Greybeard86

Yes, that seems what to be their approach. It is just that some people got excited thinking it might mean smaller armies (some argued that this would compensate for smaller tables). In the case of AoS, they seem to be pushing for more units as opposed to models. Honestly, I welcome the change, but I still think that skirmish movement rules are a mistake. Just check the "egg-like" cavalry formation and many other memes.

It seems that GW is trying to tie more AoS and GW. This is something that started with the transition to AoS and it seems to accentuate over time. So yes, I fully expect point increases. But if 40k is any indication, point decreases will follow shortly afterwards.

I think you are exaggerating. The community has had to create alternative rule sets because GW vanilla is very poorly balanced. Whether that "affects" you personally or not is a different thing. I think they need to stop giving special rules to specific warscrolls and instead homogenize them across armies. Much like they are doing with monsters, but more generally. Why are similar abilities not functioning the same way across armies? You can give them a flavor explanation, but having unit based abilities, interacting with 3-4 additional layers of "special cases", and inconsistently writen across battletomes / over time and editions, just messes things up. The rules become a list of reminders, not a logical organization of the gameplay. I despise gotcha hammer.

And yet things like the Swedish competitive system existed and did very well. You are pointing out obvious things that do not imply that "community" action is impossible. Heck, we have evidence to the contrary, so there isn't much to discuss on this. What if GW published the books for collectors, but simply had digitial copies available and frequently updated too? It has become painfully obvious that either GW plans better the rule release schedule or they need to be more flexible updating them.

Maybe, the wording just sounded very odd to me. Maybe it is me, though...

I am sorry, but that is just wonky and immersion breaking. Let me trample you, then let me lance you, but I won't do both at the same time...🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

My problem isn't even with the complexity, but rather with how ad hoc a lot of the abilities look. It is layer upon layer of rules that aren't following some general principle. For example, some cavalry cause mortals on the charge, others get extra damage and rend. But the models look exactly the same (in the case of vampire counts aka soulblight blinklords, black knights and blood knights both look like heavily armored shock cavalry), so why is that the case? And a wide variety of other differences between units, books and abilities. They "simplified" the core gameplay to add a million exceptions and "special rules" and now, not only it is complex, it just doesn't make sense.

My guess? They think skirmish is a more "modern look" and gameplay, so they push for that. At the same time, they want 40k and AoS to be a system for "battles" and not "skirmishes", as defined by the number of miniatures. So now you end up moving one by one blocks of 20+ miniatures while keeping in mind coherency, minding weapon reach, and combat position shenaningans. It is just plain awkward. You cannot have skirmish rules for so many models on the table and not become gamey and odd-looking. Some people just embrace it, I wonder how much it comes down to most warhammer players not having experience with other game systems.

Also, historically, how prevalent were true battles vs simply sieges or skirmishes? Furthermore, besides if those troops are not perfectly formed, the question is what is the better representation of combat. i) insisting in model by model combat; ii) modeling combat at the unit level. I think that is the true debate. If they want a model by model approach, then designing bases and models for it would be a must. Unless we are happy seeing the egg formation or other ugly things on the table. Alternatively, a more abstract representation of a "unit" would be a more elegant solution, and measures things from poisitions in the "block", not model by model. Some games allow for different formations to reflect adaptability (column, line, square, etc.), if we are concerned about blocks alone.

I would have liked rally, but in a context were moral is better modeled. Countermeasures to charge could be interesting, breaking the dreaded i-go-you-go, but not if they are so deadly they simply mean suicide from charging. I also like limitations to "unit shapes", but the current coherency results in weird ****** formations. The theme being that those are, IMO, potentially good design goals that are not implemented well.

I do believe they wanted to "sell more armies" by having more limited rosters, probably for the reasons you outline. At least that was the original strategy when AOS was released. But it seems that this has changed over time. LR is a "full" release, compared to things like FS (ugh) or even fish elves.

They want skirmish, but they still want to sell boatloads of models per army. That's my guess anyway. At the end of the day, "organic" formations and so on end up being a hot mess. Whenever they try to keep "free-form" and fix the resulting "creative geometries" it just ends up being a whole lot of new gamey arrangements. The miniatures, their footprint / bases, are not designed for gaming purposes, but for display. From the pokey bits to the longish awkward profile of cavalry, those things are not designed to fit "properly" in a very literal sense of gaming. That they keep insisting on restrictive model based rules is baffling to me. Stop patching the sinking boat. Either reduce model count and embrace skirmish, or go back to shapes. Also, I get the idea of previewing the rules to generate excitement. But coming from an iteration where shooting felt "too powerful", it seems tone deaf to preview a rule that makes shooting even scarier.

This. They have not designed bases with combat in mind, currently bases are display oriented. This, in part, is why the pile ins and combat ranges and what nots end up resulting in awkward configurations. Rethink bases and model counts per unit or rethink the rules.

I'd argue that system mastery bit applies to WS within armies, across army is the result of staggered releases and some armies purposefully being designed more for display and flavor than for the game (SoB).

Then do not allow them to be 10 man? The problem is more general, though, Tokyo drifting bases are going to be a thing if you attempt to represent individual combat with bases that are conceived for display.

It is designed to be a skirmish like 40k, but they simply keep adding models to the table. They are doing the same in 40K now (20 models blobs) and it is going to be a major PITA. If we cannot represent well actual individual combat, let's be done with it. Things like this are awfully visually and make no sense from a simulation perspective. Aside from being atrocious time-wise.

Honestly, this is an issue of trying to use skirmish rules with too many models; formations existed for a reason, both historically and in games. 40K gets away with skirmish a bit more since unit sizes used to be smaller (not anymore now in 9th, with super-prevalence of necron/admech/sister blobs of 20). The moment you start growing unit sizes the whole individual model accounting thing becomes impractical. So, how many editions with clunky rules until we get back "blocks/trays" instead of "handfuls of models"?

Yep. Probably they just think of it as catering to different publics, not as something that "sucks". Some people will buy Kragnos even though it sucks as a competitive piece. You are free to buy "loser" units from the books, even though as everyone says it is not difficult to spot the "worse" units. In a sense, GW is not making it too hard to discern. So maybe some people don't feel as "cheated" by the system. I guess it is different went they nerf things, as that then takes agency from you. Personally, I bought skywardens to paint even though they don't seem to have much use in game because they are the unit I'd like to paint the most (I think of them as dwarf cavalry). Ultimately, I think that it is a sucky system because it ends up creeping in casual play imbalances, making it less enjoyable. It does take some planning to get a balanced game, and not everyone might have the knowledge or the inclination to do that. But one might see that as precisely "rewarding system mastery".

Yep. At this point, when I think of gaming AoS, I no longer imagine a wargame. It is more like a board game and thinks are losely connected to lore and "battles", but not really. I don't know if that makes sense. I personally prefer wargames, but I feel I will get my fix from TOW, and to keep my sanity I should expect AoS to be a board game or "playing a dice game".

May or may not be. Ultimately, the point stands. This is a design consideration (rewarding system mastery), so we should expect some units being weaker than others. To what extent, it will depend, and it is hard to discern pure mistakes from heavy handed design choices. I wanted to make it clear. Thank Grungi a GW designer had the guts to come out and say it, I was starting to feel gaslighted here

Read the post above. GW absolutely designs to reward system mastery. I rest my case.

Thank Grungi! This is just common practice in the industry. I think it ends up being just better, as one can easily spot in codexes / battletomes which units stand out, and those the underperform. Didn't we just have a discussion about it regarding black knights?

What questionable practices? I am sorprised that, given your experience, you call them questionable practices. They do not think it is questionable to design according to the "rewarding system mastery" paradigm. I gave you a quote of a company admitting to it publicly in a Q&A. They do not think it constitutes any wrongdoing!

Finally!! Anything a tad more specific? Will it be like 40k detachments, in terms of flexibility in building? Also, what happens to the battline tag?

Stupid question incoming. Can you farm command points with multiple heroes and heroic actions? Or is it 1 per turn? More generally, can you perform multiple heroic actions per turn (1 per hero)? It says so explicitly for monsters, but I found the heroes wording a tad more ambiguous.