NinthMusketeer

So the argument is those factors change random initiative from a bad addition to a good one?

Alright let's expand it out; has anyone tried house ruling random initiative into another igougo game? Did it improve the experience? Is there any demand for a similar mechanic, anywhere else? Because I see a mechanic that is not only keeping players out of the game but one that is deeply unpopular even among the existing community that puts up with it. Supporters commonly claim AoS is better for having the double, I say prove it.

This is the exact opposite of my issue. All I do is make sure to build my list for lower drops and bam, game variance drops considerably. Because I choose second and if I get a double that's it; game won with trivial effort and no need (or even opportunity) to practice my skills as a player. My extreme distaste is driven not by the variance the double introduces, but by the variance is takes away. That remains true up to the highest levels of play. The arguments raised here are well reasoned and would be entirely valid, IF the double turn increased variance. But it does the opposite. From a more practical perspective, have you tried introducing random initiative into chess? Did it improve the play experience?

To answer the question directly; I don't. I've stopped playing (and buying) 40k entirely because the bloat made it no longer fun. Even for AoS I buy less models than I used to. But I feel GW did a big step in the right direction with starting up the quarterly balance sheets, and going out of their way to announce the significant point increase to stormdrake guard before they went on pre-order. They would have stood to profit off leaving that information only with the balance sheet but instead took the (albeit small) cost in favor of helping the community. That's pretty big for me. There have been a lot of campaign book releases for AoS, but I felt like I got my money's worth from all of them. They delivered good narrative, good writing, and a lot of very solid content. Again much of it focused on improving play experience. I feel like the newest GHB has delivered an overall great set of scenarios again, I like the design of the battlepack and I like that they added a narrative surrounding that battlepack. Having it spiral bound is well worth the extra cost associated. Zooming out a bit, 2nd edition was a good period for AoS and I was worried it would be looked back upon as the 'golden age' after 3rd screwed things up. But 3rd has turned out to be a lot of fun and while I really dislike certain aspects the overall experience has improved. So do I 'accept' the mess? As established right off, no, because it has affected my purchasing. But my tolerance is more nuanced than 'yes' or 'no'.

Witnessed at LVO

The double turn does add uncertainty--I am uncertain if I will get the double and auto-win with no effort or if I won't and actually have to play the game instead of it just giving me victory.

Technically all heroes have access to command traits via the core rules ones, but I see your point. Good catch on the venom-rules interaction, I did not think of that. But it does have me thinking... what if it was a mount trait that added 1 to the number of MWs dealt by venom? Then it could be used by a scuttle boss or arachnarok shaman, and would be potent additional damage without causing absurd doubling exploits (since multipliers are applied before additions). That is of course just an idea, the artifact certainly seems solid to me as it is.

Fyreslayers were and are quite potent when fielded the right way--not winning tournaments perhaps but a solid 4-1 army. The reality is Hzerkers are OP for the cost, because they are priced as 2W infantry when realistically speaking they act as 4W infantry on the field. But the upcoming nerf to aurics hurts a key piece of Fyreslayer play in 3rd edition and that will doom them in tourney play at least until the new tome. None of this even touches the issue that spamming that kit is expensive, tedious, and not much fun. Vulkites being inferior further hurts the tiny variety Fyreslayers already have, and the updated warscrolls don't alter that either. Couple with expensive direct only heroes and an awful set of allegiance abilities only propped up by ludicrously powerful sub-factions... it's no mystery why they are an unpopular army.

I think you have a good set of rules there, I am generally prepared to cringe when reading custom fan rules but you did a good job keeping them functional and in line. I do think they could be refined; I think the 'attack when they die' bit is strongly tied to a berserker aspect in AoS so isn't entirely appropriate here, but I get what your going for. Meanwhile a 6+ ward is a perfect adaption of concept to mechanic in line with how similar effects are done elsewhere in AoS. I would remove the attack-on-death bit but instead buff the ward to 5+ under the bad moon. Weapon is solid, though I think 3 is fair it may result in a shock factor against other players leading to sentiment of OP house rules. The hazard of this sort of thing is they generally need to be weaker than normal to avoid that accordingly d3 instead of 3 would probably be a wise choice even if the nerf is underserved. That said... have you considered making it a mount trait? The command trait amounts to the general always being a shaman on arachnarok--I think that's fine but do not know if that is your intent. You could make it a spell instead; cast on a 6 and target a friendly spiderfang wholly within 18" to be a longer-range counterpart to mystic shield. Commentary on rules aside, I love the lore! It is very thematic and fitting to AoS as a setting. Great idea, great execution!

Ehh... they aren't just updated versions of old units though. Vindictors to Liberators somewhat but that still leaves out dual wielding and grand weapons. Vanquishers are different from Liberators, Vigilors are different from Hubters, Annihilators are wholly different from other Paladins. While the SCE has a broad roster I do like how these units landed in unique niches and I feel the army is in a better place for that. Where I think it better applies is character options. SCE already have far too many; the Knight-Relictor would have made for a great Lord-Relictor individual release and the Knight-Arcanum a great Lord-Arcanum. Lord level characters in general could have been given the Thunderstrike keyword for free, representing refinements to their armour even if not a full set of new gear.

Underserved or not, rules are rules; by all means issue criticism but still gotta live with em.

I fixed up the old PtG system back during 1st-2nd edition, still continue due to update & use it. It's in my sig, if you're interested. If you have your own system that was already working (albeit for 40k) I would reccomend adapting it over trying to fix the current PtG. It's going to be a lot of effort either way so better to start with a system that works in another game than one which doesn't work for AoS.

I think GW has not provided content for the new PtG such that it is meaningful. It's a bland counterpart to 40k's Crusade and IMO it will always be pretty janky without heavy modification. I would even go so far as to advise an escalation league with matched play rules as a better choice.

I like it too. The downside to me is not save stacking but the loss of unique command abilities from battletomes--yeah some were bland but getting rid of ALL of them? Fortunately Maggotkin took a step in the opposite direction with a really cool one on Glottkin. I agree that save stacking is not a problem with the system but with the specific units involved. I quite enjoy the dynamic overall and how it keeps no-rend attacks relevant.

So I was thinking the other day about how GW handled Thunderstike SCE vs Primaris Space Marines. I feel like they did with SCE what they should have done with Primaris; the new models have new armor and equipment but the people inside are the same. And on the flipside they made it quite explicit in the battletome how now every SCE can even use Thunderstrike and it isn't an unlimited supply, so the older units are still very much utilized for Stormhosts that have them while there are also new hosts with just Thunderstrike armour. It's a perfect way to add in a new look while keeping everything valid and letting people customize how they like. Big thumbs up from me on that one!

For whatever reason there's no Warcry discussion going on TGA anymore dunno if it's Warcry that has gone down in popularity as a whole or if its localized.

Well it's been a while, times are crazy, Nurgle remains abroad, and GW's Path to Glory content has been... let's just leave it at 'not as good as 40k Crusade'. But RtR carries on with the 2.3 update! -Various balance tweaks, as always. -Warband tables have been gone through to improve availability of 5-man monstrous infantry/cavalry units (to avoid the coherency issues of 6-man). -Nurgle has been updated to reflect the new battletome. -Major overhaul to the Rewards to bring them in line with the new edition and cut out some bloat. -Scenario document updated with new options & updated FFA/Alternate-by-Phase rules which should now be smoother and more intuitive. I hope you all enjoy!

That's a good idea--battleline don't cost reinforcement points. Wholly disagree on battleline-if. I find it one of the most fun ways to allow for customized, thematic armies without causing balance issues. I would like to see more options tied to the general choice, even. The units in question should be appropriately costed regardless, massive imbalances created are almost always because the unit in question was not. But them I'm a person who sees the concept of steam tank battleline and gets excited over the narrative of fighting a tank brigade.

I would like to see the reinforcement limit done away with--the problem was always with inappropriate horde discounts and not with hordes themselves. I do love the standardized unit sizes it brought though, great quality of life change with 3rd.

I like the save vs rend stacking dynamic, with a cap to make sure things don't get out of hand. Keeps rend - relevant as well.

While I do not feel changing AoS to S/T is a good idea, I think a community project to create house rules for it is. Optional supplement has a very different vibe to mandatory change.

Do your hell pits all use Doomwheel-based movement? Because if the answer is no... Some limb grafts would let doomwheels be used as stormfiends too!

Yeah monsters really needed a buff as did single heroes. Which have both been great facets of AoS 3rd, but they double buffed hero monsters... which were already being used. So GW's cunning master plan was to take the stuff people already had and make it strongest. While also providing an entirely reasonable buff to underused models in exactly the manner players asked for, and getting rid of horde discounts to improve game balance... like players asked for. They doubled down by going out of their way to announce a significant nerf to drakes (which players asked for) just BEFORE they got released. Clearly the actions of a company using the meta for profit.

You mount a rat ogor torso on top and run it as a counts-as hell pit abomination silly! Two side by side with a bell chained between them make for a Screaming Bell. Could definitely have a vermin lord using one like one of those one-wheeled skateboard thingies. There are much-many ways to add more doomwheels!

Wow I can't attend but definitely want to read up on how it goes!