and confusing even for dedicated players). I'm coming at this from a 40k perspective where my fave edition of the game was 9th and 10th has just obliterated my enjoyment of the game entirely. I am in the process of selling some of my less dear/more secondary armies for the game because I will just never, ever want to play them for as long as 10th remains. The issue with that edition is that it is almost entirely trying to court new players and people who play one game every 2 months. And there's nothing wrong with appealing to those types of players, new ones especially, but it has destroyed the enjoyment for most of the more dedicated/serious players.

In their efforts to make the game more accessible and simplified, they just destroyed the flavour and variety of the game, ironically in a very AOS fashion. In fact the worst part of 10th is that it is actively cribbing ideas from AOS... but to AOS's credit it at least does those ideas better or was designed with them in mind. Simplified loadouts, blank-nothingness characters that only do one thing and flattened points costs have always been a feature of AOS so if you approach the game as a new player they're fine and they mostly work; but porting those design elements over to 40k has been disastrous.

So I would hope for AOS 4th they at least make it a smoother experience for new players, or people who play it as a secondary game, while not ruining the experience for the playerbase that likes some of the more complex rules. And in general I hope the AOS team had proper time to actually work on the new edition rather than having to rush it out of the door in 5 weeks.

[Pizzaprez]

1 hour ago, Lich King said:

The best part of 3rd edition was that it finally made me move to OPR : Age of Fantasy, a real game.

Not to be horribly negative, but I had a similar experience. 

AoS 1.0 was great. FREE rules! Easy to understand! FREE rules! Once they worked through some of the silliest rules, like actually shouting at an opponent, 1.0 was fantastic. The entire WHFB range ported to a new game with (in my opinion) the best parts of Fantasy and 40k without the "fat" of 50,000 weapon profiles or a trillion special rules in an index. I loved the warscroll system and the fact that I could encourage my friends to get into the game with a $0 book tax.

2.0 Was solid: I liked the tweaks and, though I didn't love the increased focus on battalions, Endless Spells alone were worth the upgrade. I feel like AoS could've hovered around 2.0 for quite awhile tbh. 

3.0 GW lost me. Game will get updates to the core rules every less-than-five years and all the armies will need new books. Dropping a 3.0 tome that was a glorified FAQ+1 foot hero aint it for me, especially when that cost isn't offset with pages of new lore and art. I didn't love that the last fantasy Bretonnia book was almost a decade old but I also didn't hate that I wasn't always anticipating buying a new book that, in 2024, is the same price as a brand-new videogame. Without the new art or lore, I can't justify budgeting $60 for an FAQ.

Endless spells and faction terrain are seemingly on the chopping block after being dropped for a couple years now, and the one billion commands/battalions/specific small things you need to keep track of had led to me just scaling the rules back to closer to 1.0 to play with new players and actually just play. I saw someone with a detailed printout checklist of all the things their necrons could do in each phase of a turn for 40k, and I feel like AoS is pretty much there too.

When I gave OPR a fair shake/read, it is way closer to the "beer and pretzels" game AoS started off as: and that was the game that brought me back from my almost decade-long hiatus in miniatures games. With my friends finally ready to play miniatures games with me, I don't feel great pointing them at Age of Sigmar: the book tax alone is enough to make me chew on encouraging GW games. We're starting with Frostgrave and maybe OPR later!

Age of Sigmar continues to be my favorite fantasy setting: cool narrative/worlds, fantastic toys to build and paint (some of the best EVER that GW has made!), but 3.0 was a big step towards making the game closer in complexity to 40k, which I don't love. 

I'll still be there day 1 for the Chaos Duardin book; I want to read it!! but I can't say I see myself buying that book a second time.

[Sabush]

2 hours ago, Pizzaprez said:

I saw someone with a detailed printout checklist of all the things their necrons could do in each phase of a turn for 40k, and I feel like AoS is pretty much there too.

I personally think AoS is worse than 40k in this regard. But maybe not for all armies.

(For reference: I play Kruleboyz and Necrons)

Edited January 18 by Sabush

[Sabush]

9 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Imo this video kontributes to this discussion

That was a good episode. I especially liked Tom’s idea at the end where he suggested a more narrative theme of a generals journal that weaves the components of the GHB together.

[Pizzaprez]

31 minutes ago, Sabush said:

I personally think AoS is worse than 40k in this regard. But maybe not for all armies.

(For reference: I play Kruleboyz and Necrons)

Yeah trying to get someone new to try the game with me, even after i've poured through the books and feel like I get it, was a lot of "uh let's not worry about that today; let's just fight toys"

There is so much to wrap your head around before you even start putting together an army list that I feel like it's overwhelming and sometimes offputting: I gotta tell my friends they need to buy the core book, their book, and have a pretty good understanding of what list building looks like all as a barrier to them figuring how to budget throwing money at little toys. 

I really wish GW kept something like the 1.0 one-pager available alongside regularly updated free warscrolls. Make the books narratively focused with maybe battleplans and path to glory and only update them when you want to revisit writing new narratives and making new art for them. Maybe keep the core books the lore dumps they but with whatever GW wants to make the competitive-focused "advanced" rules. Keep the GHB as-is for the tournament scene with competitively-focused battleplans and such.

One optional core book each edition, a period GHB, and optional books for every faction would be awesome. I was deeply saddened when GW axed the free warscrolls: reminded me of when their website was stealth updated to not have terrain crafting tutorials anymore. AND I would be happy to buy more battleplans and scenarios for a game my friends could get into for only the cost of the figures, tools, and paint.

My friend group is all child-free adults, but GW prices are "luxury item" tier and we all need to budget for the little figures we like. The price of the books alone is prohibitive, let alone the density of the rules they want you to use. 

[Lich King]

10 hours ago, Pizzaprez said:

Not to be horribly negative, but I had a similar experience. 

AoS 1.0 was great. FREE rules! Easy to understand! FREE rules! Once they worked through some of the silliest rules, like actually shouting at an opponent, 1.0 was fantastic. The entire WHFB range ported to a new game with (in my opinion) the best parts of Fantasy and 40k without the "fat" of 50,000 weapon profiles or a trillion special rules in an index. I loved the warscroll system and the fact that I could encourage my friends to get into the game with a $0 book tax.

2.0 Was solid: I liked the tweaks and, though I didn't love the increased focus on battalions, Endless Spells alone were worth the upgrade. I feel like AoS could've hovered around 2.0 for quite awhile tbh. 

3.0 GW lost me. Game will get updates to the core rules every less-than-five years and all the armies will need new books. Dropping a 3.0 tome that was a glorified FAQ+1 foot hero aint it for me, especially when that cost isn't offset with pages of new lore and art. I didn't love that the last fantasy Bretonnia book was almost a decade old but I also didn't hate that I wasn't always anticipating buying a new book that, in 2024, is the same price as a brand-new videogame. Without the new art or lore, I can't justify budgeting $60 for an FAQ.

Endless spells and faction terrain are seemingly on the chopping block after being dropped for a couple years now, and the one billion commands/battalions/specific small things you need to keep track of had led to me just scaling the rules back to closer to 1.0 to play with new players and actually just play. I saw someone with a detailed printout checklist of all the things their necrons could do in each phase of a turn for 40k, and I feel like AoS is pretty much there too.

When I gave OPR a fair shake/read, it is way closer to the "beer and pretzels" game AoS started off as: and that was the game that brought me back from my almost decade-long hiatus in miniatures games. With my friends finally ready to play miniatures games with me, I don't feel great pointing them at Age of Sigmar: the book tax alone is enough to make me chew on encouraging GW games. We're starting with Frostgrave and maybe OPR later!

Age of Sigmar continues to be my favorite fantasy setting: cool narrative/worlds, fantastic toys to build and paint (some of the best EVER that GW has made!), but 3.0 was a big step towards making the game closer in complexity to 40k, which I don't love. 

I'll still be there day 1 for the Chaos Duardin book; I want to read it!! but I can't say I see myself buying that book a second time.

I’m a Competetive player by heart - and OPR is far more Competetive than anything gw makes - they only make combo simulators based on your rapid purchases. With OPR (Competetive rules ) it’s about how you actually move / activate your units similar to chess- not just playing out the combo written in your battle tome.

[JackStreicher]

8 hours ago, Sabush said:

I especially liked Tom’s idea at the end where he suggested a more narrative theme of a generals journal that weaves the components of the GHB together.

Same. Imo the game has shifted too much into the competitive direction.

[Lord Krungharr]

I really like having Battle Tactics as sometimes it coincides with the objectives-game, and other times it does not and demands different actions.  This helps to make the games different each time you play even a same mission or same opponent-army.  To be sure, the GHB ones are trash and really gear towards certain army builds, which I do not like, and also the battletome ones are often very unbalanced with respect to each other.  It might be better to have a bunch that each type of unit could accomplish within the GHB or Core Rules (for example a hero without a mount can contest an objective that your opponent previously controlled, or an artillery unit can kill something, etc).

The double turn is key to making AoS its own game and I would vote for it to stay (I think it will stay).  BUT I absolutely do NOT think a tie for Priority Roll should be won by the person who went first last round.  That is so dum.  Roll off and tie ROLL AGAIN.  I hate that with a passion.

I'm on the fence about heroes joining units; if they go that route (I don't think they will) they'd need to make it like Horus Heresy and mounted units can only be joined by mounted heroes, monsters can't join units, flying units can only be joined by flying heroes, etc.  I'd much rather they let non-monster heroes pick a unit to charge with, so you roll for the hero and pick a unit (even maybe use a CP for it) to use that hero's charge roll.  This way the hero can 'lead' and have whatever it needs to use its hero buffs upon.  Thematic and sensible I'd say.

Heroic actions and Monstrous Rampages don't slow things much actually, and they let special units do special things without having each warscroll have extra stuff on it like the 40k of 9th edition had (at least from what I read, not a 40k player).  

Terrain rules have absolutely stunk thus far.  The mysterious rolls are forgotten or ignored.  Moving through/across terrain of any sort should impede movement by some amount.  Some terrain should definitely be dangerous!  Some should outright block line of sight regardless of wound count.  I think at least being behind terrain provides cover now?  Or am I imagining that?  

I also think there should be a rule of 3 like 40k.  No more spamming 13 Allopexes....unless Doomwheels lose Behemoth and I can spam 13 of those.  Then I'll forget about that

[Beliman]

I will try to write my perspective using basic questions, while looking at the game from afar:

Heroic Actions

Why Heroes need Heroic Actions? 
To have more utility and survivality. To feel "Heroic" at the right time. Sadly, I never had that feeling.

Could that be done without creating a new mechanic?
If their Warscroll had enough utility and survivality (btw, base core mechanic already did that with Look Out Sir), we could remove the entire mechanic and nobody would remember that existed.

How much fun they bring on your games?
It's something that you need to remember each Hero Phase, unless you have a powerhouse Hero with Finest Hour to win a brawl.

Monstruous Rampage

Why Monsters need them?
We have two type of monsters: the powerful ones with enough utility, damage or defense to be relevant the whole game, and the ones that they are worst than 10 dudes but are cheap enough that you don't care to bring them, or so expensive that don't see the table. That mechanic give both monsters more utility and makes bad monsters a bit good, and good monsters, well... more good?.

Could that be done without creating a new mechanic?
If Monsters had enough utility, damage and defense on their own warscrolls (as some monsters already have), and the game was designed to use them as their own thing (aka, their role), maybe we would not need another mechanic.

How much fun they bring on your games?
Another table to remember, sometimes it feels nice, sometimes it doesn't matter.

Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics

Why we need Strategies and Battle Tactics?
It gives us unique styles to play the game and reward Victory Points. This Victory Points are the main reason for changing our playstyle to do strange plays to win the game.

Could that be done without creating a new mechanic?
To be honest, a good battleplan design should be enough, just like most of the games on the market. But I get that chosing something to do each turn is good for the game, but IMO, it could be done a lot better.

How much fun they bring on your games?
It's a logistic game linked to our list-building. It rewards lists to achieve with weird plays some Victory Points. Battle Tactics or Strategies that doesn't interact with the enemy are easier to complete and are the ones that you want to have. That's why they are good, because we don't care about the enemy and we focus on completing them just for this artificial points that makes as the winner or the loser of the game. To me, that's exatly the opposite of what a wargame wants to be. I want to fight a war and interact as much as possible with my opponent. AOs should focus on that.

Command abilities

Why we need Command Abilities?
They are tools to use in the middle of the battle, they let us activate some defensive, offensive or utility buffs. At the same time, they are used as "Reactions", that allows players to do something in enemies turn.

Could that be done without creating a new mechanic?
I don't know, Reactions are already a unique abilities that only a few warscrolls have. Appart from that, we don't have anything generic enough to do in enemy's turn appart from the basic wargame stuff (throw dice for saves, dispells, etc...). I think that a mechanic like that is mandatory for IGYG.

How much fun they bring on your games?
They are a mix of gotcha moment, win more and a mechanic that shows players skill (mostly based on defensive reactions). That last point is a good redemption that I think should be the focus of the entire mechanic. Another thing is that they can change the probability of any outcome (+1 hit/+1save) and that's something that should be restriced, warscrolls and stats should matter a lot more (they are own units!).

Core Battalions

Why we need Core Battalions?
Because we want more artefacts or we have a strategy based on deciding who plays first or second turn. Some people say that's part of a list-building, but to me, it's all about the reward.

Could that be done without creating a new mechanic?
Of course, if the number of drops or artifacts were tied to other mechanics, nobody would build a list based on this battalions. Imo, the game needs more customizations, we need that feeling that we play with our own dudes. That makes battalions a problem for me and another issue that needs to be fixe'd (just let me buy artifacts with points and roll a dice for first turn).

How much fun they bring on your games?
Nothing, they are part of a plan that when it's done, you never return to it.

GHB seasons

Why we need GHB seasons?
To shake the meta, create new type of balance patches, update old mechanics and/or some units/battletomes that didn't recieve updates during that edition. And I think that they are a good "beta" testers for new mechanic (Armies of Renown, Primal Magic Dice, etc...)

Could that be done without creating a new mechanic?
I think that campaigns/supplements can already do that, and even A LOT more. At this momment, we playon maps that nobody care (Andtor anyone?) using Primal Dice because they say so. All of this could be done in Dawnbringer books too.

How much fun they bring on your games?
First thing is that nobody cares about the Lore behind Andtor, take in mind that we don't even have a book based on Andtor (even Black Library doesn't cares, LOL). In other words, everything about Seasons is focused only on AoS gameplay. If the Season has any rules that impact your gameplay, it's refreshing and fun. But if you don't have magic in Andtor or you didn't have monsters inThondia... you get the point.

Conclusion:
AoS 3.0  added a lot of micro-mechanics or completely new systems to try to fix some basic issues. But the answer was not polished enough, and the reason why they were created in the first place was lost behind all this layers of rules.

Edited January 21 by Beliman

[Marcvs]

3 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Same. Imo the game has shifted too much into the competitive direction.

I play the game almost exclusively in a competitive (i.e. tournament) setting and still didn't like the direction of 3rd. To me, games have been feeling increasingly like accounting and having a good algorithm for battle tactics more important than a having strategy for how to engage the enemy army. I would say, the direction is more like a emotionless idea of what an AI-generated-tournament-player would want: they want to win, so we can fix weaker armies by giving them easier battle tactics.

As for the rest, I agree with a lot of the critiques expressed by @Beliman in the previous post. I feel the paradox is that the game has been adding a lot of "bad" complexity (more rules, more downtimes, more checkpoints) without adding to the "good" complexity (the game is still very abstract: no arcs of vision, no flanks/rears etc).

 

[Skreech Verminking]

4 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Same. Imo the game has shifted too much into the competitive direction.

Yeah personally I’m not quit a fan about it.

Aos personally doesn’t feel like a competitive system especially not with the double turn.

So I’m even more amazed how  gw seems to try and get into that competitive environment, with a system that does not seem to be made for that environment.

I have nothing against the idea of playing competitive, but when it destroys the fundamental concept of an army, then I’m just not interested in partaking in it

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

So there's an overall feeling that the game has become too complex?

I got into Age of Sigmar with a passion pretty much as soon as it came out just because it was simple (I'd been out of Warhammer entirely for quite a few years before that). Contrast that with now, where I'm glancing rather longingly at The Old World! If I wasn't so infatuated with all my newer Slaaneshi toys, I'd be re-basing my collection as we speak. Well, type. I like a visceral game. And I like something flavoursome. I have a Slaanesh army because I love the ethos and character of Slaanesh. I couldn't give a tiddily-tit about what's going to win me games... I want to shove my favourite models around in a way that would make The Dark Prince proud! 

Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never really got into Magic the Gathering because I found it too... calculating, for want of a better word. Too much mathematics, too much logistics, too much detail. I call it 'clutter'. I feel like AoS is headed in that direction. A cluttered-up game. I don't much care for it. 

Incidentally, I'm rubbish at Monopoly! 

I'm sincerely hoping that the Powers That Be have got an inkling that players, overall, are not in favour of the clutter, and that they do something to streamline the game. 

 

[angrycontra]

Here's my opinion about the 3rd edition. The biggest mistake that GW did with it was that they just added massive loads of unnecessary complexity to the rules that just make the rules more complex for the sake of complexity. I mean okay, sure many of these rules were probably made with good intentions, heroic actions to make heroes to feel more heroic, monstrous rampages to make monsters more scary, battle tactics to give some semblance of tactical thinking in your turn etc. but in truth it is just extra steps added to the game that could be reflected elsewhere or in the warscrolls themselves. AoS started off with complex warscrolls (complex as in every warscroll is unique) but easy rules, that's what made people come to the game in the first place but 3rd edition started throwing way too many bonus rules here and there. Now individually these rules are not big deal (like heroic action usually doesn't take more than 1-2 minutes to figure out) BUT once you start stacking these extra rules on extra rules, it turns a lot of people off (and those extra minutes start adding up, making games longer and more tedious). My local AoS scene has basically completely died, partially thanks to the 3rd edition.

I genuinely hope that GW moves AoS to similar direction as 10th edition 40k, where they just cut off massive loads of unnecessary fat and make a fun game that is easy to pick up. And while this is not really a rules based thing, I think that everything in AoS is currently either way too killy or way too tanky. I honestly want to see those index books come to Aos to balance all the factions to something far less killier and I hope to see removal of save stacking shenanigans. The save on unit should in 90% cases be what is shown on the warscroll, certain very specific factions I would maybe allow one unit (like stormcast lord castellant) that can boost saves but that's it. It's funny how in weird way I'm more relaxed playing 40k, because I know that my opponent can't just boost their save and make their relatively hard to kill unit into impossible to kill unit. 

[JackOfBlades]

On 1/17/2024 at 6:53 PM, JackStreicher said:

Counter point: Keep battle tactics in the shape of the scenario providing a small list of them, while being the only way to score.

Objectives might get a new role outside of scoring which could enable them to become terrain or physical markers: Replenishing troops, rallying (please, change battleshock), more defense etc. They could become a cool hybrid of terrain and effect.

To me it’s either standing in magic circles and winning OR doing nonsense because reasons and then magically winning - both warps the game too much out of shape to a point where the immersion is gone and I could simply play chess instead.

 

oh, almost forgot: Make the Double Turn tied to specific Scenarios as well. I thoroughly hate it as a ever-present rule.

I really like that idea of objectives effectively getting their own terrain rules. It provides a more intuitive and interesting reason to fight over them besides just arbitrary "points", and could shake things up in a good way.

[Riff_Raff_Rascal]

Very few mentions of shooting being an issue so far. Thats been a problem in the past. So I'm glad tha'ts not a top worry. A few mentions of MWs being too prevalent, but I will add that we've come a long way clamping down on that since AOS first edition (although rend is arguably still less valuable as well relating to some of your concerns about save stacking).

Big take aways from most of you is battle tactics need to be chucked into the sun. Yup. Sounds like that's a major source of complexity and is too important to ignore. Also terrain rules? What are those?

I would like to commend GW at least in one manner and that concerns external balance. Despite our gripes about point scoring,  strength of books and minutia of core rules, the stats do show a steady trend towards a healthy "fat middle" of win rate (i.e. 45-55%). This bodes well for newer players in future. 

I'm currently organizing a 1k teams tourney geared toward newer players and so all of this 3rd edition reflection is very helpful. 

 

[Gitzdee]

26 minutes ago, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:

Very few mentions of shooting being an issue so far. Thats been a problem in the past. So I'm glad tha'ts not a top worry. A few mentions of MWs being too prevalent, but I will add that we've come a long way clamping down on that since AOS first edition (although rend is arguably still less valuable as well relating to some of your concerns about save stacking).

Big take aways from most of you is battle tactics need to be chucked into the sun. Yup. Sounds like that's a major source of complexity and is too important to ignore. Also terrain rules? What are those?

I would like to commend GW at least in one manner and that concerns external balance. Despite our gripes about point scoring,  strength of books and minutia of core rules, the stats do show a steady trend towards a healthy "fat middle" of win rate (i.e. 45-55%). This bodes well for newer players in future. 

I'm currently organizing a 1k teams tourney geared toward newer players and so all of this 3rd edition reflection is very helpful. 

I completely forgot to think about what i was missing from 3rd. 

First artillery. I have talked about this in detail in some thread. I think this is an element that has been forgotten but really adds a tactical element to the game that regular shooting doesnt. 

And second, character customization. I would like to be able to buff up generic heroes to create my own fun thematic general. Dont know whats the best way to go about this though. Whfb has shown that items arent the best way. A select few sre always the best, but some fun combos could be created at least. The OPR way of having multiple tiers of the same hero does work for me in some way too.

[Marcvs]

6 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

And second, character customization. I would like to be able to buff up generic heroes to create my own fun thematic general. Dont know whats the best way to go about this though. Whfb has shown that items arent the best way. A select few sre always the best, but some fun combos could be created at least. The OPR way of having multiple tiers of the same hero does work for me in some way too.

Same. The fact that it didn't work before doesn't mean it couldn't be made to work. With the current approach to balance and items costing points, it's not impossible to change the item cost every 3 months if something shows up too much in competitive lists. On the flip side, you give plenty of cool trinkets to play with for the vast part of the community who just wants to kit up their heroes

Edited January 20 by Marcvs

[Doko]

3 hours ago, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:

Very few mentions of shooting being an issue so far.

its a problem,but for shooting armys,everyone hate shooting and gw have nerfed this edittion every single balanced shooting unit untill it is overcosted and dont worth use it.

sentinels werena example,then sc longbows crossbows,blisbarbs,fusilers of city(and very posible other nerf incoming) and also very posible other nerf incoming to sharks.

in general rigth now every single shooting unit is overcosted but in general people dont like shooting,so majority is happy with whooting being bad and gw is happy.

[Pizzaprez]

2 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

And second, character customization. I would like to be able to buff up generic heroes to create my own fun thematic general. Dont know whats the best way to go about this though. Whfb has shown that items arent the best way. A select few sre always the best, but some fun combos could be created at least. The OPR way of having multiple tiers of the same hero does work for me in some way too.

Those Anvil of Apotheosis rules were extremely fun and did a lot to let you make your own complex characters

Then they dropped the concept completely, lol. I'd love to see a book that was *just* those rules