AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Elmir]

Good lord. I'm also starting to be pushed into the camp of "these rules reveals are killing my excitement more than boosting it". 

Shooting already divides the game into haves and have nots without the need of more out of sequence shooting. Couple this with more awkward combat formations because of the new coherency rules, no significant changes to vulnerable low wound heroes getting sniped and it's all just causing me to dread the next article. 

There was a lot of discussion on twitter about how the new coherency rules don't always have to mean you lose a lot of CC attacks with certain formations: 


Now the guy who made this, is an awesome and very positive dude who was looking for ways to make the most out of  units with these new coherency rules... So all credit to him for trying... But if I'm brutally honest, I would much rather see conga lines return than to have to resort to these types of "battle formations" to max out close combat attacks. Conga lines  looked silly, but not nearly as daft as this kind of thing. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Elmir

[PrimeElectrid]

Oh my word using Rally on Horrors will be bonkers.

I am starting to get a bad feeling about this.

[Sarouan]

15 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Oh my word using Rally on Horrors will be bonkers.

I am starting to get a bad feeling about this.

And we didn't see these famous "core battalion" rules yet.

 

But remember : it's the best rule set ever for AoS. 😁

Edited June 8, 2021 by Sarouan

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Nightseer2012 said:

Ugh... and before anyone wastes their own time checking if monsters help against Unleash Hell, I already did.  Monstrous Rampages trigger at the end of the Charge Phase.  Unleash Hell triggers at the end of a Charge Move (not in the combat phase).  So Roar WON'T protect us from getting shot on the charge.  Hopefully these generic CA's can only be used once per phase/turn or something.  I expect a lot of armies to have a dedicated "line breaker" unit in the next edition.  Something either with enough wounds to tank the blow, or a great save/shrug to absorb the Unleash Hell so the rest of the army can charge without too much trouble.

That's a miss for me. That could be a good counter.

I can see units that had a mortal wounds attached to their charge (Ogors, Battleram ironclads, Black Knights, etc...) becoming a bit better because they are going to deliver their mw before  the enemy can shoot.

[BaylorCorvette]

3 minutes ago, Beliman said:

That's a miss for me. That could be a good counter.

I can see units that had a mortal wounds attached to their charge (Ogors, Battleram ironclads, Black Knights, etc...) becoming a bit better because they are going to deliver their mw before  the enemy can shoot.

Assuming you're charging the unit that is going to try and overwatch. But really someone just needs to have some chaff or tanky units in front of the shooting units and they can still overwatch, assuming the enemy ends up within 9" of said ranged unit.

[JackStreicher]

38 minutes ago, Elmir said:

Good lord. I'm also starting to be pushed into the camp of "these rules reveals are killing my excitement more than boosting it". 

Shooting already divides the game into haves and have nots without the need of more out of sequence shooting. Couple this with more awkward combat formations because of the new coherency rules, no significant changes to vulnerable low wound heroes getting sniped and it's all just causing me to dread the next article. 

There was a lot of discussion on twitter about how the new coherency rules don't always have to mean you lose a lot of CC attacks with certain formations: 


Now the guy who made this, is an awesome and very positive dude who was looking for ways to make the most out of  units with these new coherency rules... So all credit to him for trying... But if I'm brutally honest, I would much rather see conga lines return than to have to resort to these types of "battle formations" to max out close combat attacks. Conga lines  looked silly, but not nearly as daft as this kind of thing. 

That‘s my Egg-Attack Formation. Copyright by JackStreicher 2021

[Beliman]

3 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:

Assuming you're charging the unit that is going to try and overwatch. But really someone just needs to have some chaff or tanky units in front of the shooting units and they can still overwatch, assuming the enemy ends up within 9" of said ranged unit.

Yes of course. but that's fine for me. It's part of the game: Shoot/ kill chaff with your low dmg dudes/ranged units/ magic stuff, charge with heavy big boys to kill ranged units/ Elite 2+ saves units/ magic stuff. Or just look for flanks and this kind of stuff.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Beliman

[CommissarRotke]

anyone seen this on the subreddit? coherency doesn't look too bad when it's laid out like this

 

[Zappgrot]

3 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

NO. GOD NO.
You don't need to be the unit charged to use this, and you only need to be within 9" after the charge is completed, and it stacks with the Fangs of Sotek command ability.

Some times i wonder if Gw ever listens to the player base.  Players base: Hey gw your makeing shooting armies to effective. Could you please stop? GW: So you said you want shooting to be more effective? We got you fam. Np 

[Indecisive]

aos 3.0 cavalry battles live action

[Zappgrot]

32 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

anyone seen this on the subreddit? coherency doesn't look too bad when it's laid out like this

 

Except those are wrong. But whatever.

You can not make 2 groups of 5 whit a unit of 10 

Well you can but if you take one shooting causality. Half the unit dies. seems a bad plan 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Zappgrot

[Xil]

13 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

Except those are wrong. But whatever.

You can not make 2 groups of 5 whit a unit of 10 

Well you can but if you take one shooting causality. Half the unit dies. seems a bad plan 

no it doesn't, it only matters when the enemy can target a specific model. and i think only LRL can do this still (Entomb Spell)

[Malakree]

1 hour ago, Elmir said:

Good lord. I'm also starting to be pushed into the camp of "these rules reveals are killing my excitement more than boosting it". 

Shooting already divides the game into haves and have nots without the need of more out of sequence shooting. Couple this with more awkward combat formations because of the new coherency rules, no significant changes to vulnerable low wound heroes getting sniped and it's all just causing me to dread the next article. 

There was a lot of discussion on twitter about how the new coherency rules don't always have to mean you lose a lot of CC attacks with certain formations: 


Now the guy who made this, is an awesome and very positive dude who was looking for ways to make the most out of  units with these new coherency rules... So all credit to him for trying... But if I'm brutally honest, I would much rather see conga lines return than to have to resort to these types of "battle formations" to max out close combat attacks. Conga lines  looked silly, but not nearly as daft as this kind of thing. 

Stupid thing is that it does stop small cab units being used to screen like before. Konga line 2x5 fire wolves and they ignore the new version. It's bigger units, with bigger bases, which get shafted...

[Golub87]

The base to base zig zag seen here is not the best way to get as much ground as possible. Best way would be 8 bases wide 1" between them and last two models tucked in the ends to make two anchor triangles. It is two models shorter than 10 model noodle line and if one is gone, half the unit dies.

If you want to risk your 32mm bases that way it covers 23.07" of frontage

 

Edit: my mistake, the reddit zig zag formation does not actually crumble after one casualty

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Golub87

[Siphon]

Chaos Runeshield stock is rising.  But not enough to overtake 25mm Marauders with the new coherency rules.

 

Chaos Warriors, always the bridesmaid, never the bride.  

[Laststand]

23 minutes ago, Xil said:

no it doesn't, it only matters when the enemy can target a specific model. and i think only LRL can do this still (Entomb Spell)

The Skaven splinter spell also does this and it just got a whole lot more useful. 

[mojojojo101]

The coherency thing that feels weird to me is say that I have a unit of 6 on 50mm bases (Kurhoth Hunters, Flayers) or on large cavalry bases (Gore-Grunta's, EvoCats) I have to maintain a formation that means 2 models can't attack until I lose a model, then they only have to be in 1'' of 1 other model and all 5 can attack. It seems to me it would be more efficient and much less of a hassle to just not deploy the 6th model at all.

Unless I'm missing something incredibly obvious of course...

[yukishiro1]

Yes, the other dumb thing about these changes is that they are being put into a game where many units literally aren't allowed to take only 5 in order to avoid the rules. In 40k, even with the doubled 2" basic coherency range, it's extremely awkward to take say 6 models on 60mm round bases, or on 75mm oval bases...but you can always just take 5 instead. And that's what everybody does. It's a stupid rule that doesn't work for those units, but there is a work-around within the rules. 

In AOS, you literally don't have a choice - if your models are in multiples of 3, you either take 3, or you take 6. Nothing in-between is allowed. 

Things like gore-gruntas will be borderline unusable except in the 3-man configuration. There will literally be times when your 6-man grunta unit simply cannot charge a target 3" in front of them because there is no way to do so while keeping them all within 1" of one another, due to terrain and/or other models that prevent them from being able to end a charge in coherency. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Beliman]

12 minutes ago, Siphon said:

Chaos Runeshield stock is rising.  But not enough to overtake 25mm Marauders with the new coherency rules.

 

Chaos Warriors, always the bridesmaid, never the bride.  

It's counterpart from 40k is Once per game. If AoS follow the same steps, take care of their low bravery with Archaon or any other bravery bonus!!

 

[Malakree]

I'm case anyone was wondering about how you get 90%+ in range under the new coherency rules.

This is your large base cav unit setup. It works because the first casualty takes you down to 5 models thus stopping the coherency issue.

Then this is your infantry setup for the ardboy/BL size base.

The ends are in 1" of 2 other models and penultimate is 3 models.

Lastly the rest of the line is within 1" of 4 models and still within 1" for melee. 

The major problem is how much of a pita it is to setup, took me ~2mins for the small line I did here.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Malakree
Third pic was wrong

[Neverchosen]

So math enthusiasts how would rally be best employed? 

In a hypothetical scenario would it be better to use on a high volume horde of one wound infantry in the hopes of bringing back the most models. Or would it be best to use on an elite unit of ogre sized models to mitigate the most points lost? Or somewhere in between such as elite 2-3 wound models and cavalry?

Finally do the models come back at full wounds as the phrasing makes me assume that it will. In this case I assume it is always worth using on units such as Dracoths and Varanguard due to their massive cost investment? Obviously for my level of strategy I will use it on the unit I think is coolest because that is how I roll. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Neverchosen

[yukishiro1]

And how stupid it looks.

And how much strategy it removes from the game re: model placement and pulling. 

It's that very rare rule that manages to be both cumbersome in practice and to reduce tactical complexity. 

[Eternalis]

1 minute ago, Neverchosen said:

So math enthusiasts how would rally be best employed? 

For Pink horrors?

[SpiritofHokuto]

2 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yes, the other dumb thing about these changes is that they are being put into a game where many units literally aren't allowed to take only 5 in order to avoid the rules. In 40k, even with the doubled 2" basic coherency range, it's extremely awkward to take say 6 models on 60mm round bases, or on 75mm oval bases...but you can always just take 5 instead. And that's what everybody does. It's a stupid rule that doesn't work for those units, but there is a work-around within the rules. 

In AOS, you literally don't have a choice - if your models are in multiples of 3, you either take 3, or you take 6. Nothing in-between is allowed. 

It does seem to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I can understand the want to curb the likes of conga-lining screens, but the simple fact of being 1" within two models for units of 6+ really hampers more elite units unnecessarily. We've seen with the likes of Dire Wolves the shift to having 10 models minimum, and with the lag time between battletome development and production it's not like it's something that's come out of the blue?

With the GHB it could be a case that with increased unit costs that maybe more elite units will get a price structuring that is on a per model basis?    

[Ganigumo]

2 minutes ago, Malakree said:

I'm case anyone was wondering about how you get 90%+ in range under the new coherency rules.

This is your large base cav unit setup. It works because the first casualty takes you down to 5 models thus stopping the coherency issue.

Then this is your infantry setup for the ardboy/BL size base.

The ends are in 1" of 2 other models and penultimate is 3 models.

Lastly the rest of the line is within 1" of 4 models and still within 1" for melee. 

The major problem is how much of a pita it is to setup, took me ~2mins for the small line I did here.

Someone is going to make a killing with the movement trays for these formations. (the bowling pin one always worked but I don't think I've seen a proper movement tray for it)

 

1 minute ago, Neverchosen said:

So math enthusiasts how would rally be best employed? 

In a hypothetical scenario would it be better to use on a high volume horde of one wound infantry in the hopes of bringing back the most models. Or would it be best to use on an elite unit of ogre sized models to mitigate the most points lost? Or somewhere in between such as elite 2-3 wound models and cavalry?

Finally do the models come back at full wounds as the phrasing makes me assume that it will. In this case I assume it is always worth using on units such as Dracoths and Varanguard due to their massive cost investment?

Horrors of Tzeentch.
In all seriousness though you'll return 1/6th of the slain models so units with high model counts will net you the most models back, but those models are usually low quality, where elite units will net you back more useful models, but bring back less.
Its pretty even across the board but you're pretty likely to whiff if you don't have many slain models. Getting a mancrusher back would be pretty gamechanging though.

 

 

2 minutes ago, SpiritofHokuto said:

It does seem to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I can understand the want to curb the likes of conga-lining screens, but the simple fact of being 1" within two models for units of 6+ really hampers more elite units unnecessarily. We've seen with the likes of Dire Wolves the shift to having 10 models minimum, and with the lag time between battletome development and production it's not like it's something that's come out of the blue?

With the GHB it could be a case that with increased unit costs that maybe more elite units will get a price structuring that is on a per model basis?    

The thing I don't understand is that changing all buffs to "wholly within" solves a lot of the conga lining problems. Of course the unit champions now don't care about the range though. Seems like a better solution would've just been to make the unit champion's command Wholly within 6 or 12.