AoS NEW *rumor*

[Kilvakar]

Another thing is that there aren't as many aura buffs in AoS as there are in 40k. For example, we have very few. The only one I can think of is from the Astrolith Bearer. The rest of our buffs are targeted and activated by specific triggers or by spending CP. Then you get armies like Khorne, for example, that have all sorts of "All units within x distance of hero y get effect z" buffs built into their army. So a system like this would hurt them much more than us.

*Disclaimer:* Of course, as a follower of the Old Ones and their Great Plan, I believe Chaos deserves every nerf they get.

Honestly, buffs should just work on an individual model basis instead of targetting units as a whole. This way you can't congaline to artifically extend the range, but you'd also avoid the problems of the whole "wholly within" nonsense as now you don't need to worry about getting all 40 guys of your horde inside, just the relevant 10 that are actually going to be in combat.

The Wholly Within rules are annoying, to be sure. But auras effecting individual units means you'd usually have to have your hero bubble-wrapped in the middle, or in the front line of the unit where they'd be more vulnerable to attack. I think an interesting way to improve on it somewhat would be to allow heroes, or at least infantry heroes, to attach themselves to non-hero units. While attached to a particular unit, that single unit doesn't have to be wholly within a certain range anymore, but the hero can now only buff that one unit and has to follow unit cohesion rules or become detached. The hero still resolves attacks separately and is targeted separately from the other unit, so you wouldn't be getting a free bodyguard effect. But it would allow for that single unit to be more flexible in it's formation while still benefiting from the hero's buffs.

 

[Canas]

So, do you not like buffs and synergies?

I do, especially when you turn a small unit of say 10 skinks or saurus into something capable of standing up to say a gargant (even if only temporarly).

However, I have to admit I'm not a fan of some of the more obscenly powerfull offensive combos that allow you to oneshot basicly anything. Or similarly, combo's that have so much defensive power that anything less than an equally buffed unit wouldn't be able to stand up to it.

Admittadly, this isn't just due to how powerfull these combo's can get. There's other factors here as well, like the fact that overkill damage can carry over. If it didn't I'd find the super powerfull offensive combo's less annoying.

The Wholly Within rules are annoying, to be sure. But auras effecting individual units means you'd usually have to have your hero bubble-wrapped in the middle, or in the front line of the unit where they'd be more vulnerable to attack.

Provided you put in some rule to limit it's vulnerability (e.g. you can't attack him unless he's the closest model, or he gets a superpowered look-out-sir ward save while surrounded by friends) I'd honestly be fine with that. Bit more of a risk-reward.

I think an interesting way to improve on it somewhat would be to allow heroes, or at least infantry heroes, to attach themselves to non-hero units. While attached to a particular unit, that single unit doesn't have to be wholly within a certain range anymore, but the hero can now only buff that one unit and has to follow unit cohesion rules or become detached. The hero still resolves attacks separately and is targeted separately from the other unit, so you wouldn't be getting a free bodyguard effect. But it would allow for that single unit to be more flexible in it's formation while still benefiting from the hero's buffs.

Limiting it to just buffing that unit might be a bit too limiting, especially as this only really works if 1) you're attached to a horde unit (small units won't struggle with the wholly within as much) and 2) your support hero and horde unit are equally fast. I like the basic idea though.

 

[Putzfrau]

What problem do you think a change like this would solve?

In 40k it was done for a specific reason, a reason Age of Sigmar doesn't suffer from.

Honestly, buffs should just work on an individual model basis instead of targetting units as a whole. This way you can't congaline to artifically extend the range, but you'd also avoid the problems of the whole "wholly within" nonsense as now you don't need to worry about getting all 40 guys of your horde inside, just the relevant 10 that are actually going to be in combat.

So you'd have to keep track of which models in a unit of 40 got buffed? That sounds pretty cumbersome.

 

[Canas]

What problem do you think a change like this would solve?

In 40k it was done for a specific reason, a reason Age of Sigmar doesn't suffer from.

As mentioned before, it could help tone down some of the super buffed combo's, especially stuff like individual heroes on behemoths who buff themselves to extreme heights. And mostly I'm just curious if it'd be a good one or not for AoS.

So you'd have to keep track of which models in a unit of 40 got buffed? That sounds pretty cumbersome.

meh, honestly I'm not a terribly big fan of 40 man hordes since I find them cumbersome regardless. But yeah, I guess that'd be a significant downside, since some buffs can be triggered outside of the phases in which they're relevant. A quick solution would obviously be for effects to only trigger during the relevant phase, but that might cause other issues.

I would still find it one of the cleaner solutions though. But the fact that I don't particularly care about 40 men hordes does help

 

[Grotpunter]

A quick solution would obviously be for effects to only trigger during the relevant phase, but that might cause other issues.

This would be a massive change for us. Right now you can buff stuff in the hero phase and either run them elsewhere or teleport them across the map. You wouldnt be able to do those things.

It honestly sounds like you just want to dump down the game for the sake of making it easier to play. Keeping track of things being wholly within X” is not that difficult when you can measure the range of things 24/7 unlike oldschool fantasy. Having only certain models within your unit buffed creates the old Plague Monk issue where you will have to make multiple different piles of dice.

In the case of 40 Skinks, you just measure to your buffer and move your dudes accordingly so they stay within range.

Im not too sure what you are trying to achieve with this idea.

 

[Canas]

This would be a massive change for us. Right now you can buff stuff in the hero phase and either run them elsewhere or teleport them across the map. You wouldnt be able to do those things.

Hence, might create other issues. Might because losing the ability to buff then move isn't necesarly a bad thing (both buffing then moving or first moving then buffing have their advantages and disadvantages for a game).

Im not too sure what you are trying to achieve with this idea.

My issue is that I dislike being forced to keep the entire unit within in range for the buff while only part of the unit might be in range for combat, and thus only that part might benefit from the buff anyway so I don't care about those that are out of range to begin with.

e.g. in this brilliantly sketched scenario:


I don't care that 1 2 & 3 are out of range of the buff, cuz they're also out of range for combat anyway.

And I find that increadibly akward & game-y. Especially once you start taking into account terrain & other obstacles, which may screw up positioning, as well as the fact that a unit (or even individual models) can get quite large. Not to mention the fact that cramming everyone into the little buffbubble might just be bad positioning in itself because you're forced to say leave a gap in your lines.

And yes, this is currenlty part of positional play & as such a part of the game which people may or may not enjoy. I just don't. I'd rather partially buff units that are positioned how I want them, and deal with keeping track of which individual model is buffed than deal with fitting my units in an arbitrary bubble just so my 10 guys in front have a buff and while the 30 guys in the back are mostly just standing around not doing much.

 

[Grotpunter]

Hence, might create other issues. Might because losing the ability to buff then move isn't necesarly a bad thing (both buffing then moving or first moving then buffing have their advantages and disadvantages for a game).



My issue is that I dislike being forced to keep the entire unit within in range for the buff while only part of the unit might be in range for combat, and thus only that part might benefit from the buff anyway so I don't care about those that are out of range to begin with.

e.g. in this brilliantly sketched scenario:

View attachment 79594
I don't care that 1 2 & 3 are out of range of the buff, cuz they're also out of range for combat anyway.

And I find that increadibly akward & game-y. Especially once you start taking into account terrain & other obstacles, which may screw up positioning, as well as the fact that a unit (or even individual models) can get quite large. Not to mention the fact that cramming everyone into the little buffbubble might just be bad positioning in itself because you're forced to say leave a gap in your lines.

And yes, this is currenlty part of positional play & as such a part of the game which people may or may not enjoy. I just don't. I'd rather partially buff units that are positioned how I want them, and deal with keeping track of which individual model is buffed than deal with fitting my units in an arbitrary bubble just so my 10 guys in front have a buff and while the 30 guys in the back are mostly just standing around not doing much.

I get what you are trying to achieve in theory, the issue is that it wont make the game smoother in a number of situations, quite the opposite.

Imagine your line of dudes being 5 Saurus Warriors. Now you introduce a Skink Starpriest, Scar-Veteran and an Oldblood into the mix. Warrior #4+5 is only in range of the Starpriest, so 6s to wound deal 1 MW. Saurus #2+3+4 are in range of the Scar-Veteran, so they have exploding 6s to hit. Saurus #1+2 are in range of the Oldblood, so they have +1 to hit.

This creates a situation where when you roll for:
Saurus Warrior #1, you have to add +1 to hit.
Saurus Warrior #2, you have to add +1 to hit but also have to keep track of any 6s to hit exploding into 2 attacks.
Saurus Warrior #3, his 6s to hit explode into 2 attacks.
Saurus Warrior #4, his 6s to hide explode into 2 attacks but his 6s to wound deal 1 MW.
Saurus Warrior #5, his 6s to wound deal 1 MW.

Effectively you have to roll dice for each single model, rather than add all your attacks together and roll them at once, knowing that ALL of them are +1 to hit, 6s to hit explode and 6s to wound deal 1 MW.

Hence why I asked what you were trying to achieve - Because making the gameplay smoother or faster is certainly not the case. I get some people might not want to bother too much with measuring correctly all the time because they play "casually" and just want to have a good time. In which case I think a much better system would be to loosen up on how strict the game is for you guys. Like if your dudes are 18,5" away from the buffer, inch the guys a little bit back so they are wholly within 18" if that is the buff range.

 

[Canas]

Hence why I asked what you were trying to achieve - Because making the gameplay smoother or faster is certainly not the case.

Basicly I want to not have to worry about my left flank when I'm trying to buff my right flank. And yeah, buffing individual models would require a bit more bookkeeping as you can see in your example. But personally I'd prefer that.

Also, I'm sceptical as to how impactfull it would actually be in reality, I'm not entirely sure if even your example with 5 differently buffed models in the same unit is something that's viable to happen without purposefully setting up your units in rather odd ways. 3 differently buffed models within the same unit seems like the limit in a realistic scenario, especially with most buffs being similar in range and your support units generally prefering to be in similar positions anyway. Which imho shouldn't be too complicated to keep track of.

Of course there's also other potential solutions to ensure that you don't need to be overly worried about your left flank when trying to buff your right flank. You could give people some leeway as you mentioned, or for example require only say 50% to be wholly within so the other flank can do whatever. Hell, given that the rephrasing to "wholly within" only came around because people were starting to make ridiculous congalines improving unit-cohesion could even be a potential solution so we can go back to a more relaxed phrasing for buffs.

 

[Grotpunter]

Also, I'm sceptical as to how impactfull it would actually be in reality, I'm not entirely sure if even your example with 5 differently buffed models in the same unit is something that's viable to happen without purposefully setting up your units in rather odd ways. 3 differently buffed models within the same unit seems like the limit in a realistic scenario, especially with most buffs being similar in range and your support units generally prefering to be in similar positions anyway. Which imho shouldn't be too complicated to keep track of.

You can quickly get into situations where Horde units get multiple buffs and this means models on 25mm bases potentially attacking in 3 ranks. That is a lot of models and a lot of dice you have to split up and keep track of. To add another dimension to the bookkeeping, imagine piling into multiple units. Now you need multiple piles of dice for multiple units. It sounds like a nightmare to me and I still dont really see the net positive outcome of changing the system to something (IMO) much worse. From what I gather this change is essentially just to fix "laziness". The easiest solution instead of messing up the entire game system would simply to get better at moving models and measuring stuff, or to implement some in-house rule where you arent as strict on "correct positioning" of your models.

Personally I love the movement game of AoS a lot and find it super interesting. To me the most exciting part of AoS isnt just max moving everything across the board and throw dice. I like the tactical element and the movement game is a huge part of it.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

it wouldn't even fix having to measure things as now you have to make sure if each model is within range instead of the unit. and you don't want to have all your buff heroes in the same place that's a really good way to loose all of them in one go

 

[Canas]

You can quickly get into situations where Horde units get multiple buffs and this means models on 25mm bases potentially attacking in 3 ranks. That is a lot of models and a lot of dice you have to split up and keep track of.

Sure, but generally speaking your unit will be divided into 2, maybe 3 groups with relativly clear boundaries between them. It doesn't really matter that each of those groups themselves consists of multiple models. All you need to establish is that group A consists of say 10 models and group B of 11 and then you just roll the respective dice for those two groups, at which point it's the same as it originally was. The only added difficulty is that you now have to figure out group A & B, which honestly I don't find exactly complicated.

The same holds for piling in. And unless you've made an especially confusing brawl, this isn't exactly complicated either. Especially as chances are your two groups of differently buffed models most likely correspond for a significant chunk with how your unit is split into attacking the two different units anyway (unless you make a truly confusing brawl, but at that point you're basicly just weaving units through eachother for the sake of it...)

To add another dimension to the bookkeeping, imagine piling into multiple units. Now you need multiple piles of dice for multiple units. It sounds like a nightmare to me and I still dont really see the net positive outcome of changing the system to something (IMO) much worse.

I disagree, but ultimatly fair enough

From what I gather this change is essentially just to fix "laziness". The easiest solution instead of messing up the entire game system would simply to get better at moving models and measuring stuff, or to implement some in-house rule where you arent as strict on "correct positioning" of your models.

it's not a matter of laziness, nor is it a matter of getting good at movement, it's not all that difficult to keep everyone in range. I simply dislike being forced to keep everyone wholly within range to buff a unit when I only really care about buffing, say the 10 guys in front. The guys in the back should be completly irrelevant in this context and I don't want to care about them being in range or not. They're not doing any of the fighting anyway.

Personally I love the movement game of AoS a lot and find it super interesting. To me the most exciting part of AoS isnt just max moving everything across the board and throw dice. I like the tactical element and the movement game is a huge part of it.

Imho, that tactical aspect would still be there if you could partially buff a unit. The only difference is that with respect to buffs you no longer need to consider the irrelevant models that aren't going to be able to use that buff anyway. That doesn't mean you can all of sudden just run stuff across the board at max movement & hope for the best. It's not like being able to partially buff a unit suddenly takes away all positional requirements.

it wouldn't even fix having to measure things as now you have to make sure if each model is within range instead of the unit.

I don't mind having to measure every model. I dislike having to worry about models being in range for whom the buff is irrelevant anyway because they won't be able to actually do something with said buff because they're, for example, out of attack range.

and you don't want to have all your buff heroes in the same place that's a really good way to loose all of them in one go

I mean that generally speaking you'l see this:



Much more often than this:

You won't necesarly stack your support on top of eachother, but generally speaking they will be in sort of the same general area, e.g. behind your own lines hidden from enemies. And not randomly in the middle of the enemy for no good reason.

 

[ILKAIN]

I say just get rid of the "wholly within" wording. bam problem solved. even if you have to reduce the range of the buff to account for it. if I only have to have one guy in for the unit to be buffed, I no longer need a 2 foot aura range

 

[Canas]

I say just get rid of the "wholly within" wording. bam problem solved. even if you have to reduce the range of the buff to account for it. if I only have to have one guy in for the unit to be buffed, I no longer need a 2 foot aura range

the issue is that then you get people conga-lining across half the table so they can artifically extend the range of their buff, which is why we originally got the "wholly within" wording. But yeah, if they just did something else to limit congalining this'd be a decent solution as well.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

the issue is that then you get people conga-lining across half the table so they can artifically extend the range of their buff.

you really wont deep strikes fixed that problem a while ago

 

[Canas]

you really wont deep strikes fixed that problem a while ago

What do you mean?

 

[Erta Wanderer]

What do you mean?

the probelm with stringing your guys out for any distance when almost all armies have access to deep strikes or teleports is getting pincered. having to fight 2 full units when you can only bring a third(if you are luck) of your lets be honest very large valuable unit is not a plan for success. heck even if their job isn't to kill you this hurts i used to do this with 2 10 man skink units if the enemies screens where to wide

 

[Canas]

the probelm with stringing your guys out for any distance when almost all armies have access to deep strikes or teleports is getting pincered. having to fight 2 full units when you can only bring a third(if you are luck) of your lets be honest very large valuable unit is not a plan for success. heck even if their job isn't to kill you this hurts i used to do this with 2 10 man skink units if the enemies screens where to wide

Ah, like that. I'm surprised it's had that great of an effect, but if thats all that's needed to keep conga-lining to a minimum then yeah we should just go back to "within" phrasing instead of "wholly within"

 

[Killer Angel]

the issue is that then you get people conga-lining across half the table so they can artifically extend the range of their buff, which is why we originally got the "wholly within" wording. But yeah, if they just did something else to limit congalining this'd be a decent solution as well.

Are we just brainstorming for fun?
in this case, to limit congalines, i would introduce units (or better, heroes) with the "sniper" ability… guys that can shoot and pick which model will be removed.
At the risk of breaking the cohesion of the unit, you would be careful in stretching your conga line.

 

[Imrahil]

Some love(mostly paint) for our beloved Seraphon.

Grrr, Imrahil

 

[Canas]

Are we just brainstorming for fun?

yup

in this case, to limit congalines, i would introduce units (or better, heroes) with the "sniper" ability… guys that can shoot and pick which model will be removed.
At the risk of breaking the cohesion of the unit, you would be careful in stretching your conga line.

imho, if you take this route that ability needs to be increadibly common, otherwise you're going to run into issues were certain lists just lack the ability to do so. And an ability like this being common seems conflicting with with factions generally being themed around a certain style of battle (e.g. cavalry focused, or ranged focused or magic focused or full of swordmasters etc. ).
Though it might be enough to discourage the playstyle to the point people simply forget it's an option even when they do face a list that can't punish them for conga-lining.

Some love(mostly paint) for our beloved Seraphon.

Grrr, Imrahil

I like the colours on these.