Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would agree with what Smellingsalts said. I think shooty armies could be very strong in a pitched battle, but their strength is very scenario dependent. In some scenarios, a solid amount of shooting could be very strong, but in others it would only be wasted points. Add into the equation that armies can run across the field and charge you on turn two, or teleport through gateways, or swoop down from the separate sky battle field that exists in some scenarios... Playing the scenarios from the books, there are just so many options.

I terms of screening, I do think screens should provide cover. This is more of a game design issue than a balance one, but I think players should be given the possibility of strategic positioning. If you have a unit you want to protect, you should be able to protect it. However, I do think cover would be sufficient here.

As for Allies, I don't think it's that big of a problem. There are so many synergies built into single lists, that you might not even get a stronger army from bringing Allies. Chances are you'd be stronger if you just brought your own forces with the right keywords instead.

Ninth, I have a hard time seeing how that would be simpler. But I do think both ways could work - using your method, buying Archaons Command Ability would be rather cheap, but you would also have to buy any other Command Ability you want to use. Using my method, upgrading Archaon to General would be fairly expensive, because it automatically gives you access to other Command Abilities in the army.

Actually, now that I think about it, your method is probably better. My method would put a blanket price on all Command Abilities in the army - whether you have 1 Chaos Lord or 5 in your army, Archaons ability would cost the same. However, with your method, you'd have to pay 1-5 times the price, depending on how many Chaos Lords you have, and how many of them you want to be able to use their Command Abilities. So your method would be more accurate - you pay for what you get access to on the battlefield.

I understand the apprehension, but I don't agree with it. I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that not all Warscrolls can be competitively viable in all configurations. But in terms of many characters, I think their Command Abilities make or break them. The Sea Helm is a good example here - without Totem or Command Ability, he's a pile of junk. With either of them, he's strong, and with both of them he's a monster. Totems are already priced for, in fact almost all options in an army are already priced for. Why not Command Abilities as well?

I would like to see allies as well (TBH we allow them anyway); something similar to what Kings of War has could be simple and easy. Maybe... up to 50% of your army can be models from the same grand alliance (no single allied army can make up more than 25%), or you can choose to bring in up to 25% of your army from one other army outside your grand alliance. So if I want to mix in daemons and beastmen and skaven with my WoC army that's fine, but if I want to mix in vampire counts then that's the only ally I can bring.

[edit]

Ninth, I have a hard time seeing how that would be simpler. But I do think both ways could work - using your method, buying Archaons Command Ability would be rather cheap, but you would also have to buy any other Command Ability you want to use. Using my method, upgrading Archaon to General would be fairly expensive, because it automatically gives you access to other Command Abilities in the army.

Actually, now that I think about it, your method is probably better. My method would put a blanket price on all Command Abilities in the army - whether you have 1 Chaos Lord or 5 in your army, Archaons ability would cost the same. However, with your method, you'd have to pay 1-5 times the price, depending on how many Chaos Lords you have, and how many of them you want to be able to use their Command Abilities. So your method would be more accurate - you pay for what you get access to on the battlefield.

I understand the apprehension, but I don't agree with it. I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that not all Warscrolls can be competitively viable in all configurations. But in terms of many characters, I think their Command Abilities make or break them. The Sea Helm is a good example here - without Totem or Command Ability, he's a pile of junk. With either of them, he's strong, and with both of them he's a monster. Totems are already priced for, in fact almost all options in an army are already priced for. Why not Command Abilities as well?

Well I would explain my reasoning but you seem to have done it for me. And the more I think about the option of buying command abilities the more I like it.

I think that as the homebrew comps, including the PPC, didn't fully know what to expect from the game, we put many limitations "just in case" it would break the game, or because it felt like the way it *should* be. Shooting and allies are two of these limitations, along with screening/look-out-sir.

I will talk it over with the rest of the PPC group tomorrow when we meet, and since it seems to be the desire here, we will probably remove the -1 to hit in melee from the PPC comp and balance ranged options if need be from reports.

For allies, the AoS way is to include any allies for any army. That...just don't sit well with us. If we are to remove this limitation from the comp, we need to discuss if it should be removed completely, or as NinthMusketeer pointed out, on a % and faction basis. For example, should Order be ably to ally with Chaos? Do you need one hero from the allied faction, as this is a minimum PPC requirement when you purchase your main force. Should there be a maximum % on how many points you can place in allies?

I would tend to agree with you, it doesn't really sit well with me either. But, I don't think that decision should be up to us, but rather to players playing the game. If a player wants to make a Stormhost of dudes that failed in the casting process and were discarded, then became corrupted and joined Chaos, who am I to say that he can't? If he wants to field them together with a host of daemons, why not let him?

It's also absolutely feasible that an Order army would work together with Orcs for a limited time, or with whatever really. From a lore perspective, few things are impossible. One could even go as far as to say that one likes the rules of an army, but not the look or the lore. So instead of getting units of that army, one could use other units and have them count as that army. It could be undead elves using the HE rules and allying with a TK army, it could be forest beasts borrowing the Sylvaneth rules and allying with Ogres, it could be anything really. If the concept was well thought out and executed, I would have zero problems with this. The only limit is imagination.

What I'm trying to say is, let people play what they want to play. Our concerns here should be balance and good gameplay only, it should not be to dictate what players may or may not do with their own armies. As long as bringing allies doesn't break gameplay, which I don't think it will due to the aforementioned reasons of synergies within lists, then why not allow it? I think mentioning that balance has been designed with single lists in mind is enough, the rest can be left to the preferences of individual gaming groups. After all, it seems like most people are already ignoring the "no allies" thing in the comp anyway (my group included) :p

Anyways, that's my take on it.

Indeed, that's why I want it to be a discussion. Right now, the "PPC rules" are that players decide beforehand how to play it, but that the PPC otherwise takes into account that you only use your own army list. This basically just means that the PPC isn't specifically designed for cross-lists, so it's more of a gameplay/balance issue than it is a fluff one.

But if gameplay shows that this clausel is unneccessary or unwanted we can just remove it. Before we remove it alltogher, however, we should discuss every aspect of it.

For me personally, I don't like allies, but my personal preferences have never been meant to be how the PPC is developed.

So the question still stands what should be the official PPC stand on this. And that can only be decided through discussion. If some people choose to use that rule and some do not, that is another question but we need a consensus for it to change officially.

EDIT: The rule came to in the beginning because everywhere people reported about overpowered combos that could be achieved in AoS, by combining X from that army with Y from that army. I don't recall specifically what they were now, and maybe that was all just an expression of the whole AoS hatred that was going on at that time (and at some places still is). So maybe it's just as well to remove that rule, and have TO:s themselves put it in if they want to?

In regards to the discussion on shooting, I still really feel like screening should be -1 to hit, one because cover gives no benefit to units with a save of -, and two because then there is a benefit to being both screened and having cover. Otherwise, the guy half-behind a hedge and the guy who has the tip of his hat visible from behind a boulder in a forest that is partially blocks by a line of troops both get the same benefits. An extreme example to be sure, but ultimately from a realism point of view it makes more sense to have screening be -1 to hit, however more importantly it adds tactical variety.

In regards to the allies discussion, I'd have to look up specifics, but I remember seeing a couple instances of seeing something that could be abused between two otherwise radically opposed armies. That said, given the sheer number of unit options in AoS such combos are rather few and far between. After reading what Solaris just said on the matter he has me convinced that an open-ended ally system would work (at least decently) well. Maybe just a flat rule such as "PPC if balanced based on armies being chosen from one faction. That said, an army can have allies, but the majority of its points must be chosen from the same Grand Alliance." This adds some structure while still being extremely freeform, and is also a preemptive restriction on potentially egregious abuse. Also worth note is that while free-for-all allies can be made fluffy and thematic, that doesn't mean they will be.

Just to play the devil's advocate for a second here, is that added structure actually needed?

I haven't really seen anything abuse worthy to date, so I would love it if you could give me some examples of game-breaking combos between armies. Even so, if a player were to find and abuse such a combo, assuming that the points cost of the combo was not so high that it wasn't an issue anyway, there would still be nothing forcing me to play against the player. For a TO it would make sense to make these types of restrictions, but does it really make sense here?

On the other hand, that could be said about force organization restrictions as well, which I am very firmly for. So, hmm...

Attilla wrote:
I think that as the homebrew comps, including the PPC, didn't fully know what to expect from the game, we put many limitations "just in case" it would break the game, or because it felt like the way it *should* be. Shooting and allies are two of these limitations, along with screening/look-out-sir. Edit: oh, and probably that units and terrain count as cover just like the "walls and hedges" warscroll.

I will talk it over with the rest of the PPC group tomorrow when we meet, and since it seems to be the desire here, we will probably remove the -1 to hit in melee from the PPC comp and balance ranged options if need be from reports.

This is an attitude I can get completely behind. I'm personally in favor or changing as little as possible and waiting as long as possible to actually implement suggested changes to avoid knee-jerk reactions and, as you say, basing changes on how things were in previous editions. The only house rules we use (aside from trying to balance with points) are to measure from the bases and to ignore silly charade rules.

The allies thing seems unnecessary because comp like this is likely to be used in a group setting, where people generally don't act like min-maxing douchebags, or in tournaments, where additional restrictions will be needed anyway.

One solution would be to add optional rules for tournament play, where you go all out on restrictions.

For my tournaments we are going to allow allies. This is the way of the future, 40k has already made it canon. AOS has as well by not putting in any restrictions. For our tournaments we will allow allies the one exception being that law and chaos cannot be in the same force. This is really only a fluff decision.

Actually, now that I look at it again, I think the current wording is fine. It already says "Unless agreed on beforehand", which should go for pretty much everything anyway. It's just another way of saying "Points costs have been set based on players using models from a single army list."

Another thing that I want to bring up is the stacking of abilities with the same name. In some cases, such as with the Sea Helm, it's fairly obvious that you don't get any benefits from having more than one nearby. In other cases, such as with the Bloodstoker, the Necrotect or the Mystic Shield spell, it is not completely obvious. And in other cases, like with the Totem of the Tomb Herald, it is fairly evident that one unit can benefit from more of them. In my group we have house ruled that no buffs with the same name stack, ever. It would just be much too easy to break the game otherwise. Imagine a Soul Grinder buffed by two Bloodstokers, or a HE Phoenix with double Mystic Shields cast on it for a +4 save. Yikes. What do you guys think about these things?

Solaris wrote:
Actually, now that I look at it again, I think the current wording is fine. It already says "Unless agreed on beforehand", which should go for pretty much everything anyway. It's just another way of saying "Points costs have been set based on players using models from a single army list."

Another thing that I want to bring up is the stacking of abilities with the same name. In some cases, such as with the Sea Helm, it's fairly obvious that you don't get any benefits from having more than one nearby. In other cases, such as with the Bloodstoker, the Necrotect or the Mystic Shield spell, it is not completely obvious. And in other cases, like with the Totem of the Tomb Herald, it is fairly evident that one unit can benefit from more of them. In my group we have house ruled that no buffs with the same name stack, ever. It would just be much too easy to break the game otherwise. Imagine a Soul Grinder buffed by two Bloodstokers, or a HE Phoenix with double Mystic Shields cast on it for a +4 save. Yikes. What do you guys think about these things?

That's why it's incredibly important to take out the buff characters as quickly as possible. And also why a Look Out Sir rule is a bad idea IMO. Stacking gives amazing results but it also depends on keeping those buffs up.

Just make it so rolls of 1 always fail (is it like that already? flgs league has that as a house rule anyway), and it prevents the worst offenses.

Can you make a new rules document to print off that is the full age of sigmar rules but with the PPC modifications inserted inside at the right points so i can bin the original age of sigmar rules please?

I'm not sure that is even legal.

i promise i wont tell if you dont! :-P

For PPP Comp v0.3 we will scratch the -1 modifier to shooting and melee. Some have spoken for this change, but none has objected. That leads us to believe that the majority either agrees or does not really care enough to speak up against removing it. So consider it done

We will keep Screening for now, though, as that rule needs more testing and there are still people wishing for proper look-out-sir or similar. We have added a small base size description to screening, to make it easier to tell what can screen and what can not.

Allies, lets keep discussing it please. Right now the PPC basically says that it assumes no allies when using it as is, but that players are of course free to use allies if agreed upon beforehand. Should we remove this alltogheter, keep as is, or change to read that PPC's points costs have been calculated and evaluated with no allies in mind but does not prevent players to use allies if they want to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hettar - that could be done, but I'm not sure there's much meaning until we have agreed on what rule changes to add in the first place

On screening; the current rule is not very clear on units of multiple models (I believe it should be that if the majority of the unit is screened then the whole thing is). I would still change it to -1 to hit rather than cover for reasons mentioned before, I oppose any 'look out sir' rule, however, as heroes' stats have been boosted to account for this (and certain models have similar abilities already as I recall; we don't want to invalidate those).

On allies, the arguments made by others have convinced me that leaving it as-is may simply be the best way. It lets the armies be balanced on their own (very hard to do otherwise) but also specifically lets people know that it's a 'soft' rule. This option also gives a written excuse to avoid people powergaming with multi-army combos. (While I personally think that's a poor choice over confronting the problem directly, my opinion is not shared by all.)

I played a very shooty Skaven list the other day with my Khorne warriors and Bloodbound army, in which I usually include a unit of Flesh hounds.So right from the start you can see I am a strong advocate of allowing allies. The Skaven player had two fat units of Jezzailes, a Plague Catapult, a Warp Lightning Cannon, 2 Poisoned Wind Mortars, and a 20 man unit of Poisoned Wind Globadiers. He also had a Warplock Engineer. He had units of Clan Rats and Stormvermin as well. The only missiles I had were a Chaos Sorcerer and a Chimera. We played the Hold or Die scenario from Age of Sigmar Rulebook. I was the Invader. I knew that my opponent would line his edge of the board so that the best I could do was bring my reinforcements in on a flank. For the first round 1/3 of my army took the full brunt of his missile fire. The game seemed very balanced and even though I lost, I felt that I had a good chance to win until the end. Missile fire was not as heinous as it was in WFB 8th because ranges are shorter. So A hand to hand army vs.a shooty army holds up fairly well. Screening was not needed because my heroes could lurk just out of range until I charged the missile troops with other units. I really don't think screening is needed any more. In the WFB rules people could make neigh invulnerable heroes using magic items. In AOS everything dies and players have to get used to that. It's now more like chess where sometimes you sacrifice the queen to get a win. You can't guarantee that any hero will live, so just make sure he goes out while reeving the foe! The primary reasons that I am against Screening, and not allowing allies is that I want to change the rules a little as possible. Things like measuring base to base are just common sense measures. I don't want my opponent cramming as many of his models on top of my scenic bases (scraping and ruining them) just so he can reach me. Not re-rolling a re-roll and always failing on a 1 also make sense because dice rolls should matter. The only real substantive rule I would make is summoning, and the PPC handles this well. The other thing I am doing differently is tournament scenarios. The old traditional tournament scenarios don't convey the story telling aspect of AOS. I am converting the scenarios in the AOS rulebook for a tournament format. One last thing, how should we handle Battalion Warscrolls? Without a cost I just ban them. Is that similar to what 40K does, or do they allow formations in tournament?

Smellingsalts wrote:
Screening was not needed because my heroes could lurk just out of range until I charged the missile troops with other units. I really don't think screening is needed any more. In the WFB rules people could make neigh invulnerable heroes using magic items. In AOS everything dies and players have to get used to that. It's now more like chess where sometimes you sacrifice the queen to get a win. You can't guarantee that any hero will live, so just make sure he goes out while reeving the foe!

I'm a bit confused here because to my eyes this carries a number of contradictions; you mention keeping heroes out of range until enemy missile units are charged, but without a melee penalty or a screening one, the only thing that matters is the number of dead enemies as they will hit you just the same either way. You describe how heroes die more easily, yet this is an argument in favor of making them harder to kill with shooting, not easier. You mention the strategics of chess in an argument favoring the removal of tactical options; unit placement matters much less if screening isn't in play. I (think I) understand the point you are making, but I am fuzzy about the argument you are using to deliver it. Am I missing a piece of the puzzle?

Things like measuring base to base are just common sense measures. I don't want my opponent cramming as many of his models on top of my scenic bases (scraping and ruining them) just so he can reach me.The only real substantive rule I would make is summoning, and the PPC handles this well.

Personally (and to my perception a lot of players have a similar view) the game doesn't make sense when a unit is shooting past the guys hitting them in the face with axes to hit the single model behind them, with no penalty whatsoever. Add this to the more objective sense that removing screening is removing tactical options that were otherwise present. I do prefer having a penalty for being in melee as well, but support the removal of that due to keeping as little changes as possible. I know this is your perspective as well, but ultimately this comp is about making the game more fun, and I feel that removing screening (or some equivalent) makes it less fun in the end. There is a balance to be had between minimal changes and promoting game functionality; for example, PPCs solution to summoning is hardly the most simple out there but I have yet to see a better option.

The other thing I am doing differently is tournament scenarios. The old traditional tournament scenarios don't convey the story telling aspect of AOS. I am converting the scenarios in the AOS rulebook for a tournament format. One last thing, how should we handle Battalion Warscrolls? Without a cost I just ban them. Is that similar to what 40K does, or do they allow formations in tournament?

I agree that the scenarios listed aren't very suited for tournaments (with AoS). Personally I view them as the basic game scenarios rather than actual tournament ones - I feel they would be better presented that way. What do you think? On Battalions, the way we play at my flgs is that battalions are free; the cost is having to bring the exact models listed (which are often slightly less than idea choices). Aside from a few outlying ones (I'm looking at you Daemon Cohort of Tzeentch) I think it works well enough to not be worth messing with on the grounds of making as little changes as reasonably possible. But I don't feel very strongly on that one.

Smellingsalts wrote:
I played a very shooty Skaven list the other day with my Khorne warriors and Bloodbound army, in which I usually include a unit of Flesh hounds.So right from the start you can see I am a strong advocate of allowing allies. The Skaven player had two fat units of Jezzailes, a Plague Catapult, a Warp Lightning Cannon, 2 Poisoned Wind Mortars, and a 20 man unit of Poisoned Wind Globadiers. He also had a Warplock Engineer. He had units of Clan Rats and Stormvermin as well. The only missiles I had were a Chaos Sorcerer and a Chimera. We played the Hold or Die scenario from Age of Sigmar Rulebook. I was the Invader. I knew that my opponent would line his edge of the board so that the best I could do was bring my reinforcements in on a flank. For the first round 1/3 of my army took the full brunt of his missile fire. The game seemed very balanced and even though I lost, I felt that I had a good chance to win until the end. Missile fire was not as heinous as it was in WFB 8th because ranges are shorter. So A hand to hand army vs.a shooty army holds up fairly well. Screening was not needed because my heroes could lurk just out of range until I charged the missile troops with other units. I really don't think screening is needed any more. In the WFB rules people could make neigh invulnerable heroes using magic items. In AOS everything dies and players have to get used to that. It's now more like chess where sometimes you sacrifice the queen to get a win. You can't guarantee that any hero will live, so just make sure he goes out while reeving the foe! The primary reasons that I am against Screening, and not allowing allies is that I want to change the rules a little as possible. Things like measuring base to base are just common sense measures. I don't want my opponent cramming as many of his models on top of my scenic bases (scraping and ruining them) just so he can reach me. Not re-rolling a re-roll and always failing on a 1 also make sense because dice rolls should matter. The only real substantive rule I would make is summoning, and the PPC handles this well. The other thing I am doing differently is tournament scenarios. The old traditional tournament scenarios don't convey the story telling aspect of AOS. I am converting the scenarios in the AOS rulebook for a tournament format. One last thing, how should we handle Battalion Warscrolls? Without a cost I just ban them. Is that similar to what 40K does, or do they allow formations in tournament?

Not re-rolling a reroll is already in the four page rules. A 1 always fails though... I'm very hesitant to change it until I've played enough to be VERY sure that it makes the game worse and that 1+ anything is so common that it becomes a big problem. I'm not convinced but we'll see. I agree that summoning needs substantial changes, and we also measure base to base. Unsure about screening yet. I tend to think that all cover should be able to screen, just like the "walls and fences" war scroll. Units, I don't know, I'll probably do like you and let it be.

40k tournaments generally allow formations without cost or penalty.

Oh, I see where you might be confused by my post. Sometimes it is difficult to convey everything in a short text. Basically, what I am saying is that in AOS there are no "unkillable characters" wheras in the old WFB there were, or at least it was very difficult. In AOS you can kill anything if you want to spend the resources to do it. Much of AOS is resource allocation. Having been a victim of the hobby killer character combos of WFB 8th, I like that about the game. So why do I not think screening is needed? Reason #1 Heroes take longer, need more resources to kill (although they can be killed, yeah).

Now it is true that missile weapons can single out Heroes, but I think that's why Heroes have more wounds and better saves. Also, many of the things that use to kill you outright with no save (thinking of you Empire Great Cannon) now allow a save (even at -2 rend I'll take it!). Reason #2 Missile weapons are less effective.

Nothing stops missile troops from firing out of a melee they are in and at something else like a Hero. Nothing except maybe being dead. In old WFB 8th there were missile troops that could also be good fighters (hence my dwarf gunline analogy) in a AOS it seems you either shoot, or melee, but not both. In my example, when I charge a missile troop that is the end of their effectiveness because odds are they will die in droves in that combat, and more of them will disappear during Battleshock. By the time their turn comes around they just won't be effective enough to do much with their shooting, and they generally either flee the combat (so no shooting) or shoot the guys who are beating them down. Reason #3 Missile troops not good in melee, die in droves.

The chess reference was meant to allude to the reality that while chess players value their pieces, they will sacrifice them for a win. Because in our game, we painstakingly paint and model our pieces, build a story around them, and assume their role in battle, we become attached to them. So, unlike chess, we assign value to a game piece that transcends its usefulness in the game. In addition, in WFB 8th if you did not have characters and your opponent did, then you were probably going to lose. Not so in AOS. My units remain capable of winning the game for me, if I have caused enough damage to the other side. Whereas in 8th, a character on a monster could route a whole unit (even with steadfast) in AOS monsters degrade with damage. So what I am saying is that there are left-over assumptions from WFB 8th that do not apply tactically to AOS ie. the sentimentality assigned to a character combined with the possibility of making him very hard to kill, and the fact that in WFB 8th if the other guy had heroes and you didn't it could be game over. Reason #4 Sentimental value makes players feel overly concerned about hero death and the need for screening.

Of course all of my info is anecdotal. Maybe people play differently elsewhere, but I just have not seen missile troops as that much of a problem. If only there were stats to look at. As for your feeling that terrain should screen, at least on the plane of Aqshy it does because clouds of steam on terrain block line of sight past them. Hope that helps, cheers!

The screening rule as-is has both models and terrain screening (though note models from your own unit are ignored for LoS as per normal rules). I think the issue with removing it entirely is the sort of tactic it will result in. To go with the shooters in melee example I'm pretty sure that will end up with multiple lines of small shooting units spaced 3" apart. Sure the enemy charges the first line and butchers them, but all the other lines can fire (right through each other and the enemy, if need be) while the enemy has to kill them one at a time. Even without that, appropriate model placement of a single large unit can let you remove casualties such that no models are within 3" at the start of your turn, allowing them to move back and shoot. Battleshock can be a problem, but lets not forget that shooting causes that as well (and is cumulative with damage from magic & melee). We can leave the shooting as it is and balance points appropriately, but it doesn't seem right to me that shooting units should be inherently better than melee ones (which, without some sort of restriction, they seem to be imo), and it also runs into issues where a shooting unit must spend several rounds shooting in order to be worth its points; if it doesn't it isn't worth the cost, but if it gets a good game in its worth much more. This is of course a factor for anything, but I think the wide variation would cause more unbalanced matches then it would be worth in rule simplicity.

To Mymearan; making a 1 always fail is less about affecting the game as it is and more about nipping potential problems before they start. Mystic shield stacking is the classic example, but it isn't a very good one. For an example from my Nurgle daemons, I know that taking 3 copies of Epidemius (every herald on Palanquin is now an Epidemius (dumb I know)) and killing 21 enemy models will give every nurgle model on the table +3 to saves, giving a 1+ to all my GUO, NDP, Heralds, and any allies I may have brought from WoC. This can go away if you kill them, but they have a 1+ as well. Of course I won't ever do this outside of a silly game, but that's the sort of thing that can be simply addressed by having a 1's always fail rule. Not to mention it seems to be a common house rule anyways (I know my flgs has it).

My League is meeting on Sunday. We will play without screening, and I will gather as much info as I can on shooting effectiveness. I hear what Ninth is saying about spacing out your shooty units. But for every tactic, there is as a counter tactic. I don't know the other army lists that well. But to give two examples of defeating the spacing of missile troops: 1) My Slaughter Priest can force a gun line to run towards me, thereby messing up my opponent;s careful spacing and 2) Any Lord with the Khorne mark can pile in from 6 inches away, so depending on how I place him I can hit the second unit. And that's not including terrain like using a Baleful Gate to appear behind/ near a gun line to set up the charge. We need to hear from more people who may be having trouble with missile troops to assess how dangerous they are. I have a Wood Elf army, maybe I'll break it out and give it a try! Ninth, are you playing pure Nurgle? We have a player that uses pure Nurgle and so far he seems to be doing fine. He puts Plague Bearers in a Death Star and gets the -2 to be hit by missiles. When you add in his 5+ re-rollable save and 5+ endurance, and any bonuses from Epy and he just walks through missile troops. You could also just take a Skull Cannon of Khorne (call it a Bile Cannon to make it fluffy) and give them some of their own medicine!

I don't have problems with missile troops, I'm taking this stance because I think it makes for a better game. There are indeed counter tactics, but naming very specific models to a very general tactic doesn't make for a good example, if I am not playing Khorne then the (valid) options you listed aren't helpful. And tactics is where I feel the benefits of screening show most; it adds tactical positioning in movement that was not present before. With screening, the missile layers tactic I mentioned can still be done to maximize fire at a penalty, but one could also position such that the enemy is not screened by your own troops, while the enemy could also be counter-positioning to screen his important targets. As it is (with screening) I can take advantage of the plaguebearer's ability to use them as screens for heralds on foot, getting the enemy to target more durable models. That is a tactical option that vanishes otherwise.

At the end of the day though, I won't be terribly broken up if everyone opts to remove screening and put shooting back to where it is without any modifications. I understand the need to keep things simple with minimal changes, but I really feel like the comp is better with screening or some equivalent in place than without. Maybe a decent compromise is to put it like this:

"SCREENING: If the majority of a model's base is obstructed by terrain or the base of another model when drawing line of sight for shooting, the former is considered screened. Screened models gain the benefits of cover. A unit is considered screened if all of its models are. Only models from other units can be used for screening. Additionally smaller targets cannot screen larger ones; models do not provide screening for those with more than twice their wounds characteristic."

This is imperfect to be sure, but also simple and unambiguous. What does everyone think?

One idea we had regarding allies was to force all factions present in an army to obey the force organization chart. That way, you cannot only bring a hero with a nice buff spell or high DO or a few war machines as allies, but would have to bring a suitable amount of troops to go with it. What do you guys think?

I think leaving it as "we balanced based on individual armies but feel free to do what you like" is the best option for what people want. I'm second-guessing my opinion on screening as well, for that matter. Thinking that most players who want a bunch of tactical depth are either not playing AoS or are not trying to find it in AoS.

I think that Allies should be used with the same percentages of key words effecting them, so only 25% of your allies can be War machines/Monsters and make it so that the Real general Command abilities do not work on them.

As for Screening i like it as its way better than a look out sir which is basically stealing the necromancers special ability any way, you might argue that people are not playing AoS for tactical depth but i think that's misguided as there's loads of tactical depth in the 4 pages of the rule book and screening just add's to it. By Adding in points and little amendments to the rules we are making it into a competitive game again which is a good thing in my books. In fact i would like to see AoS become as comp'd as 8th fantasy was in the end.

I am still against screening for two reasons. 1) I am against changing the rules unless a rule makes the game unplayable. Summoning in the rules as written made the game unplayable without some kind of restriction. Screening on the other hand is not needed to play. 2) Heroes and other units can survive without screening. For the second point I am assuming the players are playing a scenario and have more terrain on the board than existed in WFB. If you put sparse terrain on the table, and each line up on a side and run at each other, you will have fewer tactical options.

Even with terrain its pretty limited in tactical options (regarding getting cover) because shooting through terrain carries no penalty. Only units with every model on or within terrain get the benefits of cover. If terrain screened I think people would be much less likely to want a rules change (myself included). If it gets changed to make terrain screen, then we might as well add in unit screening since it improves tactical options.

Yet I can see benefits and downsides in equal measure for both options, so I'm too split to really put my vote anywhere now. I'm happy either way at this point.

Just play in the Realm of Fire. All terrain does better than screen, it blocks. Another problem is that some artillery pieces can be fired indirectly (they do not need to see the target). Since screening implies difficulty in picking out your target from blockers, why would you get any screening bonus from something that doesn't need to see you? If that is the case, then armies with indirect artillery just became better than those without (if you add screening). I play Chaos, and I am here to tell you Chaos players don't need any more advantages, but if you really want to make my Hellfire Cannon an expert sniper, you will regret it.