What would you like for AoS 3

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

On 5/31/2021 at 10:49 AM, Kadeton said:

Yes, I'd say that's accurate. Lumineth Realm-Lords, Nighthaunt, Soulblight Gravelords, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Fyreslayers, and Stormcast Eternals are all seriously cringeworthy names, IMO.

Don't tell anybody, but Gravelords is basically the same as Tomb Kings 🤫

[Kramer]

On 5/30/2021 at 8:48 PM, yukishiro1 said:

That said, to me, it sounds like caricature of GW's usual Copyrightable Doubleword (TM, R, All Rights Reserved)

Google Louisiana Creole. I’m pretty sure because of the swamplands background of them, GW was trying to cheekily combine cruel with creole
At least that was my first thought when they showed the name and mini’s. 

[MitGas]

When it comes to names, few are as elegant as "Disciples of Tzeentch". 💖

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Don't tell anybody, but Gravelords is basically the same as Tomb Kings 🤫

It's a good point, and an excellent demonstration of the principle. Tomb Kings (to me) is a name with gravitas - it's unadorned and functional, but weighty. They are kings, but they're different to other kings because they're undead. They live in tombs, which other kings tend not to do. Great, Tomb Kings is completely sufficient as a distinguishing label, and it sounds menacing and scary to boot.

If the vampires were called the Grave Lords, that would be almost as good a name. It doesn't sound quite as strong, but it has a cute double-meaning, though that also makes it a bit more poncy (which suits vampires anyway). Squishing that into the Gravelords portmanteau weakens the whole effect, because now you're neologising instead of just using words with established meanings. Adding Soulblight is completely unnecessary adornment, and adds no additional specificity to the term, which makes it feel fussy and inane.

That's essentially where the cringe happens for me with all the Nonsense Nounrulers and Superfluous Nounverbers. They're cumbersome, impractical formations that bear no resemblance to the kind of terms people actually use to refer to themselves or others.

[Greybeard86]

5 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

It's a good point, and an excellent demonstration of the principle. Tomb Kings (to me) is a name with gravitas - it's unadorned and functional, but weighty. They are kings, but they're different to other kings because they're undead. They live in tombs, which other kings tend not to do. Great, Tomb Kings is completely sufficient as a distinguishing label, and it sounds menacing and scary to boot.

If the vampires were called the Grave Lords, that would be almost as good a name. It doesn't sound quite as strong, but it has a cute double-meaning, though that also makes it a bit more poncy (which suits vampires anyway). Squishing that into the Gravelords portmanteau weakens the whole effect, because now you're neologising instead of just using words with established meanings. Adding Soulblight is completely unnecessary adornment, and adds no additional specificity to the term, which makes it feel fussy and inane.

That's essentially where the cringe happens for me with all the Nonsense Nounrulers and Superfluous Nounverbers. They're cumbersome, impractical formations that bear no resemblance to the kind of terms people actually use to refer to themselves or others.

A couple comments.

First, I think we should all be cautious judging names, as some are acquired tastes. Tomb Kings is a bit derpy too, IMHO.

That said, I am with you that sometimes less gimmicky for the sake of brands works better, specially in fantasy. The names seem to have a tad too much business oriented flavor, over truly good loreful names.

For example, Vampire Counts is a better name, IMHO, than Grave Lords, because it truly captured the fantasy trope it played into.

[Scurvydog]

Right now they just seem to add "lords" to a bit too many things, with Kharadron Overlords, Lumineth Realm-lords and now Soulblight Gravelords it gets a bit much, rather than the name itself being all that bad.

The best names are both descriptive and also lore/in game accurate, but most names are completely fine. I really like Sons of Behemat though, as that name is deeply rooted in their stories and mythology of the world, there is something to unpack, while also being to the point and clear who we are talking about. Sometimes less is more as well, Ironjawz for example, clear as day and no nonsense. 

Hey it could be worse, the new Orruks could have been Cruelstabbing Bogtyrants or Odorbountious Mireroyals

[Kadeton]

20 minutes ago, Scurvydog said:

Hey it could be worse, the new Orruks could have been Cruelstabbing Bogtyrants or Odorbountious Mireroyals

Shh, they'll hear you. Effluviarch Marshqueens! Kruulmuck Quagmarquises!

[Neverchosen]

Here are some of my last minute hopes for 3.0. Many of the things I do want are either incoming or rumoured so this is a list of things that I have not heard for certain.

My biggest hope is for updated scenery rules and most importantly some simple siege mechanics, I think having a table for structures and materials would be a good start that could be combined with updated rules for garrisons. For example you could cross between wooden and gate or stone and tower and it would give a defence and wound value for various structures.  Although this wont account for all terrain types or siege scenarios it would be a great starting point. I also think it would be nice to have this rule balance with faction scenery as it would be nice to smash the Bone Tithe Nexus.

I miss general spell lores and miscasts, I do not think I would want them to return in the same manner as Fantasy, maybe a little more specific and tied to realms. Maybe each lore has 3-4 spelss and a miscast can simply result in d3 mortal wounds?

I would like Realm rules to be both more streamlined and impactful but still optional. Maybe the realms can interact with certain non faction specific key words. Ghur should always include a wandering beast but also make monsters more deadly. Shyish could give deathless minions to every army but also negatively impact bravery. I just find the current tables tend to be interesting but I will always forget about them for a turn or two. 

I have seen some suggestions for Wandering Beasts as a mechanic like Endless Spells. I am absolutely on board with this concept as I think this would be the best way to introduce certain monsters so that all factions could have access and also they can optionally pose a neutral risk on the battlefield. 

I love that GW is dabbling with mercenary rules and heroes that fight for an alliance not just an army. I would like to see these concepts expanded in some way. I kind of like the idea of being able to even create a Dogs of War style army using a mixture of Gargants, Ogres, Fyreslayers, Chaos Cultists and certain City of Sigmar units such as Scourge Privateers. Although this last hope is maybe just wishful thinking but would be cool for White Dwarf.

I would also like them to expand upon the Anvil of Apotheosis. I think it needs to be stream lined if used for matched play or limited to narrative games but either way it is a cool set of rules that should be more readily available. 

A focus on updating existing armies, this is pretty straight forward I believe that many of the smaller factions ought to have a second wave and many older armies should get some model updates. Also I do fall into the camp that would like certain new subfactions to expand on pre-existing armies to avoid over-saturating the game. Malerion's aelves can merge with DoK, Kurnothi can expand the Sylvaneth and Chaos Dwarfs would make my S2D complete. I do want some new armies to help round out missing elements of the game namely a new human and Duardin faction, Silent People and something entirely new for Destruction.

Not just Destruction but Beasts of all shapes and sizes to take a central role in the edition. Beasts of Chaos, Skaven, Searaphon, Beastclaw Raiders, Kurnothi Aelves, Silent People, Vykros vampires all deserve some degree of spotlight in the Realm of Beasts.

More Gods and Godbeasts, this doesn't have to be on the tabletop but broken realms has introduced us to Morathi's ascendence and Kragnos' release. I think the current pantheon in AOS are like the Olympians so now it is time to get into the smaller deities. It will be hard to strike a balance as bloat is essentially always the fear with such a vast and interconnected high fantasy realm as AOS. 

I am conflicted about the idea of introducing some more broad keywords, but I do think it would give some options for rules for cavalry, chariots, black powder weapons and siege equipment. Even if the rules are not core rules but simply interactions that exist such as a master rider giving buffs to fellow mounted units or a spell that causes heavy rain making black powder weapons take a test to see if they fire. 

These are what I could think of off the top of my head. There are probably lots of other things that will come to me later.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Neverchosen

[KingBrodd]

41 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

Here are some of my last minute hopes for 3.0. Many of the things I do want are either incoming or rumoured so this is a list of things that I have not heard for certain.

My biggest hope is for updated scenery rules and most importantly some simple siege mechanics, I think having a table for structures and materials would be a good start that could be combined with updated rules for garrisons. For example you could cross between wooden and gate or stone and tower and it would give a defence and wound value for various structures.  Although this wont account for all terrain types or siege scenarios it would be a great starting point. I also think it would be nice to have this rule balance with faction scenery as it would be nice to smash the Bone Tithe Nexus.

I miss general spell lores and miscasts, I do not think I would want them to return in the same manner as Fantasy, maybe a little more specific and tied to realms. Maybe each lore has 3-4 spelss and a miscast can simply result in d3 mortal wounds?

I would like Realm rules to be both more streamlined and impactful but still optional. Maybe the realms can interact with certain non faction specific key words. Ghur should always include a wandering beast but also make monsters more deadly. Shyish could give deathless minions to every army but also negatively impact bravery. I just find the current tables tend to be interesting but I will always forget about them for a turn or two. 

I have seen some suggestions for Wandering Beasts as a mechanic like Endless Spells. I am absolutely on board with this concept as I think this would be the best way to introduce certain monsters so that all factions could have access and also they can optionally pose a neutral risk on the battlefield. 

I love that GW is dabbling with mercenary rules and heroes that fight for an alliance not just an army. I would like to see these concepts expanded in some way. I kind of like the idea of being able to even create a Dogs of War style army using a mixture of Gargants, Ogres, Fyreslayers, Chaos Cultists and certain City of Sigmar units such as Scourge Privateers. Although this last hope is maybe just wishful thinking but would be cool for White Dwarf.

I would also like them to expand upon the Anvil of Apotheosis. I think it needs to be stream lined if used for matched play or limited to narrative games but either way it is a cool set of rules that should be more readily available. 

A focus on updating existing armies, this is pretty straight forward I believe that many of the smaller factions ought to have a second wave and many older armies should get some model updates. Also I do fall into the camp that would like certain new subfactions to expand on pre-existing armies to avoid over-saturating the game. Malerion's aelves can merge with DoK, Kurnothi can expand the Sylvaneth and Chaos Dwarfs would make my S2D complete. I do want some new armies to help round out missing elements of the game namely a new human and Duardin faction, Silent People and something entirely new for Destruction.

Not just Destruction but Beasts of all shapes and sizes to take a central role in the edition. Beasts of Chaos, Skaven, Searaphon, Beastclaw Raiders, Kurnothi Aelves, Silent People, Vykros vampires all deserve some degree of spotlight in the Realm of Beasts.

More Gods and Godbeasts, this doesn't have to be on the tabletop but broken realms has introduced us to Morathi's ascendence and Kragnos' release. I think the current pantheon in AOS are like the Olympians so now it is time to get into the smaller deities. It will be hard to strike a balance as bloat is essentially always the fear with such a vast and interconnected high fantasy realm as AOS. 

I am conflicted about the idea of introducing some more broad keywords, but I do think it would give some options for rules for cavalry, chariots, black powder weapons and siege equipment. Even if the rules are not core rules but simply interactions that exist such as a master rider giving buffs to fellow mounted units or a spell that causes heavy rain making black powder weapons take a test to see if they fire. 

These are what I could think of off the top of my head. There are probably lots of other things that will come to me later.

I agree with absolutely everything you've stated here mate. Get out of my brain!!

[MitGas]

I got a wish for the new edition, although it's a stretch... if they release new stuff for Warcry (e.g. an Order themed new version) then please make sure that the warscrolls are actually good in AoS this time. S2D got a ton of units via Warcry they more or less won't use instead of updates they actually longed for. 

[sandlemad]

On 5/31/2021 at 9:49 AM, Kadeton said:

Yes, I'd say that's accurate. Lumineth Realm-Lords, Nighthaunt, Soulblight Gravelords, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Fyreslayers, and Stormcast Eternals are all seriously cringeworthy names, IMO. "Kruleboyz" still takes the Cringe Crown above all of them, though.

Gotta say, I agree with you in general about how dreadful many (most?) AoS faction and unit names are but I love Kruleboyz. It's so perfectly brash in its gleeful awfulness. Like a gang from an 80s anti-drugs PSA commercial. "You just got wrecked by... Da Kroolboyz!"

I will absolutely take that over the endless stream of three-syllable compound nouns (which can largely be ameliorated by keeping the fantasy term and making it "Ossiarch Empire" or "Ossiarch Legions" or whatever). More armies should be meaningfully confusable with classic Janet Jackson tunes. Nasty, nasty boys, don't ever change...

[zilberfrid]

2 hours ago, Scurvydog said:

Right now they just seem to add "lords" to a bit too many things, with Kharadron Overlords, Lumineth Realm-lords and now Soulblight Gravelords it gets a bit much, rather than the name itself being all that bad.

The best names are both descriptive and also lore/in game accurate, but most names are completely fine. I really like Sons of Behemat though, as that name is deeply rooted in their stories and mythology of the world, there is something to unpack, while also being to the point and clear who we are talking about. Sometimes less is more as well, Ironjawz for example, clear as day and no nonsense. 

Hey it could be worse, the new Orruks could have been Cruelstabbing Bogtyrants or Odorbountious Mireroyals

The only one that fits the "Lords" somewhat are the Kharadron. I think "Overlords" is a callback to the Squat armoured airship from the Epic game called the Overlord (for obvious reasons).

But yeah, the total names are too long, and we then start abbreviating them to two or three letter acronyms, which makes it less transparent for people not "in the know".

[sandlemad]

25 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

The only one that fits the "Lords" somewhat are the Kharadron. I think "Overlords" is a callback to the Squat armoured airship from the Epic game called the Overlord (for obvious reasons).

Quite possibly but I think Kharadron Overlords may be cruder than that, simply referring to them being 'over' you, literally 30,000 feet over you in the sky.

Overlord is an odd name on its own merits as well, considering that the KO are one of the few factions in AoS than don't seek political or territorial domination ('overlordship') over others, just ceaseless profit.

At least it rolls off the tongue slightly better than 'Realmlords'.

[JustAsPlanned]

Yeah I do wish that GW eases it with the horrendously copyrightable names a bit, which they seem to be doing with the Kruleboyz. My biggest pipe dream that will never happen is that at some point they go back and change some of the faction names to be less like that - ie, LRL to just Lumineth, OBR to just Ossiarchs or Bonereapers etc.

[Marcvs]

I don't know if they are just showing the new rules numbering or if those are actual 3.0 rules. IF they are, not much seems to have changed

https://twitter.com/BenJohnson0013/status/1400120823864827905

[Gunvor]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

I don't know if they are just showing the new rules numbering or if those are actual 3.0 rules. IF they are, not much seems to have changed

https://twitter.com/BenJohnson0013/status/1400120823864827905

I belive the showcase here is to emphesize the clarity of the rules and reference pointing them for easier recall during gameplay.
The rules themselves in this particular case dont seem to have changed much.

[Greybeard86]

Well that’s sad. I was hoping for actual protection to mini heroes, as in untargetable. Not only it makes more sense, I believe it would also make the game better. 

[zilberfrid]

This doesn't fix mw on hit missile spam.

[Marcvs]

21 minutes ago, Gunvor said:

I belive the showcase here is to emphesize the clarity of the rules and reference pointing them for easier recall during gameplay.
The rules themselves in this particular case dont seem to have changed much.

that's what I thought too when I saw this, but if you read the article they kind of give the impression that this is a peek at the new rules. Definitely not clear.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Marcvs

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

If there is a 10.1 gotta guess there’s a 10.2 and, dare we hope, a 10.3?

Maybe those will have terrain etc.

[yukishiro1]

Disappointing to see their first rules reveal is that the most problematic phase of the game is essentially totally unchanged. Can still snipe heroes - even easier now with the - to hit capped - can still shoot into combats without penalty and no chance of hitting your friends, etc. 

[Ragest]

First of all, we don't have the full picture about shooting.

Second, untargetable heros are way more problematic than sniped heros. Just imagine a Cathallar behind 20 Wardens, any hero between 20 Hearthguards, Nighthaunt surrounded by 40 Chainrasps, Volturnos covered by eels, Hags, Boneshaper, skink heros, Fatemaster... 

The way to go is adding bodyguards to every army, not making invincible heros

[Xil]

11 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Disappointing to see their first rules reveal is that the most problematic phase of the game is essentially totally unchanged. Can still snipe heroes - even easier now with the - to hit capped - can still shoot into combats without penalty and no chance of hitting your friends, etc. 

Protection of small hereos would be under the unit type in the ruleset, it doesn't fit in the rules for the phase.

So far we can't tell if small heroes are protected now or not. Bigger heroes are shafted now tho. My Cauldrons for DoK are now a prime target for some armies.

I really did think they would change shooting in and from melee. My hope for some more old style melee matches is diminishing tho.

 

[Beliman]

7 hours ago, Ragest said:

First of all, we don't have the full picture about shooting.

100% this.

We still don't know what a "Hero Action" means, or what kind of Shooting Phase reactions are going to have or any new abilities from Core Batallions.

Imho, MW on ranged attacks don't need a "generic rule". They need to be reworked: no "+1 attacks", no more rerolls, etc...

Edited June 3, 2021 by Beliman

[Vaporlocke]

8 hours ago, Ragest said:

First of all, we don't have the full picture about shooting.

Second, untargetable heros are way more problematic than sniped heros. Just imagine a Cathallar behind 20 Wardens, any hero between 20 Hearthguards, Nighthaunt surrounded by 40 Chainrasps, Volturnos covered by eels, Hags, Boneshaper, skink heros, Fatemaster... 

The way to go is adding bodyguards to every army, not making invincible heros

So crush the unit then crush them. As it stands in the current gunline meta there is no point in taking support heroes in competitive games, which hurts some armies a lot more than others.

 

Shooting needs to be toned way down, there are literally no drawbacks to it for some factions and from just the brief glance we've seen GW isn't going to acknowledge this or do anything meaningful about it.