What would you like for AoS 3

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

21 hours ago, Rors said:

Going in a different direction to most of the conversations here but I'd like to see the barrier to entry drop. It's an expensive game that requires time to build, time to paint and reps of games to learn.
I'd like more easy to build stuff but actually designed to give new players functional lists that are relatively cheap and quick to paint.

 

The best way to do that would probably be to have scenarios that are playable at low points and ways to scale board size to whatever point level you are playing at. If the board size changes in AoS 3 as most people are predicting, then that would actually be fairly doable: One AoS board would then be 4 warcry boards, so you could easily do half/quarter sized games.

---

On another note, if we are reading the omens correctly and AoS 3 actually gets rid of horde discounts and lowers max unit sizes across the board, how would people feel about a "horde attack" rule? I was thinking something like "If a unit has more than 20 models, models in this unit can make 1 attack with any one of their melee profiles even if they are not in range for that attack." Maybe add some stipulations that you still have to touch bases with a model that is in range to get this to prevent stringing out large units.

I think it would be a nice little bonus. The unit that would benefit the most would be 1 attack trash units like the new zombies and skeletons. More elite units with multiple attacks would benefit a lot less from big blobs that way.

[EMMachine]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:26 PM, Kadeton said:

Personally, if I were designing it, I would make support characters attach themselves to a unit when you build the army list, and become a permanent model in that unit. Only the unit they were attached to would benefit from their leadership effects. Then, bring back the Challenge mechanics from the old WHFB. You can shoot their unit but you won't hit the character (indiscriminate), and if you want to kill them before you wipe out their whole unit then you'd better get one of your own characters in there to deal with them (heroic). But that's just me - I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives that would work well.

 

1 hour ago, Iksdee said:

I would love this. This was great fun. Getting to challange another champion felt like a small battle within the bigger battle. It also made some otherwise meaningless unit more dangerous. Dont know if deathstars would be a thing again though.

The thematic clash between two great heroes, without other soldiers interfering is epic, but the way challendes work was one of the reason in the end that killed 9th age for me.

It ended up in the buffling situation that heroes don't make challenges because most of the time it is accepted by the champion of the other unit. Or in worst case a 1 wound champion is tanking the entire damage of great heroes like Archaon because the way it was implemented the model that is being challenged can only do damage to the challenger or not attack at all (and this was treated as a great form of balancing while looking from the narrative standpoint it feels more like cheating).

 

[Gitzdee]

4 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

 

The thematic clash between two great heroes, without other soldiers interfering is epic, but the way challendes work was one of the reason in the end that killed 9th age for me.

It ended up in the buffling situation that heroes don't make challenges because most of the time it is accepted by the champion of the other unit. Or in worst case a 1 wound champion is tanking the entire damage of great heroes like Archaon because the way it was implemented the model that is being challenged can only do damage to the challenger or not attack at all (and this was treated as a great form of balancing while looking from the narrative standpoint it feels more like cheating).

 

This can be changed if they want to. Could allow the use of leftover weapons on other models from the unit. Or fight out a challange at the end of the hero fase in addition to the combat fase to highlight these awesome fighters. Just trowing some ideas out there.

[MiNibbler]

My greatest wish would be, to get back some humble chivalry - make Bretonnia great again!

[Verminlord]

[spoiler] test [/spoiler]

Edited May 25, 2021 by Verminlord

[Neverchosen]

On 5/20/2021 at 9:14 AM, MiNibbler said:

My greatest wish would be, to get back some humble chivalry - make Bretonnia great again!

There is enough chivalry in the game already! Do we truly need two armies featuring noble knights?

[Feorag]

I'd love to see % caps on things like in whfb 8th.

0-50% characters

25%+ battleline

Stops the obscene armies that are majority characters and the 3 cheapest battleline units. 

I'll miss book batallions though as a BoC player they are very much needed, and I'll miss using the seeker Cavalcade for my hedonites! 

I'd like to see no shooting into combat unless you're part of it.

But other than those two changes I quite enjoyed aos 2.0.

 

 

 

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

14 hours ago, Verminlord said:

[spoiler] test [/spoiler]

You can make a spoiler box by clicking the little eye icon at the very end of the editing tool bar above the comment box. Next to the "Tx".

[PraetorDragoon]

1 hour ago, Feorag said:

I'd love to see % caps on things like in whfb 8th.

0-50% characters

25%+ battleline

Stops the obscene armies that are majority characters and the 3 cheapest battleline units. 

I'll miss book batallions though as a BoC player they are very much needed, and I'll miss using the seeker Cavalcade for my hedonites! 

I'd like to see no shooting into combat unless you're part of it.

But other than those two changes I quite enjoyed aos 2.0.

 

 

 

 

As somebody who played WHFB. It does not.

Mandatory Core/Troops/Battlelines have not, in any edition of a GW game ever, managed to stop obscene armies or balance them. Either your Core is good and you happily take them, or they're bad and you'll only take the bare minimum.

What would work however is a special/elite/rare category that limits particular strong units.

[Feorag]

22 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

As somebody who played WHFB. It does not.

Mandatory Core/Troops/Battlelines have not, in any edition of a GW game ever, managed to stop obscene armies or balance them. Either your Core is good and you happily take them, or they're bad and you'll only take the bare minimum.

What would work however is a special/elite/rare category that limits particular strong units.

Yeah well the limit would go across other and behemoths/warmachines. 

It would stop a lot of stupid lists like Archaon and kairos and katakros Arkhan and liege, also the old hedonites style of 1700 points of heros 3 units of hellstriders. 

It's not a perfect fix by any stretch of the imagination but it may help! 

[Darnok]

Late to the party, in short:

• actually new models for armies that got nothing since the start of AoS (CoS, Bonesplitters, Spiderfang, Seraphon, BoC, Skaven)
• add variety to factions that have barely a handful of kits other than characters (KO, Fireslayers, Bonesplitters, Ironjawz), not only, but also...
• ... by adding kits to "micro armies", especially if they come from a mixed battletome

What I mean with the last point is mostly about Orruks: yeah sure, the book is solid, and in total it comes with some variety in kits and playstyles. However, the book combines to pretty distinct concepts - Ironjawz and Bonesplitters are on two contrary ends of the "Orc spectrum". Having both on the tale feels like playing two armies, and I am among those people who just don't like that. I really like the Bonesplitters, and from all I know they play not that bad. Having more than two boxes and four characters - three of which in Finecast - would be awesome though! Yeah, we just had a "character upgrade box", hiding in the WH:U range... but this is bread crumbs.

Other armies have similar issues.

[RexHavoc]

On 5/19/2021 at 11:27 AM, Rors said:

Going in a different direction to most of the conversations here but I'd like to see the barrier to entry drop. It's an expensive game that requires time to build, time to paint and reps of games to learn.
I'd like more easy to build stuff but actually designed to give new players functional lists that are relatively cheap and quick to paint.

 

People hate on 1st Ed so much, but with AoS Skirmish the entry barrier was incredible easy in comparison and pretty cheap, especially when coupled along with the left over WFB unit kits. 20 models gave you enough for a couple of warbands, it gave people the chance to jazz up their leader from the same kit and get them into converting models and if you did this for a few campaigns, by the third or fourth you had a good portion it not all your battlelines painted up and would be ready for bigger, fancier kits. Easy to build kits work almost as well for Skirmish, only you won't have as much of a bits box to convert leaders from. 

Getting rid of Skirmish as a staple part of the game was one of the worst things GW did. Sure, they probably made a mint on people grabbing warcry, but it is not the same as being able to build your army bit by bit. Plus you didn't need to learn a completely new game alongside it- you start with skirmish using AoS warscrolls, by the time your army is done you already know a good deal of how to play with them in the 'larger' full AoS games.

Yes, there is also the Path to Glory etc that came within battletomes, but they have a far greater start up cost. And then of course they redid the rules for AoS2 in white dwarf, but these were incredible difficult to get once a couple of months had gone past, split across two issues was already pricey in comparison and ebay prices shot up with the issue being in demand. Not a good way to encourage new players.

My group still play skirmish and now uni is done, I've already started putting together some new warbands and can't wait to get playing again. Yes, if you are a min/max or meta gamer skirmish was easy to break. But if you want a good narrative to get new players into the game, skirmish is a great tool.

[RuneBrush]

19 hours ago, RexHavoc said:

People hate on 1st Ed so much, but with AoS Skirmish the entry barrier was incredible easy in comparison and pretty cheap, especially when coupled along with the left over WFB unit kits. 20 models gave you enough for a couple of warbands, it gave people the chance to jazz up their leader from the same kit and get them into converting models and if you did this for a few campaigns, by the third or fourth you had a good portion it not all your battlelines painted up and would be ready for bigger, fancier kits. Easy to build kits work almost as well for Skirmish, only you won't have as much of a bits box to convert leaders from. 

Getting rid of Skirmish as a staple part of the game was one of the worst things GW did. Sure, they probably made a mint on people grabbing warcry, but it is not the same as being able to build your army bit by bit. Plus you didn't need to learn a completely new game alongside it- you start with skirmish using AoS warscrolls, by the time your army is done you already know a good deal of how to play with them in the 'larger' full AoS games.

Yes, there is also the Path to Glory etc that came within battletomes, but they have a far greater start up cost. And then of course they redid the rules for AoS2 in white dwarf, but these were incredible difficult to get once a couple of months had gone past, split across two issues was already pricey in comparison and ebay prices shot up with the issue being in demand. Not a good way to encourage new players.

My group still play skirmish and now uni is done, I've already started putting together some new warbands and can't wait to get playing again. Yes, if you are a min/max or meta gamer skirmish was easy to break. But if you want a good narrative to get new players into the game, skirmish is a great tool.

I'll make a caveat that I thoroughly enjoyed playing Skirmish.  It's an expansion that I still believe is playable now and a great way to really personalise a small warband.

For me though, it wasn't a true entry level to AoS.  It added rules rather than remove them, things like banners with aura effects always like a bolt on rather than a core mechanic.  For a new player the fact you needed to know the AoS rules and then learn a load of exceptions always made it a higher entry level rather than lower.

What I do have high hopes for is the new Path to Glory system that's being added alongside AoS3.  It's been confirmed that it's similar to 40k's Crusade system so will be unit based rather than splitting up units, which means it'll use the core rules pretty much without modification.  You're likely only going to need 500ish points to play too which gives people a good excuse to create armies from the random models you've picked up over the years.

[Zappgrot]

On 5/26/2021 at 8:15 AM, Feorag said:

I'd love to see % caps on things like in whfb 8th.

0-50% characters

25%+ battleline

Stops the obscene armies that are majority characters and the 3 cheapest battleline units. 

I'll miss book batallions though as a BoC player they are very much needed, and I'll miss using the seeker Cavalcade for my hedonites! 

I'd like to see no shooting into combat unless you're part of it.

But other than those two changes I quite enjoyed aos 2.0.

I never see all character armies. Characters suck.  Worst you get is some ubermage lists but even those are not 50% character in points. 

 

 

 

 

[JackOfBlades]

As a counterpoint, I want shooting into combat to stay. The game shouldnt tell me that im too worried about losing my clanrats to shoot the lord of change. Rather there should be rules in place making it effective but risky for you to shoot into combat, so that youd only want to do it with units that whose lore describes them as cannon fodder, like clanrats, or in desperate heroic moments that again reflect the lore, like self sacrifice to try and banish a greater daemon.

For example: if you shoot into combat, you check whether the enemy unit or a friendly unit is closest to the shooting unit. If the enemy unit is closest, half of the misses (rounding down) hit the friendly unit. If a friendly unit is closest, all misses hit that friendly unit.

Edited May 28, 2021 by JackOfBlades

[Skreech Verminking]

40 minutes ago, JackOfBlades said:

As a counterpoint, I want shooting into combat to stay. The game shouldnt tell me that im too worried about losing my clanrats to shoot the lord of change. Rather there should be rules in place making it effective but risky for you to shoot into combat, so that youd only want to do it with units that whose lore describes them as cannon fodder, like clanrats, or in desperate heroic moments that again reflect the lore, like self sacrifice to try and banish a greater daemon.

For example: if you shoot into combat, you check whether the enemy unit or a friendly unit is closest to the shooting unit. If the enemy unit is closest, half of the misses (rounding down) hit the friendly unit. If a friendly unit is closest, all misses hit that friendly unit.

Well you could also just make it much easier: for every failed hit roll (before rerolls, tge friendly unit un combat with the enemy unit you chose as the target takes the hit instead.

this actually was a skaven rule in the old world days

[JackOfBlades]

12 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Well you could also just make it much easier: for every failed hit roll (before rerolls, tge friendly unit un combat with the enemy unit you chose as the target takes the hit instead.

this actually was a skaven rule in the old world days

Yeah, you could make it like that too.

Indeed, and the point i would want to convey is for the tabletop to reflect the lore.

Edited May 28, 2021 by JackOfBlades

[Skreech Verminking]

43 minutes ago, JackOfBlades said:

Yeah, you could make it like that too.

Indeed, and the point i would want to convey is for the tabletop to reflect the lore.

Same here, there is a reason I was always sending thise emails, asking gw (nicely) if they could up the clanrats and giant rats number to a max. Number of 60.

with zombies going down, this kinda made it pointless.

[stratigo]

On 5/26/2021 at 12:31 AM, Neverchosen said:

There is enough chivalry in the game already! Do we truly need two armies featuring noble knights?

I know people who like bretonians that are starting to get quite upset that every time they mention the army they liked people go "LULUL but they are ghoulkings. LULZ"

[Neverchosen]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

I know people who like bretonians that are starting to get quite upset that every time they mention the army they liked people go "LULUL but they are ghoulkings. LULZ"

Sorry I meant no offence 😕
I love Bretonnians and truly want them back. I have listed on this site many times how I much I would want them to return. However, I do also really think it is a fascinating idea that the Flesh Eater Courts are linked to Bretonnians and are not a replacement for the army but kind of their dark reflection. They are their cursed kin and they could be enemies of a new Bretonnian order. I think a Bretonnian themed army fighting against the Flesh Eaters is like a dream come true for me... 

I also really hoped it would come across as a joke as I think there are better parallels to Bretonnian's chivalry within the game in the SCE and Cities of Sigmar. Although a truly new take on Bretonnia would be much more welcome from me. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Neverchosen

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

There's always Chaos mortals too for Bretonian styled knights. I really feel with Chaos controlling so much of the Mortal Realms it would make sense that Chaos Lords would set up evil kingdoms with equally twisted nobles and knights that serve them.  I also think just so the kingdom can function some sort of rules of honor (that can be ignored when one won't be caught) might be established to prevent the kingdom from decending back into anarchy.

Make more sense that Chaos mortals still acting like northern invaders like in WHFB all the time.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Saturmorn Carvilli

[Neverchosen]

30 minutes ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

There's always Chaos mortals too for Bretonian styled knights. I really feel with Chaos controlling so much of the Mortal Realms it would make sense that Chaos Lords would set up evil kingdoms with equally twisted nobles and knights that serve them.  I also think just so the kingdom can function some sort of rules of honor (that can be ignored when one won't be caught) might be established to prevent the kingdom from decending back into anarchy.

Make more sense that Chaos mortals still acting like northern invaders like in WHFB all the time.

This is surprisingly close to the initial premise I developed for my Slaves to Darkness. I developed them around the theme of how crusaders must feel too an enemy army. But as I learned more about the lore of AOS I made them fit it a little closer by making them fallen servants of Sigmar who crusaded into the Eightpoints and were confronted with the existential horror that their god was lesser than the Gods of Chaos. So now they have joined Archaon's legions to crusade against the lands they once called home. If I get a Stormcast army I have decided that they are the soldiers that remained loyal to Sigmar who through all their reforging remember only one thing... the faces of the foes they once called friends. In this way they both once were around a Bretonnian theme of chivalric quests but turned onto the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. 

Also I have Beastclaw Raiders who are a bunch of noble mounted heroes... so maybe those are my Bretonnians? 

[Mcthew]

So after the Dominion unboxing, anyone feel blown away or hyped by the new set and rules?

[Sarouan]

12 hours ago, Mcthew said:

So after the Dominion unboxing, anyone feel blown away or hyped by the new set and rules?

I don't know, honestly. The few flipped pages look like they wrote it "more technical", a bit like they did with 40k V9. It feels like it's more competitive oriented.

What I'm afraid of is that they add a bit too many "toys" in the core rules like the heroic actions (I really do hope they were just talking about more "core" command abilities rather than actual new mechanism for heroes only, like in Lord of the Ring) or the monsters tricks during the charge phase. Same for "reactive" command abilities.

I don't want to have a headache trying to remember all my army rules during the hero phase like in 40k V9.

I mean, I'm a casual player, not a competitive one. I like to read rules, but I have my limit - and so do my game partners.

Endless Spells moving during each hero phase...meh. That's not their problem. The problem is that the opponent can move them even if you bought the spell for your army. So I'm waiting to see WHO can move them at each hero phase before getting hyped about this.

Waiting to see what the player choosing second for initiative really gain as advantages. For that, I'm actually curious to see the battleplans and their victory conditions. I'd like they use more the way AoS alternate turns between players into how they score points, so that choosing to play second is a strategic choice and not just a way to gain more command points.

 

I'll be honest, I'm more interested to see what they'll do with narrative play.

[Phasteon]

7 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

I don't know, honestly. The few flipped pages look like they wrote it "more technical", a bit like they did with 40k V9. It feels like it's more competitive oriented.

What I'm afraid of is that they add a bit too many "toys" in the core rules like the heroic actions (I really do hope they were just talking about more "core" command abilities rather than actual new mechanism for heroes only, like in Lord of the Ring) or the monsters tricks during the charge phase. Same for "reactive" command abilities.

I don't want to have a headache trying to remember all my army rules during the hero phase like in 40k V9.

I mean, I'm a casual player, not a competitive one. I like to read rules, but I have my limit - and so do my game partners.

Endless Spells moving during each hero phase...meh. That's not their problem. The problem is that the opponent can move them even if you bought the spell for your army. So I'm waiting to see WHO can move them at each hero phase before getting hyped about this.

Waiting to see what the player choosing second for initiative really gain as advantages. For that, I'm actually curious to see the battleplans and their victory conditions. I'd like they use more the way AoS alternate turns between players into how they score points, so that choosing to play second is a strategic choice and not just a way to gain more command points.

 

I'll be honest, I'm more interested to see what they'll do with narrative play.

I think its better that those rules exist and people forget them / dont know how to correctly use them than to not have more options at all. 

Gives players like me (competitive mindset) more ways of playing better than my opponent. 

More rules = more outplay opportunities = more fun because you can be more creative about your tactic than just shove models up the board and roll dice