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.

Now, if you had asked me a month ago about the possibility of a second edition of Age of Sigmar, I would have shrugged and said it was simply not needed.

After seeing the new 40k... I am not so sure It seems like GW took a good long look at AoS, took what was best, and added it to 40k. The new 40k is a very, very nice rules set, and there is plenty in it that could be ported over to AoS with so little effort. I might have to become an advocate of that approach.

Like what, I hear you ask. Well, it ranges from the minor (unbinding/Deny the Witch has a 24" range, making it more relevant) to the more major (only certain weapons can shoot in close combat, and chargers all strike first before you get to alternating combats).

I think the new 40k is going to be worth a serious look...

Yeah, a few ideas from 40k in AoS might be a good way to move it forward.

However, there are only MISSILE weapons in AoS, 40k still has the distinction of pistols and other stuff (and only pistols can shoot while in combat).
Charging units have often special rules in AoS, if they are made for charging. Be it re-rolls, mortal wounds on impact, etc.
Implementing these rules into AoS simply won't work without re-working a LOT of units.

I am, however, very interested to see if they expand the rules for Matched Play in the General's Handbook 2.

I think the two systems should remain different, things like pistols working in CC in 40K works because pretty much every unit that can get a gun can also take pistols so shooting units have some degree of shooting even when locked in combat. Meanwhile if you take judicators in Sigmar they only have bows, so unless every shooting unit in sigmar suddenly gains a pistol equivalent you've taken a rule massively out of context and damaged every shooting unit in age of sigmar.

Similarly I love the alternate unit activation in combat in Sigmar, it means tactically picking your charges and activations based on where you can afford to take a punch and where you desperately need to deal damage. If all chargers swing first you lose that tactical edge.

I think a lot of the new things in 40K should definitely be ported over to AOS especially the rule for targeting characters. I also like the power levels and the way that points work in matched play in 40K. The strength and toughness I think could do without but would appease a lot of nostalgic people so I would not mind seeing that either since it would allow for more granular balance.

So basically yes I think a lot of the stuff in 40K should be in a second edition of AOS

I would despise the character rule, nigh unkillable cunning rukk with a character so buried behind a tide of boys he's never within range to target, models up on balewind vortices unable to be targetted in return whilst they throw double the distance spells because there's a chaff unit between you and the floating portal of doom. I understand people are sad their character die when left in the open but thats why we have terrain, the new "cant target unless closest or within 12" makes characters entirely too confident about rocking about in the open

 Melcavuk wrote:
I would despise the character rule, nigh unkillable cunning rukk with a character so buried behind a tide of boys he's never within range to target, models up on balewind vortices unable to be targetted in return whilst they throw double the distance spells because there's a chaff unit between you and the floating portal of doom. I understand people are sad their character die when left in the open but thats why we have terrain, the new "cant target unless closest or within 12" makes characters entirely too confident about rocking about in the open

100% agreed.

Some characters are too squishy though, so I would like to see more "bodyguard" units or abilities to transfer wounds on a dice roll like a Necromancer. Giving my Freeguild General an Honoured guard would be awesome, but no one wants invincible Tzaangor Shamans or Savage Orruk Warbosses.

Pretty much everything in new-40k I wish was in AOS.

The way characters have to hide is 100% not what literary or cinema fantasy heroes do. But if you don't do that then you're going to get kunnin rukk'd in the mouth with an entire army shooting at your guy on foot.

Kunnin Rukk in general just needs removed IMO.

The shooting into combat thing 40k does... would prefer it over AOS.

We can hope right?

I had imagined the new AoS GH was just updating points rather than changing the core rules. Though I wouldn't mind the removal of a few battalions. The one thing I DON'T want to be transferred is the points they used in 8th, they seem all over the place.

I feel like not being able to target characters is fine (on paper, as we haven't played to see for ourselves yet), for the balance of 40k, where they have sniper units who can pick out characters (but they tend to be weaker guns to be more about weakening them than killing them instantly), but in AoS, unless they implemented it on some units, could result in annoyingly untouchable heroes buffing lines and causing shenanigans no one can deal with.

However, I think that, if your attack draws over units to reach a unit behind (including characters), they should take a -1 on their To-Hit roll, like the ability protectors get but all the time. They'd have to rebalance protectors, but I feel it's kind of needed when a melee army is facing off against a ranged army. The ranged army just slaughters the melee army's leaders who are buffing them and then the army is left lack luster and dies. Khorne really suffers from this issue, as you can't always just hide heroes in cover, nor is cover always reliable when you have a low save roll and dealing with rend.

I don't know if that's the right way to go about it, but something along those lines could help stop characters from being sniped instantly. I find it incredibly annoying when I set up an awesome tactical line of infantry in front to protect my leaders, just to have the leaders sniped anyway.

Charging units all getting their attacks off first is also one of those rules that seems better in 40k, to help assault oriented armies fight gun lines. As melee is much more common in AoS, it could be one of those things that causes charges to be too devastating. But maybe it could work and would certainly help make a well organized charge feel more worthwhile.

Shooting units are balanced to shoot into melee, it's why they're so expensive points wise. However I do like the addition of them requiring to shoot the closest unit. A shooting unit who gets charged in AoS can continue to happily snipe more important units off the table as they get hacked up, blissfully ignoring them. I find it really hurts tactical prowess, as a player can't try to tie up enemies who are going for your good units. It's in the balance of the game, of course, and it does work how it is, but I'd still like to see something to help prevent ranged units from dominating the field.

There's many things I think would be good in AoS if they had been there from the onset, but I don't feel would be worth the effort to implement now.

Shooting into/out of combat is one thing I would like to see AoS go half-way on; just say that a model within 3" of an enemy can only shoot one of the units it is engaged with. I feel like shooting into combat is an important mechanic in how AoS is balanced at the moment, but at the same time it's too difficult to actually disrupt shooting units; unless you kill them they shoot just as well in melee than out of it.

The other thing is charging and combat. I've suggested before that charging units get the option to swing first in the combat phase; if the current turn's player picks a unit that charged, he may include any number of additional units that also charged as part of that 'pick'. If he wants to swing with a unit that didn't charge that turn, well he loses the benefit.

In addition to expanding tactical options the above two changes would give decent benefit to both fast cavalry/outflanking type units as well as more conventional heavy cavalry/chariots. Overall these units need a bit of a boost.

As for character sniping... I would say that is too important to AoS' balance to change. Its frustrating to have characters sniped out of your army, but that's part of the game. And more importantly, to really pick off multiple characters in a single round takes a serious investment of points which comes with a corresponding reduction in melee effectiveness. What needs to happen is Kurnoths, Skyfires, etc. Get nerfed, not an inherent change to the system.

I'd honestly would like for age of sigmar to move to full alternative. I move, You move. Etc. Something to fully differentiate ourselves from 40k.

Yeah I agree. Thats the houserule I use in my campaigns... alternate activations.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah I agree. Thats the houserule I use in my campaigns... alternate activations.

I think Kragan is referring to alternating phase rather than alternating activations. I.E. Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves; Player 1 shoots, Player 2 shoots; etc. To me, it does a better job of visually representing a battle rather than having one force move, shoot, attack, charge, etc. while the other force stand still (IGOUGO). Alternating activations is better than IGOUGO from a game flow standpoint, but still has that weird disconnect where two armies stand around in stasis while one unit from each side goes through a full turn.

GW could certainly go back and get their wording consistent.

I believe you either go in ALL IN Warmahordes or not at all. As was said before the games should be different. So you either make them different or make them compatible like Warmahordes.

For me there should be totally differences so you feel like you are playing different games. Now if you get tired of Age of Sigmar and want a break, 40K isn't it because it's too similar to have that difference of play. Same for 40K. If you want a break from 40K, you will not get it with Age of Sigmar. Now you can't since 40K is AoS Sci Fi now sadly.

So they should do what Privateer Press has done and make them compatible. Yeah yeah, I hear, nuclear weapons vs stones, how can they exist. Well if you are good writers and a good gaming company you will find a way to do it. After all GW uses Warp Storms as excuses a lot and Magic for reasons to make them compatible.

 auticus wrote:
Pretty much everything in new-40k I wish was in AOS.

I actually no longer see a reason to play AOS myself, as 40K fixes many of the things I find obnoxious about AOS, plus sets it in (IMHO) a richer, more interesting setting. But then I also prefer my grimdark to be more unabashedly sci-fantasy than pseudo-past fantastical; AOS is not my main game and was mostly a way to get some simple GW carnage going with a different group of gamers (because 40K had been garbage for years); and I have several daemon armies that kind of work in either game, especially since everything is round-based!

Would I return to AOS if the 40K changes were backported? Maybe? There are things that AOS does better thanks to the latest batch of battletomes - provide incentives for running tighter factions (i.e. rewarding themed armies) - but I can only imagine 40K will do this as well once the faction books get moving there. And if I want some fantasy action I'll just stick to my main game, Kings of War

- Salvage

I play AOS for the setting. There is a large difference in my mind to guys with swords and axes and sorcery vs guys with bolt guns and laser weapons and tanks.

The game-mechanics are to me ancillary.

I wouldn't care if they shared the exact same mechanics to be honest. I don't play a game for its mechanics largely, I play it for its setting.

 auticus wrote:
I play AOS for the setting. There is a large difference in my mind to guys with swords and axes and sorcery vs guys with bolt guns and laser weapons and tanks.

The game-mechanics are to me ancillary.

I wouldn't care if they shared the exact same mechanics to be honest. I don't play a game for its mechanics largely, I play it for its setting.

By the Emperor, yes! When so many others are getting hung up on the new 8th Edition 40K rules being different and messing with their game, they may be losing sight of WHY they are playing the game.

As for Age of Sigmar getting some things from 40K, eh? I'm indifferent on it for the same reasons. The only things I don't like about AoS I only don't like in theory, as it is the tournament abuse caused by the PLAYERS, not the GAME, which can be fixed by not playing against those players.

 Melcavuk wrote:
I would despise the character rule, nigh unkillable cunning rukk with a character so buried behind a tide of boys he's never within range to target, models up on balewind vortices unable to be targetted in return whilst they throw double the distance spells because there's a chaff unit between you and the floating portal of doom. I understand people are sad their character die when left in the open but thats why we have terrain, the new "cant target unless closest or within 12" makes characters entirely too confident about rocking about in the open

The problem with terrain is that only solid terrain that is tall enough to block LOS means anything. It's in essence impossible to block LOS with a wargames woods. Also, in my experience very few gamers have hills that are tall enough. Buildings are better, but if they're ruined or have lots of windows/doors, good luck in completely blocking LOS.

IMHO, they should have gone with stylized LOS rules- e.g. woods block LOS drawn through them, period, - regardless of actual LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
I would despise the character rule, nigh unkillable cunning rukk with a character so buried behind a tide of boys he's never within range to target, models up on balewind vortices unable to be targetted in return whilst they throw double the distance spells because there's a chaff unit between you and the floating portal of doom. I understand people are sad their character die when left in the open but thats why we have terrain, the new "cant target unless closest or within 12" makes characters entirely too confident about rocking about in the open

100% agreed.

Some characters are too squishy though, so I would like to see more "bodyguard" units or abilities to transfer wounds on a dice roll like a Necromancer. Giving my Freeguild General an Honoured guard would be awesome, but no one wants invincible Tzaangor Shamans or Savage Orruk Warbosses.

I will add that eliminating the Heros is more important for some armies than others.

For instance, if you can eliminate the Blood Secractor in a Khorne army you can in effect neuter all the Blood Reavers. There is a lot more riding on that Hero's continued existence than the number of attacks the hero itself can dish out.

Edmond Dantes wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
I would despise the character rule, nigh unkillable cunning rukk with a character so buried behind a tide of boys he's never within range to target, models up on balewind vortices unable to be targetted in return whilst they throw double the distance spells because there's a chaff unit between you and the floating portal of doom. I understand people are sad their character die when left in the open but thats why we have terrain, the new "cant target unless closest or within 12" makes characters entirely too confident about rocking about in the open

The problem with terrain is that only solid terrain that is tall enough to block LOS means anything. It's in essence impossible to block LOS with a wargames woods. Also, in my experience very few gamers have hills that are tall enough. Buildings are better, but if they're ruined or have lots of windows/doors, good luck in completely blocking LOS.

IMHO, they should have gone with stylized LOS rules- e.g. woods block LOS drawn through them, period, - regardless of actual LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
I would despise the character rule, nigh unkillable cunning rukk with a character so buried behind a tide of boys he's never within range to target, models up on balewind vortices unable to be targetted in return whilst they throw double the distance spells because there's a chaff unit between you and the floating portal of doom. I understand people are sad their character die when left in the open but thats why we have terrain, the new "cant target unless closest or within 12" makes characters entirely too confident about rocking about in the open

100% agreed.

Some characters are too squishy though, so I would like to see more "bodyguard" units or abilities to transfer wounds on a dice roll like a Necromancer. Giving my Freeguild General an Honoured guard would be awesome, but no one wants invincible Tzaangor Shamans or Savage Orruk Warbosses.

I will add that eliminating the Heros is more important for some armies than others.

For instance, if you can eliminate the Blood Secractor in a Khorne army you can in effect neuter all the Blood Reavers. There is a lot more riding on that Hero's continued existence than the number of attacks the hero itself can dish out.

Absolutely. The issue is that GW terrain doesn't block LOS worth a feth. The woods don't block anything, walls and fences don't block LOS and only affect melee, the buildings have enough gaps and openings that you can have a model inside them and still be a clear shot from across the board, and even if you are somehow hidden it's trivially easy to maneuver a fast-moving archer at an angle and see through the gap to snipe the character. The answer of "Just use more terrain" doesn't really help unless you are scratchbuilding your own and making sure they are large solid buildings.

They won't transfer over the character targeting from 40k to AoS. AoS is balanced around characters being snip -avoid, removing that would upset the balance incredibly and make some armies (Stormcast...) a complete pain in the ass to play against. As compared to 40k, AoS has less shooting, less shooting with long range, less shooting with decent rend, characters with more wounds, mystic shield, and artifacts. The reality is that against an army with decent shooting/magic some of your characters will get sniped and you will need to build/play accordingly. Also keep in mind that certain units (Kurnoth, Skyfires) make character sniping seem nastier than it is because those units are massively OP and happen to be good at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

Edmond Dantes wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
I would despise the character rule, nigh unkillable cunning rukk with a character so buried behind a tide of boys he's never within range to target, models up on balewind vortices unable to be targetted in return whilst they throw double the distance spells because there's a chaff unit between you and the floating portal of doom. I understand people are sad their character die when left in the open but thats why we have terrain, the new "cant target unless closest or within 12" makes characters entirely too confident about rocking about in the open

The problem with terrain is that only solid terrain that is tall enough to block LOS means anything. It's in essence impossible to block LOS with a wargames woods. Also, in my experience very few gamers have hills that are tall enough. Buildings are better, but if they're ruined or have lots of windows/doors, good luck in completely blocking LOS.

IMHO, they should have gone with stylized LOS rules- e.g. woods block LOS drawn through them, period, - regardless of actual LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
I would despise the character rule, nigh unkillable cunning rukk with a character so buried behind a tide of boys he's never within range to target, models up on balewind vortices unable to be targetted in return whilst they throw double the distance spells because there's a chaff unit between you and the floating portal of doom. I understand people are sad their character die when left in the open but thats why we have terrain, the new "cant target unless closest or within 12" makes characters entirely too confident about rocking about in the open

100% agreed.

Some characters are too squishy though, so I would like to see more "bodyguard" units or abilities to transfer wounds on a dice roll like a Necromancer. Giving my Freeguild General an Honoured guard would be awesome, but no one wants invincible Tzaangor Shamans or Savage Orruk Warbosses.

I will add that eliminating the Heros is more important for some armies than others.

For instance, if you can eliminate the Blood Secractor in a Khorne army you can in effect neuter all the Blood Reavers. There is a lot more riding on that Hero's continued existence than the number of attacks the hero itself can dish out.

Absolutely. The issue is that GW terrain doesn't block LOS worth a feth. The woods don't block anything, walls and fences don't block LOS and only affect melee, the buildings have enough gaps and openings that you can have a model inside them and still be a clear shot from across the board, and even if you are somehow hidden it's trivially easy to maneuver a fast-moving archer at an angle and see through the gap to snipe the character. The answer of "Just use more terrain" doesn't really help unless you are scratchbuilding your own and making sure they are large solid buildings.

Part of the problem is that LoS can be drawn to any tiny portion of a model and it counts. It should be what many tournaments edit to anyway; LoS must be drawn to a model's arms/legs/torso with weapons & oversized hats left out. Also, walls and fences totally give cover against range.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Also, walls and fences totally give cover against range.

I'll confess that I hadn't considered walls/fences. But I wonder if the rules support your position.

With respect to Cover the rules say that if all models in a unit "are within or on a terrain feature" the unit gets the cover bonus to its save roll.

I don't think a unit can be "within" a fence or wall.

Are you saying that if all models in a unit are touching a wall or fence they are "on" the wall/fence? Or do they literally have to be "on" the fence in the sense that they are on top of the fence.

Wait question, does magic count as ranged? because then it would be a good defense against magic if unbinding doesn't work... or you have no way to counter magic.

The terrain warscroll covers walls and fences. Its just that most people don't know or forget that it exists.

Per the terrain warscroll, you gain cover if you are behind a wall or fence (up to 3" from the wall and on the other side from the attacker)

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Compendiums/warhammer-aos-scenery-en.pdf

 IronDerp wrote:
Wait question, does magic count as ranged? because then it would be a good defense against magic if unbinding doesn't work... or you have no way to counter magic.

No, I was referring to ranged attacks. There is a spell that actually uses a ranged attack, but other than that one no. Any army can gain some degree of protection from mortal wounds in AoS (as opposed to 40k where it seems to be extremely rare), in the form of artifacts. Destruction in particular can give characters a 4+, while Death winds up having a 6+ near army-wide thanks to allegiance.

I did completely forget that walls and fences did that, I could have sworn it was only against melee attacks, not all attacks.

Honestly, everyone should just treat every terrain like it has the walls and fences rule. This is a house rule I like to add on my games.