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 think if you shoot into combat that there should be a penalty of some kind.

You shouldn't be able to blow artillery fire over a swirling melee and only hurt the other guy.

I don't care about shooting into combat existing. I care that in its current ridiculous form that you have no risk in doing it. You hit the same as if the target was in the open and additionally your buddies can never be hit. Even with flame throwers and explosions.

Actual battles involve risk vs reward. GW has moved away from risk vs reward and just do the reward part. Give options and tactics, but assign risks to those options as well. Thats how you have a tactical and deeper game. If everything is all reward, you really have shallow tactics and a shallow game, because the optimum choices basically make themselves available to you without you needing to give it much thought. That has been a problem with 40k since forever.

I think shooting out of combat is also fine for most units

Also equally ridiculous. We're in combat fighting for our lives but we pull our longbows out and start shooting at some other target 50 yards down range.

There are ways to do this where if you use your example and have 20 archers fighting 1 zombie, that you can say any models within 3" of an enemy model cannot shoot. That would also be intuitive and not jarring. Then most of that unit can still fire and its not grotesquely uncinematic. That rule was actually exactly how azyr comp (the comp that my group wrote before ghb points invalidated all of the fan comps) functioned.

There are many concessions that can be given to accomplish these goals.

I agree with those concerns, I really do. I think they are ridiculous. I particularly abhor the double turn (we house rule to push the first initiative roll to round 3). What I take issue with is when GW does something right they should be acknowledged as doing something right in addition to constructive criticism. Also consider that there are other people just as convinced as you are that the rules are fine right now, or have their own changes that they are certain would fix the game. What one can do to move the game forward most effectively is to take the good and the bad rather than one or the other. The TGA circle-jerk is just as bad as relentless negativity.

I'll give GW credit where credit's due. I don't have the new stuff in front of me but the cinematic spell effects seem cool as hell. The night haunts are awesome. The daughters of khaine also awesome. The nurgle book for the most part despite not being able to really hang with the busted stuff is awesome. They have done a great many positive things that I think are awesome (and why they continue to make me give a crap about if they succeed or not)

And yeah I know there are a bunch of people that think the rules are just swell right now, they kneecapped me in TGA when I was posting there and bash me on twitter and in facebook groups as well.

There are a bunch of opinions, and my own opinion is just one of many. But the one objective quasi-fact that we have is that there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of community stories where the AOS scene is dead or nearly dead, and dozens upon dozens upon dozens of stories where the fantasy scene is still quite alive with other games. In 2015... that just wasn't the reality. Fantasy gaming was fairly strong (sales were crap because of a bunch of reasons, but the game was being played everywhere through 2nd hand miniatures and 3rd party manufacturers)

In 2015, WHFB was *the* fantasy game. The others were played but were shadows.

That being the only real quasi-fact that we have to go on says that GW saying they want to return as the fantasy game means that they have to look at why so many people are not interested in AOS.

Some of it is simply salt over the old world dying. A lot of it though is about the rules and how the rules are abhorrent and not intuitive and too simple and don't feel like an actual battle.

The people claiming the rules are just fine have a lot of ground to prove that they can keep the rules as they are in their current state and suddenly become the #1 fantasy wargame again.

AOS I'm sure is making a profit over whfb for a ton of reasons (discussed in other threads) but they are a far cry from dominating the market in the fantasy wargaming department and based on their desired stated intent of wanting to do so again they must look at why so many fantasy players won't touch AOS and will stick with their competitors.

 auticus wrote:
There are a bunch of opinions, and my own opinion is just one of many. But the one objective quasi-fact that we have is that there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of community stories where the AOS scene is dead or nearly dead, and dozens upon dozens upon dozens of stories where the fantasy scene is still quite alive with other games. In 2015... that just wasn't the reality. Fantasy gaming was fairly strong (sales were crap because of a bunch of reasons, but the game was being played everywhere through 2nd hand miniatures and 3rd party manufacturers)

In 2015, WHFB was *the* fantasy game. The others were played but were shadows.

That being the only real quasi-fact that we have to go on says that GW saying they want to return as the fantasy game means that they have to look at why so many people are not interested in AOS.

Some of it is simply salt over the old world dying. A lot of it though is about the rules and how the rules are abhorrent and not intuitive and too simple and don't feel like an actual battle.

The people claiming the rules are just fine have a lot of ground to prove that they can keep the rules as they are in their current state and suddenly become the #1 fantasy wargame again.

AOS I'm sure is making a profit over whfb for a ton of reasons (discussed in other threads) but they are a far cry from dominating the market in the fantasy wargaming department and based on their desired stated intent of wanting to do so again they must look at why so many fantasy players won't touch AOS and will stick with their competitors.

This is a very good point.

 auticus wrote:
And yeah I know there are a bunch of people that think the rules are just swell right now, they kneecapped me in TGA when I was posting there and bash me on twitter and in facebook groups as well.

That reminds me, did anyone ever get back to you and apologize for dismissing your concerns over horde unit cheese? Either way, I'm sure in the next GHB they will take the balance issues you raise more seriously not.

lol nope. The goalposts just get shifted to something else or I'm told its not really that bad and the game is just fine and that part of playing these games should be knowing to switch with the meta every year and thats how it should be.

Well at least you 'got gud' with that Tzeentch army

True. I did indeed git gud lol

This is my personal view and what I have seen locally.. Fantasy was my favorite game.. because it was different from 40k

I will be the first to admit that WFB was a bloated mess and almost impossible for a new player to get in the game without spending a small fortune, plus painting an obscene amount of miniatures.
There was no small unit beginner game that new players could "dip their toe in the water"
Then End times happened.. about the same time I left my job of two decades to return back to college.. that meant no more extra money..

When AoS was rolled out a gigantic mess and was happy of that because if it was good, It would drive me crazy not being able to be a part of it.

They did some things right and did continue to fix issues.. Of course all the new miniatures looked great..
Even with the new miniature lines coming out, none got me saying "I got to figure out how to get the money to buy that"...
But my favorite army has always been Empire now Free People .. so no longer a strong nation... just a bunch of people... Naming can be everything.. So now your just "people"..
Plus no real codex which is sad because chaos already has something like six already..

Will I give AoS another chance with the new edition.. Yeah.. but that doesn't help the local area that dried up after end times.. There is a few players but nothing like before..
Having a new edition this soon makes me feel that the game didn't do as well as they are reporting...

So now we haven official new Edition?
I would would have said counted each time a new Stormcast Battledome were shown and the release of the Handbook a new Edition.....

So this game can be interesting.
Fluff is ok, not like the old Warhammer, but not more stupid than the stuff we got with 8th edition either

But it all depends on if the rules are making the game more interesting to play.
While Warhammer was always a unique gaming system (Skirmish with R&F elements and RPG like Heroes) AoS is just now a Skirmish upon others (and there are better fantasy Skirmish rules out there were one can use all the GW models if he wants to).
So if AoS 2 becomes a unique system again it may gets more attention

 Ignatius wrote:



So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .

Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn't game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics.
Also, arrows piercing heavy armor enough to kill is a myth. The longbow did not pierce french steel plate armor, no matter what the Brits will tell you.




Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren't even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor.
It was only until the advent of firearms that plate / heavy armor became obsolete.

Really, think about it; you're a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don't you think that after the battle you'd want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?

 Ghaz wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Seems silly that I can't shoot out of combat but I can shoot into it.

Unless you're Legolas, it makes sense that you can't shoot out of combat as you'll be readying your melee weapon. Personally I don't like shooting into combat without a chance of hitting your own troops.

If I can shoot into combat without hitting my own unit I can shoot out of it too. Besides in AOS they aren't readying anything just standing around waiting for their turn to punch people.

 auticus wrote:

And yeah I know there are a bunch of people that think the rules are just swell right now, they kneecapped me in TGA when I was posting there and bash me on twitter and in facebook groups as well.

What is TGA?

 D6Damager wrote:

 auticus wrote:

And yeah I know there are a bunch of people that think the rules are just swell right now, they kneecapped me in TGA when I was posting there and bash me on twitter and in facebook groups as well.

What is TGA?

This is TGA.

TGA is the "official AOS forums" and is heavily monitored by the gw dev team.

Additionally they have a zero tolerance for negative criticism of the game and you will get banned if you violate that rule.

 auticus wrote:
TGA is the "official AOS forums" and is heavily monitored by the gw dev team.

Additionally they have a zero tolerance for negative criticism of the game and you will get banned if you violate that rule.

What, really?

I’m on there myself. I hope they took my criticisms as constructive and not negative.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:



So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .

Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn't game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics.
Also, arrows piercing heavy armor enough to kill is a myth. The longbow did not pierce french steel plate armor, no matter what the Brits will tell you.




Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren't even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor.
It was only until the advent of firearms that plate / heavy armor became obsolete.

Really, think about it; you're a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don't you think that after the battle you'd want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?

Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.

There are quite a lot of shooting units running around with stuff way more powerful than an IRL longbow, just sayin...

 Mr Morden wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:



So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .

Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn't game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics.
Also, arrows piercing heavy armor enough to kill is a myth. The longbow did not pierce french steel plate armor, no matter what the Brits will tell you.




Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren't even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor.
It was only until the advent of firearms that plate / heavy armor became obsolete.

Really, think about it; you're a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don't you think that after the battle you'd want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?

Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.

Yeah, that was their primary purpose. Its just that he said that ranged weapons was used to kill heavily armored targets in classical warfare, but that wasn't true until the development of firearms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There are quite a lot of shooting units running around with stuff way more powerful than an IRL longbow, just sayin...

Which makes shooting into combat even dumber, as killing your own soldiers would become even likelier. For example, artillery was as dangerous to friendly soldiers as it was to enemy soldiers in WW1 in 2, as if the trajectory is wrong or the targets are too close there was a chance of blowing up friendly soldiers.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 auticus wrote:
TGA is the "official AOS forums" and is heavily monitored by the gw dev team.

Additionally they have a zero tolerance for negative criticism of the game and you will get banned if you violate that rule.

What, really?

I’m on there myself. I hope they took my criticisms as constructive and not negative.

I don't know how relaxed they got on it but i was banned last year for criticizing the game in the same exact way I post here. (and I don't really ever start many threads on it, I was responding in someone else's post criticizing the game)

Last summer the owner of the forum posted a thread stating no negative threads would be tolerated.

Huh, GW has forums now? That's neat.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.

Depends on the time frame we are talking about
Or if the Knight has a 3+ or 1+ armour save

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Huh, GW has forums now? That's neat.

I don't believe it's "official" otherwise there would be a link on GW sites. I think he ment the "Unofficial official forum". I could be wrong of course. Again of course.

No, it's the unofficial official forum, duh!

AoS seems like the perfect game to have a set number of CP on each side, depending on the size of the game (500/1000/2000/2500)

 auticus wrote:
Last summer the owner of the forum posted a thread stating no negative threads would be tolerated.

Not every post and negative critique is going to be moderated, they aren't that extreme but I feel that making enough noise will eventually get someone's attention. YMMV of course. I don't go there as majority of discussions is geared towards competitive play and I did get the feeling that certain views are better left unexpressed.

When I was posting and eventually banned they were pretty militant about it. That was last summer so its almost been a year so if they have softened their stance a bit, I wouldn't be surprised.

 kodos wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.

Depends on the time frame we are talking about
Or if the Knight has a 3+ or 1+ armour save

Yep, in fact at poitiers the barded horses were pretty much arrow proof. It was only after they got flanked and started to get shot in their unarmored rear that French cav began to take casualties.
Despite what Hollywood and Anime would tell you, armor is really, really good at stopping attacks. That thing about cutting through plate with a sword is nonsense.

 Marmatag wrote:
AoS seems like the perfect game to have a set number of CP on each side, depending on the size of the game (500/1000/2000/2500)

I always thought so too. But I think the malign portents system has it’s merits.

I like the idea of four ‘lores’ relating to the Grand Alliances that you roll off against (D6 + your characters). Order’s could be mostly defensive; reroll battleshock, retreat and shoot etc, Destructions could be mostly offensive; reroll charge roll, run and charge in the same turn etc; Death’s could be about hitting the enemy’s morale and raising your own troops etc. And it would be balanced. The four tables balanced against each other, and with everyone using them, everyone knows what to expect.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Killing the horses is also as important when shooting at knights and they are normally less well armoured.

Depends on the time frame we are talking about
Or if the Knight has a 3+ or 1+ armour save

Yep, in fact at poitiers the barded horses were pretty much arrow proof. It was only after they got flanked and started to get shot in their unarmored rear that French cav began to take casualties.
Despite what Hollywood and Anime would tell you, armor is really, really good at stopping attacks. That thing about cutting through plate with a sword is nonsense.

I do dislike how useless armor is in many settings; either opponents are so accurate they always hit the weak spots or more commonly it's simple to just cut through entirely. Warhammer has been somewhat reasonable in that aspect at least. On the tabletop not as much but that's a case where game mechanics come into play.

The last thing you want in AoS is invulnerable saves. It's beyond frustrating being unable to hurt things.