Rules that should not exist

[ppetford]

Houserule it with your fellow gamers who agree that shooting out of combat breaks your immersion.

Yes, I agree that having a basic 4 page rule set has its drawbacks. And isn't that the beauty of AoS? They've given us a basic set of simple, streamlined rules to play with and then said "hey, go and add / change bits that you want".

 

[Killax]

 

1 hour ago, Chris Tomlin said:

Weirdly I only see hate for allowing shooting into/out of combat on the internet (and specifically this forum over Twitter), not in real life at the club or tournaments etc.....though this might be because 80% of players are using shooting heavy lists at the moment!

Just an observation, but I wonder if this is more of virtual problem (i.e. something fun for people to get their knickers in a twist about online) than an actual in game issue. Not sure.

I'm not for one second suggesting that shooting is not very very strong; is undoubtedly is. Any of the suggested fixes above would make my preferred army instantly better.

As for suspension of disbelief, that is down to the individual player and how they perceive the game. My previous comments were perhaps a little abrasive on that, apologies. I guess for me trying to relate rules to fluff or "what would happen in real life" doesn't hold water, but that's not to say it's not how others approach their gaming (which is of course totally cool as well).

The thing is that I do not hate shooting at all, nor do I express this though unless specifically asked for  . In this case the topic is allready derailing because I'm not talking about Rules that shouldn't be there but Rules that should be there.

My observation is that shooting isn't much stronger as Melee but the ways to 'stop Missle Attacks' are not incorporated into the current rulessystem of the game. Where all other forms of other non-Missle Attacks can technically and thus tactically be stopped by moving units up the board and create 'no-go-zones' it's these limitations that provide tactical depth to the game.

What I see, not only for your beloved Orruk army or my beloved Khorne army is that certain Allegiances do not have much acces to Missle Attacks anyway, because of this it becomes very obvious that the few who do and those few also happen to thake several Tournaments are making use of a rule that simply said isn't developed in the same way as others.  
 

1 hour ago, Turragor said:

Look if you don't like shooting and want it tweaked that's okay. I don't think shooting should remain unchanged. It'd make things interesting to tweak it.

I just find the idea that it's 'weird' grots can shoot heroes out of a melee they are in that the hero isn't in, to be a bit flat. You're still selecting to argue against a mechanic you dislike.

I largely agree. It's not the mechanic I dislike, to me it's the simple way how certain rules are restricted for the better of the game.
- If you could summon at all ranges, summonning could be an issue.
- If you could charge and pile in at all ranges, melee could be an issue.
- If you couldn't fail spells because opponents have a chance to interract with them, spells could be an issue.
- Missle attacks can be done at all ranges, tournament results show us, missle attacks might be an issue. 

For me it's not about plausability of rules but to improve the game for what it is and be consistant with it's logic. There is a lot of things you cannot do with certain types of attacks; Missle attacks do not care about anything. They are unrestricted to the point where they solely decide if your list has what it thakes to win a tournament.

Another oddity is that because of this missle attack importance strategies like turn 1 charges have become immensely important. Why? Because Missle attacks also happen to be the only type of attack that is always functional and available from turn 1 and on. You have the initiative from the getgo.

Shooting isn't even this good in 40K  

[Turragor]

48 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

The whole thing is an abstraction - every mechanic is implausible to some extent. It's a question of where you draw the line in order to create a satisfying balance. It's perfectly possible to be okay with where that line is drawn for one mechanic, and be unsatisfied with where it's drawn for another.

Now this I can't disagree with.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ppetford said:

Houserule it with your fellow gamers who agree that shooting out of combat breaks your immersion.

Yes, I agree that having a basic 4 page rule set has its drawbacks. And isn't that the beauty of AoS? They've given us a basic set of simple, streamlined rules to play with and then said "hey, go and add / change bits that you want".

 

I think houseruling works better for some things than for others - I don't think it's realistic to say that every change people would like to see should just be houseruled, otherwise we might as well just abandon the idea of a 'living ruleset' and leave the rules exactly as they are in perpetuity. I'm generally against adding more rules to the game, but making official changes to existing rules in cases where it enriches the game for players of all stripes has got to be a good thing.

[Turragor]

6 minutes ago, Killax said:

 

The thing is that I do not hate shooting at all, nor do I express this though unless specifically asked for  . In this case the topic is allready derailing because I'm not talking about Rules that shouldn't be there but Rules that should be there.

My observation is that shooting isn't much stronger as Melee but the ways to 'stop Missle Attacks' are not incorporated into the current rulessystem of the game. Where all other forms of other non-Missle Attacks can technically and thus tactically be stopped by moving units up the board and create 'no-go-zones' it's these limitations that provide tactical depth to the game.

What I see, not only for your beloved Orruk army or my beloved Khorne army is that certain Allegiances do not have much acces to Missle Attacks anyway, because of this it becomes very obvious that the few who do and those few also happen to thake several Tournaments are making use of a rule that simply said isn't developed in the same way as others.  
 

I largely agree. It's not the mechanic I dislike, to me it's the simple way how certain rules are restricted for the better of the game.
- If you could summon at all ranges, summonning could be an issue.
- If you could charge and pile in at all ranges, melee could be an issue.
- If you couldn't fail spells because opponents have a chance to interract with them, spells could be an issue.
- Missle attacks can be done at all ranges, tournament results show us, missle attacks might be an issue. 

For me it's not about plausability of rules but to improve the game for what it is and be consistant with it's logic. There is a lot of things you cannot do with certain types of attacks; Missle attacks do not care about anything. They are unrestricted to the point where they solely decide if your list has what it thakes to win a tournament.

Another oddity is that because of this missle attack importance strategies like turn 1 charges have become immensely important. Why? Because Missle attacks also happen to be the only type of attack that is always functional and available from turn 1 and on. You have the iniative from the getgo.

Shooting isn't even this good in 40K  

I think changes to shooting would play out in an interesting way.

I am not against changes to the rules at all. I think it'd be healthy of cavalry became the go to thing instead of shooting units.

Maybe I am wary of very large, very sweeping changes.

[Killax]

11 minutes ago, Turragor said:

I think changes to shooting would play out in an interesting way.

I am not against changes to the rules at all. I think it'd be healthy of cavalry became the go to thing instead of shooting units.

Maybe I am wary of very large, very sweeping changes.

I usually am wary of that aswell, unless we clearly see that the dominant factor in competative games has become Missle attacks.
To me factions like Death and Destruction would make a drastic (and honest) comeback if Missle attacks didn't work out exclusively the way they do now.

Be it Skyfires or perhaps even the upcomming Kharadron I don't think it's healthy for any game to competatively ask 'How hard can they shoot?' first. Especially not because Melee offers the tactical depth that makes the game quite unique on the market and really cool if you like the idea of 'controlled battle outcome' or in other words board control. 

Currently nobody can control Missle attacks, the best you can hope for is:
A. add something that messes with it
B. spam multiple models (Heroes) so you hopefully survive with one through all the missle attacks
C. hope for bad dice rolls
D. use unlimited missle attack rules in your favour and claim a tournament  

In my opinion all the Missle attack rules do now is reduce competative variance in army lists, by a lot.

[Nevvermore]

1 hour ago, Turragor said:

I don't buy the plausibility and internal consistency arguments you guys are selling either. Not in a tabletop wargame.

Look if you don't like shooting and want it tweaked that's okay. I don't think shooting should remain unchanged. It'd make things interesting to tweak it.

I just find the idea that it's 'weird' grots can shoot heroes out of a melee they are in that the hero isn't in, to be a bit flat. You're still selecting to argue against a mechanic you dislike.

Because it's equally implausible that a Stardrake charge roll of 9 into grots 3 inches away stops 2.5 inches and the grots hold.

It's equally implausible that Stonehorns have to accomodate their base size when moving 3" round a unit of skeletons instead of just mowing through them to the hero beyond.

It's equally implausible that a Thundertusk swinging its mighty tusks against a heraldor will do no splash damage to a unit right beside.

 

There are two dimensions to this. One is abstractions that are necessary to keep the game playable. Models using bases to be able to stand, and models not being able to move through other units freely are examples of that. Then there are rules that could be changed if you wanted more "crunch", but that work well and are also easy to justify narratively. Random charges and lack of charge ractions is one (simply imagine the Stardrake got distracted by another enemy or whatever). The Thundertusk example is a bit strange because area attacks are supported in the rules, the reason it's not one of those is probably because the designers didn't intend it to be a mighty sweep but rather a directed thrust, or something similar. Now how about shooting into/out of combat? It's neither of those things. It's not a necessary abstraction because the game would work just as well without it, in fact it would add more layers of tactics to unit movement and close combat. Neither is it easily justifiable in a narrative sense. To remove it would not impact playability nor narrative negatively, and would instead improve both IMO. Obviously units would need rebalancing, you couldn't just remove it and keep everything else the same.

[Turragor]

2 minutes ago, Nevvermore said:

There are two dimensions to this. One is abstractions that are necessary to keep the game playable. Models using bases to be able to stand, and models not being able to move through other units freely are examples of that. Then there are rules that could be changed if you wanted more "crunch", but that work well and are also easy to justify narratively. Random charges and lack of charge ractions is one (simply imagine the Stardrake got distracted by another enemy or whatever). The Thundertusk example is a bit strange because area attacks are supported in the rules, the reason it's not one of those is probably because the designers didn't intend it to be a mighty sweep but rather a directed thrust, or something similar. Now how about shooting into/out of combat? It's neither of those things. It's not a necessary abstraction because the game would work just as well without it, in fact it would add more layers of tactics to unit movement and close combat. Neither is it easily justifiable in a narrative sense. To remove it would not impact playability nor narrative negatively, and would instead improve both IMO.

I agree mostly. What I am not 100% sure on is if changes would have 0 negative impact.

I feel like a lot of the critique about shooting is not because of any jarring quality it has in the flow of the game but it's because it is strong.

There are those who want it removed because they don't make extensive use of it and lose to it.

I can see the appeal to the idea of making shooting "more work" for the same result we have now because it brings a greater variety of units into the limelight than before and there is more tactical depth.

However it is also possible (not definite) that the outcome of big shooting changes (perhaps 'going too far') would be almost 0 shooting units in the armies that do best (win most).

Now if there is no shooting and the game is more fun then that's a whole other debate. I don't think it is worth having because, well, people have bought, built and painted a lot of shooting models now.

It'd kind of suck to remove a whole phase (in effect).

 

[Killax]

I largely agree with everything youve said @Turragor 

In essence what I'd like to see is that the competative top end isn't shaped by Sayl, Sayl-like abilities and Missle attacks.
I believe a restriction of that would make the game more interesting and pull back Death and Destruction into the game. In the case of Sayl I'd say a re-costing would be the easiest way of dealing with that specific ability. 

When further Battletome's then would be added that cover the same ammount of Battle Trait, Command Trait, Artefact and Spell depth I believe Age of Sigmar to be head and shoulders one of the best wargames out there, largely because of the community involvement but also because practically every Melee attack Unit is well balanced out against each other. 

I too don't want to remove Missle attacks from being a part of the game, I just want them to be as important as the rest of the attack types and not significantly more important. 

[wayniac]

Really, you want Warmachine style where you can engage models and stop them from shooting but unengaged models can still shoot

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Turragor said:

I feel like a lot of the critique about shooting is not because of any jarring quality it has in the flow of the game but it's because it is strong.

There are those who want it removed because they don't make extensive use of it and lose to it.

Equally, I'm sure a lot of the reluctance to change it is also because it's strong, and that many competitive players have a vested interest in keeping things as they are.

 

I can see the appeal to the idea of making shooting "more work" for the same result we have now because it brings a greater variety of units into the limelight than before and there is more tactical depth.

However it is also possible (not definite) that the outcome of big shooting changes (perhaps 'going too far') would be almost 0 shooting units in the armies that do best (win most).

Now if there is no shooting and the game is more fun then that's a whole other debate. I don't think it is worth having because, well, people have bought, built and painted a lot of shooting models now.

It'd kind of suck to remove a whole phase (in effect).

If I understand what Killax has been getting at, it's not a case of making shooting 'more work' for its own sake, but rather a case of bringing it in line with other strategic options by having some kind of trade-off for using it. I think I agree with him. At present, shooting is a free-for-all with no downsides, whereas every other strategy that an army can be built around (melee, magic, summoning, mobility) has a very clear cost-benefit equation associated with it. Shooting is all benefit and no cost.

It's no coincidence that this has arisen at the same time that so many shooty armies have become available and started dominating the competitive scene. But whereas some choose to see this as sour grapes, you could more charitably see it as being that the prevalence of these armies has now allowed us to comprehensively test the shooting rules for the first time, and it's shined a clear light on their inherent flaws.

[stato]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

80 point units are unable to cover all models within that 400 point unit within 3" if the opponent tactically knows what is comming at him. Something every unit and every general is capable to prepare for.

Quote

As repeated elsewhere also, I think one very elegent solution in regards to Missle Attacks remains:
If you have an enemy model within 3" your Missle Attack range goes to range 3". 

Ah, i see.  You mean a MODELS shooting range goes to 3", not the whole unit.  Effects are applied to the unit typically so that what i considered was meant, hence my response. A MODEL reduction to 3" is more plausible, still dont see the need for it though.

 

[wayniac]

10 minutes ago, stato said:

Ah, i see.  You mean a MODELS shooting range goes to 3", not the whole unit.  Effects are applied to the unit typically so that what i considered was meant, hence my response. A MODEL reduction to 3" is more plausible, still dont see the need for it though.

 

I believe he means Warmahordes style (I know him from the Privateer Press forums), which is it goes from model.  So if an enemy model is within X" if yours, they can't attack but other models who aren't engaged can.  It's actually a pretty elegant way of handling it.

[Killax]

27 minutes ago, stato said:

Ah, i see.  You mean a MODELS shooting range goes to 3", not the whole unit.  Effects are applied to the unit typically so that what i considered was meant, hence my response. A MODEL reduction to 3" is more plausible, still dont see the need for it though.

 

Yep, model to model, not a whole unit. Meaning tactical depth remains while adding a small attack restriction aswell.

Units who cost 400 points could technically force down a lot of Missle attacks to be targeted against them versus a 400 point Missle attack unit. A monster also has the advantage of doing this with a larger base.

What would remain is that if you'd be inclined to do so, quite some models could still shoot far, just not those who have an enemy model within 3".

15 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I believe he means Warmahordes style (I know him from the Privateer Press forums), which is it goes from model.  So if an enemy model is within X" if yours, they can't attack but other models who aren't engaged can.  It's actually a pretty elegant way of handling it.

Yep. Slightly different because of how Age of Sigmar is worded and works out, but simply said, A model who has an enemy model within 3" has it's Missle attack range set to 3".

So what doesn't happen is have a model B2B and whilst this is the case shoot onto other models 30" away  

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Killax said:

Yep. Slightly different because of how Age of Sigmar is worded and works out, but simply said, A model who has an enemy model within 3" has it's Missle attack range set to 3".

I don't mind this system, but I do find rules that affect individual models rather than units a bit fiddly. How do you think it would work if you just ruled that a unit that has shot during the Shooting Phase can't attack in the Combat Phase, and can't save against melee attacks?

So basically you can still shoot out of combat if you want to, but while you're steadying that bow you're going to get slaughtered by the guys who are setting about you with axes.

[Killax]

12 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I don't mind this system, but I do find rules that affect individual models rather than units a bit fiddly. How do you think it would work if you just ruled that a unit that has shot during the Shooting Phase can't attack in the Combat Phase, and can't save against melee attacks?

So basically you can still shoot out of combat if you want to, but while you're steadying that bow you're going to get slaughtered by the guys who are setting about you with axes.

I dont dislike it! But I don't think the 3" rule is too fiddly, at least not when we use a little 3" widget for it. 

I believe that if Missle attacks would replace Melee attacks is an very legit option aswell but I do see that if it would recieve the same kind of restriction as seen in other forms of attacks is a smaller step for players to process.

To me the key issue with Missle attacks isn't that they can attack but can attack whatever they want which cannot be replicated by many other forms of attacks. Certain spells for example dont even meet the ranges some Missle attacks come with. 

[polarbear]

I'm not a big fan of true line of sight. It might ease shooting concerns as well if any model in a straight line between the shooter and target blocked line of sight (of course this opens up having to make distinctions with larger units, maybe doesn't count for monsters etc.). I'd like to be able to use units to block line of sight to other units/models.

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

Shooting out of combat shouldn't exist. It's lame both from a gameplay perspective and from an aesthetic perspective

 

I disagree completely. To me,  allowing this helps my mind understand the tone/style/pacing the game is trying to capture.

Along with the line of sight rules and no ability to hide characters in units, shooting out of combat tells me a few things. 

It's sweeping, constant action  It is rapidly changing, brutal action where desperation and heroism are present in equal measure. It is dynamic and opportunistic.

I envision some of the greatest action sequences like ciematic marvels.

These rules tell me I am taking part in crazy awesome fun.

Without them I am still playing old, stodgy,  slowpaced games with abstracted times and day long battles. I'm still playing 3rd edition.

I prefer the die die kill kill of AoS.

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

It's sweeping, constant action  It is rapidly changing, brutal action where desperation and heroism are present in equal measure. It is dynamic and opportunistic.

I envision some of the greatest action sequences like ciematic marvels.

What what?? Can you honestly point me towards a single scene in all of cinema in which a group of warriors embroiled in brutal, visceral hand-to-hand combat manage to sheath their swords, take out their bows, steady them, let loose a volley into the enemy with the same degree of accuracy as if they were standing peacefully on an uncontested hill, put their bows away, pick up their swords again and return to the melee without missing a beat, having taken no damage in the meantime? Because that would be the actual visual full-motion equivalent of shooting out of combat, whether represented on screen or in real life.

You prefer quickfire tabletop action and that's fine but, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, why have any rule that stops you doing something in one phase because you chose to do something else in another (there are plenty of rules like this) - why not just constant, implausible, quickfire action? Units can shoot and engage in melee in the same turn? Fine. Why not allow all units to run, charge and retreat in every turn too?

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, stato said:

The game was made with the shooting mechanic it has, changing it changes the basic game. If GW had started with no shooting out of combat maybe they wouldnt have given melee armies such powerful charge bonuses, maybe they would be changed deployment rules. 

Amen.

[kozokus]

When i first saw the rules of the combat phase (the draft-a-unit-then-your-turn) that was pure rapture. I immediately wished that every other phase would go that way.

How interesting it would be. 

The real filth of the shooting phase is the double turn for me. The fact that you can have two consecutive non-interactive phases is devastating if you focus on that aspect of the game. I am quite ok with beeing doubleturned by a close combat army.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Amen.

The game was also made with no points system but I don't see many people complaining about how the addition of points changed the basic game. People demand change when it suits them and kick against it when it doesn't, generally employing irrational arguments in either case to retroactively justify an entrenched viewpoint.

[Sleboda]

50 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Can you honestly point me towards a single scene in all of cinema in which a group of warriors embroiled in brutal, visceral hand-to-hand combat manage to sheath their swords, take out their bows, steady them, let loose a volley into the enemy with the same degree of accuracy as if they were standing peacefully on an uncontested hill, put their bows away, pick up their swords again and return to the melee without missing a beat, having taken no damage in the meantime?

 That's not even close to what I am picturing. It does, though, show why thus us such a point of divergence for the topic. People are seeing radically diferent things in their heads and either the rules support what they see or they don't. 

I'm not going to list examples of what I imagine because the talk would almost certainly derail intro the finer points of how fictional character X had this or that bit of tech/magic/power to allow certain things to happen "realistically."

Worse, we might start referencing actual historical figures or battles as examples of why dracowhatsies should not be able to roast flying metal balloon dwarfs.

[Sleboda]

38 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

The game was also made with no points system but I don't see many people complaining about how the addition of points changed the basic game.

I truly would prefer that points had not come back. I also don't like the Rules of One, battleline requirements,  base to base, traits, items, or the crippling of summoning. Frankly, I don't even think the game should be played in tournaments. It's just not suitable. 

I played Open prior to GH and had literally zero disagreements, rules questions, or balance concerns. We had great,  fun games.  It was a huuuuge leap for me as a 30 year Warhammer vet who loved points, non-scenario games, and all the Very Serious rules and tournaments.

The clean break reinvigorated my love of this hobby in a way I didn't think possible,  and I'm seeing more and more Warhammer creep into my AoS and it is disheartening.

[chord]

22 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I truly would prefer that points had not come back. I also don't like the Rules of One, battleline requirements,  base to base, traits, items, or the crippling of summoning. Frankly, I don't even think the game should be played in tournaments. It's just not suitable. 

I played Open prior to GH and had literally zero disagreements, rules questions, or balance concerns. We had great,  fun games.  It was a huuuuge leap for me as a 30 year Warhammer vet who loved points, non-scenario games, and all the Very Serious rules and tournaments.

The clean break reinvigorated my love of this hobby in a way I didn't think possible,  and I'm seeing more and more Warhammer creep into my AoS and it is disheartening.

This!    I only started with AOS (never played a Warhammer gave before), but as it gets more popular the vibe seems like it's changing.