EMMachine

Hm, it would weaken shortrange shooting because those units often can only shoot if they are in nearly close range, but it would make long range shooting stronger (because it would basicly allow to shoot in your turn as well as in the opponents).

What about Kings of War? It basicly has 2 Rolls (Hitroll for Melee or Range) + Defence roll of the target with some units getting a buff to the roll. Actually I don't know if their was a change in 3. Edition.

Maybe 300 $ Australien?

You will have the Profile once + the ability. This is also states this way in the corerules, Page 6 "Attacking", "Attacks characteristic" paragraph 3.

So, mal ein kleines Update vom Discord. Zur Zeit wird der Discord des Sigmarpedia Wikis noch nicht wirklich genutzt. Ich habe mich jetzt entschieden eine 3. Rolle einzufügen. Zur Zeit gibt es Bibliothekar (also quasi Admins des Discords), Autor (die regulären Autoren von denen ich weiß) und neu Supporter. Supporter sind quasi Leute die Sigmarpedia unterstützen möchten, aber entweder noch keinen Fandom Account haben oder Sigmarpedia helfen wollen (aber nicht aktiv als Autor). Der offizielle Weg Zugang zum Discord zu erhalten ist über die Startseite des Wikis (dies erfordert das man angemeldet ist. In den Foren werde ich wohl keinen Link Teilen, aber wenn jemand Interesse hat Supporter zu werden oder einen Fandom Account hat kann mir eine deutschsprachige PN schreiben um eine Einladung zu erhalten.

I think you guys aren't even searching. You find so much stuff when you search on youtube for "path to glory age of Sigmar" https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=path+to+glory+age+of+sigmar And this is a narrative campaign mode that doesn't use points (and instead tables with predetermined unitsizes where you either roll randomly or choose your units).

The problem is, you basicly want to make the "Matched Play Rules" or better state "Pitched Battle rules" as corerules. That way, everything would become core rules including the stuff you call "scenario rules". (and it is not as bad as in the first edition, where matched play had many rules that are corerules now in 2. Edition). The point is. Breaking off the meta needs way more creativity than taking a fixed ruleset. Maybe the toolbox GW gives us should simply be inspiration for us. Do you think something like the Path to Glory Overhaul: Road to Renown Edition would have been created if GW never had released the incarnations of Path to Glory: My guess is no. GW made Skirmish rules 2017, and here we had rules for Hinterlands. Sadly Skirmish was last time used as White Dwarf rules and later was taken made way for Warcry. The Save with the "Anvil of Apotheosis". Instead of looking through warscrolls to make a character GW gave us a tool how it could look like to create your own charactertype. It's a basic concept, but maybe the community can build upon, after GW is only doing out of the Box characters into the battletome. The thing is, if something hasn't the "official" stamp on it, it is more rarely played. Power gamers were my main experience in 40k as well as Fantasybattle, it's really not fun. When basicly games are only training for the next tournament, and everything else is a waste of time. I remember that my group started a planetary empire campaign and lost interest after round 1 because nothing happend on the map. I have multiple WHFB campaigns (all based on the Mighty Empire rules and changed later). I don't think that we have ever played a map based campaign if GW hadn't made the box, but many still used maxed out armies (so you would have to change the rules that those lists wouldn't have worked . In the end houserules wouldn't exist if GW wouldn't give inspiration for it (with White Dwarf other other publications).

@Maddpainting So much this. I was playing 40k since 4. Edition and had a gaminggroup fokussed on Tournament play. The Meta vom back then basicly has burned itself into my mind. And I hated the meta, because basicly 3/4 of the units became something we called a "codex Leiche" ein germany (don't know if something called a "codex corpse " was a thing in other languages). The goal was playing the minimum of core units and trying to get as many units into the game that were mostly immun against weapons not having strength 7 at 8 at least. And here is the point, you are a new player, their is one ruleset, you have the experience of your own gaming group and the internet is full of Tournament netlists (+ everyone is trying to convert your list into a netlist). How big is the chance that you realize that games could work another way instead of swallowing the situation, becoming one of them and teach the same stuff to the next new person. This is as well one of the reasons, why I like it that their are 3 ways to play in the rules now. GW is showing that their is more than a single solution. It basicly needs people to show the other ways, that they even become prominent in the first place. + my gaming group broke apart in the time between 5. and 6. Edition 40k because some of them only had their 1750 Points tournamentlists and buying stuff for the new meta would have meant to basicly buy a new army (so I have seen all the bad things "meta" can do. This statement makes me actually wonder. I thought the first introduction of the 3 ways was AoS with the first generals Handbook, and 40k starting with it in 8. Edition When was the starting point in 40k.

I would say it this way. For regular units something like the living lore book could be a little problematic because a change would normally impact 8 realms (each one a size many times our entire world) and most of the time it's on pure balancing, But I would see potential in other cases. In the lore their are units mentioned like the Black Marines (Kharadron Overlords better suited to fight against Nighthaunt), or the Forgefangs, units of Stormvermin, wearing weapons that are closer to those of a Warlock Engineer and are better armoured. For such stuff a living lorebook could actually be nice.

The strange thing with extremis is, that they were their own thing having their own Battletome (in a time where matched play haven't existed yet, but were forgotten later, when Matched Play was introduced). In case of Campaigns you are basicly forced to discuss the ruleset (because you're normally don't play campaigns against random people, but in a group that gets the rules before the campaign starts. So it is no problem when the campaign ruleset differs from the Pitched Battle Ruleset. Forcing people that they have to use specific models in every game so the list even works is the worst thing so can do in a campaign because those forces models are often singular leaders, and where you would often have a subordinate officer (if you for example would have 1 army that is split into 3 (we had something like this with a Vanguard Auxilliary Chamber in Blightwar where the chamber was divided into a force led by the Lord Aquilor, 1 lead by Neave Blacktalon and one by a Knight Venator, the written story only followed Naeves part, but 2 of the 3 lists would be illigal in matched play because you need the Lord Aquilor that an Vanguard chamber even has Battleline. Matched play basicly forces people to play unrealistic lists in some situations, because it is meant as a serious Sportsevent (a thing GW games basicly never were meant to be). I don't have a meta. My last two games were sologames. And before that my last real game was 2017. The thing is, I don't like meta because it often contredicts how a list should look like in the lore. I simply do not play if the list is only based on maxing out, because it is a waste of time for me (never had an active group, so playing in a GW would be the only way to play and I had stuff like Archaon and 30 Bloodletters on 1000 Points in my first game). So how would you add the restrictions that Meeting engagements has 4 units minimum (spread through 3 Contingents) but you only need 1 Battleline, that you can only use 1 Endless Spell instead of 2, that you can only use 1 ally unit instead of the 1/4 rule), and that another list of Battleplans is used? (+ the smaller board with 30"-36" by 40"-48" instead of 48" by 72" For all this you would need a "do not use" rule or meeting engagements basicly wouldn't exist as a ruleset. Edit: also here an interesting statement of @Popisdead from the this thread that hits the nail:

I think debuffing shooting through a unit is less complicated than the priority thing. I have seen stuff in 40k where a complete line of sight blocked unit would still prevent shooting on a character on the open field (because the blocked unit was closer), or that people are arguing that a unit that is 14" away gets the -1 because another unit is a quarter of an inch closer. In the end the red unit is not screening the orange unit (not in the way it would be intended) but it would screen the blue one.

The problem is. Putting Pitched Battle rules on anything basicly can kill the lore. For example Stormcast can have Extremis Chambers (only with Stardrakes and Dracoths) or a Sacrosanct Chamber led by a Knight Incantor not having a Lord Arcanum. Both are not playable in Matched Play. the first because it doesn't have Battleline. The second only has Battleline with a Lord Arcanum. The problem I have Seen with WHFB and WH40k is. If their is only one ruleset. It is really the only way to play because nobody will say "we will ignore rule x or y". It's netter if you can say I add x or y instead of removing. People can rede their campaign ruleset without using any matched play rules, using Parts of it and writing other parts themself or using the Pitched Battle or Meeting Engagements rule entirely and add stuff. All of this without writing a single time "do not use this rule..." what you are forced to do if their is only one ruleset. (we had that problem with the Battleplans in 1 edition where every battleplan without sudden death had to state. "do not use the corerules victory condition"). And stuff like Path to Glory or the Solorules would be way more bloated with "do not use ..." rules. Because they don't use the points or armybuilding from pitched battle). Making the rules like a toolbox help people Experiment with them Edit: we even see this in matched play. Pitched Battles and Meeting Engagement share many rules, but still both are their own thing without referring to the other one, without mentioning that the unit limits of one system occur in the other system. This is the way how we should handle narrative as well instead of (we use pitched battle rules but not use this and that).

So it is a hardnerf if you would have a -1 on the red guy, instead of hitting him on the same value of as the green guy (because it is how the game works at the moment). The minus 1 would in this case make the game a little more tactical. Their are other people who want to bann shooting into a combat or shooting when you are in combat completely (and that would be way to much)

Ahm, look at my comments, I see the double turn as a chance for slow melee armys to get into combat before they get shot multiple times and one of the only nerfs for shooting would be that they get -1 to hit when shooting through another unit so screening is possible (or maybe -1 if the target is in combat). The people you want nerf shooting to death were other people.

The strange thing is, they could have Magore's Fiends or Garrek's Reavers instead (to have 2 old Underworlds Warbands in the Box).

I enjoy the world of AoS but not the way people force to minmax armies. I'm most likely more a narrative player where an optical theme and the ability to tell a story from the battle is more importent than spamming just the best units. Because of that I don't play that much because it's not really fun to play against a maxed out army. Especially after you are forced to take Hammers of Sigmar rules to even use him.

It's an interesting topic. Yes GW states there are three ways to play, but the borders of them are quite fluent. Matched play is compared with "Balanced games" but it is not the only gaming system using points (even though these are most likely only a clue, how to compare units not a real rule that two units with equal points are equal as good). It's also everytime the system that still has access to stuff that is normally meant for the other two systems. But I have the feeling that the Border of Open and Narrative play is way more fluent (where 1 way ends and the other starts). In my oppinion "Narrative" means, that you don't max out your army on the best units existing, but give the army a theme (one you think that it could exist in the mortal realms), driving the narrative. I have the feeling that every rule of Open and Narrative play can be played in both (and also parts of matched play) In case of games without using points we either have stuff like the Open War Army Generator. I made a thread for this but got no reaction: https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/27658-armybuilding-with-woundgroups-open-war-army-generator/ As well as Path to Glory, where you have the modeltables. Matched play and Narrative are more a mindset. Matched as a form of contest with standardized rules (Pitched Battle, Meeting Engagements, the reduced set of Realmartefacts) While Narrative armybuilding is more storydriven. Players can create their own ruleset (compared to Pitched Battle) and you have access to basicly the full rules of the last 6 years if you want.

Looking at this picture it looks like a fusion of Warcry and Warhammer Underworlds. It has the Models and Gameboard of Underworlds, but the cards of Warcry? https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/02/03/peek-inside-three-new-warhammer-boxed-games-arriving-in-2021/

The Carrion King knocks with the flesh-eater courts at the door and asks if he is a joke. They are basicly the only real rebellion in the Grand Alliance of Death. I have the feeling all the gods are flawed in some way. The chaos gods would most likely have won already if they wouldn't attack each other. Many of the Order Gods do only care for their own faction. Sigmar is basicly the only one interested in multiple races, but with his rushed handling and the tendency to brush stuff under rugs (Stormvaults) he basicly creates problems for himself and his allies later. Nagash is basicly a tyrant who wants to rule over everything. The beginning of the quote from @Eldarain is basicly his goal, (when killing anything that lives the chaosgods couldn't exist anymore), but on the other end, wouldn't he basicly destroy himself if he reaches his goal? Their is this concept hat praying to a god makings him stronger and most undead are quite mindless, that way they are not praying. A pantheon of the underworlds would have balanced it out that their is the single tyrant (you can't be everywhere at the same time) but at the same time each of them would be weaker. We at least have seen that Neferata would have made an Alliance with Order Armies (but got punished for it because Nagash didn't liked it. And Gorkamorka? Well he doesn't really care as it looks like.

Looking at something like target priority. Do you think it should be as strict as the Pile In rules (so litterally next target in inches) or more a form of obsticle? As an example: The green unit wants to shoot. Should their be a -1 to hit for the orange unit because the red one is closer or should their only be a -1 on the purple/blue unit because it is behind the red unit? 40k has still problems like this in case of their "look out sir" rule if the conditions are met but not in the way it is intended. At least in case of the blue/purple unit it would make sence, the orange one, not so much. Are we talking about the same azyrite Ruins? Try to hide behind these lovely doors, windows and fallen pillars. The two at the button are the only ones where models can actually hide. The others are at best obsticles to get the +1 Save. The only real LOS Blockers are the two massive ruins in the Azyrite Townscape In fact their is only 1 work around for the Azyrite Ruins to be LOS-Blockers, its basicly playing all ruins with the rules for Overgrown but I would have to look if those ruinwalls are even 1" .

I had played whfb since 7. Edition to somewhere after start 8. Edition + some years 9th Age and it was often a 6 with moving and still being in long range (or Darkaelfs with multiple shots, moving and long range. And strange their is so much stuff with a move of 4-6". Rolling a 12 on charge is anything else than guarenteed. Not every army has a fokus on cavalry. (In case of AoS, I had 5 games 2 of them solo, and all against Khorne).

I have the feeling you could scrap the entire shooting phase with this combination. You will either hit on a 6 or can't shoot most of the time, so noone would play shooting units (basicly like in WHFB where shooting was nerfed to death with debuffs). You know that every round could be a double turn. If I start, you can have a doubleturn in turn 2, I can have one in Turn 3 you again in Turn 4 and I again in turn 5. So how should buying doubleturns even work?

I haven't found a thread for that topic yet, and after it is returning in GWs Rules from time to time I would ask your optinion to it. Back in the first edition, when there were still no points, the community created a point system that was based on the number of wounds. GW has brought back a similar system with the Generals Handbook 2019/2020 for Open and Narrative Play (under the name Open War Army Generator) and has also introduced similar concepts to Broken Realms Morati or the Solo rules against the Troggoths. The concept is as follows. Each unit is assigned a specific unit type (most according to the number of wounds). The types are as follows: Horde = 1 Wound, Save 6+ or less (1 Point in the Armygenerator) Regular = 1 Wound Save 5+ or higher (1 Point in the Armygenerator) Elite = 2-3 Wounds (1 Point in the Armygenerator) Guard = 4-5 Wounds (1 Point in the Armygenerator) Linebreaker = 6-9 Wounds (1 Point in the Armygenerator) Gargantian = 10+ Wounds not a hero (2 Point in the Armygenerator) Champion = Hero that is not a monster (1 Point in the Armygenerator) Conquerer = any Hero (3 Point in the Armygenerator) The army generator worked with army points and randomly diced which types were used (some have a single unit while others have a combination for an Amount of Armypoints). In missions of Broken Realms Morati it was specified how many units were used and there were only Regular, Elite, Garde and Champion among the available units, whereby there was always the possibility to double the size of the units, thereby increasing the number of units of the given units counts as 2 units (i.e. for Horde, Regular, Elite, Guard and, in the case of the army generator, also line breakers). The same system was also used in the solo play rules against the Troggoths. Similar to the matched play system, the system also has its outliers, but I think it would still be interesting to discuss the system and its outliers. My idea would be to assign each unit of the factions to the appropriate types and to find the outliers up or down. For example Stormcast Eternals Guard units (the Cavalry) is often quite Highpriced in points (nearly double in matched Play points compared with other units of their faction as well as Vanguard Raptors. Freeguild Handgunners and Crossbowmen being Horde because of their 6+ Save Or that Savage Orruks only get halve the models they would normally have, because they have 2 Wounds Or that Blightkings have less models because they are in a highter Woundgroup I have the feeling if the army don't get maxed out, this could be interesting for campaigns (maybe a path to Glory like game). Did someone make experiance with the rules?

With this as Line of Sight rules, it is basicly not possible to hide Try to hide a Alarith stone mage. Thanks to the Stone he is sitting on, he is way above the regular units (or you see at least the horns) and if you put him behind a Alarith Spirit of the Mountain you will most likely see the rock behind the legs. We basicly need an more abstract rule (shooting through another init in x") so hiding is even possible.

At least it could be a corerule of some sort instead of a warscroll update. Which could be similar to fly or the cover rules. Which makes me wonder why we needed the construct on the Warscrolls "Fly This model can fly" instead of making FLY a keyword like wizard or Monster. The rules would have worked the same way. Looking at this point, the line of sight rules could be a problem as well. How are you able to screen if you only need to see a part of the shield or head to shoot at the unit. This is something where an additional rule maybe could help. Something like a -1 to hit (to show that it is harder to hit a unit that is behind another one (unless the unit behind is a monster or the Storm-shield rule of the Protectors (being in cover when behind another unit). This would strip small heroes of most of their support character if they don't have a bubble Ability, because most of them don't have Command Abilities on their own. How about takting the bravery of the hero for the battleshock test instead of being immune. Command Abilities are basicly orders the Characters can give.