AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[dirkdragonslayer]

25 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

What? 40K list building gives you MORE freedom than AoS does. The only real requirement is you must have 1-2 leaders/HQ but otherwise can take whatever you want by choosing the right detachment. If you don’t take one of the 3 troops based ones though you get less CP as a tax for that choice 

Yeah, unless you use Superheavies the 40k lists tend to be a lot more easier to accommodate. I can't make an army out of only Boingrot Bounderz or Dankhold Troggoths, but in 40k I can totally make an detachment out of only Nob Bikers or Killa Kanz.

[Darkhan]

1 hour ago, Joseph Mackay said:

What? 40K list building gives you MORE freedom than AoS does. The only real requirement is you must have 1-2 leaders/HQ but otherwise can take whatever you want by choosing the right detachment. If you don’t take one of the 3 troops based ones though you get less CP as a tax for that choice 

I agree, 40K system way better than AoS..that feeling when you do d3 mortal wounds, and its powerful😂 in AoS, you toss d3 mw in the bin.

[Ganigumo]

1 hour ago, Joseph Mackay said:

What? 40K list building gives you MORE freedom than AoS does. The only real requirement is you must have 1-2 leaders/HQ but otherwise can take whatever you want by choosing the right detachment. If you don’t take one of the 3 troops based ones though you get less CP as a tax for that choice 

The point of 40ks detachment system isn't to allow freedom in listbuilding, its to reduce and tax spammy lists in an attempt to make the game more balanced.

It also takes the route of punishment instead of rewards.

Detachments cost cp, so if i make a weird list i'm punished through the detachment system on top of the army itself being weak because i'm intentionally making an unbalanced list. Psychologically this uses negative reinforcement to encourage balanced listbuilding.

AoS has taken the route of rewarding the player for making "proper" lists, which incentivizes players to make "proper" lists. Psychologically this uses positive reinforcement to encourage balanced listbuilding.

It might sound like I'm splitting hairs since it amounts to the same thing, but the impression it gives off is completely different.

42 minutes ago, dirkdragonslayer said:

Yeah, unless you use Superheavies the 40k lists tend to be a lot more easier to accommodate. I can't make an army out of only Boingrot Bounderz or Dankhold Troggoths, but in 40k I can totally make an detachment out of only Nob Bikers or Killa Kanz.

Rule of 3. I actually own more killa kanz than I'm allowed to run in a list, no matter how many points I spend or detachments I take.

AoS is generally more flexible in its taxes, You could run 1700 points of boingrots or dankholds if you wanted in aos but you'll never be able to take more than ~900 points of killa kans. Conditional battleline goes even further to assist this, and it's actually something 40k used to dabble in as well.

[Chaos Shepard]

To be fair that Killa Kans limit isn't from the Detachments. That limit a from the 3 unit max limit they placed on all non Troop/Transport choices.

[Cronotekk]

Melee massively nerfed

Heros buffed

Monsters buffed

Shooting buffed

Wizards and priests buffed

Yeah this game is going to be so bad haha

[Cronotekk]

8 hours ago, Warfiend said:

I'm very happy with all the changes. 

Personally feel the game currently is in the worst state it's ever been.

 

What are you talking about? Were you even here for 1e? Or even compendiums?

[Beliman]

12 hours ago, Cronotekk said:

Melee massively nerfed

Heros buffed

Monsters buffed

Shooting buffed

Wizards and priests buffed

Yeah this game is going to be so bad haha

Disagree. This edition seems awesome. Main problem, as usual,  is going to be the power creep from new Battletomes .

All dmg that comes from big deathstars seems to be nerfed (+1 saves, small units, 1CA for unit,...).

Btw, a lot of this new mechanics are more about surviving (Rally, heals, +1 save in shooting and fighting phase, small units means more targets, moving 1D6" in enemy phase...). That's what ranged can't handle: staying power.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Beliman

[Mcthew]

14 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Disagree. This edition seems awesome. Main problem is going to be new Battletome's power creep, as usual.

All dmg that comes from big deathstars seems to be nerfed (+1 saves, small units, 1CA for unit,...).

Btw, a lot of this new mechanics are more about surviving (Rally, heals, +1 save in shooting and fighting phase, small units means more targets, moving 1D6" in enemy phase...). That's what ranged can't handle: staying power.

Every time I think this edition will be fine I realise there are broken parts to it that will need lots of fifixing.

I'm lucky that I have access to multiple factions, including KO, CoS and Tzeentch. I also have Nighthaunt and boy are they looking good, much better than my Soulblight bros.

For example, CA for a plus 1 save on ethereal units plus Deathless Spirits plus Mystic Shield makes them pretty Deathless all over!! Stick that on a reinforced unit of Chainrasps or Grimghasts and you get massive problems not seen in AoS 2.0. The only way to break that is to remove their ethereal abilities altogether. But that's Nighthaunt's thing. They're ghosts right?

So many problems...

[whispersofblood]

4 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Every time I think this edition will be fine I realise there are broken parts to it that will need lots of fifixing.

I'm lucky that I have access to multiple factions, including KO, CoS and Tzeentch. I also have Nighthaunt and boy are they looking good, much better than my Soulblight bros.

For example, CA for a plus 1 save on ethereal units plus Deathless Spirits plus Mystic Shield makes them pretty Deathless all over!! Stick that on a reinforced unit of Chainrasps or Grimghasts and you get massive problems not seen in AoS 2.0. The only way to break that is to remove their ethereal abilities altogether. But that's Nighthaunt's thing. They're ghosts right?

So many problems...

Ethereal saves can't be improved.

[Bosskelot]

12 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

Yeah but is the problem the core rules or the broken battletomes?

It's clearly both.

You can lay the oppressive nature of shooting at the feet of battletomes all you want, but it is because the game's LOS, terrain and core shooting rules are so bad that this kind of stuff happens.

With the way the rules are currently written, the only way to balance shooting is to make every shooting unit actively bad or overpriced because they suffer no real drawbacks or limitations within the rules. But that's a horrible way to go about things because it reduces design space and variety in unit and faction design.

[Mcthew]

Just now, whispersofblood said:

Ethereal saves can't be improved.

Ha - yep. Was just about to edit my post. You're right - I stand corrected! 😁

[Beliman]

7 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Every time I think this edition will be fine I realise there are broken parts to it that will need lots of fifixing.

I'm lucky that I have access to multiple factions, including KO, CoS and Tzeentch. I also have Nighthaunt and boy are they looking good, much better than my Soulblight bros.

For example, CA for a plus 1 save on ethereal units plus Deathless Spirits plus Mystic Shield makes them pretty Deathless all over!! Stick that on a reinforced unit of Chainrasps or Grimghasts and you get massive problems not seen in AoS 2.0. The only way to break that is to remove their ethereal abilities altogether. But that's Nighthaunt's thing. They're ghosts right?

So many problems...

Agree. I'm completely with you.

Some interactions with 2.0 battletomes are going to be OP and others are going to be really bad.

I expect FAQs to be a bandaid before 3.0 battletome fix this problems. But still, people will look for exploit between two rules sets, so take that in mind too.

Btw, my point is that we shoudn't judge this edition by that kind of stuff.

[Mcthew]

2 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Agree. I'm completely with you.

Some interactions with 2.0 battletomes are going to be OP and others are going to be really bad.

I expect FAQs to be a bandaid before 3.0 battletome fix this problems. But still, people will look for exploit between two rules sets, so take that in mind too.

Btw, my point is that we shoudn't judge this edition by that kind of stuff.

I'm already dividing my factions into 'play nice with others' and 'hideously overpowered.' The latter my eldest son can use in tournaments.

But not sure what anyone can learn in competitive matches for a year or so, given the changes that are coming. And that's without further Covid restrictions.

[Soolong]

They have taken a relatively simple game and have made it too complicated. I play with someone who struggles to play as it is (physically and mentally) and that's with rules being bent/ignored when needed. I am struggling to see how we can even play now without it taking hours to do one round and him getting confused.

 

[zilberfrid]

13 minutes ago, Soolong said:

They have taken a relatively simple game and have made it too complicated. I play with someone who struggles to play as it is (physically and mentally) and that's with rules being bent/ignored when needed. I am struggling to see how we can even play now without it taking hours to do one round and him getting confused.

Perhaps onepagerules would fit better in your case, the amount of rules to remember is sort of spoiled by the name.

There is also no need to go to a new edition, especially if that would lock someone out of the hobby.

[Mcthew]

14 minutes ago, Soolong said:

They have taken a relatively simple game and have made it too complicated. I play with someone who struggles to play as it is (physically and mentally) and that's with rules being bent/ignored when needed. I am struggling to see how we can even play now without it taking hours to do one round and him getting confused.

 

Play your own battlepack - remove generic CAs, battalions, hero and monster actions from your game. Perfectly legitimate according to GW.

[Enoby]

I think it's worth noting that, with these battalions, there is only a tiny difference between "Strategist" vs Slayers/Swift/Expert. 

The only real difference is that it says "without the command being issued" which means you could use it again that phase. Other than that, getting a free command point is pretty much identical to getting a specific once per game command ability for free (but allows for more variation).

Probably worth keeping in mind for list building as you don't need to force something like "Linebreaker" if "Warlord" is more easily achievable. 

[Okonomiyakimarine]

2 hours ago, Soolong said:

They have taken a relatively simple game and have made it too complicated. I play with someone who struggles to play as it is (physically and mentally) and that's with rules being bent/ignored when needed. I am struggling to see how we can even play now without it taking hours to do one round and him getting confused.

 

Why matches play? Just play ‘open’ and leave out the new army building constraints.

[mojojojo101]

2 hours ago, Mcthew said:

Play your own battlepack - remove generic CAs, battalions, hero and monster actions from your game. Perfectly legitimate according to GW.

I know that the wargaming community as a whole as well as GW specifically encourages house-rules but I really think that telling people to ignore rules or just carrying on playing old editions in response to a perfectly valid concern is both deeply unhelpful and doesn't really help anyone.

 

I've calmed down a bit on what we have seen so far. I still don't like the coherency changes or the battalion changes but I'll manage.

My biggest concern around the new edition remains about how useful melee units will be. What with most of what we consider powerful melee units now have g their sizes limited, their ability to take buffs curtailed and coherency making it more restrictive to get models into combat and a lot of other stuff doing more damage, I fear we will end up when melee units come in two varieties, stuff that can do enough damage to blow away enemy units in 1 combat or speed bumps that you can use to slow your enemy long enough to shoot/magic them off or bring your own heroes and monsters to bear. I think that with more armies in MMSUset ups, there will be more targets on the board and that further encourages the idea that when you go into a combat, you need to kill stuff quick so that you can move on and pressure something else ASAP.

[Beliman]

20 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

I know that the wargaming community as a whole as well as GW specifically encourages house-rules but I really think that telling people to ignore rules or just carrying on playing old editions in response to a perfectly valid concern is both deeply unhelpful and doesn't really help anyone.

No need to ignore rules nor play an older edition. Just play a diferent Battlepack than the ones that is aimed for Matched and Competitive Play (it's called Contest of Generals, the new Core Batallions, for example, are made for this specific Battlepack).

[whispersofblood]

12 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

I know that the wargaming community as a whole as well as GW specifically encourages house-rules but I really think that telling people to ignore rules or just carrying on playing old editions in response to a perfectly valid concern is both deeply unhelpful and doesn't really help anyone.

 

I've calmed down a bit on what we have seen so far. I still don't like the coherency changes or the battalion changes but I'll manage.

My biggest concern around the new edition remains about how useful melee units will be. What with most of what we consider powerful melee units now have g their sizes limited, their ability to take buffs curtailed and coherency making it more restrictive to get models into combat and a lot of other stuff doing more damage, I fear we will end up when melee units come in two varieties, stuff that can do enough damage to blow away enemy units in 1 combat or speed bumps that you can use to slow your enemy long enough to shoot/magic them off or bring your own heroes and monsters to bear. I think that with more armies in MMSUset ups, there will be more targets on the board and that further encourages the idea that when you go into a combat, you need to kill stuff quick so that you can move on and pressure something else ASAP.

Its important to remember that both players are under the same incentive structure. If you consider the most potent combat units they come in two varieties under the scope of AoS3.

1) low models, high wounds and decent armour, things that are similar to goregruntas. Good in a 3 with choppas at fighting msu style, or good with 2" reach in  6 for fighting big stuff. 

2) Battleline infantry with killing power, things like Marauders, or Wardens who can carry enough bodies to threaten even the big stuff with the help of command abilities and buffs.

3) The killy tough single models, like Archaon, Kragnos, Mawcrushers

Everything else is about controlling the state of the board these things are going to be fighting for supremecy on. Things like determining where specifically on the board they are going to fight, mabye you want to block pile-in moves with terrain. Or scoring objectives while the 3 killers try and assert board dominance over each other.

Now these things are going to smash msu escorts; think of a 4x deep Theban Phalanx just blows up ordinary phalanxs. But, it has manuever issues and frankly is easily nulified by tactical decisions that don't allow it to apply its stength. If you have a mid-era Lacedaemonian phalanx to put in front of it and hold it that would be an obvious solution, not the best but obvious, there are however many better paths to victory. These require management of your escorts and yes often sacrifice.

There is probably someone here with a naval background that can explain carrier vs carrier combat as an example of what I'm talking about.

[Chikout]

I'm pretty firmly in favour of all the changes except coherency.

Numbered rules with side bars- good change as it's easier to learn the game. 

Smaller unit sizes. Good change which should make the combat phase more interesting. 

A variety of  sometimes powerful abilities that can be used at various stages of the game. Adds more strategic decisions. A general that makes the most of these will do well and we may see more games won on skill rather than list (of course a good list will still be very important)

Predatory endless spells that move twice. A good change that should bring them into the game. 

Core battalions. A good change that should (hopefully) improve balance and will give almost every army a chance for one or two drops if they want. This means more roll offs for first turn. 

8 pieces of terrain for 2000 points baked right into the core rules. Good but I hope that they can all block line of sight. 

Priest changes. A good change that offers some counter play. 

Coherency. Doesn't seem to prevent long chains and limits the effectiveness of a lot of  units. I really hope there's more to come on this one. 

[Ganigumo]

5 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

It's clearly both.

You can lay the oppressive nature of shooting at the feet of battletomes all you want, but it is because the game's LOS, terrain and core shooting rules are so bad that this kind of stuff happens.

With the way the rules are currently written, the only way to balance shooting is to make every shooting unit actively bad or overpriced because they suffer no real drawbacks or limitations within the rules. But that's a horrible way to go about things because it reduces design space and variety in unit and faction design.

Shooting output and range is on the battletomes.

Targetting is on the core rules but they didn't really change anything from 2e to 3e. 

The shooting rules are currently designed in a way that it should be used for sniping key pieces, since it becomes too useful when the output is too high. Obviously thats not how they've been designing most strong shooting warscrolls though.

Honestly its baffling there isn't a core battalion for 1 sub-leader and 1-troop that gives a shrug for at least shooting. This would go a LONG way to helping vs shooting.

The new rules feel like they were written in 2019, back when big blobs of dudes were the "in" thing.

[cofaxest]

Did anyone notice if we will get bonus artefact for battalion? Just curious.

[whispersofblood]

43 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Shooting output and range is on the battletomes.

Targetting is on the core rules but they didn't really change anything from 2e to 3e. 

The shooting rules are currently designed in a way that it should be used for sniping key pieces, since it becomes too useful when the output is too high. Obviously thats not how they've been designing most strong shooting warscrolls though.

Honestly its baffling there isn't a core battalion for 1 sub-leader and 1-troop that gives a shrug for at least shooting. This would go a LONG way to helping vs shooting.

The new rules feel like they were written in 2019, back when big blobs of dudes were the "in" thing.

It's some what at the point now where we are shouting at a wall in regard to shooting. Shooting units do like 6-7 points of dmg a turn for 140+ points, on poor to terrible physical profiles. It can't get much less effective than that really and exist at all. 

What people are seemingly upset with is the psychological effects of shooting. Welcome to the struggle of every Soilder everywhere, ever.

Individuals are vulnerable to projectiles armies are not. Your shooting nerf has come in two volleys. The improved abilities of unit champions, and the reinforcement rules. 

Better command and control decreases the pressure to assassinate heroes. And much like I asked for in the shooting threads, increasing the utility of individual heroes meaning even if they should die they have done something to justify their inclusion beyond exclusive access to CMD abilities.

The ability to heal for free, dispel and generate CP before models interact is a massive nerf on the effectiveness of hero sniping in a point per effect calculation. 

Further to that point heroes are less critical in the functioning of armies because the things they provide are much less *needed* than they were before. In this new meta it's now much better to kill the unit than the hero unless the opponent has made it very convenient or it requires very litter expenditure of resources. Because units are smaller and therefore can be impacted by the level of damage shooting units bring. But no so small that they are easy to wipe out or have limited to no effect on the rest of the match.

Finally shooting in general is not very effective against the main combat units I mentioned previously. So over investing will see you fold quickly in the face of aggressive builds. 

For example unless points drastically increase in my IJ/BW I still see myself taking either a unit of 6 pigs and crusher or two units of 6 pigs. Which shooting is now less effective against do to the abundance of +1 save, and access to 6+ wards.