Jump to content

leadfoot352

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by leadfoot352

  1. I would honestly believe it's an intentional leak done to drum up excitement in AoS leading up to their warhammer online fest thingy this week. GW's been in the "omg look at this thing I dropped" style of marketing since the naughties. I remember playing "spot the new models" in every new edition rulebook that dropped, and in every codex that came out. Also, this wouldn't be a playtester if they've got a printed version of the battle tome with finished artwork, model photos and lore. This book went to print 6-8 months ago, which means it was in playtest probably around a year ago, just from the turn around time to get these things printed.
  2. I would disagree on this point. I think units spreading out to screen units and block lanes is a running problem in AoS, and part of my system here is targeted at limiting the power of the cloud of goblins ability to be on the objective or doing anything at all. Because of their low bravery and high unit count, they would need to be largely base to base, stopping them from zoning an objective. This combined with my proposed changes to objective control means that for those 60 goblins to hold the objective, all of their models must be wholly within 6 of said objective. That said, I value your feedback, and I'll add playtest notes to see how it interacts with really large armies, say 200+ models on the table, and I'll iterate as needed. Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate you friend!
  3. I see the updated post now. Thank you for the feedback. It's there anything you specifically don't like, rather than them just not being impactful? What about the change do you specifically not like? I am working on a homebrew mod for aos that includes a lot of this stuff, and so I'd love concrete feedback!
  4. I'm very confused as to how you came to this conclusion. My battle shock system doesn't use bravery and doesn't remove models. My cohesion system allows units with more bravery to be further spread out from each other, and if they are unable to be placed within that space they are lost, but this happens at the end of any given movent. This means that for you to lose models you would need to be further spread out than 10 inches, and then move, and then still be further spread. Please elaborate on how you came to your conclusion, because it's literally not how the rule interacts.
  5. Both of those interactions are entirely intended, and part of why I phrased the rule as I did. The model being visible but not the unit is to protect players from a situation where in a player is able to move either his own units, endless spells, or possibly even terrain in such a way that your hero is no the only visible model, and then he shoots the hero. I did this because I recall reading about a game of 40k in which a player used a pair of rhino transports to block the los for his models to make the only thing visible a hero through the thing space between them. I intend for the power of attacks that either hot automatically or that do not use an attack sequence to be pushed by this change, and to give them a niche in the game as a counter to powerful support heroes. Many of these abilities that don't roll to hit currently require a large unit size to be effective, and I would like to see some of them revamped to be a hero killer, while others are not. Thank you, however, for your feedback and the opportunity to discuss my theory more. It's there anything else in the post you'd like to discuss?
  6. I would highly doubt it. You can still play Anvilguard and that doesn't exist anyway. Honestly we should remove every named hero from matched play, send them to narrative play where they belong, and then turn their scrolls up to 11, but that's a topic for another thread.
  7. Firstly, a revamp to the protection characters have against being targeted by shooting attacks. It's an easy fix: "Look out sir!: Missile weapon attacks targeting models with the hero keyword, and that lack the monster keyword, automatically miss if the hero is within 3 inches of a unit with 5 or more models." The reason I have it function like this is that it still allows players to use abilities that don't use the attack sequence or that happen in the shooting phase but are not shooting attacks to still target heroes. This raises the power of those effects, and lends them a unique niche. Secondly, a revamp to all scenarios. This change is also very simple. Scoring always happens at the end of the battle round. Double turn remains, and still is a very important part of the game. But if you take it, you need to consider where you're going to be not just at the end of your turn, but also at the end of your opponent's turn. This makes the double more about trying to blunt your opponent, and to zone their movement, rather than simply trying to table them. Thirdly, a revamp to terrain. Keep it simple, a handful of abilities, printed on the warscroll for the terrain. Make a small number of warscrolls for "unusual terrain" and put them online, akin to what is in the current hard cover rulebook. Most terrain blocks LoS. Drastically reduce the power of true line of sight, while keeping it in place. Basically anything other than an obstacle should block LoS. The rewrite needs simply be added to the attack sequence. "Determine Range and Line of Sight to the target: Measure the weapons range between the attacking model and the target model, then determine if the model can see the target, by taking an eye level view of the model. If the shortest possible line between the attacking model and the target model is within range, you may attack. If this line passes over any scenery features, the targeted model has the benefit of Cover." Then you add a little fly out box that says "Cover: A model with cover adds +1 to its saving throws, unless it charged this turn." This makes cover much easier to get, and makes playing around terrain much more valuable. Fourth, a revamp to list building and battlefield roles. As it stands, army writing is very easy, and I'd like to keep that. That said, the game would benefit from adding in a few more limiters on certain unit types. I'd like to see a 0 limit on "Unique" models at 2000 points, and then a 0-2 at 2500. This will encourage players to play larger games, which GW always wants, and it will push several of the more abusive models out of the tournament meta. I would also like to see many heroes lose their "leader" battlefield role. Any model that lacks a command ability, or isn't a military commander in their lore should lose the "leader" battlefield role. A player should be required to bring a general who is a general, not who is a support piece. I would also like to see a rotating "restricted" unit type for matched play. This would have a limit of 0-1 or 0-2 in a 2000 point game, and would rotate each year. This doesn't overwrite their other battlefield roles, but it would allow problem units to be restricted every GHB. Suddenly every problem unit that is spammed will be solvable without needing to have their points skyrocket or needing a new warscroll. Fifth, a revamp to monsters. 40k does large models much more justice by having the brackets on a monster not start until far later in their wounds. This would require an entire rewrite of every monster warscroll, which I know won't happen, but I'd like a new design philosophy going forward of "every new monster printed doesn't bracket until half," along with "no monster loses movement as it brackets." Sixth, a revamp to Battleshock. Battleshock is largely ignored in AoS. So many models simply ignore it, and other units are simply so small in size it never matters to them. Change Battleshock to not be part of Bravery any longer, but a totally separate mechanic. "Battleshock: At the start of the Battleshock phase, roll a dice for every unit that was allocated wounds which were not negated this turn. Add one to the roll for every 5 wounds allocated and not negated after the initial. If the result is a 6, the unit is suffering from Battleshock. While a unit suffers from Battleshock it has -1 to hit, wound, save, run, charge, casting, unbinding, and dispelling rolls the unit makes until the end of the next Battleshock phase." This is a very simple mechanic, that is worded to more represent a unit suffering steady loses and penalties but keeping fighting. You no longer see your fearless stormcast flee the fight because they're not brave, but instead they're nursing their wounds, and fighting at lower efficiency because they're injured. This also allows Battleshock to apply to heroes. Every ability that currently reduces bravery will instead add X to the roll on the Battleshock test, changed via an errata. Seventh, a revamp to unit cohesion. With my above proposed idea, Bravery suddenly doesn't have a role. My concept will change Bravery to instead of being based on how likely you are to flee from a fight, it's instead how stoically you will face a tide of foes alone. Change the section on unit coherency to read "At the end of any move, all models in the unit must be within a number of inches of all other models in the unit equal to that unit's Bravery characteristic. Any models that are unable to be placed in this manor are slain, as they flee the battle for safer havens." This change is simple, it forces units to be clumped together, and limited stringing units to screen the entire board, making things more cinematic. A unit will still add bravery for being in a larger unit, meaning that your blocks of goblins will still be able to remain within range of each other, and this bonus will probably be increased to +1 per 5 instead of +1 per 10, but that would require further testing. Finally, a revamp to objective control. All scenarios should change objective control from "within" to "wholly within," and a "model" no longer controls an objective, but a "unit" does. So a hero or monster by themselves can control an objective, but if a unit wants to, the entire unit must be wholly within range of the objective. Also, rework determining control to be the number of wounds remaining, instead of the number of models. A unit of 10 unwounded chaos warriors would count as 20 wounds for control. 20 goblins would also count as 20. An unwounded Gothizzar harvester would count as 10. Etc. Those are my thoughts for 3.0. I think any one of these changes would benefit the game, and all of them together would make for a very fun experience.
  8. I love Fyreslayers. I love the models, I love the kits. I love the stoic ranks of models that share a uniformity. I don't want every army to be a massive collection of totally unique characters, because when they are it looks weird when you have lots of units of the same sculpt. They are designed to look like they go together, and they do. The biggest strength in AoS design is, in my opinion, the fact that most AoS factions at their launch have exactly what they need. As someone who has played war games for a long time, and in a lot of systems, I can't tell you how not exciting the 4th version of the same core unit is for me. I've played space marines, and let me tell you that 5 different infantry choices with medium range shooting, supporting by a mix of close range special weapons and long range heavy weapons, isn't really interest. Give me one unit that does that job, and make them do it well, so I don't have to buy a bunch of different versions of it. The real problem is not factions like Fyreslayers having too few options, it's the fact that they've souped too many options into larger books. I can tell you honestly that a lot of the time when I look across a table at any Chaos army, it doesn't look like they're playing one faction. The worst for this are Skaven, whose only unifying theme is that they are all ratmen, and Cities of Sigmar, who don't look like a single army because really they aren't one. Fyreslayers are an epitome of this design philosophy. They have 3 units, that's it. One is a horde like swarm of decent models, one is an unmoving anvil that breaks everyone that crashes into it, and one is a ranged support unit. That's all you need to make an army. You could maybe add in a cavalry unit for forward objective grabbing, but you already have that in the Runesmiter's teleportation ability. From there you have a single monster that fills its role, get in and beat stuff up, with a couple different characters on its back to push it into other roles. Really the only things that don't fit super well into this design is the Doomseeker and Grimwrath having basically the same core function in the army, beat stick hero, and even then the Doomseeker falls more into an assassin role than the Grimwrath, who's more of a blender.
  9. So, hot take, I'm going to guess that the Light of Eltharion isn't going to be unique, akin to the Spirit of Durthu. I have almost nothing to back this guess up, but it's something that would be really interesting. I'm also totally guessing that these lads are getting a shooting unit, and something totally out there, like a unit of wizards that are actually wizards, and perhaps can cast an extra spell per model in the unit.
  10. Technically speaking, no. It's not in keyword bold, and so would be referencing the regular megaboss on foot. This is a good catch, one I'm surprised I missed. I'll make sure to email the FAQ team about it.
  11. Okay, my 15-20 cents. Positives Models: These models are the best of any wargame I've ever seen. They're sharp, well designed and cut, and the kits are easy to work through. Really top notch work. Lore: GW has always had the best lore teams on the planet, and it's really coming together now that they've had some time to breath in the mortal realms. I really love the work they're doing there. Release schedule: I love that every other week I've got something to look forward to and read about, and a new kit to add to my dragonpile of unbuilt stuff. Warhammer Community: While not totally AoS centered, warcom is like, the best thing to happen to GW. I imagine it's only a matter of time before they bring back the GW forums again, like that had when I was a wee lad. Criticisms Balance: While I feel AoS is probably the most balanced wargame I've played before, I feel it suffers from two major balance issues. Internal balance in a faction, and a "rock, paper, scissors" mentality. The first is simple, some units in books are vastly worse than other units in the same book, for the same points. Some artifacts are flatly better than others. Some subfactions are insanely better than others. The latter issue is a much harder problem. GW has always had a "rock, paper, scissors," mentality. It's fine for DoK to be an insane synergy faction that can kill anything they touch, because they're weak to shooting. It's fine for OBR to be functionally unkillable, because they're slow and can be out maneuvered on the board. It's fine for Skaven to cast infinite spells a turn, because they have weak units that die like gerbils in speed bags. The problem with this mentality is that in a game like this, that has a high barrier of entry, walking into a local meta that is full of paper, when you've got a bag full of rocks, feels bad. It doesn't matter how much I love X faction, they're seriously countered by Y faction, and my main opponents play Y. How do we fix this? The solution to this is something that most people won't want, but it's to make armies more milquetoast. Don't let a faction's theme being models are unkillable, or can punch someone into the sun. Make a unit that is "good" at combat 3 by 4, with 1 rend. Make a unit that is "tanky" 2 wounds with a 4+ save. Now you won't have that insane skew that leads to the rock paper scissors design. Play-testing: This leans into balance a little bit, but it's less about power and more about consistency. I play a lot of games, both physical and digital. One of the best things that many developers of digital games do is release a PTR, or public test realm, where you can play-test the various changes and updates. I know part of the magic of GW is the fact that you don't know exactly what's coming, and things are kept under tight wraps, and the rumor engine takes terrible pictures of them to make us argue if that scaly bit is an elven cloak or a seraphon character (it was a chaos mount in the end, go figure.) But the down side of this is that the small hush-hush community of players that get into play-testing suffer from a few major issues that leave books in a sorry state where they need an update a few days after launch. Firstly they are a small enough group that not enough feedback can be given. It turns out sometimes you just need monkeys with typewriters, and not hand selected specialists. Secondly, the hand selected specialists aren't actually very good at the game. Personal side note, I played against one of the guys who was on the play-testing team for GHB2018 at adepticon, and he didn't know the rule about being able to pile in if a unit charged, and its target was wiped out. I used that trick to win the game, and he called a judge over, who just looked at him funny and then pointed his name in the book out to me. How do we fix this? Simply have a larger group of play-testers, and also have a more selective group of "top tier" play-testers. Consider the following: The current core of testers now get the book a year in advance, as they currently do. They muck around with it, they give feedback, changes get made. Then, 2nd pass comes in 4 months later. It goes to a much larger pool, basically the public, who then does further play-testing, and gives further feedback. Suddenly you have a much larger group who is funneling information back to GW. And hell, even release the models in that 2nd phase of testing, so you don't have to worry about copywrite issues. And if they wanted to be really cheeky, they could have people pay a small subscription fee to get this play-test material every time it comes around (which at the current release rate would literally be once a month,) and that would give them a steady stream of revenue and would mean only people who are really dedicated to the program are giving feedback. Terrain and LoS: True line of sight is bad for the games health. It's cinematic, it's very easy for a new player to understand, and it moves the game along very quickly. The problem is if you have two players who disagree, it becomes hard to have a hard and fast ruling, and it also makes it hard to release cool and ornate scenery pieces, because people will argue about how they effect line of sight. The other major problem with terrain is the rules for placing models. I see games all the time where people just gingerly set models that clearly don't fit and say "well he's flying, so it's fine." It bothers me, and it looks bad. How do we fix this? Firstly, make the base rules official, and not a suggestion. It's time. People have had their square bases for long enough. Secondly, assign every base size a "size score" between 1 and 10. Do the same for all terrain. If something is bigger than you, it blocks line of sight for you. Done. For the flying thing, have a simple rule added into the matched play section. "If it fits, it sits: A model can only be placed on a section of the battle field large enough to hold the entirety of its base. If any portion of the base is unable to sit flatly on this section of the battlefield, weither by hanging off or sitting at an angle, it can not be placed there." Easy money.
  12. This is my brawl, on their board. The Iron Tide rises. It's going to be joined by a Warclan when the new book drops, because all can serve their Warchief, or be crushed under his heel.
  13. Are there rules for creating your own character and/or customizing them for the purpose of a campaign? I'd love to do something narrative at my LGS and this is what I was waiting for. Also, thanks so much for this, and for showing me this forum!
×
×
  • Create New...