Jump to content

AoS 3 New Rules Discussion


Recommended Posts

7 hours 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.

I posted a response about my personal excitement for the new edition and some reservations on the thread discussing the scope of change for 3.0, and I must say I absolutely agree with you my friend. I feel a lot of the anxiety stems from people who are used to a certain style of play. They are mostly worrying about adapting to the new rule system. With such a big set of rule changes there will invariably be concern but it is really telling how people are often saying how this rule impacts 'my army', when often that rule is actually impacting the game. That does not mean that certain rules are not disproportionately impacting certain factions, just that this is a shared anxiety amongst players.

I will say that I particularly see a lot of players for many top tier armies, who seem the most hesitant... I want to believe that is GW focusing on balancing the rules that made those armies so dominate... but I also find that a lot of the people playing top tier armies are meta chasers and this will drastically impact the meta so it may just be a more biased perspective.

Edited by Neverchosen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cronotekk said:

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

I used to play warhammer fantasy before AoS got released so yep.

it was messy but not nearly as horribly imbalanced as it currently is

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

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. 

Fair enough but Reinforcement rules don't actually hurt shooting units more than melee ones, especially if your buffs were aoe auras and not direct targetted commands (like tzeentch's exalted flamer and fatemaster...).

2 units of 10 shooting is the same as one unit of 20, but 2 units of 10 fighting is not at all the same as one unit of 20 fighting because of combat activations.

The extra universal bonuses to defense hurts melee and ranged damage but melee output is probably high enough that it won't have a huge effect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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.

This is one those cases where it would be useful to read the whole comment though (in other words what I was responding too). Im not being flippant as I think the rules are more complicated than they should be. (See previous posts)

AoS should be inclusive of all, regardless of abilities etc. The Battlepacks allow that. It's not about unhelpfully subverting or ignoring rules. This is about adapting them to fit our playing ability, which we can do. Matched Play makes that prohibitive which I'm far from happy about but that's out of our gift to remedy.

We do what we're empowered to do ultimately. I have no problem adapting the rules for others. It's for the playing not the result after all.

 

Edited by Mcthew
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Enoby said:

From a source that has correctly leaked things in the past:

IMG-20210612-WA0000.jpg

I can't imagine SoB went up at all, except maybe mancrushers changing to 165.

The real question is whether the increases actually translate to smaller armies or if they fill the void that battalions are leaving.

Most armies spent 100-200 points on battalions, and 15% of 2000 is 300 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lich King said:

Arcane Bolt change : cast it then unleash it at the top of any phase . Within 12” it’s one mortal wound - within 3 “ it’s D3. Nagash can combo this like the new article states that’s probably why his points went up 

I like it :D the Nagash bomb

“Say hello to my little friends“ *Nuclear explosion*

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

Fair enough but Reinforcement rules don't actually hurt shooting units more than melee ones, especially if your buffs were aoe auras and not direct targetted commands (like tzeentch's exalted flamer and fatemaster...).

2 units of 10 shooting is the same as one unit of 20, but 2 units of 10 fighting is not at all the same as one unit of 20 fighting because of combat activations.

The extra universal bonuses to defense hurts melee and ranged damage but melee output is probably high enough that it won't have a huge effect.

In many cases that isn't true. Sentinels for example where the unit leader doesn't have a shooting weapon.

There are trade-offs when it comes to unit sizes in AoS 3 it's being able to fit your army into core battalions for the different incentives. Also the changes to IP means focusing a unit gives diminishing returns as your opponent has a clear target to use the CMD ability on (Inspiring Presence). 

Also artillery, and flamers use individual shot spikes to do dmg. Most of a flamers shots do 1 or 0 dmg. Splitting your shots increases the chances your shooting just does zero or little dmg to both targets.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arcane Bolt adds a bit of an edge for spellcasters who want to get in close; hide behind LOS-blocking terrain to get up within charge range, cast the spell, move in and fire it off at point blank for the extra mortals. Bit harder for long-range casters to get the most out of it - it relies on enemies closing to short range for you to fire it off, which is a bit of a failure state anyway if you don't want enemies that close in the first place.

I kinda wish mortal wounds weren't the stand-by effect for magic attacks (and weird SFX attacks in general, to be honest), but this seems a reasonable twist on the old Arcane Bolt formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Slain and flee is different now. Bye Pink horrors splitting in battleshock

I'm pretty sure they've always been different but I know for a fact people will fight over it and GW never made an explicit statement on either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Mage on a <insert any Monster> with Stomp + Arcanebolt for 2D3mw before the monster even starts punching faces. Not something big, but can surprise the opponent.

A small reason to take battlemage on griffon then? x)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Enoby said:

From a source that has correctly leaked things in the past:

IMG-20210612-WA0000.jpg

I find that Archaon point cost to be phenomenally expensive but he benefits greatly from the new heroic abilities and monster abilities. I was hoping to get Dominion and add a Stardrake and have it round out to aprox. 2000 points for a small force of angelic knights. But with this drastic a point increase maybe I should scratch my dragon itch with a less costly Lord on Dracoth, as I suspect I will barely be able to include an additional battleline unit with this level of point increase 😮 

Also with the change to Chaos Warrior's min unit size if they still share basic stats with liberators this will provide some more variety between the two units. I am getting more and more interested in how points costs will shake out in the transition between editions. Where are all the points leaks coming from the new General's handbook?

Edited by Neverchosen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

I find that Archaon point cost to be phenomenally expensive but he benefits greatly from the new heroic abilities and monster abilities. I was hoping to get Dominion and add a Stardrake and have it round out to aprox. 2000 points for a small force of angelic knights. But with this drastic a point increase maybe I should scratch my dragon itch with a less costly Lord on Dracoth, as I suspect I will barely be able to include an additional battleline unit with this level of point increase 😮 

Yeah Archaon is going to be expensive but... man oh man he's going to be an absolute nightmare. Opponents turn? He's got a 2+ save and he's healing 2d3 or throwing out mortal wounds. Archaon gets to go? +1 to hit, +1 to wound, 2d3 mortal wounds before combat starts, plus any other buffs he can get from his army (which can be all over the place in a chaos army). The only balancing factor I can see is he's only one model and takes up half of your army,  but he's going to be nearly impossible to kill for most armies and he will just nuke everything he touches. Can't tell if I'm looking forward to playing him or nervous about how bad he might make my opponent feel. I guess we'll have to see how it all turns out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ganigumo said:

I'm pretty sure they've always been different but I know for a fact people will fight over it and GW never made an explicit statement on either side.

Yes, was pretty obvious for me, but I know some players that said that if pinks don’t split in battleshock they don’t play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I‘d like to know how prime electrics works for Stormcast now since it used to boost arcane bolt.

That was my thought. Lord Arcanum on Tauralon is starting to look a lot better . . .

Admittedly though, Stormcast wizards in general are a lot scarier with the new Arcane bolt.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PrimeElectrid said:

This is going to be massive for units with large vases without 2” weapons. Chaos Warriors without halberd and liberators for example would be straight in the 🗑 

Chaos warriors exist to carry a runeshield and stand on a point. They don't deal enough damage to justify losing that 5+ MW save and their role as brick walls/objective holders is valuable enough.

Liberators make great 5 model screens for fairly low points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...