AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[peasant]

6 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

I mean GW themselves said these were the best rules ever.

Would be kind of embarassing if they unintentionally missed something as bad as unleash hell being usable by units that weren't charged.

Or if they simultaneously nerfed melee, buffed teleports, and buffed shooting in a meta where teleporting and shooting is already dominant and people have been complaining about it for over a year.

Yeah they'd never make a mistake that embarassing

Indeed they are... for lumineth, flamers etc... If you have some of those armies you will really have a great time seeing you opponent despair as they are punished if they charge or they dont. But building an enjoyable experience for the 2 players is a totally different matter.

[Chikout]

There's lots of ways you could limit these abilities to make them impactful. These are rules that could be layered onto the core rules for matched play. Something like 'each unit may only receive one command ability per battle round'. Then if you use Morathi's command ability on some bloodstalkers you can't use unleash hell on them in the same turn. 

The fear is that gw won't do any of those things but they do have experience with the rules of one. 

[Greybeard86]

3 minutes ago, SorryLizard said:

Precisely.

Also if armies are generally 'complete' as lesser model counts it's easier to shuttle you onto the next faction on the hype train so you buy into multiple factions. Which means buying the higher margin 'essentials' for that faction like the monster and heroes, the books, etc. for each thing rather than building out an existing faction with a few more lower margin line infantry stuff.

I do believe they wanted to "sell more armies" by having more limited rosters, probably for the reasons you outline. At least that was the original strategy when AOS was released. But it seems that this has changed over time. LR is a "full" release, compared to things like FS (ugh) or even fish elves.

[peasant]

1 hour ago, PrimeElectrid said:

List tailoring is a really bad argument.

The point is that Unleash Hell is so powerful it will warp the meta around it. Everyone will be designing armies to take advantage of it, or to deal with people taking advantage of it. 

I can't agree more. In a world with unleash hell which lumineth general won't spam sentinels? But they can say "other armies have shooting too". Yes but unleash hell can work reasonably well with ungor raiders but sentinels... the even laugh at the -1 penalty.

Is a bad design when a rule has so disparate effects but even if the game has a problem with shooting why they need to make it worse? I think it has to be understand from a sales perspective not for the improvement of the game

 

[Mcthew]

GW have shot themselves not just in the foot here. These are certainly some of the most divisive rules yet (and Khorne players must be weeping right now - there's nothing for them to be excited about; I'd be looking on eBay to see what I could get for my Khorne army right now).

For me, the Rally CA is one of the worst GW has ever put out. 

 

So how does this work with models with more than 1 wound? Does that mean my Kurnoth Hunter with 5 wounds is not only revived, but all his wounds are healed because my unit commander has effectively said: 'C'mon lad, it's just a flesh wound!'

Awful.

Slain is slain. It's not 'boss, I've sprained my ankle.'

What are GW thinking??? 

Or, like Unleash Hell, is this is another example of amateur rule writing?

Honestly, GW need to save themselves with the next two Warhammer Community articles. They need to get this better, because these are poor rules, not the best rules. By using such hyperbole they are looking foolish (as they've obviously not play-tested this properly).

If anyone from GW is reading this, a plea: Shooting rules next (which need to include you can't shoot out of or into combat); and some kind of explanation for the Rally rule. Errata is not enough when you're not getting this right from the beginning for a £125 starter set or £40 core book. These are premium prices. The product so far is less than premium.

I was on the fence with Dominion, now I've hopped off it. GW have 2 more articles to get me interested again, otherwise it's just AoS 2.0 for me for the next 4 years.

[PrimeElectrid]

4 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

GW have shot themselves not just in the foot here. These are certainly some of the most divisive rules yet (and Khorne players must be weeping right now - there's nothing for them to be excited about; I'd be looking on eBay to see what I could get for my Khorne army right now).

For me, the Rally CA is one of the worst GW has ever put out. 

 

So how does this work with models with more than 1 wound? Does that mean my Kurnoth Hunter with 5 wounds is not only revived, but all his wounds are healed because my unit commander has effectively said: 'C'mon lad, it's just a flesh wound!'

Awful.

Slain is slain. It's not 'boss, I've sprained my ankle.'

What are GW thinking??? 

Or, like Unleash Hell, is this is another example of amateur rule writing?

Honestly, GW need to save themselves with the next two Warhammer Community articles. They need to get this better, because these are poor rules, not the best rules. By using such hyperbole they are looking foolish (as they've obviously not play-tested this properly).

If anyone from GW is reading this, a plea: Shooting rules next (which need to include you can't shoot out of or into combat); and some kind of explanation for the Rally rule. Errata is not enough when you're not getting this right from the beginning for a £125 starter set or £40 core book. These are premium prices. The product so far is less than premium.

I was on the fence with Dominion, now I've hopped off it. GW have 2 more articles to get me interested again, otherwise it's just AoS 2.0 for me for the next 4 years.

I’m sorry but we’ve seen the shooting rules. There is no exclusion for combat.

 

[Beliman]

2 minutes ago, peasant said:

So is better to keep our opinions to ourselves?

It depends.

The rules for this forum expect a bit of constructivism in our complains:

Spoiler

Users are free to express their own opinions, positive and negative, on the forums. We do, however, expect that when users express their frustrations/displeasure/disagreements, that they do so in a constructive manner

I mean, everybody knows that Unleash Hell is going to be a pain in the ass if we don't have tools to play against! Repeating again and again the same thing will not change the rule nor give any insight to how to play against (and remember, we still don't know all the rules...).

21 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Because -1 to hit does so much for MWs on 6s

I don't have any problem if it's just that. 1mw every 6 shots is not something big (that will be a lot less dmg than 20 handgunners shooting at 3+/3+). The problem of mortal wounds from ranged attacks comes from diferent things:

• 5+ instead of 6+ to hit
• Rerolls to hit
• Volume of attacks (10 shoots= meh, 40 or 80 shoots... ehy, that will hurt!)
• Ignore LoS (that will not be a problem for Unleash Hell)
• High range+teleports (again, not a problem for Unleash Hell).

[Golub87]

Just now, Mcthew said:

GW have shot themselves not just in the foot here. These are certainly some of the most divisive rules yet (and Khorne players must be weeping right now - there's nothing for them to be excited about; I'd be looking on eBay to see what I could get for my Khorne army right now).

For me, the Rally CA is one of the worst GW has ever put out. 

 

So how does this work with models with more than 1 wound? Does that mean my Kurnoth Hunter with 5 wounds is not only revived, but all his wounds are healed because my unit commander has effectively said: 'C'mon lad, it's just a flesh wound!'

Awful.

Slain is slain. It's not 'boss, I've sprained my ankle.'

What are GW thinking??? 

Or, like Unleash Hell, is this is another example of amateur rule writing?

Honestly, GW need to save themselves with the next two Warhammer Community articles. They need to get this better, because these are poor rules, not the best rules. By using such hyperbole they are looking foolish (as they've obviously not play-tested this properly).

If anyone from GW is reading this, a plea: Shooting rules next (which need to include you can't shoot out of or into combat); and some kind of explanation for the Rally rule. Errata is not enough when you're not getting this right from the beginning for a £125 starter set or £40 core book. These are premium prices. The product so far is less than premium.

I was on the fence with Dominion, now I've hopped off it. GW have 2 more articles to get me interested again, otherwise it's just AoS 2.0 for me for the next 4 years.

Not to mention how it is simply a bad design to have a plethora of these gimmicky abilities. Hero Actions, Monster Actions, so many new command abilities (did we really need Rally in the game? What does it bring to the table aside from yet another piece of text to remember?)

Also, why do so many people object to the community voicing their disappointment in sub par stuff we have been shown so far?

I don't get it. Should we just not talk about the reveals at all or are only people who praise the new rules allowed to talk? How is liking a rule out of context different from disliking the rule out of context?

[Abstract_duck]

Let's not forget that we haven't seen terrain rules yet. These might influence the shooting quite a bit, same with vision rules. What if, for instance, you can only deal wounds equal to the amount of units that are visible to the shooting unit, instead of being able to damage all of them if the shooting unit can shoot all of them if just one is visible 

& in regards to the coherency rules: Perhaps unit sizes for Cav changes, or the idea is to buff heroes and monsters by debuffing units with multiple models. Perhaps the goal is to create, even for Cav, multiple lines of units. This would actually make sense if games are to be a bit longer. Right now, many games seem to be decided turn 3, but if the damage of a large part of your army is lessened, games might actually be longer. Now, problem here wouldn't be the coherency rules, I think, the main problem would be people abusing the rules to create weird formations, which I fear would be done in a competitive scene. But in a friendly game you can just decide not to play with someone who does that.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Abstract_duck
Yes, multiple.

[peasant]

6 minutes ago, Beliman said:

It depends.

The rules for this forum expect a bit of constructivism in our complains:

  Hide contents

Users are free to express their own opinions, positive and negative, on the forums. We do, however, expect that when users express their frustrations/displeasure/disagreements, that they do so in a constructive manner

I mean, everybody knows that Unleash Hell is going to be a pain in the ass if we don't have tools to play against! Repeating again and again the same thing will not change the rule nor give any insight to how to play against (and remember, we still don't know all the rules...).

I don't have any problem if it's just that. 1mw every 6 shots is not something big (that will be a lot less dmg than 20 handgunners shooting at 3+/3+). The problem of mortal wounds from ranged attacks comes from diferent things:

• 5+ instead of 6+ to hit
• Rerolls to hit
• Volume of attacks (10 shoots= meh, 40 or 80 shoots... ehy, that will hurt!)
• Ignore LoS (that will not be a problem for Unleash Hell)
• High range+teleports (again, not a problem for Unleash Hell).

I dont know too well to complain constructively (worsening with the fact my english is poor). But it can go something like that "unleash hell risks being exploited by shooty armies and unbalancing even more the matched play. It would be better if they dont write it but we can manage it avoiding its usage in non tournament games."

something like that?

[PrimeElectrid]

6 minutes ago, Beliman said:

It depends.

The rules for this forum expect a bit of constructivism in our complains:

  Reveal hidden contents

Users are free to express their own opinions, positive and negative, on the forums. We do, however, expect that when users express their frustrations/displeasure/disagreements, that they do so in a constructive manner

I mean, everybody knows that Unleash Hell is going to be a pain in the ass if we don't have tools to play against! Repeating again and again the same thing will not change the rule nor give any insight to how to play against (and remember, we still don't know all the rules...).

I don't have any problem if it's just that. 1mw every 6 shots is not something big (that will be a lot less dmg than 20 handgunners shooting at 3+/3+). The problem of mortal wounds from ranged attacks comes from diferent things:

• 5+ instead of 6+ to hit
• Rerolls to hit
• Volume of attacks (10 shoots= meh, 40 or 80 shoots... ehy, that will hurt!)
• Ignore LoS (that will not be a problem for Unleash Hell)
• High range+teleports (again, not a problem for Unleash Hell).

Yes and not only do all of those things exist but the new orruks are getting MW on 5s shooting too. 
 

If your point is that GW can address Unleash Hell by nerfing the worst offenders in your list, then that is a lot of faith in a company that has let those OP shooting units exist for over a year.

And it still puts shooting above all else because the simplest reaction to lots of shooting is take more shooting.

[peasant]

1 minute ago, PrimeElectrid said:

And it still puts shooting above all else because the simplest reaction to lots of shooting is take more shooting.

I think you accuratedly described what would be sigmar 3.0 matched play.

[JackStreicher]

I'll wait and see what other rules are in store before I judge the entire new edition.

Who knows maybe the Unleash Hell ability costs 3 CP?

[SchleuderMann2]

What do you think about New Chronometer cogs? I think the defensive Option is much better than the offensive one, thinking of a lrl or tzeenrch army getting about 5 extra casts...

[Golub87]

Just now, JackStreicher said:

I'll wait and see what other rules are in store before I judge the entire new edition.

Who knows maybe the Unleash Hell ability costs 3 CP?

I bet that we will see nothing that mitigates UH. Best that we can hope for is that it will be once per tern (it is still too much(

[JackStreicher]

1 minute ago, Golub87 said:

I bet that we will see nothing that mitigates UH. Best that we can hope for is that it will be once per tern (it is still too much(

A simple fix could be that shooting gets negative modifiers for range etc. ^^

[Marcvs]

3 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I'll wait and see what other rules are in store before I judge the entire new edition.

Who knows maybe the Unleash Hell ability costs 3 CP?

varied cost for command abilities is actually... not impossible? it would be another one of those 40k-inspired things where stratagems have different costs (ofc you have more CPs but a range of 1-2 wouldn't be unthinkable in AoS).

[peasant]

1 minute ago, JackStreicher said:

I'll wait and see what other rules are in store before I judge the entire new edition.

Who knows maybe the Unleash Hell ability costs 3 CP?

That would be even worst. Because "standard" shooting units (ungor raiders) would never pay that for use this rule, but superb shooters in factions that can gather more CP will benefit more (sentinels).

[JackStreicher]

3 minutes ago, peasant said:

sentinels

tbh these guys are the biggest offenders anyway (and Kharadron ships due to fly)

[PainfullyMediocre]

5 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

A simple fix could be that shooting gets negative modifiers for range etc. ^^

The issue is that negative modifiers don't matter when you do mortals on unmodified hit rolls of a 6, that would need to change to really change the issues shooting presents.

[Marcvs]

1 hour ago, Furuzzolo said:

What a complaining bunch of shortbeards

Knowing unleash hell is in the game you can actually start to prepare your charge into the hero phase, dunno, -1 to hit spell etc. THEN since the unit need to be disingaged you can prepare a doublecarghe, with strong shooting you could send in a 20 wounds pool of Dire wolves, against not so scary shooting a trio of fell bats...then you charge with the vampire lord on zombie dragon.

On top of that every battletome has overlooked command traita and items to reduce the effectiveness of enemy shooting on the general/hero. No one ever pick those, well, time to begin. Instead of +1 to hit and wound during one phase for your Hammer take -1 hit shooting....

Of course discussing this without the full picture is just for the sake of discussion (but so is proposing counter strategies) so here we go:

- using a -1 to hit spell will in all likelihood be useless because we're almost certain that modifiers will be capped at +/- 1 (and UH already gives -1)

- doublecharge is only possible if the shooting unit is not screened, because (and it's one of the many problems of this command ability) the shooting unit doesn't need to be the one you are charging to use UH. So your dire wolves will charge the screen and the opponent will wait for the dragon before using UH. Fell bats are a better strategy but a) not all armies have fast small-footprint flying units and b) good screening can mitigate this as well

is the world falling yet? no. but these reveals (UH + coherency rules) surely seem to make charging harder and less effective, which is a weird direction. No, smaller tables change nothing, the distance is measured from the centre so mayybe new battleplans will have armies to start closer but so far we have seen nothing about this (hence the fear)

Edited June 9, 2021 by Marcvs

[Laststand]

9 hours ago, Golub87 said:

True, but we should just go back to square formations. There is no reason, gameplay or lore, that requires the tedium of moving models one by one.

Historically speaking formations were extremely important in pre-industrial warfare and there is no way to impose their practicality on the player via soft rules.

Historically speaking formations were loose and only the most elite units with the most training (royal guards, nobles, elite mercenaries) could hold them in combat. Many other troops on the battlefield were part timers. Its also only natural that formations would fragment over terrain or in combat when troops try to lap round an open flank. Two squares, bashing head on in strict formation wouldnt have lasted (see scrums in Rugby or NFL scrimmage lines) 

[Boar]

19 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Who knows maybe the Unleash Hell ability costs 3 CP?

It's at -1 to hit, and it uses up resource. It will be really painful only on handful of units/situations and those should probably be addressed at level of warscroll/points. And if points go up and max size of units will go down than you will get much less for this CP than people are thinking right now. So like wrote it's bit too early for getting depressed after looking into Palanthir.

 

51 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Awful.

Slain is slain. It's not 'boss, I've sprained my ankle.'

What are GW thinking??? 

I like that rule, this is something new and I hope it will be good addition to game in long run.

And slain is just game state of model, you who are reading too much into that and that leads to dissapointment.
 

[Enoby]

15 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

- using a -1 to hit spell will in all likelihood be useless because we're almost certain that modifiers will be capped at +/- 1 (and UH already gives -1)

I think debuffs should stack for this reason (or at least off warscroll debuffs should stack). 

I used to play DnD 5e which had an advantage/disadvantage system (roll two dice, take the highest/lowest). These did not stack - so if you had three ways to get advantage, you only needed one of them because the other two would provide no benefit. This lead to most tactics being wholly uninteresting as you just picked the easiest way to give advantage (e.g. flanking) and ignored the other advantage rules because there was no point to them. It also lead to silly results where you could have one hand behind you back, underwater, blindfolded, and tangled in a net but still only be at the same penalty to hit as someone shooting someone who's laying down.

I don't want that happening in AoS, where you have no greater benefit of defending yourself. For example, if you're a hero charging a unit, but you're surrounded by your troops, if that caps at a -1 to hit then you may as well have charged in the open. If non-warsroll negatives stack then you can start stacking the deck in your favour through gameplay and tactics. 

[Chikout]

There are abilities shown so far that give +1 save, -1 shooting, a 6+ ward save and an ability to put models back into units. These will help against shooting.