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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
You don't play 40k? :O

I play Tzeentch Daemons

There needs to be an allocation rule, however, and rolling for every hit can quickly turn out to be too annoying (e.g. 100 shots by Bretonnia Archers...ugh!).

Randomizing allocation is stupidly easy in AOS: 100 shots @ 4+ to hit; 50 shots @ 4+ to wound; 25 shots @ 4+ to hit enemy; 13 enemy saves / 12 friendly saves. Bam. Adds two dice rolls max - one to allocate, one for friendly saves if needed. And you're playing this game to roll dice.

How about just letting all missed hits hit your own unit instead?

AOS feels more and more like 3E 40k, where missed shots sail off into the nether. Having 100% of your shooting hit something feels like it violates this. Though I can dig the concept, the concentration of bodies means those shots are landing somewhere.

This definitely makes shooting into your own units a lot less attractive and risky, but that's the price you gotta pay if you want to take the risk.

Is it too high a price though? Randomizing hits means you have exactly the same chance of hitting your dudes as the other dudes. Allocating misses onto your dudes means it's extremely likely you will hit your dudes, no matter what. I feel as if the former is more in line with AOS - where shooting into combat serves a balancing purpose in regards to heroes and troops with multiple wounds - while the latter is super prohibitive.

^ That said, I still like it better than just mathematically halving

- Salvage

There are a few of reasons why I don't like randomizing allocations.

1) its another layer of dice rolling. Adding another dice rolling layer is to me not attractive. However - as a guy that likes to retool rules I say if you enjoy that kind of thing please have at it.

2) it benefits elite units because I've seen units getting buffs so they are 2+ to hit. Thats not much of a disincentive to not shoot into combat but then the O&G players or any trash units that are hitting on 5+ are going to give nine times hell which I feel is not fair to them.

3) when I drop a big explosion of a mortar shell on a mob of combat, it doesn't make sense that if I'm hitting on 3 or 2+ that my large explosion is still only hitting mostly his guys and mine are not touched. (and on the opposite end if my mortar crew hits on a 5+ it doesn't make sense that I dropped a mortar shell on a big mob of combat and for whatever reason only my guys are taking the brunt of the hits)

Half and half is even, fair, consistent, and does not require an added layer of dice rolling.

On the topic of shooting into combat as designed, shooting into combat without penalty is touched on in the ruleset. If players want to use Azyr but also want to shoot into combat without penalty simply add +1 point to any missile armed unit to compensate for this. The cost factor right now assumes that units cannot just freely unload their missile units and then unsling swords and also attack (in essence getting double the attacks that they normally would get)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the Bravery nerf just adds to the general anti-shooting bent of the Azyr Comp. With the buffed survivability of heroes, ya'll have turned a game that arguably favors shooting into one that certainly favors combat, particularly involving heroes.

It buffs hero survivability yes in that initial games where heroes are surrounded by their buddies still getting sniped by an entire enemy army seems way too gamey for my own personal taste. Heroic heroes hiding in the back of their army getting sniped by every missile unit that can see them is not heroic and I feel loses some of that personal agency or realm of what i'd consider somewhat realistic. Also the rules as they are written now with the comp state you have to be next to an unengaged unit, so its possible to tactically tie up that body guard unit and then shoot at the character. It also only works on like sized characters. Big stompy characters riding demon mounts or dragons are not going to get any benefit.

It still keeps shooting into combat, just not unrestrained shooting into combat which turns the game the other way. Unrestrained shooting into combat makes most of the players I've tested with go "why on earth would i ever take a model that doesn't have a missile weapon?" which to me is a very bad thing.

Its unrealistic, gamey, offers no risk/reward or any real strategic element beyond shoot as much as you can there, just reward/reward and why wouldn't i maximize my reward?

Not everyone is going to agree with that, mainly because many feel that the universal rules should never be altered, but in this case if i have to choose between a system that offers no semblance of some expected reality and offers few if any drawbacks to an obvious tactic, I'm not going to play that game, and I think based on the ragestorm that has kicked up over the past few weeks that that sentiment is shared by a lot of people.

I don't know off hand of any wargame that lets you shoot unrestrained into combat without some kind of balancing mechanism or drawback, and I feel that there is a reason for that - it wouldn't go over very well and most game designers are trying to also write a system that contains at least a partial sense of immersion which comes with rules that "make sense".

This is the first system I've seen in almost 30 years that lost all sense of that immersion out of the box.

Thanks for the lengthy reply, I do appreciate it. I don't really disagree per se, but I am driven to rebut to a few things out of compulsion:

auticus wrote:
There are a few of reasons why I don't like randomizing allocations.

1) its another layer of dice rolling. Adding another dice rolling layer is to me not attractive. However - as a guy that likes to retool rules I say if you enjoy that kind of thing please have at it.

I'll say it again, Warhammer is about rolling dice and pushing models around. It's like why it exists. You want less dice? Warmahordes (and many other games that use 2-4 dice). You want no dice? Malifaux. It just seems so very appropriate that you would solve an issue with dice in Warhammer. Math is for suckers.

2) it benefits elite units because I've seen units getting buffs so they are 2+ to hit. Thats not much of a disincentive to not shoot into combat but then the O&G players or any trash units that are hitting on 5+ are going to give nine times hell which I feel is not fair to them.

Randomizing on a 4+ has exactly the same odds of hitting enemies as friendlies! Exactly! It'll just appear to swing one way or the other due to the weirdness of probability in action. If anything I'd say it hurts elite units, as they don't have the models to absorb probability swings - 3 chaos warriors vs 30 goblins take 10 hits, the warriors take 10-0, the goblins take 0-10. Whatever happens, there will still be goblins left. (It feels like you were arguing for any kind of disincentive with that 2+ to hit business, not random vs halved.)

3) when I drop a big explosion of a mortar shell on a mob of combat, it doesn't make sense that if I'm hitting on 3 or 2+ that my large explosion is still only hitting mostly his guys and mine are not touched.

Again, random means the enemy has exactly the same chance to get hit as your dudes. 4+ regardless of number of models on either side.

Unrestrained shooting into combat makes most of the players I've tested with go "why on earth would i ever take a model that doesn't have a missile weapon?" which to me is a very bad thing.

I had the exact same thought, that AOS hugely benefits models that can shoot as well as fight. Maybe that's the nature of the beast? What if we thought of 40k 3E as the model for AOS and not WHFB 8E?

I don't know off hand of any wargame that lets you shoot unrestrained into combat without some kind of balancing mechanism or drawback, and I feel that there is a reason for that - it wouldn't go over very well and most game designers are trying to also write a system that contains at least a partial sense of immersion which comes with rules that "make sense".

Warhammer's longstanding ban on shooting into combat actually seems like the odd elephant out, as system after system actually allows it. "DON'T" also happens to be the most elegant solution ... but I'm curious ya'll haven't explored a variety of other disincentives (-1 to hit, cover bonus for anybody hit, etc). The Bravery nerf was a curious one given the avenues not included, especially if the point of some of these changes is to streamline the game (i.e. limiting dice rolls in favor of math).

- Salvage

+1 save to enemy unit if engaged when shot? To hits of 1 hit your own guys?

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
+1 save to enemy unit if engaged when shot? To hits of 1 hit your own guys?

Main issue with that is that there are a lot of abilities that grant re-rolls of "1"s. That would essentially fall back into the missile fire is very powerful and your missile units need to all come up +1 point per unit to compensate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I had the exact same thought, that AOS hugely benefits models that can shoot as well as fight. Maybe that's the nature of the beast? What if we thought of 40k 3E as the model for AOS and not WHFB 8E?

I'm not interested in a game where half or more of the models are never taken because the other half are just blatantly that much better.

This isn't about what they used to be in WHFB 8th. This is that missile troops are out of the box heads and shoulders that much better than melee troops because of the ability to open fire into combat on top of also getting to fight in melee. This is boiled down to a statline where melee only troops can only melee.

Shooty troops can both shoot their weapons into their own combat and then fight in melee on top of that. On top of getting to shoot at range w hile the melee only troops have to run at them and get shot a couple turns first. Which goes back to the original rules docket which states you can choose to ignore shooting into combat rule and instead just pump up your missile units +1 point a unit to compensate for the fact that missile units are superior in their utility on the table.

Are there missile units that are actually even comparable to melee units in melee? Ive only played once, but i certainly didnt want my flamers of tzeentch any closer to their target than they needed to be... They have hardly any ability to cause melee damage to a unit better suited for it. How many missile units will be able to live in a combat long enough to even get a second shooting volley off at their melee opponent? Two phases of combat is usually enough with battleshock that the "added utility" of missile units is almost negligible, from what i can see.

The real utility shooting units have is that they can damage at a distance. The downside to having a missile unit in combat is that theyre going to get destroyed and lose their effectiveness by being dead. Isnt it more tactically intelligent to use most missile units in an "evade and suppress" fashion? They cant recieve melee damage if they arent locked with enemies. Why not make it hard for you to be charged before the pointy stick dudes get too close?

I have trouble understanding the people that say there is no reason not to charge all your missile units forwards... If these changes took place in 40k, i doubt i would see two units of dark reapers deployed at the front of the zone and rushed forwards towards bloodthirsters.. They would still be parked in cover, dealing damage at a distance. And theyre just one example.

Rangers / Quarellers are a good example.

One melee attack hit on 4 wound on 4 - 1 damage.
Crossbow hit on 4 wound on 4 - 1 damage.

The way we have them pointed now its one or the other or half hit their buddies.

If its no restrictions at all those guys go to 2 attacks a turn a piece and should be costed like things that have 2 attacks a turn a piece.

Now compare that with a model with 2 melee attacks, the crossbow still has higher utility because it can hit at range whereas the melee model with 2 attacks has to get there first.

The crossbow / rangers have the same armor save as dwarf warriors except they don't get shields to benefit from shield wall.

The tactic would be to tie up the nasty units in hand to hand with a sticky unit and then just shoot with impunity. Thats not much of a tactic - thats just common sense.

That is one of the exceptions to the rule though. Find another shooting unit that has that ability. And personally quarrelers are no better than Ironbreakers in CC and should be costed similar to veterans because they are a little better than your normal shooters. But don't penalize all shooters for Quarellers and the Eternals shooter guys

That is where the framework for a general system goes out the window and is replaced with a precision system, which is not the type of system I was interested in implementing (primarily because finding a precise value for each model in the game is impossible with abstract values for abilities and different scenarios needing worked in, and secondly because I lost interest in spending a lot of time trying to squeeze the last point out of my army roster and this method takes about 60 seconds to do which is appealing to me and people who like general systems overall)

Thunderers would be another example. If thunderers could shoot into their own combats and then fight, they are still twice as good as marauders or any other infantry with only 1 attack, because the thunderers get two attacks, one of which is a 3+ wound rending attack, the other is a 5+ wound attack which balances out to be 2 4+/4+ attacks essentially and would need to be cost in the next tier up as those infantry, and be cost at 2 points for 10 instead of 1 point for 10, which again the system allows for.

Going down the list of each and every missile unit would be pedantic in this system because there aren't going to be many that have missile attacks that are really that poor as to ignore the fact they get extra attack dice against other tier 1 units to make them not tier 1 as well. In a precision system - absolutely you'd want to go through each model and try to not only point out its shooting stats but take in its range etc as well and try to turn that into a precision value.

Work continues on the half point system, which has been voted on to receive a full doubling so the scale moves to 1-10. Warriors of Chaos are complete, the others are moving along slowly (it involves plugging in a fairly complex formula to each attack option to get their exact cost and then placing that cost in its appropriate tier)

Greetings!

Version 1.3b of Azyr for Age of Sigmar has been uploaded. Scale is now 1-10, retweaked points with an application that crunched numbers for us, and added formations.

www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

Cheers!