Rules that should not exist

[Travis Baumann]

1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

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.

 

Legolas -  He shoots like three arrows at once, smoothly slings out his blades, carves up some Orks, slides down and Oliphant's trunk lands on a shield skates across the battlefield, pulls back out the bow, shoots twenty more Orks, draws back out his blades, etc...

Tauriel has some similar type stuff going on in the second trilogy.  Elves are pretty fast, accurate, and came out unscathed.  (Lets see some Aevf action GW!)

In modern films, Captain America does this all the time.. Slams a dude with his shield, whips it at a foe across the field, punches the ****** out of the guys in front of him, raises his arm and snags his rebounding shield and repeats.  Another good example would be Iron Man fighting off Cap and Bucky at the end of Civil War.  That is a pretty cool scene with him blasting, punching, defending... albeit technologically enhanced, he is still just a smart dude in armor (and even though he downs one of his opponents, eventually falls as would most units choosing to deal blows to other forces than the one about to bash your skull in)

These are tales of epic heroes and desperate warriors with magic, special abilities, and extreme skill all around.  I think maybe a good mechanic would be if you have a model in combat and he wants to shoot out of that combat he/she should have to make a bravery/leadership test type thing to see if they can keep their ****** together in order to draw a bead so to speak with all types of crazy going on around them and they should have at least a -1 to hit but I can see it happening in the world of high fantasy we are dealing with.
 

Quick edit here... in game terms, I can totally see a Skyfire letting his disc shred the dude he is fighting while the magical bird-beastman guided by the hand of fate lets loose a magic arrow that mystically flies across the battle field and nails its target.

I can also totally see a Kuroth Hunter slam the dude in front of him with his gnarly bow, raise it up an snap off a shot with his mystical vegetative bond with his surroundings while the foe in front of him staggers back a bit before slamming his bow down into the top of his head again.

Albeit, the idea of Grots pulling this off is less feasible, they are still wiley cunning little curs though... and a bravery test from them is harder to make than the above examples.

 

 

 

[Travis Baumann]

35 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.

I see your point.  AoS also brought me back into the hobby after a long absence but I absolutely need points and restrictions to get my head around building a feasible (even fluffy) army.

Another issue I am facing is that after a long hiatus, my original gaming group has literally gone to the four corners of the globe and the only hope I have of playing for now (until I at least find some gaming friends) is to attempt to get pick up games and/or start a new relationship with other gamers and the easiest way to do this is to have a structure where we can each go off and build an army with a simple statement as others have said 1. point count 2. any restrictions on traits/artifacts and your pretty much set to throw down and have a good time without it being ridiculously one sided.

I am all for scenarios and battle plans that purposefully offset the strengths to one side in terms of point cost/unit selection but then there is a purpose and/or restrictions that create a specific narrative/outcome.  You can play a last stand/hold the fort type thing knowing the defender will most likely be over-run but have a lot of fun making it as heroic and memorable as possible (thinking Hudson from Aliens here - RIP Bill Paxton).

 

 

[BunkhouseBuster]

1 hour ago, kozokus said:

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.

I have yet to get double-turned by a super shooting army, but I can imagine what would happen.  Which is why I am toying with the idea of having each PHASE be rolled for first turn, especially in really big games.  It might cut down on melee units's effectiveness, but it is an idea.

7 minutes ago, Travis Baumann said:

In modern films, Captain America does this all the time.. Slams a dude with his shield, whips it at a foe across the field, punches the ****** out of the guys in front of him, raises his arm and snags his rebounding shield and repeats.  Another good example would be Iron Man fighting off Cap and Bucky at the end of Civil War.  That is a pretty cool scene with him blasting, punching, defending... albeit technologically enhanced, he is still just a smart dude in armor (and even though he downs one of his opponents, eventually falls as would most units choosing to deal blows to other forces than the one about to bash your skull in)

And to further use your film choice as an example, Vision attempts to make a quick shooting attack without aiming carefully first, taking down one of his own allies!  He wasn't paying attention to what he was doing as he was distracted by something right in front of him, and he missed his target.

Having some form of penalty or restriction on shooting attacks for models engaged in melee makes sense to me.  Something like what has been mentioned already, like the model has to shoot at a model within 3 inches of it, or it suffers a -1 or -2 To Hit for shooting at a different target.

[Killax]

1 hour 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.

If you see more Warhammer creep into your local AoS games it's likely because the mayority of your local player group likes it...
I personally understand the concerns revolving around point costs but at the same time I also see that GW isn't completely adopting it into every piece they make, so I wouldn't worry about that for the comming years either. Narrative play/Open play games are still the way to learn and enjoy the game with friends.

Narrative and Open play cannot be played in Tournaments due to severe time constraints and those events revolving around multiple games being played in a couple of hours, sometimes for 100+ players at the same time. What we see is that several fans of AoS and GW have created suitable tournament rules to allow for this. It's still up for anyone to decide if they want to use that kind of rules. Again local and friendly games usually lead to friendly games, which allow for much more time being spend into one game and usually leads to 1-2 games per night instead of many more.
Tournaments, where you cannot know every player are usually competative, if you don't like to play like that it's as simple as not going to that tournament.

What I like is to have every unit be roughly useable. A small limitation on ranged attacks would be a massive increase for every faction that does not have good ranged attacks available in the first place. My moral: This game shouldn't revolve as much around the turn 1 "ranged" kills as it does now. The allowance for that is found in every style of game, this leads to the source, which is the Shooting Phase/rules covering Missle attacks to ideally be checked again. Not so much for narrative or sources of logic but simply have the same kind of limitation applied to every type of "attack". 

[Killax]

As another on-topic question, who does still meassure model to model on a local area?

Like other rules this isn't a judgemental question but I'd like to know. For me the prime reason as to why this rule from the orginal rules could be removed is to make some room for rules that matter slightly more.

The prime reason as to why I'm not a fan of the rule personally is because it severly limits conversion options, as using the model as a point of meassurement can be done but also needs that model to be identical across the game... like bases  

[FRoper]

The general rules are fine, i presume they will change to bases in the GH2 when it comes out.

- I am not a fan of model to model as some of mine are rather weirdly posed and was very confusing at the beginning to work out ranges.

The main rules are fine, just wish for them to clarify some rules and make others clearer, such as Vlad and his resserection, which is a signiture ability of his and should be free and not taken out of reserve points. 

Then some form of limitation on shooting as it is rather powerful at the moment and needs to be toned down, well in matched play at least.; although this could be changed in the warscrolls, with units such as Thundertusks, Skyfires, Sayl.

 

[Sagittarii Orientalis]

Additional save against wounds or mortal wounds looks redundant to me. 

What's the point of having mortal wounds that ignores saves, when there is another rule that ignores mortal wounds ignoring saves?

It adds unnecessary complexity to the game. Extra wounds would suffice if the goal is to represent exceptional durability.

Same goes to rules ignoring rend values. I'm against every rule that solely exists to ignore rules which ignore other rules.

[awcamawn]

I see where you are coming from, but mortal wounds are so strong I think it's good there is some counter to them. Mortal wounds are particularly devastating to some armies while others are strong against them. It creates a rock paper siccors aspect to army balance that hopefully encourages army diversity. Armies with mortal wound resistance typically have some other weakness to make up for it, ie slow movement/lack of shooting/poor bravery.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Killax]

4 hours ago, FRoper said:

The general rules are fine.- I am not a fan of model to model as some of mine are rather weirdly posed and was very confusing at the beginning to work out ranges.

The main rules are fine.-  I just wish for them to clarify some rules and make others clearer, such as Vlad and his resserection, which is a signiture ability of his and should be free and not taken out of reserve points. 

Then some form of limitation on shooting as it is rather powerful at the moment and needs to be toned down.

I completely agree, the rules are fine, though it would be wonderful if they could become great  

The way I see it is that model to model measurement actually limits what you can do with the hobby, because the question remains, why make a miniatures form so relevant? If you want to have flying Daemons (for whatever reason) it shouldn't affect the game as much as the rules now allow for. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the games played in stores, homes and tournaments actually meassure from base to base. Simply because it doesn't give any model any particular advantage.  Technically the Goblins can't even attack the flying Kharadron this way... This isn't a healthy or cool development in my opinion. 

Clearification is another point I agree with and same with shooting. Though these are rather large subjects. This is why I think the core rules ideally are a bit altered. 

[Killax]

6 minutes ago, awcamawn said:

I see where you are coming from, but mortal wounds are so strong I think it's good there is some counter to them. Mortal wounds are particularly devastating to some armies while others are strong against them. It creates a rock paper siccors aspect to army balance that hopefully encourages army diversity. Armies with mortal wound resistance typically have some other weakness to make up for it, ie slow movement/lack of shooting/poor bravery.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

Mortal wounds work very well as is, I personally like it a lot because it means you can have 2+/3+ saves to be part of the game aswell. 
Some saves against them are fine aswell, this adds character. Rules who ignore each other basically add character  

In regards to the rock, paper, scissors format, I think that's great! I also think that an small alteration to missle attacks would put that into great effect. A large based model can 'tie up' a lot of Missle attacks (logically).

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, Killax said:

I'm not a fan of the rule personally is because it severly limits conversion options,

I think base to base is more limiting. With b2b, you need dictated sizes. If your conversion idea is too dynamic for the mandated base size,  you are stuck. 

[Killax]

Just now, Sleboda said:

I think base to base is more limiting. With b2b, you need dictated sizes. If your conversion idea is too dynamic for the mandated base size,  you are stuck. 

I think you have to try really hard to not fit a coversion on a 32mm base, then we have the examples of Mighty Lords of Khorne and Ork Warbosses who leave more than enough room to get creative.

In general the base sizes are dictated allready anyway, they come with the boxes you buy your model for. As above most stores and locals have adapted to this simple rule of logical b2b measurement, why not include it? 

[Sleboda]

6 minutes ago, Killax said:

In general the base sizes are dictated allready anyway, they come with the boxes you buy your model for. As above most stores and locals have adapted to this simple rule of logical b2b measurement, why not include it? 

Oh, I think you are right that most people play this way and that it will soon become the rule, but there is no way that "included base" is tge mandated base. First off, there is no rule (or hint of one) in any GW publication I've seen for AoS that talks about that.  Second, until the re-pack is done,  there are plenty of straights out there. Lastly, GW made a serious effort to keep old collections viable in the move to AoS, and "base in box" would invalidate lots of currently owned collections. 

[Squirrelmaster]

@Sleboda By contrast, I was about ready to give up on AoS until they introduced points — and I think most of the players at my local store felt the same. I tried to get into Open Play, I really did, but for me every game became “well that was a totally one-sided waste of time, I guess 20 of unit X is not roughly the same as 10 of unit Y. If only there was some way to quickly pick out a well-balanced match-up”.

I don't know what I find more frustrating — on the one hand, GW basically decided that we were all incapable of stepping outside their rules framework and making up our own balance unless they actually took the points system away from us and forced us into it, that we'd be better off and enjoy the game more if the "competitive" option was taken away from us. I find that extremely patronising. Yet on the other hand, it turns out that for many of us, they were right. You all had the option to play 8th edition without points, to make up your own rules and balance, heck, GW actively encouraged us to do so, as if we couldn't figure that out for ourselves. Yet no-one did. Then GW forced you to, by taking away points, and now I hear people praising GW for breathing "new life" into their games.

If you all enjoy Open Play, why didn't you do it in 8th? The option was there, it just didn't have a special name. GW even encouraged you to treat the rules as a starting point only.

Instead, players like me, who never wanted, and still have no interest in, Open Play, got stuck for months with no option for competitive play, and now that GW have given us that option back, you're complaining that it somehow prevents you from continuing to use Open Play?

If the people around you aren't playing Open, it should be because they don't want to. If you are all somehow incapable of choosing to play Open when you actually enjoy it more, that shouldn't be my problem or GWs. If you prefer Open but your friends don't, that's between you and them, but it seems pretty selfish to suggest that GW shouldn't provide them with a version of the game which they enjoy more, just because you don't.

[Squirrelmaster]

13 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I think base to base is more limiting. With b2b, you need dictated sizes. If your conversion idea is too dynamic for the mandated base size,  you are stuck. 

No, base-to-base and dictated base sizes are two separate issues. You can play b2b without standardising the sizes just as easily as you can play model-to-model, and if TOs were forced to use m2m, I'm betting many of them would insist on standardised models only, for the same reasons they now insist on standardised bases. Which would restrict conversions way more than standardised bases.

With b2b, your conversions don't have as much impact on the game. Frankly, I don't want to play rules that let me get twice as many models in striking range just because I've modelled them with spears lowered instead of raised.

[Killax]

8 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Oh, I think you are right that most people play this way and that it will soon become the rule, but there is no way that "included base" is tge mandated base. First off, there is no rule (or hint of one) in any GW publication I've seen for AoS that talks about that.  Second, until the re-pack is done,  there are plenty of straights out there. Lastly, GW made a serious effort to keep old collections viable in the move to AoS, and "base in box" would invalidate lots of currently owned collections. 

For Open and Narrative play I wouldn't be bothered by any base, as long as we can meassure base to base  
For Matched play in practice we allready quite often see the base as it comes with as the mandate for the base size used. I don't expect AoS to turn into that instantly but I do expect it to be part of the game eventually. 

I personally don't see GW making any serious effort to keep old collection viable. What they allowed for is to use WFB models for the 1st edition AoS.
Since we're not nearly finished with AoS I wouldn't worry about any bases, though I can almost predict that between now and 3 years I don't expect AoS to have such flexible rules anymore to import all your WFB collections.

But to come to the point again, base to base measurement allows the hobby to not be limited by the standard size. To me it's more practical due to how GW promotes conversions and bitswaps. Games like Malifaux or Warmachine for example would work well enough under model to model measurement because they don't actively endorse conversions  

[FRoper]

whenever bases with my armies become a problem to fit due to a conversion, we just presume they are in base to base contact as it makes most sense, especially with ranged melee weapons the conversions do not matter as much, if needs be you can just place the model on a larger base, as even in tournements people should be okay with it.

 

Give it 3-4 years and peoples old collections will no longer be viable, most models will have new images and fantasy will be a fond memory.

[Jamopower]

I would say that Sayl's spell is one rule the game could live without.

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

No, base-to-base and dictated base sizes are two separate issues. You can play b2b without standardising the sizes just as easily as you can play model-to-mode

Perhaps, but I honesty don't recall reading a single b2b desire That is not tied, on a rules sense, to the desire for consistency and equality in measurement. That being the case,  mandated sizes are a requirement. If not,  I can still base any way I want to recreate the supposed issues that b2b would solve.  The two ideas are linked in 90% of the things I have read. 

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, Killax said:

For Matched play in practice we allready quite often see the base as it comes with as the mandate for the base size used.

Cool. So my LoC on 40mm square is still cool.  Yay! ?

Or my forest dragon on 40mm.

Or my vermin lord on 40mm.

Or my old Nagash on 40mm.

Or my new Nagash on rectangle whatever it is.

"Base it came with" is a whole lot less simple than either "bases don't matter"(the actual curren, published rule) or "here is, for free on the GW site, the list of approved bases for all models."

 

This assumed but not official approch is the worst option.

If GHB2 requires b2b, I will happily shift over ... as long as I know which bases to use. 

[Squirrelmaster]

8 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Perhaps, but I honesty don't recall reading a single b2b desire That is not tied, on a rules sense, to the desire for consistency and equality in measurement. That being the case,  mandated sizes are a requirement. If not,  I can still base any way I want to recreate the supposed issues that b2b would solve.  The two ideas are linked in 90% of the things I have read. 

You can read one now:

My desire for b2b is primarily because I hate the idea of stacking bases on top of each other when models get into combat. It looks horrible, and it damages the models. I like making scenic bases.

Likewise, having to account for vertical distance, accounting for all the wings, claws, etc. that stick out of some monsters (and can overhang other models) is something I find a lot more awkward and inconvenient. To determine whether a model is 3" away m2m, I find myself having to make 3 or 4 measurements on larger models, to determine which bit is closer — the leg at ground level, the overhanging wing, the bit of tail curling around overhead. It's just a hassle.

That's before you get on questions like "is the rock your dragon is standing on part of the model, or part of the base?".

So long as players are reasonable about bases and don't use tiny bits of wire, dragons mounted on 20mm, or lone goblins on 10-inch wide discs, I don't really care if your Orcs are on 20mm squares, 25mm squares, 32mm rounds, or whatever.

Now granted, playing m2m and then getting twice as many skeletons into range because they all have their spears lowered? That bothers me. That, for me, is a far bigger issue than whether those 20mm squares means you can get one or two extra guys in, in a combat involving dozens of models. It's far easier to model for advantage, or to accidentally gain an advantage through modelling, using m2m, then it is to base for advantage without being blatant, or accidentally gain an advantage from bases, when using b2b.

But sure, if you think basing your spearmen on 25mm rounds with a 3 inch long bit of wire sticking out as "part of the base" is equivalent to someone being unable to use their skeleton pikemen conversion,  you can re-create the same problems with non-standardised b2b as you can with m2m.

[Arkiham]

Bonuses against alliances in matched play.

 isn't right that a item gains 100% efficiency or 50% more damage, a models ranged attack is 8% more accurate etc.

It's a narrative rule carried over into a competitive world 

[Killax]

17 hours ago, Jamopower said:

I would say that Sayl's spell is one rule the game could live without.

I think it can excist, but Sayl is just in the realm of the cheaper characters with a single absurd spell.

So what we ideally see there is that spell reworked or his cost being reworked.

1 hour ago, Arkiham said:

Bonuses against alliances in matched play.

 isn't right that a item gains 100% efficiency or 50% more damage, a models ranged attack is 8% more accurate etc.

It's a narrative rule carried over into a competitive world 

I kind of like it, I really don't see the issue there? WFB had factions hating other factions. To me it adds character that also remains useful for a competative world or better put Matched play. 

10 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Cool. So my LoC on 40mm square is still cool.  Yay! ?

Or my forest dragon on 40mm.

Or my vermin lord on 40mm.

Or my old Nagash on 40mm.

Or my new Nagash on rectangle whatever it is.

"Base it came with" is a whole lot less simple than either "bases don't matter"(the actual curren, published rule) or "here is, for free on the GW site, the list of approved bases for all models."

This assumed but not official approch is the worst option.

If GHB2 requires b2b, I will happily shift over ... as long as I know which bases to use. 

For Narrative and Open play, who should ever care?

However now you have those much smaller models on much smaller bases, be sure to continue model to model measurements and figure out that neither your Vermin Lord, old Nagash or old Bloodthirster can actually hit any of the ships from the Duaradin unless someone puts a staircase scenery piece next to it. 

Bases for competative gaming purposes are allready largely included into many competative events/tournaments. One of the reasons as to why this file excists is because it's ideal to use as a guide for tournament base-use: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wqsx9u96fihqbz0/Warhammer base size chart V1.pdf?dl=0

[Arkiham]

50 minutes ago, Killax said:

I kind of like it, I really don't see the issue there? WFB had factions hating other factions. To me it adds character that also remains useful for a competative world or better put Matched play. 

For Narrative and Open play, who should ever care?

But where does the cost aspect come into it.

A unforged does 6 attacks, 3+3+ with rerolls 1 to hit and +1against things with more than  1 wound. Cool yeah sounds fair. Basically a 2+2+ for 100 points. Does d3 mortal wounds when he dies. Yeah ok cool. 

 

Free item to make that double the damage. Still 100 points. Ok fair.

So does that models value remain 100 points when against chaos ? Where it's literally double the damage, and with the free item quadruple it?  

That 100 point model doing 6 max damage against order with no item, 1w with item.

12 against chaos no item and 24 with item.

For 100 points...without the item id say that damage output is more the 140 range. Not 100

Or kroak, again doing literally double the damage For the same points, the bastiladons doing 50% more.

 

If it was more prevalent then it would be less of a issue to me, but it's not it's mostly against chaos, which also typically runs alot of multiwound things or monsters as it is so there's already those units who gain bonuses for that.

 

But where is chaos bonuses for key units ?(rather than niche ones no one uses as they're trash)

Got a item for increased ward and to hit, which is slowly being phased out, where's chaos' bonuses for being terrifying to mere mortals (fear/terror in 8th edition ) in comparison chaos is less scary and weaker than it was in 8th. 

[Sleboda]

I agree that there should not be stuff that does more against certain things for zero extra cost.  It was something I disliked about Warhammer as well.