Would AOSing army building be so bad?

Question for you all... one that I have been pondering for some time now. I know that building an army in AOS is somewhat peculiar in some aspects, but I kinda started to like the general concept and here are my reasons:

- You still can take a CAD, sort of, if you like your freedom however you miss on some stuff.
- You may take "formations", that are usually both fluffy and come with some nice rules as a bonus.
- You have less options and min and max unit sizes and minimum buy increments can come as a serious deterrent to what would be otherwise an OP stuff.
- You can build very powerful combos, but on a tax that it will be a one-trick-pony. If the trick fails (and it will as there is not some uber solution for everything), you are screwed.
- This leads into no possible dominance among the possible lists. Even the curreent "OP" list - Orks charging T1 have no guarantee that they will manage to do so.
- 40K is and I believe will be about objectives that could further trash the "OP cart".
- Ergo in the competitive play you may be able to win those 70% of matchups, but those 30% will drag you down resultswise, thus bringing the tourney results more close together, meaning the difference between 1st and 5th place will be more skill than luck (due to law of large numbers) and even less the build as there is no actuall OP TAC.

On the minus side:
- I find building AOS lists sometimes frustrating. The freedom to buy precisely certain number of models from min to max is both boon (ease of juggling with the points) and doom (its something that min-maxers can use).
- The game will be very very dependent on really thought through rules for the formations and the buying options of the units and points. Something that GW does not have a good record on. Not even in AOS.

Thoughts on this? Its just an attempt to get more thoughts on this, I would not like this thread to be AOS hate dump or any kind of flamewar. :-)

I don't play AoS, so I'm unable to contribute. Perhaps you could elaborate on what sort of changes we're talking about? If it's huge changes from what we currently have, I'd probably say no. I think 40k is currently on the right track.

Okay. In short example:

Playing medium sized battle @2000 pts you have to include 1-6 Leaders (HQ), and 3+ Battleline units (Troops), 0-4 Artillery units, 0-4 Behemots and any number of other units. You may take units as single entries, but also within Battalions (Formations) and units within the Battalion count towards those numbers. E.g. if a Battalion includes 1 Leader and 3 Battleline units, by taking it you would meet the minimum requirements for your army. Also you choose general allegiance of your army to one of sub-factions (as if we could choose Kabals, Cults or Covens) which opens up elite units to have as Battleline (similar to Thousand Sons counting Rubric Marines as Troops).

Each unit has a designated points cost at minimum size (usually the size of the box) - say 100 pts for 10. You have to buy more at the increments of the minimum size. Meaning that if you want larger unit, you have to pay for another 10, 20, etc. You can field another 5 models only, but have to pay the full increment cost for 10. All options in the unit (upgrades, items, etc.) are free (or mostly non-existent in AOS as they dont come with different weapon options, save for the Heroes).

There are a lot of rules that synergy with your units' allegiance. Meaning some of them say "all Kabalite units in your army get X".

It all sounds terrible until you actually spend some time with it and see that it promotes fluff lists and reduces minmaxing in terms of "Coteaz with Corsairs". As most of the Coteaz rules would be tied to a faction. You dont have to scrap 5 points here and 5 points there to get that equip. You pay for the models, their abilities AND their options. If you dont use the options - your choice. It also prevents people fielding stuff like naked Archon with a Blaster. Srsly. I would like to see such Archon that would willingly step into the battlezone not tooled up with his best stuff and if his best stuff is just a Blaster, then he is just a Trueborn.

All this is tied to the different system of combat. More wounds to go around, less defence. Daemon prince costs 160, but he is certainly not invulnerable. There is no Toughness. The to-wound rolls are given in the attacking unit's profile and the Toughness of the defender represented by the number of wounds. Big creatures also lose their effectiveness as they get wounded, giving you an immediate payoff if you damage them instead of having them perform at peak even with 1 Wound. This led to the possibility to make them cheaper.

Clearer now?

Very. I'm against it as it's a major step backwards from a list building perspective. I am against anything that constrains my personal fluff and army building. I don't play AoS because of it's army building aspects as the battleline requirements creates repeated tax that makes the army I want to portray untenable due to all the extra things I'm forced to take.

How does it constrain your personal fluff? By putting disadvantage to seriously unfluffy stuff? Battleline reqirements have easy workaround and plenty to choose from. Its much less of a tax than troops are in W40K today. You have to take extra stuff in almost every formation of W40K. From that point of view, AOS system has more freedom than W40K. It does limit the number of detachments (good thing as it does not limit them much). It does limit big scary monsters to 4 (plenty). Limits Artillery to 4 (plenty as it is not the same as Heavy Attack). And lets you have many very good units without using up any slots.

Constraints? In the increments perhaps. But that is something that would probably be different in W40K. Including the weapons options. Constraint through synergy - yea, there is some, but its in W40K within formations or the new detachments too...

See where I am heading? Much of the system is already making its way in W40K. Is it so bad?

My personal feeling is that if I wanted to play with an AoS system, I'd play AoS.
But I don;t want to play AoS.
I want to play 40k.

So you play for the rules? Not the game? Not the setting? Honest question.
Also if I am not mistaken, W40K has evolved in major way over editions. Overwatch, Vehicle rules. Just lately we have seen introduction of formations, decurions. Just few things out of many that I am aware of and I am sure that its nowhere close to the real extent of changes in last editions. Some made changes to list building, some made changes to the rules of battle. It does not matter if the new rules are invented originals or taken from another system. If you say you want to play W40K. Is it 5th? 6th? 7th? Is the current state best ever even though many people left W40K because of 7th? Or just because this is the actual ruleset?

I understand the reluctance of any change. Hell if I should throw out my knowledge of 7th just when I have finally got grips of it, it would not make me very happy in the short term. :-D But I am trying to look at it from a broader perspective.

I can see GW moving towards AoS in some ways but hopefully not all the way. I think formations will be the building blocks of armies in future. We may even see the CAD and Allied detachments disappear in favour of individual meta-detachments (the 'decurion' style, although I don't like the use of that term) for each faction. I think we'll also see groupings of factions in the same way as the Grand Alliances are used in AoS.

I love the 'wounding' of MC's and losing effectiveness though, which is hardly a simplification but would be very welcome.

What I really hope we don't see is the over-simplification of the rules. I don't want fixed numbers to hit and wound regardless of target.

Yea. We are being Factionalized without even knowing it. Much of that system is already heavily used. Only the old points values and sytem of upgrading of units.

There is not much difference between fixed hit and wound plus more HP and the current W40K system. Its just trading one stat value for increase in another.

AOSing the rules would probably result in the same way as fantasy. A lot of players hating it and refusing to play it. Some things are good, but compared to hat wfb was its too over simplified imo. I got in to fantasy for the rules and was steadily building up a fast cav dark elf army. It was untouchable by most combat orientated armies, but wth AoS, that same army is now unenjoyable/unplayable. itd just not the same.

I'm not hating AoS, I personally just preferred the rules and play style of wfb.

aurynn wrote:

There is not much difference between fixed hit and wound plus more HP and the current W40K system. Its just trading one stat value for increase in another.

There is a world of difference IMO as it removes interaction between profiles. Why should a lowly grunt be able to hit a Bloodthirster or Primarch in combat on exactly the same score as he needs to hit an opposing grunt?

To answer:

aurynn wrote:

So you play for the rules? Not the game? Not the setting? Honest question.

I would say the rules are part of the game. The setting is also part of why I play, but also the rules. They all together are parts of the game. Which, by the way, I just lost.

aurynn wrote:

Also if I am not mistaken, W40K has evolved in major way over editions. Overwatch, Vehicle rules. Just lately we have seen introduction of formations, decurions.

I see thinbgs, the changes over the past several years have been very gradual.
Since Third Edition, each new edition since has still been similar to the previous, just with a few differences. Sure, you could take Third and Seventh and compare them and see them as completely difference, but the gradual steps from Third to Fourth, Fourth to Fifth, etc, were smaller at the time and not the kind of massive shift that a complete AoSing would be.

I;d also add - I really like the current Detachments/Formations/Decurions thing. When that came along, I called it one of the best additions to the game in a LONG time, and I still think it is. So I would be a bit sad to see that go altogether.

I'll finally note that I see a difference between the game changing ruleset drmaatically and the game completely adopting the rules of another game altogether. I have no problem with the game changing, but I don't want it to just be a different game I chose not to play, with a different setting. I ried AoS, and decided against it. I at the time still preferred 40k to what AoS was offering both in terms of setting AND game rules.
The best anology my brain can think of right now would be if Magic The Gathering turned around one day and said "Good news! We've overhauled the game, and it now uses the same rules as YuGiOh! Same setting! New rules!"

On the whole, I'd be supportive of anything that would allow more creative list-building options.

As for breaking stuff and making it anew, the one thing I would really not like to happen to 40k is whatever they did to the setting of AoS. I've spent bl**dy ages crafting the fluff, models, stories and ideas behind my exodites. I'd be royally pissed off if some random bloke in the midlands stated 'nah, all your dudes are dead now. But we've got some new dudes that we've come up with that we hope you'll like instead'.

Fantastically alienating, and would likely drive me away from the hobby.

40k is about 'Your Dudes'. They'd do well to remember that.

You should remember however that up until recently GW was run by someone who openly stated that they did no customer research and was of the belief that anyone who didn't like what they were told to like could do one.

Hmmm, so was the End Times mess done under old management?

If so then that gives me a lot of reassurance

Yes, end times was the old management.

@aurynn: Yeah, I wouldn't be ok with the change. The upgrading of specific items of equipment is part of the complexity of list-building, of which I am a huge fan. I want list-building to be as complex and involved as possible, to the point where it offers endless opportunity for innovation and variation.

To me, it sounds like AoS is the opposite, making lists far more static than unique, making more players have similar lists to other players of the same factions.

I would not like the "change" as drastic as it was with End Times, but as I said before. The "Gathering Storm" name is there for a purpose. Its not the end. Its the entry to the Age of Storm. Age of War. I have absolutely no fear that we will shatter the galaxy into the AOS realms making the fluff a memory from past. I dont even have no fear about our violent ways. The reason for Slaanesh derniere coming is the US and their prudeness. You can have models with hanging intestines, drug addicts and all sorts of violence. But boobs showing? Noooo! Thats what GW has to fight now with the changes.

@BetrayTheWorld - So you like fiddling with the points? If the rule was that you may take 3 Reavers for 65 points, have automatically a champion, up to 1 Cluster Caltrop and up to 1 of either Blaster or HL and you could buy 3 more for the same price with the same options, you think it would be bad? If the Archon was 100 points and you could give him 1 Wargear, 1 CC weapon option, 1 Ranged weapon option and 1 Arcane Wargear it would be bad? Again - honest question.

aurynn wrote:

@BetrayTheWorld - So you like fiddling with the points? If the rule was that you may take 3 Reavers for 65 points, have automatically a champion, up to 1 Cluster Caltrop and up to 1 of either Blaster or HL and you could buy 3 more for the same price with the same options, you think it would be bad? If the Archon was 100 points and you could give him 1 Wargear, 1 CC weapon option, 1 Ranged weapon option and 1 Arcane Wargear it would be bad? Again - honest question.

Yes, I think it would be bad. Part of the art of good list design is being able to recognize a good 15 point upgrade from a bad one, applied to different circumstances. The system you're describing is far too simplistic, and results in cookie cutter lists.

Right now, In 40k we have a modular system in formations, but it's still customizeable specifically due to the ability to purchase and customize upgrades. And with the recent "gathering storm" formation having tons of different unit options of 0-X per slot, it appears as if formations are becoming even MORE complex in 40k, which is, again, something I'd like to see. I've said from the beginning that I'd like to see more formations that give you the option to take 0-4 units of X rather than specifying that you must take 3. When formations were first introduced, that's how they were, then they quickly changed to be static. It appears they're moving once more towards giving us options in the number of units we take, which will make lists even more varied and flexible.

That's what I want. I want to be able to bring a list no one has ever seen before to the table each time I play. I want to see a list I've never seen before each time I play. I want innovation and creativity in list-building to be something that is encouraged by having huge numbers of variations and options available in any given group of purchaseable units.

By doing what you're suggesting, everyone who purchases a unit of wyches has exactly the same thing for the most part, which stifles creativity, variation, and flexibility.

No, no. I am not suggesting anything. Just gathering thoughts. I am in fact of similar opinion. The formations of 0-4 and complex formations is actually AOS. My appearance of defending the above comes only from wanting to get the reasons for not having that from other people.

As for good and bad upgrades its true as we have regular proof on this very forum given the amount of queries regarding the unit builds and tactics for those builds.

So to sum it up, everyone is OK with formations, everyone is OK with detachments made of formations, CAD loses its appeal, so it may in fact go, but points should stay as-is, with possible reevaluation of the values as they are mostly outdated given the evolution of the system.

AND... free rules in simple PDFs. Thats my hope... Its hard to keep up with other armies when you are not Richie Rich.

I don't think CAD's lose their appeal. I find myself using them over 50% of the time.

Well some armies have hardly any reason to already. For example Black Legion with their ObjSec formation. SM have one too IIRC. We use CAD because we often play objectives game, because we have to. If we had something like the above mentioned armies, noone would play CAD.

Objective secured is a big part of the appeal of a CAD, in that you're correct. But the vast majority of armies DON'T have access to objective secured in any other way. I believe only like 3 detachments have it other than a CAD.

I wouldn't want to see the CAD go away, either. The problem with eliminating the CAD and just expecting GW to come out with good, reasonable, competitive, balanced detachments that include obsec for each faction is that you'd then be depending on GW to consistently release things that were good, reasonable, competitive, and balanced on a regular basis. There has to be a fallback detachment available for when GW screws the pooch on a codex release, because, let's face it, it's going to happen to someone.

Quote :

How does it constrain your personal fluff?

Anything constraining constrains my personal fluff. If I come up with a fluffy reason to run 200 individual Khymeras in a 2000 point game I can via Unbound rules.

Quote :

By putting disadvantage to seriously unfluffy stuff?

Says the person advocating a game system where the entire previous 28 years of fluff got nuked from orbit.

Quote :

Battleline reqirements have easy workaround and plenty to choose from. Its much less of a tax than troops are in W40K today. You have to take extra stuff in almost every formation of W40K. From that point of view, AOS system has more freedom than W40K. It does limit the number of detachments (good thing as it does not limit them much).

The only time I want to worry about detachment limits is at ITC events, and there only because the ITC has a permanent brain cramp when it comes to certain aspects of the game.

Quote :

It does limit big scary monsters to 4 (plenty).

There is no such thing as too many big scary monsters.

Quote :

Limits Artillery to 4 (plenty as it is not the same as Heavy Attack).

My friend who runs Renegades would take issue with this.

Quote :

And lets you have many very good units without using up any slots.

So why limit the detachments in the first place? Why not just allow us to slap plastic on the table? Wait, doesn't AoS let you just do that anyway? Don't they not even have to be part of the same army? Also, where are these rules coming from, I thought the game was like 4 pages and a warscroll.

Generals handbook. AoS is super restrictive and why I tried to talk you down from one of your takes on why our fluff nuking is going to be terrible. for a subfaction fluff perspective AoS is fine, the issue is that they destroyed all the structure around that fluff.

If what you want to do is at all alternative in such away that their keywords are too unrelated you'll have a horribly inefficient go at doing what you want with your dudes which is not what this hobby is about.

Isn't the General's handbook entirely optional? At least that's what the schpeal for it on the site seems to imply, and I can still download the rules PDF for free. Also why are there still Daemonettes on the Daemons warscroll, I thought they 86'd Slaanesh from Sigmar.

And I still think they're going to bust the kneecaps of our fluff and it's going to be hot garbage.