AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Golub87]

Just now, Eternalis said:

For Pink horrors?

This is the way.

 

If 20 pinks die and you are left with 40 blues, one rally should bring you back around 3 pinks - 15 wounds total.
I was under the impression that you could abuse it even more, if say blues die and then you roll for them, but blues cannot be returned to a unit as a friend pointed out. If they could and you waited until all you have is 40 brims (only ), one Rally would net you about 30 wounds, on average.

[PJetski]

5 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

This is the way.

 

If 20 pinks die and you are left with 40 blues, one rally should bring you back around 3 pinks - 15 wounds total.
I was under the impression that you could abuse it even more, if say blues die and then you roll for them, but blues cannot be returned to a unit as a friend pointed out. If they could and you waited until all you have is 40 brims (only ), one Rally would net you about 30 wounds, on average.

But if 20 pinks die and then 40 blues die you roll 60 dice and can get 10 pinks back on average

[SpiritofHokuto]

3 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

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)

 

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.

 

 

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.

The thing is for quite a few instances of screens, staying within buff auras was nice but not necessary for their function. Same thing with being range of CA's, literally just there to be a speed bump and allow the units behind to get the jump on them. 

[Golub87]

Just now, PJetski said:

But if 20 pinks die and then 40 blues die you roll 60 dice and can get 10 pinks back on average

Fortunately, only the starting models can be returned, so I assume that you only roll 20 dice?

It is bonkers even in this "weak" state

[Eldarain]

Would have much preferred a "every model must be within X" of the unit leader"

*For units without a designated leader choose one at the start of the game. If the leader is killed choose a replacement model for coherency purposes.

 

This just seems like a micromanagement nightmare for basic melee unit functionality.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Eldarain

[PJetski]

Just now, Golub87 said:

Fortunately, only the starting models can be returned, so I assume that you only roll 20 dice?

It is bonkers even in this "weak" state

You roll a dice for each slain model. 60+ models were slain, so you roll 60+ dice.

Any slain model can be returned to the unit. Pink Horrors are a slain model, so they can be returned.

[Golub87]

Just now, PJetski said:

You roll a dice for each slain model. 60+ models were slain, so you roll 60+ dice.

Any slain model can be returned to the unit. Pink Horrors are a slain model, so they can be returned.

If it really works like that, at this point, honestly, I am not even mad.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

4 hours ago, stus67 said:

I really don't think these are deserving of kneejerk doom and gloom reactions honestly. The most atrocious part about it is GW showing off rules and abilities without any larger ruleset context that could make a lot of reactions look premature.

I will fully admit that a good portion of the rules sneak-peaks have me wondering if maybe I should shelve my AoS armies for a few years, and do something else.  I don't think I'm pulling a knee-****** reaction either.  The game appears to be moving further and further away from what I want. 

Strangely, it is becoming 40k where I don't want it, and staying away from 40k where I do.  I wanted AoS to go more of the 40k route for character protection and shooting in/while in combat route. Not exactly the same maybe, but something other than what we have that feels very weird to me in a fantasy game when its grimmer, darker counterpart doesn't even it despite all the carbines, SMGs and lack of concern for friendlies the lore claims.

Regardless of game, I am not a fan of players wanting to shrink the table when they don't need to. It seems crazy to me that many miniatures war games play with the same or larger tables at 20mm, 15mm or even 10mm scale yet GW games which can be argued to be more 32mm than even 28mm these days are going for smaller tables.  I only hope when my FLGS opens back up the players stick to the size the tables are rather than shrinking the game area down.

Everything above was mildly disappointing, but either understandable or within players hands to do.  However, unit cohesion has really tanked by enthusiasm.  First off, I think the same basic rules in 40k work fine, but 40k has 2", smaller units and typically less melee.  Age of Sigmar 3rd edition's new coherency rules cut into my armies in multiple places.  Both my armies are mostly 32mm based infantry.  Because I still treat AoS and a fluid rank and file game, my units at the start of games are formed in lines and columns almost as if they were of movement trays.  I like the spectacle of big units and rarely run minimum often shooing for maximum to really fill in that line infantry look.  What I like(d) about AoS was the game seemed to function really well moving units like they were on movement trays with the added benefit that the unit shape could conform to the terrain or enemy instead of being a big rectangle often leaning askew on some hill.  It makes the table look more like the chaos (small c) of the battle was occurring instead of constant orderly units smashing frontages.  The new coherency rules interfere some with this as infantry lines can't organically thin as it is depleted.  Nor can a bigger unit easily envelope or encircle a smaller one.  Which again felt more natural and possible with the fluidity allowed by individual models even if they were acting as if they were rank and file.

As someone that almost never runs cavalry at less than 10, I think it has already been demonstrated the table aesthetic breaking orientations such a unit has to placed in for best use.

 

Certainly, there are a lot of rules not revealed.  However, I find myself drifting to even care as what has been shown either shows no indication of addressing the few issues I had with AoS 2nd ed, or worse, seem to be moving even further away from what I would like.  And forcing me to put my models poorly looking shapes is a dealbreaker for me.  The only thing GW games have that continues to interest me is the pomp and circumstance that is the spectacle of the table.  Ruin that, I am walking away since I am convinced GW can't do better than an okay, functional game.  Which is exactly what GW seems to be doing now.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Saturmorn Carvilli
grammer, punctution, that kind of stuff

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

5 minutes ago, PJetski said:

You roll a dice for each slain model. 60+ models were slain, so you roll 60+ dice.

Any slain model can be returned to the unit. Pink Horrors are a slain model, so they can be returned.

I don't think we currently really know what "slain models" even are for the purpose of Rally. We know that for battleshock you count literally all models that were taken off the board that round, even ones that were later returned. But that does not really make sense in the context of Rally, where the ability is not contained in one turn. It's probaboy supposed to be that you roll dice for the difference between your starting unit size and the number of models currently on the table.

[GutrotSpume]

39 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.

The rules writers love to bang on about how ‘cinematic’ the rules are when they are promoting a new game. This is the most uncinematic janky looking rubbish I’ve ever seen and will suck if that’s how games are played out. Give me conga lines any day compared to this.

Edited June 8, 2021 by GutrotSpume

[yukishiro1]

GW designers: "6 men in a line shoulder-to-shoulder is IMMERSION BREAKING nonsense. But horses running sideways executing complex geometric patterns to satisfy our new coherency rule is is COOL AND CINEMATIC! 3.0: The Best Ruleset Ever Designed (TM, (R), (C), All Rights Reserved)." 

Edited June 8, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Dolomedes]

Don't forget about points lads.

New rules anxiety can lead to overthinking.

Points distribution is yet to come. 

[Eldarain]

That could definitely help. Having gone through the 40k equivalent which was just a blanket algorithmic increase across the board not too hopeful they took the time to go through everything carefully with the new rules in mind.

[peasant]

15 minutes ago, Dolomedes said:

Don't forget about points lads.

New rules anxiety can lead to overthinking.

Points distribution is yet to come. 

Sentinels were good before this, I Hope they move to 200+ points un generals. Shooting armies are really unfun. But dont dont them unfair too please

[Zappgrot]

21 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

GW designers: "6 men in a line shoulder-to-shoulder is IMMERSION BREAKING nonsense. But horses running sideways executing complex geometric patterns to satisfy our new coherency rule is is COOL AND CINEMATIC! 3.0: The Best Ruleset Ever Designed (TM, (R), (C), All Rights Reserved)." 

Yea the new cohesion rule makes absolutely no ****** sense

[Grimrock]

Yeah I can't imagine GW would go through every single model in the game and do some sort of intelligent consideration of their points. I have trouble believing they'd even go through and modify their points due to base size (especially considering they don't always know what their base sizes are, remember when the official base size guide came out and all the mistakes it had?). If anything we'll get a few random smatterings of inconsequential changes (see the latest Chapter Approved) and maybe a general percentage increase after that. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Grimrock

[Zappgrot]

18 minutes ago, Dolomedes said:

Don't forget about points lads.

New rules anxiety can lead to overthinking.

Points distribution is yet to come. 

How the hell is points going to fix the bonkers unit coherensie  rules? 

[Ganigumo]

22 minutes ago, Dolomedes said:

Don't forget about points lads.

New rules anxiety can lead to overthinking.

Points distribution is yet to come. 

Points updates from the team that thinks spider riders are perfectly balanced at 100 points!

[Dolomedes]

2 minutes ago, peasant said:

Sentinels were good before this, I Hope they move to 200+ points un generals. Shooting armies are really unfun. But dont dont them unfair too please

20 points either direction can make or break a unit. Sometimes entire army composition. Monsters, Heroes & shooters are probably all getting redone as they've got new rules. Unit coherency might not matter if taking max heroes & monsters becomes the done thing due to point redistribution. Hope it doesn't get too shooty though. 

[Enoby]

I swear, if Slaangors go up in points 😂

[SpiritofHokuto]

11 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

How the hell is points going to fix the bonkers unit coherensie  rules? 

Doing the "staggered zigzag" means that up to 40mm bases aren't really going to be effected all that much. 50mm+ I agree, especially in relation to oval bases are getting disproportionately punished for WAAC daisy chaining that was only really prevalent in tournaments. 

Now I agree that something needed to be done about this, but the pendulum has swung too much the other way in this instance. And still doesn't even really put down some of the more egregious examples.  

Edited June 8, 2021 by SpiritofHokuto

[Nightseer2012]

2 minutes ago, Dolomedes said:

20 points either direction can make or break a unit. Sometimes entire army composition. Monsters, Heroes & shooters are probably all getting redone as they've got new rules. Unit coherency might not matter if taking max heroes & monsters becomes the done thing due to point redistribution. Hope it doesn't get too shooty though. 

Look at Nagash.  880 to 975 with no warscroll changes in Soulblight.  Assuming he doesn’t increase again in 3.0, hopefully they pre-changed him, knowing he would benefit from Hero and Monster changes.

[Elmir]

1 minute ago, Nightseer2012 said:

Look at Nagash.  880 to 975 with no warscroll changes in Soulblight.  Assuming he doesn’t increase again in 3.0, hopefully they pre-changed him, knowing he would benefit from Hero and Monster changes.

That's not true... He did change.

 

They stripped his PRIEST keyword away now that it would actually do something...

 

 

[Dolomedes]

10 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

How the hell is points going to fix the bonkers unit coherensie  rules? 

For example's sake - if your army's favourite monster and un named heroes go down in points, but the unit costs go up for rank and file, you'll probably change your list to have more monsters and heroes. The new cohesion rule will apply to less of your army, so you won't be that bothered about it.

That's not to say that the points values won't get hashed though. It's early days yet - points still have a big part to play.

[peasant]

10 minutes ago, Dolomedes said:

20 points either direction can make or break a unit. Sometimes entire army composition. Monsters, Heroes & shooters are probably all getting redone as they've got new rules. Unit coherency might not matter if taking max heroes & monsters becomes the done thing due to point redistribution. Hope it doesn't get too shooty though. 

My Main concern is that, shooting be relevant but not dominant