NinthMusketeer

So the classic Tzeentch colors are Blue, Gold, and Pink (in that order). Now obviously highly subjective but the teal prevents me from thinking 'Tzeentch' when I see those. Were it blue I think they'd be much more representative, thanks to the existing gold pips and magenta. I also do not feel it really sells as an eye (if that's what it is in the middle) I had to zoom in to make it out and only then did I realize. Making the central circle larger compared to the tendrils would IMO improve the design. That said the most important facet--there being nine tendrils, is already spot on.

I feel like there are some typos, will reserve judgement on those points to see if it is something that sticks first. I'm not really holding out hope, but am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the AoS team. -Monster herald, obvious typo -Gaunt lacking Arcanite keyword -LoC having 2 casts instead of an intended 3? It would make a lot more sense. Some other places where I feel the ball was dropped is screamers losing the bonus damage against monsters (I blame the on 'units get only one shtick!' policy that seems to be around), Changeling's staff not being able to copy an opponent's weapon, flamers still don't work at all like their fluff, and apparently no one so much as doing the grade school match required to calculate average damage output of tzaangor/acolyte weapon options (though if the paired hit on 4+ it would be fine). That said there are a lot of improvements too. For one the not-battle tactic allegiance mechanic always felt tacked on to me and I am glad it is gone. Tzaangor beak attacks being the same profile as their weapons (bar dual blades) is a great quality of life improvement, Enlightened and Skyfire new abilities are potent a create interesting gameplay without being smothering, AoE cast re-rolls are gone (obv cogs is a thing but still) while there is still SOME re-roll available via Tome of Eyes which to me is a good example of moderation, chaos spawn actually do something other than exist (even if I hate the repeated use of auto-wound-rend-8 mechanics), and every warscroll has a mechanically useful function and is interesting in some way (even if points cost may render them inferior). The book is also more coalition friendly without letting them have full access and I like the balance between the two extremes better than 2nd edition or the 'core enhancements only' approach of Nurgle. Much more items I am mixed on or need to see in action. Definitely a full range of good and bad here IMO, not good game design but it is certainly fitting...

I am liking that the new Tzeentch battletome is more coalition-friendly for Slaves to Darkness, while still not going full bore on letting them have everything. It creates a nice middle ground and let's people have fun with alternate army builds without exploiting them.

Still looking for a deal on this?

Still looking? I have the arms, for what its worth.

Technically if a model is beneath a platform no other model could move on the platform above it because that would be moving over a other model. For that matter, when moving across terrain technically the measurement must be made to include every minute variation; cracked stone? Measure in and out of the cracks. Leaf litter? Measure up and down every one of those leaves. For that matter there is no formal definition of what "on" means in a rules context which creates all sorts of fun weirdness. One could interpret the rules as allowing units to move straight up and hover midair!

Heads up for everyone; we have some new battletomes coming up and that means an RtR update! I have adopted a general policy of trying to update multiple things at once rather than rapid-fire small updates, so this will incorporate some general purpose updates as well. As always, please share any feedback!

Lol are you insane? I said don't overcharge them straight off, unless/until they are about to die anyways. We both know that won't be a long wait.

Those numbers are assuming no overcharge, it isn't something you want to do with ratling guns straight off. ~50% increase in shots isn't worth a 2/3 chance of death unless they are about to die anyways.

Two units of 60 Clanrats each with 6 hidden ratling guns and a warp-grinder, arch-warlock & 10 stormvermin bodyguard, itself with a hidden ratling gun. Hidden weapon teams don't take up a deployment drop so this can all fit into a battle regiment, ensuring second turn. Looking at about 100-150 shots with a 43% chance of double turning and adding 100+ more. Far from overpowered enough to compete with tournament fare but certainly viable.

I feel like there should be a standing rule that spamming MWs doesn't count. We all know spamming MWs is strong. It has been the one consistent staple of AoS tourney meta since it started. Doing an eccentric version of THE most reliably meta thing may fit the letter of the thread but I feel like it isn't in the spirit of it. Just my opinion on something very subjective though.

Weird to think about how razor-thin the margin was for Greywater Fastness to survive in the Seeds of Hope global campaign. We were very close to it being destroyed and none of this ever being written.

@Beliman bear in mind that overall tourney stats have a massive skew towards 50% due to non random matchmaking; winners v winners, losers v losers, etc. Getting the real win rates means only looking at the first round. But regardless, there has been improvement since early 3rd and that is positive! Anyways, anyone else super happy that GW took the step of making the new Warcry rules available for free download? And it's the full rules exactly as in the rulebook, not a slimmed down version. It will make recruiting new Warcry players SO much easier when the rulebook cost isn't creating sticker shock, and people who like convenient physical copies can still buy them. Great move from GW here. Then there's the rules themselves which mainly added reactions then just did a few tweaks here and there. Fantastic, since the ruleset was so well designed in the first place, and Sam Pearson knocked it out of the park again by knowing not to fix what wasn't broken. The narrative system got a total overhaul instead, which IS what it needed and I am excited to try it out.

Telling everyone to go play something else doesn't come across as helpful; the topic isn't about discussing ways to use AoS miniatures in an AA wargame, it is about how to make AoS itself work with AA.

So it's been a few weeks, anyone have any experiences to share?

Cutting half the combat phases out does speed up gameplay considerably, but that is a feature of your ruleset specifically and not the overall concept.

I am sure some people have that amount of time to devote but for my local community games are being played in the evening after work by people who still need to get up for work the next day. Starting a game at 6pm and having it go till 10 isn't something we want to play. Disregarding the value of other people's time is a sure fire way to undermine one's own success.

I feel like I went out of my way to point out that these are features which become exploits when pushed to extremes, and are factors to be managed rather than 'solved' then that was immediately ignored in favor of treating my good faith attempt at explanation as some sort of attack on the concept.

To go with a few examples: Some exploits are borderline; ttaking a bunch of small chaff units to bleed opponent activations, allowing your valuable units to act unopposed. To a certain (subjective) extent that's a valid strategy but it can go overboard. For example, many factions have no problem getting large numbers of cheap units with the speed to charge the most valuable enemy thing, forcing that enemy to essentially waste its turn killing an expendable unit unless it is cleared by another before that. In igougo a unit that charged in like that would be obliterated in the subsequent combat phase, meaning that to obstruct movement it would need to form a line 3" away--which leaves ample room for counterplay. But say the chaff is killed by a different enemy, opening up the elite unit again? The next chaff unit runs in. Unlike in igougo the other expendables don't have to move up at the same time in order to be obstructive; it creates a situation of needing to destroy them piecemeal, and even after that the majority of the chaff player's army still gets to go, only now they do it largely unopposed. Which leads into another exploit that is an acceptable strategy pushed too far; high value units. A unit that costs a third of the army's points means that army can have a third of itself act in one go--a powerful advantage especially with magic/missile units which can destroy multiple smaller enemies if needed. Combines especially well with reserves or the above tactic, meaning the value unit can go after the opponent has used most/all of their activations then activate first in the subsequent round for a guaranteed 'mini double turn' which is no major issue when its one guy in a skirmish battle but very different when that one unit represents a third of the army. A more basic exploit it simply range bias; units with ranged offense are inherently more valuable because they can more reliably target whichever enemy units have not activated yet in a turn. Many AoS AA systems I have seen proposed nerf melee units further by only giving them one combat per round instead of two. Exploits like the above are not always game-breaking mechanics, but they add up and in many cases compound on each other. A system doesn't need to deal with every factor but it does need to manage them.

Edit--double posted

I'm a sort of inverse; I enjoy the cognitive application but find the ebb-and-surge of igougo engaging, striking a good balance between needing to plan ahead and being able to react. AA I've only seen work well in a wargame (as opposed to skirmish) with Conquest. And I think a lot of it is down to what is not seen; many exploitative tactics taking advantage of AA simply don't work and so don't appear in gameplay. Writing AA for AoS would mean dealing with such eventually, another layer on top of basic functionality. Otherwise it would just trade one set of exploits for another, and at that point people overwhelmingly prefer to stick with what they know. Writing fan rules as good as GWs isn't enough; they have to be better to get strong appeal. A lot better. Which isn't fair, but equally isn't something anyone can change.

Alternate-by-phase rules CAN be slapped on top of conventional AoS without needing to alter mechanics or warscrolls. I can say from literally years of experience they work quite well, particularly in FFA battles where the basic AoS system falls through. Big advantage is that they can be explained in 5 minutes and take up less than a page.

I dunno... my experience with alternate-by phase lends itself pretty strongly to the conclusion that full AA would take even longer than that does, and I do not see any reason on paper for why that would not be the case. I suppose if anyone tries it they can come back and tell us.

I disagree. AA AoS is something I would like to see the community have as a resource but I do not feel it is something that fits it well at all. The very fact that it is so difficult to actually write a rule system for is precisely because AoS was written from the ground up to be igouo and has a large number of integral mechanics that need to be reworked. You even phrase it as creating a new game; if AoS really was well suited for AA it would not need to be. Conquest makes for a great compare/contrast because it is a wargame (as opposed to skirmish) which is written from the ground up with AA in mind. Having no wound rolls, for example, is a HUGE time saver, while the activation card mechanic eliminates a lot of exploitative gameplay maneuvers which can crop up in AA. How fundamentally different the two games are speaks to how deep the design elements need to be to support a certain turn mechanic. Ultimately I see many propose AA for AoS as if it can be an easy set of house rules slapped on, a far fewer number put backing to their words in making honest attempts. But I am not sure I have witnessed anyone make an attempt with a full understanding of what they are getting into, because every time I have seen an attempt made it petered out once it became clear how much effort is involved and how much clunkier the reality is to the ideal. Though I still would like to see someone come up with such a system and for the community to have a viable AA system available, which is why I am here in the first place and why I am so specific and exhaustive with pointing out things which need to be addressed.

AA isn't inherently better or worse than Igougo, it is just different. It is easy to look at the problems with the reality of igougo and compare them to an idealized concept of AA, overlooking the drawbacks which come with such a system. A great example would be the sheer amount of extra time games take; I'd put an (albeit very rough) estimate at 50% more time spent. Another example would be coordination, where igougo allows armies to behave in a cohesive manner; I can have multiple front line units advance side by side whereas with AA an opponent could jam a fast chaff unit into the gap between my activations. Understanding the inherent drawbacks and working around them is essential for making an AA system work. Those who seek to rely on the concept that AA is inherently better are ultimately doomed, as they are building on a foundation which falls apart in the face of actual gameplay. The concept has been around for ages, if it was really that easy to make AA work for Warhammer the community would have figured it out a long time ago!