AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

16 minutes ago, Enoby said:

If you can still undersize units, it may be more beneficial to undersize a unit 6 by 1 to make them do more damage.

You can always do it by just going out of coherency and letting one die.

[Enoby]

6 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

Yeah, this hurts Fiends. And if the rumors about no more buff/debuff sackings are true, Fiends are back in the bin, just as they started to shine

It seems the new fiend meta is to kill one before it turns up

I'm a bit on the fence about debuff stacking. On one hand, it can be super unfun to be at -3 to hit or something. But on the other hand, debuffs don't cause deathstar units and can usually be played around. Also, most importantly imo, if debuff stacking goes then it disincentives tactical position for LoS or any updated cover rules for heroes that already have a -1 to hit.   

[Enoby]

2 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

You can always do it by just going out of coherency and letting one die.

I misread it at first, but you can't intentionally break coherency - you "must set up and finish every move as a single coherent unit", so you can't intentionally break it.

[Golub87]

42 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

If we cannot represent well actual individual combat, let's be done with it. Things like this are awfully visually and make no sense from a simulation perspective. Aside from being atrocious time-wise.

 

I am inclined to agree.

Formations, facing, flanking, morale... all of those things were big in pre-industrial warfare for a reason. I do not think that soft limitations that will create natural formations and facings as emergent tactics are easy to make or even possible, and I am quite certain that the GW design team does not have what it takes to pull it off even if it was doable.

There is 0 gameplay or fluff reason for individual model movement in AoS (Monsters, Heroes etc notwithstanding)

Edited June 8, 2021 by Golub87

[Golub87]

Just now, Enoby said:

I misread it at first, but you can't intentionally break coherency - you "must set up and finish every move as a single coherent unit", so you can't intentionally break it.

Yeah, and every move does not only include normal move, but also run, charge, retreat and pile in. Good catch.

[Enoby]

1 minute ago, Golub87 said:

Yeah, and every move does not only include normal move, but also run, charge, retreat and pile in. Good catch.

Which unfortunately means that, for fiends, you're probably better just bringing 5 if possible. I do think this is a silly rules interaction - I cannot imagine it's intentional to understrength a unit so more models can get in.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Enoby

[mojojojo101]

I really think that this coherency thing is a huge, huge miss. To me it feels more like a complicated and temperamental game mechanic that doesn't really feel consistent with AoS core design philosophy of simplicity.

Really, if the only way to get rid of long chains of units is by making elite units and cavalry only viable in min sizes and by making me spend absolutely ages everything I move models to maintain some stupid formation because its the ony way to get real efficiency out of the models I've paid for... well... I'll take conga lines back please.

[whispersofblood]

10 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

*cries in 10 min size Dire Wolves*

Yeah tbh I'm glad it's gone. Building armies with glass ankles that only function because you can get a 40 model unit for 200 points is ridiculous army design. 

Conga line defence grides are super anti-narrative. Players will find new ways to control board space, and the incentive structure around max size combat slingshots has been heavily damaged meaning combat alphas are less potent anyway. 

10 Chaos Warriors can conceivable control about 20" horrizontally for 180 points. I think we'll see more of that come July; instead of 40 ungor raiders in a line with a pregame move. 

[RuneBrush]

Am I the only one looking at some of these creative Tetris diagrams and thinking that they won't work when you factor in other units and scenery 😉

[SpiritofHokuto]

Just now, RuneBrush said:

Am I the only one looking at some of these creative Tetris diagrams and thinking that they won't work when you factor in other units and scenery 😉

That's a real possibility, and is only going to exacerbate the frustration of how needlessly complex and unintuitive melee could turn out to be. Where it isn't a case of your opponents tactics or positioning, but the flawed coherency rules that prevent you from bringing your unit properly to bear. 

Now I'm not saying the "sky is falling" just yet, as we haven't got the whole picture when it comes to how the new ruleset will interact and work together. But with just the 2 snippets we've seen the signs aren't promising. 

[Overread]

Tactics and positioning will be part of the coherency rules though. They will go hand in hand so if you move yourself poorly then yep its going to bite you. And yet its not as bad as if GW made individual unit facings a thing and had units have to maintain a formation (without a movement tray) etc.... 

 

Its also taking steps to avoid daisy chains and try and recreate the idea of units as blocks of infantry without introducing movement trays as a mandatory element. 

[Greybeard86]

21 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

I am inclined to agree.

Formations, facing, flanking, morale... all of those things were big in pre-industrial warfare for a reason. I do not think that soft limitations that will create natural formations and facings as emergent tactics are easy to make or even possible, and I am quite certain that the GW design team does not have what it takes to pull it off even if it was doable.

There is 0 gameplay or fluff reason for individual model movement in AoS (Monsters, Heroes etc notwithstanding)

This. They have not designed bases with combat in mind, currently bases are display oriented. This, in part, is why the pile ins and combat ranges and what nots end up resulting in awkward configurations. Rethink bases and model counts per unit or rethink the rules.

 

[RuneBrush]

1 minute ago, SpiritofHokuto said:

That's a real possibility, and is only going to exacerbate the frustration of how needlessly complex and unintuitive melee could turn out to be. Where it isn't a case of your opponents tactics or positioning, but the flawed coherency rules that prevent you from bringing your unit properly to bear. 

Now I'm not saying the "sky is falling" just yet, as we haven't got the whole picture when it comes to how the new ruleset will interact and work together. But with just the 2 snippets we've seen the signs aren't promising. 

I'd agree with that.  I think this is one that needs to be experienced in the flesh before we condemn it.  I know the 40k community had similar opinions when it changed in 9th ed, but didn't find it quite as bad in practice.

[Erdemo86]

Wait till full rules are out. Maybe there some kind of 40k rules where every models that’s in range of 0.5 from an attacking model can attack... same for ranged and magic maybe there will come some rules we do t expect so let’s just wait...

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

31 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Yeah tbh I'm glad it's gone. Building armies with glass ankles that only function because you can get a 40 model unit for 200 points is ridiculous army design. 

Conga line defence grides are super anti-narrative. Players will find new ways to control board space, and the incentive structure around max size combat slingshots has been heavily damaged meaning combat alphas are less potent anyway. 

10 Chaos Warriors can conceivable control about 20" horrizontally for 180 points. I think we'll see more of that come July; instead of 40 ungor raiders in a line with a pregame move. 

Still kind of sucks that Direwolves even went to a min size of 10. They were min size 5 before.

I mean, it's not like you can't string out 10 of them in a wavy line, but still. What I am not super in love with here is the fact that I even have to think about putting them in weird formations like the egg or v shape if I wanted to maximize combat utility. At least most cav units don't come in 10s, so it will be more of a niche problem.

[JackStreicher]

24 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Am I the only one looking at some of these creative Tetris diagrams and thinking that they won't work when you factor in other units and scenery 😉

Blasphemy! The EggAh-ttack Formation will never falter! 😛

[Neverchosen]

58 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Am I the only one looking at some of these creative Tetris diagrams and thinking that they won't work when you factor in other units and scenery 😉

And people called me crazy for theming all of my battles to take place in a big empty ballroom.



I do not think that this rule will be terrible (although I do have some reservations) but I really love rank and file gameplay in WHFB. I do like that this rule gives more reason to run smaller unit sizes for elites... but five still seems like too small a number, I would have rather it have been ten. I do think that it poses some issues for cavalry but that is largely due to the oblong bases. I just think it will look odd having the forward charging models turned sideways but that already exists in the current style of play and would occur in rank and file when flanked. I also think some of the more dynamically posed models will become frustrating with this new coherency system... Lumineth pikes and Dryads branches are already a pain from what I have seen.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Neverchosen

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

I hope with the new coherency rule we get new pile in rules that let models from a unit that piles in move toward the nearest unit, not model. Otherwise things might get really fiddly.

[frenk_castle]

33 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I'd agree with that.  I think this is one that needs to be experienced in the flesh before we condemn it.  I know the 40k community had similar opinions when it changed in 9th ed, but didn't find it quite as bad in practice.

One thing that is different in 40k is models need to stay 2'' in order to be in coherency. In AoS the coherency is 1''. So this change will in my opinion be more impactful in AoS simply because you need to set models closer to one another to prevent them getting out of coherency.

Another thing that is different in 40k is how you determine which model is in melee range. 40k does not have range on melee weapons. The model is in range if he is within an inch of opponent model or is within half an inch of another model that is within half of inch of opponents models. So in 40k any unit can fight in two ranks. In AoS due to melee weapons having different range and different base sizes a lot of units are not able to fight in two ranks.

This will definitely influence how melee units that have 32mm and bigger bases with 1'' reach and 10 models minimum will be used.

How much of an actual change this will make we will see once new rulebook is out and people start playing with it.

Edited June 8, 2021 by frenk_castle

[PJetski]

Just gotta run cavalry as 2x3 instead of 1x6

Makes buff stacking less effective and requires multiple combat activations, but that's probably a good thing for the game overall

[Eternalis]

All these changes will slow the game down. I understand why there are more are more MW now, they want to keep the game as fast as possible...

[Clewzy]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

Am I the only one looking at some of these creative Tetris diagrams and thinking that they won't work when you factor in other units and scenery 😉

Or patience 

[PJetski]

Something else to argue about

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/08/whos-the-stronger-wizard-in-dominion-sigmars-loreseeker-and-the-kruleboyzs-bog-shaman-face-off/

[JackStreicher]

sounds like mortal wounds on 6s for (all of) the Kruleboys faction?

[SunStorm]

Interestingly, that Bog Shaman's spell will hurt other any other Orruks in the same army? So even if it's all combined in a Warclans force, you'll have to avoid casting the spell if you want to be charging your brutes, etc.