AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[GutrotSpume]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Man, I really wish I could see into alternate timelines, too.

Comp is garbage. It's ego. It's fear and stubbornness masquerading as insight and intelligence. Comp is just about the most certain way to divide a global community into factions - pockets of people who, each in their own group, think they have found the One True Way to play.

Comp is a disease in search of a weak-willed host.

Do you really want build your strategies based on one set of rules only to find that in the next town other over they play by different rules that ****** up your understanding of the game? Comp does exactly that and has for decades. It is maddening to have to learn 10 different sets of the supposedly same rules just because 10 different tournament organizers or 10 different gaming groups each feel they have "fixed" the game but each in different ways.

 

 

U ok hun?

[Overread]

1 hour ago, vlad3theimpaler said:

The mtg communtiy has found broken combos in cards before they were even released just from previews alone, and WotC has found that they were correct and had to ban/errata the offending cards to fix it.  So were those mtg players wrong for "thinking they know more about the game than the people who wrote it" and therefore should be "nuked into oblivion?"

One thing to keep in mind is that over the years MTG has retained the same rules. They might add concepts to it, but the actual core rules haven't really changed fundamentally. Yes they've had a few refinements here and there and the concepts of some have shifted to make them easier to order in the order of activations. 

So its much easier to spot something broken from a previewed card because its working on the very same rules that the players are using now and have been using for years.

 

GW rule updates are messier because they don't keep the same edition to edition; some shifts are bigger than others, but broadly speaking things change. So its harder to see a broken rule early when its seen in isolation because we don't yet know the full breakdown of the rules. This includes individual battletome rules as they can overrule or adjust the core rules.

GW takes a more "messy/skattershot" approach to rules and whilst people do play competitive games its important not to get bent out of shape about their rules. GW have a style and it can be a frustrating style of rules writing at times.

 

As for competitive being good or bad or the community changing things, I think that in the end we each have to choose how to interact with our hobby. If you find competitive play and event play too stressful and lacking in fun then stop. When the fun stops stop. 

Shift back to casual formats; shift to varying objectives; or perhaps give play a miss for a bit and focus on the building and painting sides of things. Perhaps attract some new blood to the game (advertise your local club, drum up interest etc...). Instead of competing perhaps focus on welcoming new people ot the hobby which can be very rewarding in its own right.  

[Elmir]

10 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

Battalions were interesting with unique effects built for your army that let you represent a narrative piece of your allegiance. They could've been balanced while still being interesting. Instead we threw the whole thing out for 40k style detachments (but they're optional) which is just pointless complexity.

 

If the power or composition was an issue change the points, if access was the issue write some more (or even generic ones), if reducing drops was the issue make them not deploy at the same time. Or just write better designed books. Throwing it out in this way is just giving up on it because they're too lazy to try fixing it. 

I've never understood why people wanted to get rid of battalions. Its not like they'll magically get better at writing balanced rules when they do so we'll just be in the same spot down the road with a different issue.

I never understood why people insist on following the matched play limitations religiously when their main priority is the narrative element... If that's what you are looking for, there is a different mode of play for you. 

They aren't giving up on it, it's just moved to a different mode of play.

[Greybeard86]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Do you really want build your strategies based on one set of rules only to find that in the next town other over they play by different rules that ****** up your understanding of the game? Comp does exactly that and has for decades. It is maddening to have to learn 10 different sets of the supposedly same rules just because 10 different tournament organizers or 10 different gaming groups each feel they have "fixed" the game but each in different ways.

I think you are exaggerating.

The community has had to create alternative rule sets because GW vanilla is very poorly balanced. Whether that "affects" you personally or not is a different thing.

I think they need to stop giving special rules to specific warscrolls and instead homogenize them across armies. Much like they are doing with monsters, but more generally.

Why are similar abilities not functioning the same way across armies?

You can give them a flavor explanation, but having unit based abilities, interacting with 3-4 additional layers of "special cases", and inconsistently writen across battletomes / over time and editions, just messes things up. The rules become a list of reminders, not a logical organization of the gameplay. I despise gotcha hammer.

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

What if GW published the books for collectors, but simply had digitial copies available and frequently updated too?

I'd be all in favor of that, for sure.

Also you said* :

"I think they need to stop giving special rules to specific warscrolls and instead homogenize them across armies. Much like they are doing with monsters, but more generally."

 

I agree with that as well, especially since they put out those designer insight articles a while back about how they have a bank of terms and rules meant to accomplish just that.

 

*Can anybody, somebody, please for the love of Sigmar tell me how to go back into a post and add the equivalent of HTML tags? I love this forum, but the lack of ability to add quote tags like I have been able to do in every other forum I've ever used is frustrating.

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Sleboda

[SorryLizard]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Man, I really wish I could see into alternate timelines, too.

Comp is garbage. It's ego. It's fear and stubbornness masquerading as insight and intelligence. Comp is just about the most certain way to divide a global community into factions - pockets of people who, each in their own group, think they have found the One True Way to play.

Comp is a disease in search of a weak-willed host.

Do you really want build your strategies based on one set of rules only to find that in the next town other over they play by different rules that ****** up your understanding of the game? Comp does exactly that and has for decades. It is maddening to have to learn 10 different sets of the supposedly same rules just because 10 different tournament organizers or 10 different gaming groups each feel they have "fixed" the game but each in different ways.

 

 

Isn't making their own variations on the rules to suit their own friends and playgroups and community what the narrative players do all the time?

They don't seem to mind that the group the next town over has their own spin on how to handle terrain or how to limit unit spamming or what units exist in their 'era' whatever.

[Elmir]

11 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

 

You can give them a flavor explanation, but having unit based abilities, interacting with 3-4 additional layers of "special cases", and inconsistently writen across battletomes / over time and editions, just messes things up. The rules become a list of reminders, not a logical organization of the gameplay. I despise gotcha hammer.

100% agree with this last line. 

40k got dropped like a rock where I live because they reduced "rules accessability" by removing PDF format. It was pure piracy before, don't get me wrong... but at least people didn't feel like they were playing gotcha hammer before.

So a lot of people ended up feeling like "I don't know what the hell is going on" with 40k rules did not help at all. People who played the armies still bought the books for their armies before... But nobody was insane enough to buy every single book they ever released, just to flick through it once and never touch again. 

With the perverse effect that now... zero books are being sold because people don't like playing a game half blindly. 

[Sleboda]

16 minutes ago, SorryLizard said:

Isn't making their own variations on the rules to suit their own friends and playgroups and community what the narrative players do all the time?

 

Certainly yes, but narrative players are a special (not in a bad way) and relatively small group. I mean, I suppose I'm narrative when I play with @TwiceIfILikeIt, the only gamer I've played Warhammer with in over a year ('cuz she's awesome and lives with me). We do what we do, tell a bit of a story, drink a ton, and get on with it.

I'm talking about matched/competitive play where you would expect that the rules that *all* players own, learn, and gain experience with are used from game to game, table to table, event to event, and so on. I mean, what's the point of learning tactics based on a universally shared set of rules if those tactics won't apply to games with new people (pick ups, tournaments, or just the new player who moved to your town)? Why force the need to unlearn or to keep several variations of the same thing in your head when there is a standard set to which all players are initially exposed and to which all players have access?

Even if (and that's a ginormous if) some guy in Topeka has created the perfect "fix" for a rule, it's just his, or his group's. Nobody else knows it. Nobody else uses it. Then the lady in Harrisburg also comes up with a perfect (different) "fix" that is equally localized. They, and a third person, show up at an event to play and all parties are on different pages about how to play.

 

It's just plain divisive, and that's counter to the idea of community.

in other words, well-intentioned actions end up creating divisions.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Sleboda

[Ragest]

Watching Morruk and Stormcast's warscrolls i would say they are more balanced than I tought

[SorryLizard]

6 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Certainly yes, but narrative players are a special (not in a bad way) and relatively small group. I mean, I suppose I'm narrative when I play with @TwiceIfILikeIt, the only gamer I've played Warhammer with in over a year ('cuz she's awesome and lives with me). We do what we do, tell a bit of a story, drink a ton, and get on with it.

I'm talking about matched/competitive play where you would expect that the rules that *all* players own, learn, and gain experience with are used from game to game, table to table, event to event, and so on. I mean, what's the point of learning tactics based on a universally shared set of rules if those tactics won't apply to games with new people (pick ups, tournaments, or just the new player who moved to your town)? Why force the need to unlearn or to keep several variations of the same thing in your head when there is a standard set to which all players are initially exposed and to which all players have access?

Even if (and that's a ginormous if) some guy in Topeka has created the perfect "fix" for a rule, it's just his, or his group's. Nobody else knows it. Nobody else uses it. Then the lady in Harrisburg also comes up with a perfect (different) "fix" that is equally localized. They, and a third person, show up at an event to play and all parties are on different pages about how to play.

 

It's just plain divisive, and that's counter to the idea of community.

in other words, well-intentioned actions end up creating divisions.

I think that rather depends on what they're 'comping'. If I run a 1k tournament or a Meeting Engagement event that's different. Going to play in Aus means facing a very different meta from where I am.

These communities are already highly divided by the existing practicalities of life. I don't really care what additional rules changes the Brazilian TOs get up to as I am highly unlikely to be playing in their events.

Making changes to fundamental stuff like pile ins or how you cast spells...sure I can see it.

But removing a command ability or requiring everyone to bring a monster or playing every game in one realm or a Ban phase like the Super Series or giving some armies greater or fewer points or whatever are interesting and plenty of players like to have that diverse variety of events to go to.

It also provides space for those players who might avoid an event because their faction (or just their collection of models) currently sucks and they don't want to get crushed for 2 days. A different event with rules that shake up what is allowed, what builds they'll face or bring...that all helps create space for more people to come along.

If we want to have a 'global' meta and 'global' tournament scene then sure, having everyone follow GW rules packs and FAQs is the way to go.

But the existence of a 'global' shared scene does not have to preclude a wide variety of different types of events.

[vlad3theimpaler]

53 minutes ago, Overread said:

One thing to keep in mind is that over the years MTG has retained the same rules. They might add concepts to it, but the actual core rules haven't really changed fundamentally. Yes they've had a few refinements here and there and the concepts of some have shifted to make them easier to order in the order of activations. 

So its much easier to spot something broken from a previewed card because its working on the very same rules that the players are using now and have been using for years.

 

GW rule updates are messier because they don't keep the same edition to edition; some shifts are bigger than others, but broadly speaking things change. So its harder to see a broken rule early when its seen in isolation because we don't yet know the full breakdown of the rules. This includes individual battletome rules as they can overrule or adjust the core rules.

GW takes a more "messy/skattershot" approach to rules and whilst people do play competitive games its important not to get bent out of shape about their rules. GW have a style and it can be a frustrating style of rules writing at times.  

That's true, but doesn't really alter my point, which was that the post I was replying to made a ridiculous blanket generalization about how "any community" that suggests that the game designers were in error and proposes alternate rules is inherently wrong and "should be nuked into oblivion."

Because that's just ridiculous and assumes a level of infallibility on the part of the game designers that we all know doesn't exist.   I'm not saying that we should immediately break out the torches and pitchforks, either, but suggesting that game designers always make the right decisions and players can't possibly came up with better ways to balance things is ludicrous.

[Enoby]

According to some rumours, Daughters of Khaine's points have been increased.

"Sisters up 20, stalkers  up 30. Morathi up 60, basically everything went up 10 or more"

I haven't seen any photo evidence, but if it's true, then maybe there will be a points increase across the board. 

[Scurvydog]

Everyone I know plays with GW rules and new tomes are only allowed after their first FAQ. I have attended some narrative events with custom rulesets but all competitive events are always with GW rules, as that is the only way to have any consistency. It would be maddening if it was the norm for every event to have custom rebalancing, so you had to switch around the army every time and learn new homebrew rules all the time.

There are imbalances, but I do not think it is as bad as people make it out to be. Most armies even now in 2.0 are able to have interesting battles no problem, it is more the exception with a few units and tomes rather than the norm. Of course in a very competitive environment these few troublemaker units and tomes are over represented, and that is always how it will be.

Currently I am looking forward to get the full picture of 3.0, I like most I have seen, some is a bit wonky too, but perhaps it will make more sense with more context, even if not, people will find a way to deal with it. 

[Greybeard86]

33 minutes ago, Enoby said:

According to some rumours, Daughters of Khaine's points have been increased.

"Sisters up 20, stalkers  up 30. Morathi up 60, basically everything went up 10 or more"

I haven't seen any photo evidence, but if it's true, then maybe there will be a points increase across the board. 

It seems that GW is trying to tie more AoS and GW. This is something that started with the transition to AoS and it seems to accentuate over time.

So yes, I fully expect point increases. But if 40k is any indication, point decreases will follow shortly afterwards.

[frenk_castle]

4 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

It seems that GW is trying to tie more AoS and GW. This is something that started with the transition to AoS and it seems to accentuate over time.

So yes, I fully expect point increases. But if 40k is any indication, point decreases will follow shortly afterwards.

Points increase across the board creates more room to make some units cheaper when the rules settle in and their true effectiveness is determined. So in that context I am all for making all stuff more expensive on release. What I hope to see in significant armies update in the new GHB and a points adjustment in October and then January at least when they have more data on what works really good and whats not.

[Greybeard86]

3 minutes ago, frenk_castle said:

Points increase across the board creates more room to make some units cheaper when the rules settle in and their true effectiveness is determined. So in that context I am all for making all stuff more expensive on release. What I hope to see in significant armies update in the new GHB and a points adjustment in October and then January at least when they have more data on what works really good and whats not.

Yes, that seems what to be their approach. It is just that some people got excited thinking it might mean smaller armies (some argued that this would compensate for smaller tables).

In the case of AoS, they seem to be pushing for more units as opposed to models. Honestly, I welcome the change, but I still think that skirmish movement rules are a mistake. Just check the "egg-like" cavalry formation and many other memes.

[GutrotSpume]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

According to some rumours, Daughters of Khaine's points have been increased.

"Sisters up 20, stalkers  up 30. Morathi up 60, basically everything went up 10 or more"

I haven't seen any photo evidence, but if it's true, then maybe there will be a points increase across the board. 

Utterly terrified right now that I won’t be able to fit in 3 Mega Gargants for my Sons list.

[Ghoooouls]

11 minutes ago, GutrotSpume said:

Utterly terrified right now that I won’t be able to fit in 3 Mega Gargants for my Sons list.

Apparently you can't spend more than half your points on one unit, so if you took 2 or 3 of the same gargant in a 2k game, maybe you can't now?

[Marcvs]

4 minutes ago, Ghoooouls said:

Apparently you can't spend more than half your points on one unit, so if you took 2 or 3 of the same gargant in a 2k game, maybe you can't now?

no, you can't spend more than half of your points on a single unit (no 1300 points dragon in a 2k game), it doesn't apply to copies of the same unit (it's ok to have 3 kraken eaters for 490 points each)

[The Red King]

7 hours ago, Reinholt said:

I think part of it is also thinking about Stand & Shoot for the median shooting unit you encounter, which is honestly not that scary.

 

Who cares if 5 Judicators stand and shoot?

 

Now, 6 Vanguard Raptor Longstrikes or a Kharadron Ironclad or Salamanders hitting you when you hit the screen, hitting you again in their turn (twice for the longstrikes!), and then hitting you AGAIN when you finally charge them. That's less friendly.

When you put it that way it really feels like (for one cp that we already know you can do for free on a 4+ with heroic actions) they've removed the single benefit that melee had over ranged (dealing damage in both turns) while not only leaving in all the advantages of safety and ease of choosing your target) but also adding on clunky coherency and msu rules just widening the gap between melee and shooting even further.

 

Sure theres counterplay but the counterplay is a case of either hoping your opponent doesnt play around your counter play (screening out small units that might reach his shooters) or your an army that has even rarer tools (long range pile ins without charges, etc.) Creating more haves and have nots even in the counterplay category. 

 

There can be rules we don't know about that change my view on it but my view of the 3.0 meta is an incomplete and ever slightly solidifying one, like viewing something through fog as you get closer, and until we see something to the contrary it looks like it will break down into armies that can field particularly powerful shooting and armies that can answer that.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

After looking at the new core battalions a bit, I think five drops might be the new average.

Because it's fairly easy for most lists to take a min-size Warlord battalion and shove the rest of their units into a Battle Regiment. Anything below 5 will require skipping out on the extra command point and enhancement (whatever that is, I'm guessing an artefact or command trait) from Warlord, so that's your opportunity cost for going low drops. Otherwise, a lot of lists will be able to one-drop quite comfortably if they want to.

EDIT: Or you could go to 4 drops by using Command Entourage instead of Warlord.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[yukishiro1]

I hope they're smart enough to limit the advantage of lower drops to something less than guaranteeing choice of whether to go first, it's always been a terrible rule and it fits even less in a new world where they're trying to punish large units and encourage MSU. Obviously it still means something based on the fact that one of the battalions reduces drops, but I hope it's just like a "lower drops breaks ties on the roll-off for who goes first" or something like that instead of a thing that gives complete control to the lower drop player. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Erdemo86]

Can you take more than one battalion? And does warlord mean general?

[Ganigumo]

4 hours ago, Elmir said:

I never understood why people insist on following the matched play limitations religiously when their main priority is the narrative element... If that's what you are looking for, there is a different mode of play for you. 

They aren't giving up on it, it's just moved to a different mode of play.

Because people want fair games. Theres a big difference between WAAC tournament lists, and casual lists you play with your friends, but matched play provides a set of rules that should make the game fair for both sides. The point of matched play is to make the game fair, which is something every kind of player wants. Even when doing variations players will often start with matched play as a base since it creates equal footing.

[Marcvs]

4 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I hope they're smart enough to limit the advantage of lower drops to something less than guaranteeing choice of whether to go first, it's always been a terrible rule and it fits even less in a new world where they're trying to punish large units and encourage MSU. Obviously it still means something based on the fact that one of the battalions reduces drops, but I hope it's just like a "lower drops breaks ties on the roll-off for who goes first" or something like that instead of a thing that gives complete control to the lower drop player. 

well, seeing a playtester on twitter say (I paraphrase) that the core battalion will allow all armies to access the one drop and "have control of the 1st turn", I am afraid you'll be disappointed