They need to bring incentive to high drops back. Warlord, Acolyte, Bounty hunter etc all gave big bonuses to armies that ignored the race to the bottom in terms of drops. I think there NEED to be a way to control who decides turn order because its a way too big part of the game to leave to random chance, and I have no idea how to solve that with anything other than drops. Now its actually random because everyone and their mother is a 2 drop.
I know it would be more complex and there are against that at this point but for next edition where hopefully they can tune up the complexity a little bit. It will be cool if they just had Lieutenant and Captain tiers. They could use whatever word they want, but the stormcast Knight characters are the lieutenant tier and the lord characters are the captain tier. Then you could have lieutenants be inside a captain's regiment. The same goes for commander /warmaster which could potentially take captains as units etc.
List building restrictions are the #1 reason that people didn't come back for 4th edition, only slightly in front of indexes stripping all the flavor and fat out of warscrolls.
I kinda like the indexes for their simplicity as well, though, because it's now easier than ever to understand an opponent's army. But I can also see how it's disappointing to some.
I think a simple and elegant change that they could make would be to say that reinforcing a unit uses one of your regiments unit slots. People are taking reinforced units to get around the issue of having 2K in as few regiments as possible. This would really open the floor. Also probably allow more heroes to be taken as units. For a slightly more complex next edition, I'd love it if different characters had different leadership values that corresponded with how many units they could take. The top tier would be Bastian, Katakros and Archaon.
@@RyanPST88 Reinforced units scale better with Command abilities and buffs and even the combat activation system. 40k recently made reinforced units more expensive point for point, I can even see this as part of the solution.
Priority target was one of very few things that made you not want to jam 1-2 drops. I feel after that change, for most armies more than 2 drops is almost strictly worse...I don't love the way drops decide prio in 4th, nor how heroes=drops, and it seems to be getting worse by the month.
Yeah I agree. More small foot heroes need to be able to join other regiments. For armies like ironjawz you need at least one wizard or priest but they're individual drops. It means most ij lists are 3-4 drops
The entire army building system in 4th is just terrible. It feels like one of those things where someone had an "idea" and they just wouldn't accept that it wasn't a good idea. It's the worst place we've ever been in terms of encouraging low drop.
@@assistantref5084 I think the issue is that they were to afraid to use the paragon system more? definitely feels like more heroes could have been those.
@@Dereck1234 Yes, but that's just a band-aid on a fundamentally bad system. What is the point of this system? What does it add? Nothing. There are no incentives for going high drop. It's just pure penalty. It's a complete step back from 3rd, where although low drop was still the most powerful, at least you got *something* for going higher drop. Now you get nothing.
@@assistantref5084 I think what they were trying to do was make the army more about the heroes and possibly limit it by what they could take. The issue is really good heroes in some factions can take the relevant good units of that faction compared to some that take a mediocre one to get access to good units. And then some like LRL need to bring named characters to bypass those restrictions.
"if people were forced to play with different stuff you would be seeing different results" Um, yes? That's not really much of a thought? Like yes, if you forced people to bring different units you'd see different armies and different win rates. Because you're forcing people to change. And it wouldn't solve any problems because then you'd just run into different inequities because you're creating new problems. I'm not really sure where you're going with this. I'm not sure if it's true but whenever I listen to podcasts or UA-camrs who play A LOT of age of sigmar, like 3+ games a week, every single one of them is trying to find a different way to force people to not take what they want. And I'm confused by it. Cause it doesn't feel like it would help? It would just give you a brief reprieve of the meta until you got used to the new meta. In my opinion, additional restrictions do not create more variety. Freedom and balance creates more variety. And to some degree you will always see very similar or same-y lists because a lot of people just like playing what they see is doing well because it takes out the uncertainty of if the 100's of hours of painting will pay off in a fun army to play.
yea FEC would just wouldnt even be viable anymore if they could only take one unit of morbheg knights. I think you could just do 0 -X per regiment leader.
I don't exactly recall who of us said that, but we might have meant something more like what you're saying anyway. I agree with your last sentiment here: freedom in picking what you like, is where it's at. I think that's also sort of the sentiment that's hidden behind that comment. 'Forced to use different stuff' doesn't mean you only use that stuff. I think it was mentioned during a section where we were advocating for more variety, right? So in that case we meant you would not solely bank on the same one or two units to carry your games. Later on, we do agree that that wouldn't work for all armies though. :)
I absolutely loathe singleton as a format for AOS. With the stripped down ruleset, it just makes the game feel even more like an overly expensive board game or card game. I also really was keen on list-building when they first discussed it on the warcom site. I play Conquest which makes such a list building format work. AoS seems to have borrowed it but really sloppily implemented it without considering the key differences between the two games.
This edition is very boring imo, every battle report I've watched have the same first half: it's always the same order of battle tactics, with the same kind of list ( spamming the most lethal units) and repeat, I feel like I am watching robots. Battle tactics are still there and bring the same problems, pressuring you to have the fewest drop possible to decided who goes first, meanwhile regiments are really constrictive and kill creativity. There are also too many effects that only works on a x+ or d3 roll, making some units feel really useless in a game. It seems that the guys who wrote the original rules for destruction convinced the whole staff that adding layers of randomness in a dice game, is the definition of fun. I appreciate the fact that most rules and time of effect are more manageable but the rest is so mid. Finally, the game has become really long to play imo, most people I play with and myself are in our thirties now and we don't have the luxury to take 3 hours for a single game.
Wildwood needs to lose the ward or damage it does to everyone around it. Recursion of monstrous characters is busted. Should not be able to go to full wounds.
I feel you. The recursion for monsters feels very thematic for Sylvaneth though. Would you feel differently if it wasn't based on a roll? A once per game guaranteed recursion for ONE monster?
@ I would be happy if it was key worded like other armies. Non unique characters like the tree Lord ancient and units. That’s fair. The army needs to have some housekeeping. They needed to fix them. They may have made the trees too strong. I really like the army. I don’t want people to hate playing them.
They need to bring incentive to high drops back. Warlord, Acolyte, Bounty hunter etc all gave big bonuses to armies that ignored the race to the bottom in terms of drops. I think there NEED to be a way to control who decides turn order because its a way too big part of the game to leave to random chance, and I have no idea how to solve that with anything other than drops. Now its actually random because everyone and their mother is a 2 drop.
I know it would be more complex and there are against that at this point but for next edition where hopefully they can tune up the complexity a little bit. It will be cool if they just had Lieutenant and Captain tiers. They could use whatever word they want, but the stormcast Knight characters are the lieutenant tier and the lord characters are the captain tier.
Then you could have lieutenants be inside a captain's regiment. The same goes for commander /warmaster which could potentially take captains as units etc.
We had something similar in Warhammer fantasy back in the day, where Heroes and Lords gave different bonuses and such. So it's not too long of a shot.
Think adding a sideboard sounds fun, but significantly increases the painting and cost barriers of bringing an army to an event
Good point!
List building restrictions are the #1 reason that people didn't come back for 4th edition, only slightly in front of indexes stripping all the flavor and fat out of warscrolls.
I kinda like the indexes for their simplicity as well, though, because it's now easier than ever to understand an opponent's army. But I can also see how it's disappointing to some.
Regiments = Drops system has to be changed.
Agreed. :)
Or is the problem that Fewer regiments = Fewer drops = choosing priority for first turn?
@@Findelas Yeah, that's the point they're making.
I think a simple and elegant change that they could make would be to say that reinforcing a unit uses one of your regiments unit slots.
People are taking reinforced units to get around the issue of having 2K in as few regiments as possible. This would really open the floor.
Also probably allow more heroes to be taken as units.
For a slightly more complex next edition, I'd love it if different characters had different leadership values that corresponded with how many units they could take. The top tier would be Bastian, Katakros and Archaon.
@@RyanPST88 Reinforced units scale better with Command abilities and buffs and even the combat activation system.
40k recently made reinforced units more expensive point for point, I can even see this as part of the solution.
Priority target was one of very few things that made you not want to jam 1-2 drops. I feel after that change, for most armies more than 2 drops is almost strictly worse...I don't love the way drops decide prio in 4th, nor how heroes=drops, and it seems to be getting worse by the month.
Yeah I agree. More small foot heroes need to be able to join other regiments. For armies like ironjawz you need at least one wizard or priest but they're individual drops. It means most ij lists are 3-4 drops
The entire army building system in 4th is just terrible. It feels like one of those things where someone had an "idea" and they just wouldn't accept that it wasn't a good idea.
It's the worst place we've ever been in terms of encouraging low drop.
@@assistantref5084 I think the issue is that they were to afraid to use the paragon system more? definitely feels like more heroes could have been those.
@@Dereck1234 Yes, but that's just a band-aid on a fundamentally bad system.
What is the point of this system? What does it add? Nothing. There are no incentives for going high drop. It's just pure penalty.
It's a complete step back from 3rd, where although low drop was still the most powerful, at least you got *something* for going higher drop. Now you get nothing.
@@assistantref5084 I think what they were trying to do was make the army more about the heroes and possibly limit it by what they could take. The issue is really good heroes in some factions can take the relevant good units of that faction compared to some that take a mediocre one to get access to good units. And then some like LRL need to bring named characters to bypass those restrictions.
"if people were forced to play with different stuff you would be seeing different results"
Um, yes? That's not really much of a thought? Like yes, if you forced people to bring different units you'd see different armies and different win rates. Because you're forcing people to change. And it wouldn't solve any problems because then you'd just run into different inequities because you're creating new problems. I'm not really sure where you're going with this.
I'm not sure if it's true but whenever I listen to podcasts or UA-camrs who play A LOT of age of sigmar, like 3+ games a week, every single one of them is trying to find a different way to force people to not take what they want. And I'm confused by it. Cause it doesn't feel like it would help? It would just give you a brief reprieve of the meta until you got used to the new meta.
In my opinion, additional restrictions do not create more variety. Freedom and balance creates more variety. And to some degree you will always see very similar or same-y lists because a lot of people just like playing what they see is doing well because it takes out the uncertainty of if the 100's of hours of painting will pay off in a fun army to play.
yea FEC would just wouldnt even be viable anymore if they could only take one unit of morbheg knights. I think you could just do 0 -X per regiment leader.
I don't exactly recall who of us said that, but we might have meant something more like what you're saying anyway. I agree with your last sentiment here: freedom in picking what you like, is where it's at.
I think that's also sort of the sentiment that's hidden behind that comment. 'Forced to use different stuff' doesn't mean you only use that stuff. I think it was mentioned during a section where we were advocating for more variety, right? So in that case we meant you would not solely bank on the same one or two units to carry your games. Later on, we do agree that that wouldn't work for all armies though. :)
@@strategoi thanks for the reply! And my apologies if there was a misunderstanding. Though glad to hear we're basically on the same page ❤️
I absolutely loathe singleton as a format for AOS. With the stripped down ruleset, it just makes the game feel even more like an overly expensive board game or card game. I also really was keen on list-building when they first discussed it on the warcom site. I play Conquest which makes such a list building format work. AoS seems to have borrowed it but really sloppily implemented it without considering the key differences between the two games.
I feel your pain 🥲
This edition is very boring imo, every battle report I've watched have the same first half: it's always the same order of battle tactics, with the same kind of list ( spamming the most lethal units) and repeat, I feel like I am watching robots. Battle tactics are still there and bring the same problems, pressuring you to have the fewest drop possible to decided who goes first, meanwhile regiments are really constrictive and kill creativity.
There are also too many effects that only works on a x+ or d3 roll, making some units feel really useless in a game. It seems that the guys who wrote the original rules for destruction convinced the whole staff that adding layers of randomness in a dice game, is the definition of fun. I appreciate the fact that most rules and time of effect are more manageable but the rest is so mid. Finally, the game has become really long to play imo, most people I play with and myself are in our thirties now and we don't have the luxury to take 3 hours for a single game.
Wildwood needs to lose the ward or damage it does to everyone around it. Recursion of monstrous characters is busted. Should not be able to go to full wounds.
I feel you. The recursion for monsters feels very thematic for Sylvaneth though. Would you feel differently if it wasn't based on a roll? A once per game guaranteed recursion for ONE monster?
@ I would be happy if it was key worded like other armies. Non unique characters like the tree Lord ancient and units. That’s fair. The army needs to have some housekeeping. They needed to fix them. They may have made the trees too strong. I really like the army. I don’t want people to hate playing them.