What would you like for AoS 3

[EMMachine]

33 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I agree that, with no other rules changes, no spillover would be bad for the game. They could fix that with a 'sweep' ability present on all monsters/behemoths that lets damage carry over. But that's more minor rules to keep remembering and I'm not sure if the buff to hordes would be healthy.

I'm not sure if it would slow the game down much at all. It adds an extra step maybe once or twice in the game that's no slower than asking 'rend?"

The difference, when using 40K 9e S/T, is:

Without: roll hit, roll wounds, opponent asks for rend, they roll saves

With: roll hit, ask for toughness, roll wounds, opponent asks for rend, they roll saves

It should take an extra ten seconds at most, and after a few rolls you should remember the toughness. I think the small bit of extra time is a well worth the advantages 

 

13 minutes ago, PJetski said:

If they would be willing to redesign every warscroll and pitched battle profile from scratch I would strongly prefer playing a version of AOS where damage spillover wasn't the norm. It would require printing a new rule set and new Grand Alliance style books with temporary warscrolls to tide you over before the full Battletome release.

Unfortunately I don't think GW values AOS enough to justify spending the time and resources to make such a big change. They definitely value 40k to that extent...

You Guys would really like that a Battletome would be completly Invalid after 3-5 Month? This would basicly be the case with Lumineth or maybe even Gravelords if next Edition would be Strength vs. Toughness.

Plus additions like Anvil of Apotheosis would be impossible because you can't price S/T the same way you can price +1 to Wound right now.

Such a change could be the death of the entire system.

Edited May 7, 2021 by EMMachine

[PJetski]

2 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

 

You Guys would really like that a Battletome would be completly Invalid after 3-5 Month? This would basicly be the case with Lumineth or maybe even Gravelords if next Edition would be Strength vs. Toughness.

Plus additions like Anvil of Apotheosis would be impossible because you can't price S/T the same way you can price +1 to Wound right now.

If they were making huge changes to the core structure of the game then they obviously wouldn't release a battletome so close to the release of a new edition that rewrites the rules. The proper way to do that kind of thing is to release "Index" documents for every army (or grand alliance) and give people some time to digest (3-6 months?) before releasing any new battletomes.

You would price S/T a different way than you price +1 to wound. Conceptually that's not a difficult problem to address.

[Enoby]

2 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

 

You Guys would really like that a Battletome would be completly Invalid after 3-5 Month? This would basicly be the case with Lumineth or maybe even Gravelords if next Edition would be Strength vs. Toughness.

Plus additions like Anvil of Apotheosis would be impossible because you can't price S/T the same way you can price +1 to Wound right now.

It's not that we want the battletomes to go out of date ASAP, but personally I think if a positive change requires a drastic rewrite then I'd rather some battletomes were invalidated (with a free supplement that brings them partially up to speed ay least) for the health of the game as a whole. 

Same as how I'm glad the first Sylvaneth book added in artefacts and allegiance abilities. Yeah, it meant the battletomes beforehand were much less useful as you still needed the GHB for generic abilities, but the addition was good for the game's future as a whole. 

[Yondaime]

2 hours ago, pnkdth said:

Unless it follows the rules that we have for retreating, e.g. you cannot shoot or charge after retreating.

Assuming the leaks are correct a single D6 is very swingy and if it functions like in the past if the unit is caught it is wiped out. Suddenly that retreat move is both very risky and limits them in the following turn.

This is without taking into consideration other eventual limitations on shooting.

a 3+ on a deepstriking charging units is a 12, it will be a disaster

Immagine, you charge with a bt, opponent roll enought to retreat

Next turn Bt is destroyed by the same shooting unit, 

ragequit from life

Charge reactions are a stupid rule, imagine charging sentinels lol

with the only exception of fireslayer melee armys are so bad because they get shoot down into oblivion

Its really funny to play vs Ko/LMR/Seraphon, 1 drop 99% of the time,

Enemy makes me start

Enemy wins priority roll

"nothing personal kid"

Proceed to destroy my whole army 

Ragequit again from life

Honestly i just want the nerf for some heavy shooting list, double turn can stay but it has to be a hard choice not a "i won initiative, you lose gg bye bye!"

Edited May 7, 2021 by Yondaime

[Enoby]

On a bit of a down note, by the sounds of the leaks on their own (and we must understand this is only a fractured look at the ruleset as a whole), it doesn't look like these new rules will do much to help people's current issues with AoS. 

That's not to say 3rd will be bad, but the most common complaints I've seen are:

- Armies are too killy

- Range attacks (inc magic) are too strong

- Mortal wounds are too common

- Battleshock is a poor rule

- Armies want to build for as few drops as possible

- A lot about the double turn

The leaks only touch on the first and last, and it's a light touch at that. The second may become stronger.

Of course we must wait for the entire ruleset, but as the leak video said these were his favourite changes, it would be odd to not touch on anything that changes the above. I really hope AoS 3 is healthy for the game 

[Marcvs]

1 hour ago, Yondaime said:

a 3+ on a deepstriking charging units is a 12, it will be a disaster

Immagine, you charge with a bt, opponent roll enought to retreat

Next turn Bt is destroyed by the same shooting unit, 

ragequit from life

This starts from the wrong premise. The leaks video explicitly says that you cannot use the retreat reaction if the charge originates from outside 9" (so, deepstriking).

[NinthMusketeer]

I question some of the ideas, like no damage spillover, strength vs toughness, etc being ported over from 40k. Why? Because I also play 40k and that game does not feel better or more fun due to their inclusion. I think people are imagining the concept but forgetting the reality that GW absolutely cannot be trusted to execute such a concept evenly. It ends up being just another layer of balance to be screwed up.

[Enoby]

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I question some of the ideas, like no damage spillover, strength vs toughness, etc being ported over from 40k. Why? Because I also play 40k and that game does not feel better or more fun due to their inclusion. I think people are imagining the concept but forgetting the reality that GW absolutely cannot be trusted to execute such a concept evenly. It ends up being just another layer of balance to be screwed up.

I did a long argument for it (I won't post it again as it's massive but find it here 

The most compulsive reason for me is it gives an extra tool to forge the narrative of a unit (especially hero or monster). I played Chaos Knights in 40k and I loved how tough they felt - there were other things wrong with the game but it stood out to me that my giant metal robots felt hard to kill. The only models in AoS that feel hard to kill are those with a special rule that makes them exceptional (e.g. Archaon's 4++ MW save and 4+ spell save, Morathi's iron heart, the bastilladon's weird 1+ save etc). If a unit doesn't have that, then they tend to melt quickly and it just doesn't feel as satisfying or as narratively sound to have a bloodthirster die to some goblins quite easily.

GW is pretty poor at balancing and so more things can go wrong, but at the same time, I think S and T in principal are the best way in a GW game to implement a narrative feel to the game rather than the rocket tag AoS has going on now. If you're interested in the full argument, I'd recommend the link above but I'll warn you it's long 

[NinthMusketeer]

That's just it; strength and toughness stats COULD fix the problem you are talking about. But they wouldn't. They would just be shifting it around so different units do/don't feel right, and we would have a more complex way of being in the same situation we are now.

And rocket tag? Man AoS is a pillow fight compared to the insane offensive power in 40k. Instead of units melting its entire armies! S&T has done nothing because GW does not want to put in the effort of utilizing it correctly. 

It is like giving a mechanic a new adjustable wrench that they will only use as an improvised hammer anyways. The theoretical application is there, and I am totally onboard with S&T in that it COULD be a big improvement--but I am also well aware that it wouldn't be.

I have the same conundrum with points; once upon a time I bemoaned the lack of granular points in AoS, where a unit kitted out with special weapons would cost more than one without, where unit upgrades were options instead of automatically included. But then I looked at 40k and realized it doesn't make things better, it just throws in extra steps before the same end result.

[PJetski]

To be fair the thread is called "What Would You Like For AOS 3" not "What Is GW Capable of Doing For AOS 3"

Edited May 7, 2021 by PJetski

[Skreech Verminking]

11 minutes ago, PJetski said:

To be fair the thread is called "What Would You Like For AOS 3" not "What Is GW Capable of Doing For AOS 3"

More more more rats please! 

[Skreech Verminking]

Jokes aside, I would actually love to see a few changes in aos.

With the current heavy shooting and magic that some armies can put out, I think a revamp of the look out sir rule could change. Something like if a hero with less then ten wounds takes a wound through a mortal or normal wound suffered it can reallocate that wound loss on a 3+.

Units like Jezzails or the hated storm-things equivalent of that should get some kind of bonus to worsen the look out sir rule in a way.

New terrain rules that make them meaningful like those in 40k.

make terrain more interesting.

Currently they don’t have much of a meaning.

Secondaries, could be really helpful for armies that have a hard times taking or controlling objective.

It would also make the Armies played more interesting and it gives flavor.

battleshock change to that of 40k rules for what ever that thing they have is called.

Units with the monster keyword, that have more then ten wounds can only be wounded on an unmodified role of 4+ Or worse, unless the attacking unit is a hero or a monster, or has abilities that work against monsters (like for example the trollhammer torpedo or those fyreslayers shooting picks).

points-decreases for anything skaven related, and some other armies which I either don’t care or just am to tired to  to mention

Have something that makes taking a double turn more hurtful when taken.

For example, the guy who doesn’t get the turn after the role of can remove a objective on the field, or his army is -1 to hit when he spends a cp.

removal of battailons.

sorry mates but they are just awful.

Your either lucky and get a huge buff that nobody can believe cost like nothing, or you pay almost 300points for a formation that gives you like nothing but a cp an extra artifact and the chance to have 2-3less drops.

other have gotten not even one.

Instead have different battalions option that every army has access to.

have a max. Number of 60 for units of clanrats.

they are a horde unit just like stabbas, so why shouldn’t they get that size.

It literally is mentioned how they overrun their foes with numbers, And how can they do that when a human unit has the same number as theirs

Those are my wishes

[NinthMusketeer]

Because of how Skaven size-scaling buffs work a 60-man clanrat unit is not 1.5 times as strong as a 40-man; it's at least twice as strong if not more so. A 60-man clanrat unit is worth far, far more than three 20-man units. One can see how this creates a problem when trying to assign point costs.

[PJetski]

9 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Because of how Skaven size-scaling buffs work a 60-man clanrat unit is not 1.5 times as strong as a 40-man; it's at least twice as strong if not more so. A 60-man clanrat unit is worth far, far more than three 20-man units. One can see how this creates a problem when trying to assign point costs.

Assuming they can all reach the target?

[stratigo]

8 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I question some of the ideas, like no damage spillover, strength vs toughness, etc being ported over from 40k. Why? Because I also play 40k and that game does not feel better or more fun due to their inclusion. I think people are imagining the concept but forgetting the reality that GW absolutely cannot be trusted to execute such a concept evenly. It ends up being just another layer of balance to be screwed up.

I think strength verse toughness does allow for more fungibility in interactions between damage and defense. 

 

6 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

That's just it; strength and toughness stats COULD fix the problem you are talking about. But they wouldn't. They would just be shifting it around so different units do/don't feel right, and we would have a more complex way of being in the same situation we are now.

And rocket tag? Man AoS is a pillow fight compared to the insane offensive power in 40k. Instead of units melting its entire armies! S&T has done nothing because GW does not want to put in the effort of utilizing it correctly. 

It is like giving a mechanic a new adjustable wrench that they will only use as an improvised hammer anyways. The theoretical application is there, and I am totally onboard with S&T in that it COULD be a big improvement--but I am also well aware that it wouldn't be.

I have the same conundrum with points; once upon a time I bemoaned the lack of granular points in AoS, where a unit kitted out with special weapons would cost more than one without, where unit upgrades were options instead of automatically included. But then I looked at 40k and realized it doesn't make things better, it just throws in extra steps before the same end result.

Eh, both games are eminently capable of also creating extremely difficult to kill tarpits too.

 

I mean the answer is GW is bad at balance. Except sometimes its not and they should have the LotR team to write the rules for all the games, if doing so wouldn't make Jay's head inflate so much it pops off and floats away into the clouds :P.

 

 

[NinthMusketeer]

3 hours ago, PJetski said:

Assuming they can all reach the target?

10-wide, 3-deep is not unreasonable, so 30 skaven attacking. The other 30? Give those front ones +1 to hit, +1 to wound, and +6 to bravery on battleshock tests.

30 clanrat spear attacks at +1 to hit and +1 to wound causes the same average damage as 60 without those buffs. And you can double that with 1 command point for gnash-gnaw, rather than needing to use multiple command points to buff several smaller units. And if things get bad it is only one cp to give that unit battleshock immunity as well. Oh, and for the better performance they cost a premium of less points.

Edited May 8, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Pyrk]

Slaves to Darkness - expanded access to Marks of Chaos. Cultists are the obvious ones, but I'd like to see stuff like the Darkoath characters, Mindstealer Sphiranx, Formoroid Crusher, Ogroid Myrmidon etc.

[NinthMusketeer]

1 hour ago, Pyrk said:

Slaves to Darkness - expanded access to Marks of Chaos. Cultists are the obvious ones, but I'd like to see stuff like the Darkoath characters, Mindstealer Sphiranx, Formoroid Crusher, Ogroid Myrmidon etc.

Yeah. IMO they should at least be able to take Undivided to, you know, benefit from the main StD allegiance ability.

Edited May 8, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Skreech Verminking]

14 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

10-wide, 3-deep is not unreasonable, so 30 skaven attacking. The other 30? Give those front ones +1 to hit, +1 to wound, and +6 to bravery on battleshock tests.

30 clanrat spear attacks at +1 to hit and +1 to wound causes the same average damage as 60 without those buffs. And you can double that with 1 command point for gnash-gnaw, rather than needing to use multiple command points to buff several smaller units. And if things get bad it is only one cp to give that unit battleshock immunity as well. Oh, and for the better performance they cost a premium of less points.

Unbuffed (but with the allegiance rules and spears) that unit would do on average 10 damage before the save.

With the buff that would be around 20 wounds, although keep in mind that the skaven are one of those armies that don’t have much cp at the start, our battailons are overcosted and are considered more than just worse, and with the excetion of the Verminlord warpseer, there isn’t much way to generate more then 1cp per turn.

sure there is that combination where you could generate 5-6 cp per turn, but that would cost in total about 1000-1200points that would just heroes.

also a unit of Stormvermins is just a better options for gnash gnaw on their teeths.

And if your telling me that there is that one battailon that can be buffed by this ability for one cp, then I would have to ask you to read the range of the ability, b’cause wholly within 13inches isn’t going to get you much more units the. Having no battailon.

in Total I would consider a unit of max. Size 60clanrats a pretty great value, and at a value of 300points they would make an excellent meathsield although not as great as Stabbas

but only clanrats and giant rats.

they are Afterall the horde horde units in a already horde based army

ps: and why would it make clanrats more powerful than 3 individual units of 20?

you do know that a moxed skaven force currently only really has them as an battleline option.

so you either go tons of clanrats and loose a bunch of wonderful exploding weapon options, or you have the option to take less and get more of those destructive toys for days

Edited May 8, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Nacnudllah]

I would love AoS3 to be easier to play, and even MORE narrative focused.  To this end, I would like to see:

- Thematic scenario generators in battletomes.  I would love to see thematic objectives, twists, ruses, etc. for each army, and would use it all the time!

- Get rid of the generic command abilities (especially Inspiring Presence), and replace them with: Spend a Command Point to re-roll any roll to Hit, Wound, Save, Battleshock, Charge (both dice), etc.

- Get rid of the bonus artefact and bonus command point for Battalions so that Battalions can be fun again instead of just being an overpriced mess.  Maybe let players buy additional Artefacts and Command Traits with points like they can with Command Points.

- Fix the first turn rule so that players roll for first turn in the first battle round.  Completely unbundle it from deploying first.  This would also help fix Battalions.

- Bring back the zany impressionistic maps.  I miss the maps of the early days, every battletome should have at least one map in it.

[pnkdth]

All I want is that lovely time window of excitement and salt. Some see opportunity while other decry the end of the world. Then, in a few months the 2nd edition will be a distant memory. I imagine we'll be squabbling over the next big thing in the meta or whatever else. 

Much of what I want in 3rd has already been addressed, e.g. a more interesting priority roll-off or mechanic. Charge reactions + more CPs + a possible way to manipulate objects. Sounds good. Yup, I actually like the priority rules cause it stops the game from being mechanical and forces you to play with uncertainty. 

Battalions changed to pave way for more units and sub-factions seeing play. Bye-bye, no-brainer battalions. 

 

On 5/7/2021 at 4:06 PM, Yondaime said:

snip

I don't know if you read my post too quickly but if you cannot shoot/charge after retreating (as is true with how retreating normally works) you cannot just fall back and shoot. If it also ends up working like in the past and you get caught means getting the whole unit wiped then falling back is a last resort, not a get out jail free card.

But we'll see soon enough!

[stratigo]

I mean I see them adding a unit with a 2+ save and just sigh because I know that comes with a proliferation of mortal wounds again

[Sarouan]

So double turn is here to stay in 3rd edition. Sorry, those who hate this mechanism.

Interview showed they were focusing on keeping the game core rules simple and clear, giving more tools/advantages to the player going second and talking about core battalions to keep some armies less "unbalanced".

Hm, looks like the designers know what they're doing. What a shock !

[stratigo]

5 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

So double turn is here to stay in 3rd edition. Sorry, those who hate this mechanism.

Interview showed they were focusing on keeping the game core rules simple and clear, giving more tools/advantages to the player going second and talking about core battalions to keep some armies less "unbalanced".

Hm, looks like the designers know what they're doing. What a shock !

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

The double turn's a sunk cost fallacy. 

[PJetski]

13 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

So double turn is here to stay in 3rd edition. Sorry, those who hate this mechanism.

Interview showed they were focusing on keeping the game core rules simple and clear, giving more tools/advantages to the player going second and talking about core battalions to keep some armies less "unbalanced".

Hm, looks like the designers know what they're doing. What a shock !

They said the same thing in second edition. Endless Spells were supposed to be The Thing that balanced double turns and that didn't pan out.