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.

it seems like we're reaching the end of 3rd edition, and 4th edition is on the horizon. with any edition turnovers, change is inevitable... so what do you think needs changing? are there any rules you want altered, or something taken out/added?

i think AOS is in a really good spot right now, so i don't have much to say on this topic, but i think it could be interesting to allow for characters attaching to units. 10th edition's implementation of the idea is a bit shaky, but if it's more of a WHFB/HH sort of thing, where characters don't rely on joining units for their abilities, it could add a little to the game

No characters in units. If people want that, TOW is right there.

Warcry units to get properly set up.

Few things I'd like to see

1) Move the Double Turn into Open Play and remove it from Matched Play rules. I'm not going into depth on this one as its been hashed out so many times and dominates chat when it rears its head. Don't get rid of it just shunt it into open - heck that would actually give open play a mechanic of its own and something to talk about!

2) The reinforcement system feels clunky. I totally see where its valuable and I think there was a good move in making infantry blocks a little smaller for this edition to make elite and monster and middle weight units have value. I feel like GW overcompensated here and almost made bigger infantry blocks near impossible as an option.
I'd like to see some kind of refinement here so that players who want too can take more infantry.

I get that this is a tricky one because big hammer units with lots of models might cost a lot in points, but they can be very effective and hard to counter in the game.

3) Make banners and musician limits the same as leaders for infantry. So instead of "1 per X number of troops" its just a flat "1 per unit". It looks utterly bonkers when you've got 15seekers and of them 10 are command units with banner/musician/icon/leader and only 5 are actual troops.
Yes that's one of the worst examples, but it highlights the point that an troop block should be, well, troops not command units.

4) Add cavalry as a 5th unit type on the unit type and limits chart so that we've got leaders - troops - cavalry - monsters - artillery.

I feel like that would help cavalry start to become its own thing, perhaps with some unique mechanics as well. Accepting that for some armies cavalry might be smaller monsters and such.

5) RELEASE SOME ARTILLERY MODELS. Seriously a good many armies have zero artillery units to use their artillery allowance on.

6) Fewer new leader model solo releases. I totally get WHY GW like doing them, but some armies are more leaders than troops *yes looking at Fyreslayers*.

7) Retire some of the larger faction terrain and replace with smaller. Things like the massive Ossiarch terrain feature are - well they are just TOO BIG to be practical in the way they have to rebuild half the game table around them just to fit them on the board. Faction terrain should never be bigger than a large oval base at most.

Sounds like you just want fantasy at that point. Also hard disagree to the double turn. It's by far turned into one of my favourite features of the game.

Remove the bloat and return to the accessibility of 2nd and stop churning out "seasonal" change for the sake of change. I cannot be arsed to learn all this dumb battalion stuff every 6 months.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Warcry units to get properly set up.

what do you mean by this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Few things I'd like to see
2) The reinforcement system feels clunky. I totally see where its valuable and I think there was a good move in making infantry blocks a little smaller for this edition to make elite and monster and middle weight units have value. I feel like GW overcompensated here and almost made bigger infantry blocks near impossible as an option.
I'd like to see some kind of refinement here so that players who want too can take more infantry.

I get that this is a tricky one because big hammer units with lots of models might cost a lot in points, but they can be very effective and hard to counter in the game.

now that 10th has strict unit sizes and specific points costs for units, i could see AOS doing something similar (especially since that would do away with the single tag in warscrolls, which just feels clumsy). would mean they have more control over what does and doesn't get to double up

I've enjoyed AoS for the last two editions for the battle game it is(Stormcast groupie here), but also as a low-effort, quick-fix solo-coop experience. In this respect I don't mind so long as 4th edition is compatible with the current battletomes, as I like collecting the warscroll packs and missed out on the one for Slaves to Darkenss.

It feels like GW has been sitting on their own Shadowdeep / Five Leagues for a bit too long and 4th edition would be a good opportunity to explore that avenue with a solo-coop supplement. Then for 5th edition let it become a its own thing, as Warcry evolved from AoS:Skirmish.

Otherwise it's GW's best game and looking forward to what comes next.

If they drop the double turn I might get back into it.
That one rule has completely killed any enjoyment of the game for me. 1st and 2nd editions were the only ones I played and maybe 3 games per edition.
That double turn rule is probably the stupidest thing any game has ever come up with. I don't know how anyone can play it.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Warcry units to get properly set up.

what do you mean by this?

Exactly what you might think. Hunters of Huanchi have been the only WarCry warband done right. Individual components of the warband create separate units in the main game.

Uptonius wrote:
If they drop the double turn I might get back into it.
That one rule has completely killed any enjoyment of the game for me. 1st and 2nd editions were the only ones I played and maybe 3 games per edition.
That double turn rule is probably the stupidest thing any game has ever come up with. I don't know how anyone can play it.

Simple. Bad players complain, good players play

tneva82 wrote:


Simple. Bad players complain, good players play

You wouldn't happen to be the head designer of a certain Nottingham-based games company, by any chance?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Warcry units to get properly set up.

what do you mean by this?

Exactly what you might think. Hunters of Huanchi have been the only WarCry warband done right. Individual components of the warband create separate units in the main game.

idk, i think the way that most of them are handled make sense. for most Warcry bands, it's a unit, then a champion and a bruiser. unless you're splitting that up into a unit and two characters, i don't know how well it would work. there's certainly some where it could work, and the hunters are one such case, but not universally (and that's without getting into how this would cause roster bloat. do Slaves to Darkness really need more warscrolls?)

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

idk, i think the way that most of them are handled make sense. for most Warcry bands, it's a unit, then a champion and a bruiser. unless you're splitting that up into a unit and two characters, i don't know how well it would work. there's certainly some where it could work, and the hunters are one such case, but not universally (and that's without getting into how this would cause roster bloat. do Slaves to Darkness really need more warscrolls?)

It would work with literally all of them. It would be a way to add a bit more characters to these otherwise underwhelming subfactions.

But really who cares about Slaves to Darkness being bloated? It's a bloat faction, no matter what, unless you purposely limit them.

tneva82 wrote:

Uptonius wrote:
If they drop the double turn I might get back into it.
That one rule has completely killed any enjoyment of the game for me. 1st and 2nd editions were the only ones I played and maybe 3 games per edition.
That double turn rule is probably the stupidest thing any game has ever come up with. I don't know how anyone can play it.

Simple. Bad players complain, good players play

Smart players don't bother.

tneva82 wrote:

Uptonius wrote:
If they drop the double turn I might get back into it.
That one rule has completely killed any enjoyment of the game for me. 1st and 2nd editions were the only ones I played and maybe 3 games per edition.
That double turn rule is probably the stupidest thing any game has ever come up with. I don't know how anyone can play it.

Simple. Bad players complain, good players play

Some of us play for fun, and the double turn kills the 'fun' of the game. This one mechanic has really killed my interest in Age of Sigmar.

quite a few games have the concept of rolling for initiative each turn, usually but not always with some turn interlacing - the concept of going second in one and first in another is hardly anything new

though most games provide some way to mitigate one turn alpha strike lethality

is the issue with it in AoS more a case of the impact of it, or the concept of it?

leopard wrote:

is the issue with it in AoS more a case of the impact of it, or the concept of it?

Impact. GW games are full army alternate turns and one turn of an army can already deliver a powerful alpha strike. Getting two in a row even more powerful. It is somewhat mitigated because AoS uses more close combat and that is done with alternate activations going first between the players; however any ranged or magic heavy army has a field day with the doubleturn.

Again its an incredibly swingy mechanic that doesn't rely on anything in the game state; its purely a single dice roll and that's it.

For me the issue is its just too much power in one roll that can end the game early and also means one player is left without game agency for two whole turns; which is a considerable length of time.
With the high lethality GW goes for in their balancing this is further exacerbated.

Plus any of the tactics people talk about trying to mitigate the doubleturn aren't actually unique game tactics. Using a weaker or chaff unit to screen better units isn't inherently introduced by the doubleturn; its just bog standard good tactics. In fact its very hard to really play with the turn in mind because its both so random; and because most of mitigation means not committing to the middle of the table (ergo moving in range) which in a 5-6 turn game system isn't practical.




In the end if it were alternate unit activations and you got a chance at the start of the turn to double up one pair of units for activation or such then it would be strong but not broken; or if it were based on the game state (eg a player with 50% less points on the table had a high chance of getting it whilst one with 50% more would have zero chance) then it might work.


In the end there's a reason no other game uses this mechanic in this manner in this style of game and its not because GW thought of something awesome. Also I dislike the notion that a 4-6 hour game can be decided upon by a single dice roll that takes a couple of seconds and isn't the result of a long drawn out match of combat whittling both armies down to a single pair of fighters (or such); There's no struggle or challenge leaning up to the doubleturn. It's not an epic feat of tactics or luck and board control. You put nothing into it

I'd be happy if it were at least moved to open play as a feature.

 Overread wrote:

7) Retire some of the larger faction terrain and replace with smaller. Things like the massive Ossiarch terrain feature are - well they are just TOO BIG to be practical in the way they have to rebuild half the game table around them just to fit them on the board. Faction terrain should never be bigger than a large oval base at most.

You don't need to retire peoples models. All you need to do is alter the rules as to how they're set up.

I've been thinking about this and I had another idea: I hope GW adopts USRs for AOS. that would make the rules a lot cleaner, I feel. I come from magic, where keywords are super common, and they really clear up the game a lot. of course there's going to be a period of learning them, but once that's done, it makes reading cards (or datasheets or warscrolls) a bit easier, especially when trying to play quickly

Rules-wise for 4th edition, tone it down. Too many GHBs changing things up. I’ve personally played less of this edition than the previous editions.

Also, don’t invalidate Battletomes for the new edition(pipedream, I know). The downloadable Ironjawz and the forthcoming Darkoath thing need to be the standard. Update points and problematic rules issues that arise as needed in FAQs.

Most importantly for me, if I was king of AoS lore development:

*Spoilers for wishlisting lore stuff that I want*

GW have been making new army books for each new edition for as long as army books have been a thing. i'd say it's even more than a pipe dream to want them to move away from that model

that said, it seems like they're moving towards less GHBs. the new one is for a full year, rather than six months, which is what it should be

I don't mind new Battletomes for new editions - I think that's expected. The real issue there is the speed of new editions. I'd FAR rather GW went to slower edition changes and instead used the GHB more so.

But that's all leaning in to the pipe dream of GW actually doing smaller rules changes and progressive rules writing instead of "new edition new slate start over every 3 years" approach that they use now.

for what it's worth, i think AOS is much more like progressive small rules changes than 40K. i really doubt the new edition is going to completely overhaul the rules like 10th is, and since the game is in a good place, i doubt there's going to be as extensive of changes as happened between 2nd and 3rd editions

You can usually take the style of the last tome of the edition as some sort of indicator. And as FEC's book is the same format, i find it unlikely that the new ed is going to be a complete redo. I don't see that book being written off in just a six month period.

And yet GW have done that before now - Daughters of Khaine and Slaanesh both had very short lived Battletomes.

They were both emergency rewrites due to being overpowered. DoK in particular was "unfun to play against" according to a friend of mine at gw hg. And we've had no indication that the rules are getting a complete rewrite. I'd have expected leaks to start trickling out at this point.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You can usually take the style of the last tome of the edition as some sort of indicator. And as FEC's book is the same format, i find it unlikely that the new ed is going to be a complete redo. I don't see that book being written off in just a six month period.

one could argue that releasing the Chaos Suppelment for free would hint that it is not usable any more with 4th Edition

 Overread wrote:

Impact. GW games are full army alternate turns and one turn of an army can already deliver a powerful alpha strike. Getting two in a row even more powerful. It is somewhat mitigated because AoS uses more close combat and that is done with alternate activations going first between the players; however any ranged or magic heavy army has a field day with the doubleturn.

Again its an incredibly swingy mechanic that doesn't rely on anything in the game state; its purely a single dice roll and that's it

but that is the whole point of it, this is not seen as a problem but a feature to make the game more interesting and standing out from other games

people want AoS to break off the IGoUGo mechanic, so GW replaced the IGoUGo player turns, with random player turns and this is now the unique feature of the game

if the community wants GW to remove the "my turn-your turn" mechanic or the random turn sequence, they should be more clear about
people asked to remove IGoUGo as they wanted full player turns to go, the monkey paws curls, and random player turns they got

I mean I think it depends about what you mean when you say interesting. I don't see how its interesting to have a game that's already very turn swingy then have a double turn mechanic that makes it even more swingy with little to no player involvement.

It might be fun if games were 5-20minutes long, but who honestly finds it fun setting up a game and playing for 3-6 hours when a vast amount of the games impact is resolved on a literal handful of dice rolls?




I feel like every time people defend the double turn they either bring up that it requires basic tactics that are already present in wargames (and thus introduces nothing new); or they defend it by saying how it adds random or a unique feature. However they don't really show how that random or unique feature itself is a boon, just that its very nature of being different is a boon.


Which to me says that they don't really "like" the doubleturn; they just like something different you could replace it with anything else different.

 kodos wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You can usually take the style of the last tome of the edition as some sort of indicator. And as FEC's book is the same format, i find it unlikely that the new ed is going to be a complete redo. I don't see that book being written off in just a six month period.

one could argue that releasing the Chaos Suppelment for free would hint that it is not usable any more with 4th Edition

they also released the ironjawz supplement for free, tho. just being free isn't a sign that the rules are getting thrown out. if anything, i take it as a sign of the rules staying stable, or else they would've waited for a free supplement

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You can usually take the style of the last tome of the edition as some sort of indicator. And as FEC's book is the same format, i find it unlikely that the new ed is going to be a complete redo. I don't see that book being written off in just a six month period.

Didn't they release world eaters well inside 6 month of getting invalidated? Unfortunately late edition books have no quaranteed long lifetime anymore.

The new daughters of khaine army of renown looks interesting but not going to build one yet. Wait and see what happens with new edition.