Future of AOS?

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.

**BertBert**

jonolikespie wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.

You mean like orcs would have? Or chaos? Or undead? Or skaven? Or even a simple nobelman who had just ordered a rabble of worthless peasant militia to engage the enemy's elite soldiers to hold them in place so his archers can kill the much more valuable enemy troops?

Which is exactly why a free pass for every faction does not work. They need to differentiate between the armies, and we need a rule to represent it. As it is, it is just shallow.

**Dai**

BertBert wrote:
jonolikespie wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.

You mean like orcs would have? Or chaos? Or undead? Or skaven? Or even a simple nobelman who had just ordered a rabble of worthless peasant militia to engage the enemy's elite soldiers to hold them in place so his archers can kill the much more valuable enemy troops?

Which is exactly why a free pass for every faction does not work. They need to differentiate between the armies, and we need a rule to represent it. As it is, it is just shallow.

It is a bit shallow but like. loath or indifferent, thus far AoS just does not want to make things that complicated (faction wide special rules that change core mechanics).

**Kilkrazy**

Herzlos wrote:
So they hit 2/3rd of the time, what happens when they miss? Where's the risk/reward part of the strategy? If nothing can go wrong, then it's an automatic to shoot in. If your misses cause hits on your own guys, or the target is randomized somehow, then you at least get to decide if it's worth it.
It's one of these things that for me at least breaks immersion.

Re trenches - a lot of people were killed by suppressing barrages, but the enemy lines were separated.

Re Romans throwing pilum over the front rank; there's still a huge difference between throwing a spear over the man in front of you into an enemy unit you haven't engaged with yet (I don't believe they did it whilst engaged? but even if they did, the risk is pretty low unless you really feth up).

Re opening fire on destroyed friendlies, fair enough.

I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.

Whilst I'm sure I'll get accused of goalpost shifting here (because I was too vague earlier), you still haven't given me a single example of real life willful friendly fire that is an equivalent to the in-game effect we're discussing.

Personally I don't think it matters. The game is very much a game, not a simulation, and it's a very simple game. The designers have chosen to allow missile units to shoot in and out of melee, presumably to make them a bit more valuable and effective.

That's what it is. I don't see it affecting the future of AoS in any significant way. Everyone who dislikes that rule enough probably already has decided not to play

(Which is the topic...)

**Herzlos**

Except it's littered with dozens of special rules for pretty much anything. It's not a particularly simple game.

Anyway, to me, something like that totally breaks immersion, and is another place where strategy seems shallow. I can't see it changing in the future or having any real impact, no.

**CoreCommander**

I suspect that if one found several hundred chaps and spammed "no shooting in CC or sales are going to suffer" on GW's facebook page there's a chance that they'd cave in/ If nothing else the addition of points, softback books, FAQs and main story line driven by events showed that nowadays if the customers demand something from GW hard enough there is a good chance they'll get. (either as a threat to hurt sales or the promise of a boost if enough people give their voice for it)

**Dai**

Herzlos wrote:
Except it's littered with dozens of special rules for pretty much anything. It's not a particularly simple game.

Anyway, to me, something like that totally breaks immersion, and is another place where strategy seems shallow. I can't see it changing in the future or having any real impact, no.

There aren't many special rules that cannot be found on warscrolls though. I suppose they could put such a special rule on every warscroll with CHAOS/ORDER/DESTRUCTION/DEATH keyword and that has a shooting attack. It would nerf shooting units a fair amount though given the speed of things and largely short range of missile weapons in this game. It isn't something that particularly bothers me but I could live with it.

Not sure I would like to see it filtered down much more than that though.

Edit - dozens of special rules for pretty much anything is a bit much, most units have 2-3 tops and even many of them are fairly standardised such as usually re-rolling 1's to hit for 2 hand weapons.

**VeteranNoob**

Back to the future of AoS, By next summer (only my guess) I expect to see:
the results of this summer campaign weighing in
all older models repackaged or revamped
next stage in meta after RGW
New factions splash release for all the remaining legacy army/races
more terrain
significant fluff development by BL
tounaments using matched play, but events using narrative or open play
Aelfs in fullplay
Seige rules (or equivalent, like 40K has planet strike - realm strike?)
Replacement for TK & Brets
...hmm, what else?

**MongooseMatt**

VeteranNoob wrote:

Seige rules

Have you tried using the Dreadhold 'as is'?

I ask, as I think they have been quite clever with siege/assault games in terms of leveraging the core rules.

The Dreadhold Warscrolls add some bits and pieces, like garrisoning towers, but the core rules alone make storming walls a very, very difficult proposition. Basically, unless a model is tall enough to sweep the ramparts (or can fly), you simply cannot take the walls if there are defenders all along them (because of the way the move rules work and that you cannot charge through enemy models, so there is just no room for you). You need to clear the walls first with spell and missile support which ain't easy for most armies. The other option is to storm the gates - which, as anyone who has tried it can tell you, is a complete bear if there is so much as a sprinkling of defenders around it.

I have been quite impressed by these games, even without additional rules!

**auticus**

Ugh the dreadhold rules.

Seriously. I understand the game is not a simulation but come on.

To open the gate you have a tug of war with the other side to prevent the gate from opening / open the gates?

Some of the rules are ok but that one right there kills it for me.

I added siege rules to Azyr Empires that are based more on the old siege rules from 5th edition where you have to break down the gates... not tug of war them open.

**VeteranNoob**

MongooseMatt wrote:
VeteranNoob wrote:

Seige rules

Have you tried using the Dreadhold 'as is'?

I ask, as I think they have been quite clever with siege/assault games in terms of leveraging the core rules.

The Dreadhold Warscrolls add some bits and pieces, like garrisoning towers, but the core rules alone make storming walls a very, very difficult proposition. Basically, unless a model is tall enough to sweep the ramparts (or can fly), you simply cannot take the walls if there are defenders all along them (because of the way the move rules work and that you cannot charge through enemy models, so there is just no room for you). You need to clear the walls first with spell and missile support which ain't easy for most armies. The other option is to storm the gates - which, as anyone who has tried it can tell you, is a complete bear if there is so much as a sprinkling of defenders around it.

I have been quite impressed by these games, even without additional rules!

Rrrrrrreally? Cool, didn't know that. Less and less ways for my gaming buddies to avoid using big terrain

Hear that, Mortal Realms hosts? We're trying out these rules. I know you're watching...

**MongooseMatt**

auticus wrote:

To open the gate you have a tug of war with the other side to prevent the gate from opening / open the gates?

Well, those are the mechanics (it is on an opposed roll for those of you not familiar). But think of it this way: that bit in the Lord of the Rings (or any fantasy movie with a siege in it, really) where the guys from Rohan are trying to hold the gate against the Uruk-Hai. This reflects that perfectly.

If it helps, think of it less as pushing and more as the attackers battering away while the defenders desperately try to shore the gate up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

VeteranNoob wrote:
Less and less ways for my gaming buddies to avoid using big terrain

And speaking of that...

In Fantasy Battle, you kinda had to prep for a siege assault game - special scenario, rules, units, etc.

Not with the Dreadhold - you can pull it out for pretty much any scenario (be it a single Skull Keep, Magebane Wall or entire fortress), and it will just work with no additional thought/preparation needed.

Seriously, give it a whirl. I have been properly impressed with the Dreadhold, from the ease it slides into games to the way you can build up a huge fortress in little bite-sized chunks that do not hurt your wallet. Someone at GW sat down and thought long and hard about this kit.

**Rihgu**

BertBert wrote:
jonolikespie wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.

You mean like orcs would have? Or chaos? Or undead? Or skaven? Or even a simple nobelman who had just ordered a rabble of worthless peasant militia to engage the enemy's elite soldiers to hold them in place so his archers can kill the much more valuable enemy troops?

Which is exactly why a free pass for every faction does not work. They need to differentiate between the armies, and we need a rule to represent it. As it is, it is just shallow.

Alternatively, the base rules allow for the commanders who WOULD do that to do that without needing special rules, and you, as the commander, get to make a choice whether you would do that yourself or not.

It's a bit easier to say "you can do this, unless you don't want to" than it is to say "you can't do this unless you're X Y Z"

**Fenrir Kitsune**

Or the players could be adults and discuss the action and what th characters would do in game.

**BertBert**

Rihgu wrote:

Alternatively, the base rules allow for the commanders who WOULD do that to do that without needing special rules, and you, as the commander, get to make a choice whether you would do that yourself or not.

It's a bit easier to say "you can do this, unless you don't want to" than it is to say "you can't do this unless you're X Y Z"

Except then nobody would actually use this rule, because it'd be a severe handicap. It would also never be used in an "official" context like tournaments and many people would be outright opposed to such a modification because "it's not in the official rules".

I'd rather have a comprehensive ruleset with more restrictions that I can trim down if needed, than a loose ruleset where I have to make things up myself and pray that my opponent is ok with them.

**Rihgu**

BertBert wrote:
Rihgu wrote:

Alternatively, the base rules allow for the commanders who WOULD do that to do that without needing special rules, and you, as the commander, get to make a choice whether you would do that yourself or not.

It's a bit easier to say "you can do this, unless you don't want to" than it is to say "you can't do this unless you're X Y Z"

Except then nobody would actually use this rule, because it'd be a severe handicap. It would also never be used in an "official" context like tournaments and many people would be outright opposed to such a modification because "it's not in the official rules".

I'd rather have a comprehensive ruleset with more restrictions that I can trim down if needed, than a loose ruleset where I have to make things up myself and pray that my opponent is ok with them.

What rules modification are you making? I'm saying that YOU can decide that YOUR commander/troops would not fire into combat. The enemy commander still gets to choose whether or not they will. No rule modifications in place.

It's the same as deciding whether or not your force uses unit X or unit Y. Don't need to convince anybody to adopt anything, you just need to not do what you don't want to do.

**BertBert**

Rihgu wrote:

What rules modification are you making? I'm saying that YOU can decide that YOUR commander/troops would not fire into combat. The enemy commander still gets to choose whether or not they will. No rule modifications in place.

It's the same as deciding whether or not your force uses unit X or unit Y. Don't need to convince anybody to adopt anything, you just need to not do what you don't want to do.

I could do that, but my opponent might not want to deliberately gimp his own units the same way. In that case I'd have achieved nothing except handicapping myself. If there were a rule in place, my opponent would be bound to do the same thing, esuring a certain degree of fairness and common sense, and we could still discuss exceptions.

**Rihgu**

I guess my overall opinion on it is that it's a fluff issue. It should be handled in fluff rather than crunch.

Adding a rule that says you can't do it gives arbitrary restrictions on what can be done in game and/or necessitates additional special rules (as if warscrolls aren't cluttered enough as it is! Now we need to add a rule for Skaven, Orc, Chaos, seedy humans, Dark elf, incredibly skilled archers and any other warscroll that can justify shooting into melee. Or entirely remove it as an option.

I don't think it's a shortcoming of the game that it allows you to choose whether to shoot into a melee or not.

edit: just wanted to add that you HAVE achieved something. Playing your army according to the fluff of your army.

**BertBert**

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Restrictions are a crucial part of any game, and AoS is no exception. They decided to include shooting into melee in order to simplify the game, which is fair enough, but by doing that we are stuck with a highly counter-intuitive mechanic, when instead we could make a meaningful tactical decision, which could add some well needed diversity to the different armies.

**privateer4hire**

Counter intuitive to some but not everybody. Very likely that if WFB had always allowed shooting at anything during the combat phase or if there were no 'locked in combat' in WFB/40k that this would not even be an issue.

**Kilkrazy**

BertBert wrote:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Restrictions are a crucial part of any game, and AoS is no exception. They decided to include shooting into melee in order to simplify the game, which is fair enough, but by doing that we are stuck with a highly counter-intuitive mechanic, when instead we could make a meaningful tactical decision, which could add some well needed diversity to the different armies.

I don't find shooting into and out of melee highly counter-intuitive.

**Spinner**

You don't find a dude with a crossbow firing it across the battlefield without penalty while an angry green giant is trying to wrench it out of his hands and force-feed it to him a little counter-intuitive?

**RoperPG**

Spinner wrote:
You don't find a dude with a crossbow firing it across the battlefield without penalty while an angry green giant is trying to wrench it out of his hands and force-feed it to him a little counter-intuitive?

No more than the existence of the giant in the first place.
If I wanted realism, I'd play historicals. I like my fantasy gaming.. well, fantastical.

**Herzlos**

RoperPG wrote:
Spinner wrote:
You don't find a dude with a crossbow firing it across the battlefield without penalty while an angry green giant is trying to wrench it out of his hands and force-feed it to him a little counter-intuitive?

No more than the existence of the giant in the first place.
If I wanted realism, I'd play historicals. I like my fantasy gaming.. well, fantastical.

Some of us like our fantasy at least a little believable.

What's intuitive about firing into/out of combat? By this I mean "once combat has been entered", and not "whilst closing into combat".

**Spinner**

There's fantasy and then there's fantasy. I'll buy that a dragon can fly or that orcs are a thing, but I've never liked handwaving obviously implausible elements as 'oh, it's fantasy, away with your realism'. There's got to be logical cause and effect and consistency. Maybe it could work for an exceptionally heroic character, but Steve Stormcast pulling off shots into a swirling melee without scratching a single one of his buddies? Or, better yet, Freddy Freeguilder doing the same from horseback while being swarmed by plague monks and their choking death-incense?

Other people may set the bar at different places, of course, but that argument is one of those that never sat right with me.

**Kilkrazy**

Spinner wrote:
You don't find a dude with a crossbow firing it across the battlefield without penalty while an angry green giant is trying to wrench it out of his hands and force-feed it to him a little counter-intuitive?

No.

**BertBert**

The thing is that even in fantasy, some basic things need to be maintained in order to make it believable. This is why everyobody is fighting with swords and axes, and not with marshmallows on sticks. Stormcast Eternals are clad in thick armor, because they are supposed to resemble actual knights (although heavily stilized).

The whole context of Warhammer, and even AoS, is derived from a very real context. When we see a soldier with a bow shooting a heavily armoured enemy, our first instinct is that the bow should probably be ineffective. A two-handed Hammer, on the other side, should do just fine in making the guys head ring.

In the same vein, we expect troops to flee when the battle is going against them and we instinctively assign roles to different unit types, because that's how it did work in the real world, back when these types of battles actually took place.

You can't ignore realism, becuase it's realism what makes these things accessible in the first place.

**Kilkrazy**

There is something in what you say. Most fantasy games are essentially spiced up mediaeval battles.

But surely the point of fantasy (and SF) is that it doesn't have to follow historical precedents. All sorts of imaginable things can be played with as workable game rules! If not, just stick with historical rules. There's plenty of variety available in that genre already.

One of my complaints about AoS is that it isn't fantastic enough. It's just a retread of the familiar tropes of generic fantasy fiction and combat.

**auticus**

Some of the intuitive and highly gamist elements of AOS do indeed turn me off. Shooting into combat with no penalties, or indeed the ability to be engaged fully in combat and able to just turn around and shoot at something outside of combat is to me the pinnacle of gamey gamist gamism that does for the most part wreck immersion for me.

However I have found that the vast majority of people that I play games with simply don't care about immersion or mind gamist gamey things. They are just rules mechanics to them. So I have a choice... deal with it or find something else to do with my time.

**Herzlos**

Kilkrazy wrote:

One of my complaints about AoS is that it isn't fantastic enough. It's just a retread of the familiar tropes of generic fantasy fiction and combat.

I'd agree here, AoS should be more fantastic. But it isn't; it is as you say, medieval gaming with some fantasy thrown in. But since it's using familiar tropes in pretty standard ways, they should behave something like you'd expect. A humanoid archer* would be expected to behave like a humanoid archer and being able to fight someone with presumably 1 or more limbs** whilst loading and firing a bow* is pretty much impossible, no matter how much you shout magic.

So aye, they should try and be more original, but until they do that, they should probably try and remain credible for the low fantasy world they are using.

*Why are they using a conventional looking bow? Couldn't they be using some sort of magic bolt shooter*** or bug-sling or something?

**Why have they still only got 2 arms? If they had 4, they could totally fight with 2 and shoot with 2. Why not give them 8 and let them fight twice and shoot twice?

***I know Sigmarines have magic Bolt Stormers, but everyone else has pretty mundane looking weapons.

**Steel Angel**

Funny thing is in todays movies shooting into combat is something you see all the time. Pretty boy elf guy in LoTR did in every battle. Hawkeye dies it all the time kind of his thing. Almost all the Robin Hood movies have it. Braveheart had it, heck even the amazon in Hercules did it.

So where it would seem unrealistic it does make great entertainment , and in the end thats what its about.