AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[PrimeElectrid]

7 minutes ago, SorryLizard said:

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.

Yeah and my point was if they go to min10 then they are no good

[Ghoooouls]

3 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Yeah and my point was if they go to min10 then they are no good

You can deploy them base to base in 2 ranks and just have the 2nd rank inbetween the gaps of the 1st rank. They will easily still all get to attack. Min10 means they will likely be better at holding objectives too, and 1 reinforcement point to bring 20 is great.

 

Tbh I can't see it being true. Skeletons are min10. Why would 2 wound warriors be the same.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Ghoooouls

[Ghoooouls]

55 minutes ago, Izotzuhure said:

So, Nagash in OBR could basically fully charge his Arcane bolts plus do the teleport shenanigans, charge you and unleash all of them at once for 7D3 MW, right? Or, if he fails the charge, saves them so he can zap you if you charge him? Ouch. 

If he saves them, you can just not charge him and that's 7 spells wasted.

I think that bonereaper teleport might only be if he takes a wound as well. I might be wrong...

He will likely be a bit of a beast, but I'd hope so at 970 + likely always wanting the spell portal so over 1k

Edited June 12, 2021 by Ghoooouls

[Hellberg]

1 minute ago, Ghoooouls said:

Tbh I can't see it being true. Skeletons are min10. Why would 2 wound warriors be the same.

Aren't Gutrippaz 2 wound orruks with min 10? 

[PrimeElectrid]

1 minute ago, Ghoooouls said:

You can deploy them base to base in 2 ranks and just have the 2nd rank inbetween the gaps of the 1st rank. They will easily still all get to attack. Min10 means they will likely be better at holding objectives too, and 1 reinforcement point to bring 20 is great.

 

Tbh I can't see it being true. Skeletons are min10. Why would 2 wound warriors be the same.

The point was that these units are used as objective holders because they are cheap, which no longer applies if they are x2 the cost.

Also I would have thought you want to invest precious reinforcement points on strong units, not objective holders, but you do you

[Ghoooouls]

3 minutes ago, Hellberg said:

Aren't Gutrippaz 2 wound orruks with min 10? 

Yea now I think about it there are a lot lol.

[Ghoooouls]

10 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

The point was that these units are used as objective holders because they are cheap, which no longer applies if they are x2 the cost.

Also I would have thought you want to invest precious reinforcement points on strong units, not objective holders, but you do you

Depends, 10 wounds of warriors is easy to smash off an objective, 20 wounds much less so. A lot of stronger units don't benefit that much from reinforcing compared to just taking 2x the amount in aos 2. As a lot won't be able to attack as easily without breaking coherency.

There are pros and cons to smaller and larger 'elite' units.

Also, they aren't just 2x the cost, they're also 2x the models.

Either way I wouldn't fret too much based off rumours.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Ghoooouls

[Izotzuhure]

5 minutes ago, Ghoooouls said:

If he saves them, you can just not charge him and that's 7 spells wasted.

I think that bonereaper teleport might only be if he takes a wound as well. I might be wrong...

He will likely be a bit of a beast, but I'd hope so at 970 + likely always wanting the spell portal so over 1k

Yes, he needs to take a wound, but it's pretty common to use something like a Burning Skull to trigger it. 

Sure, you can ignore him, but if you position him well, holding those MW until your next hero phase could be really strong. 

 

[SorryLizard]

Liberators, Judicators, Chaos Warriors, etc. all come in boxes of 10 so at a guess any unit that comes in boxes of 10 will be minimum 10.

[Ganigumo]

Gw's thought process:

lets limit the number of unit size increases because hordes are a problem

That limit negatively effects a ton of units so they're difficult to run effectively so let's adjust the unit sizes so you don't need to use reinforcements on most units.

Ok now with the updated unit sizes almost nobody will exceed the reinforcement limit in most lists.

 

So like, what was the point? Couldn't they have just not added reinforcement limits in the first place?

 

A bunch of these new rules feel like they're just shaking the box for the sake of it.

[Zappgrot]

48 minutes ago, Ghoooouls said:

Depends, 10 wounds of warriors is easy to smash off an objective, 20 wounds much less so. A lot of stronger units don't benefit that much from reinforcing compared to just taking 2x the amount in aos 2. As a lot won't be able to attack as easily without breaking coherency.

There are pros and cons to smaller and larger 'elite' units.

Also, they aren't just 2x the cost, they're also 2x the models.

Either way I wouldn't fret too much based off rumours.

If you waste all your points on ineffective units. Then your army is going to be easy to smash.  No matter if they are on objectives or not.

So lets hope point costs compensate for the rules changes.  

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

16 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Gw's thought process:

lets limit the number of unit size increases because hordes are a problem

That limit negatively effects a ton of units so they're difficult to run effectively so let's adjust the unit sizes so you don't need to use reinforcements on most units.

Ok now with the updated unit sizes almost nobody will exceed the reinforcement limit in most lists.

 

So like, what was the point? Couldn't they have just not added reinforcement limits in the first place?

 

A bunch of these new rules feel like they're just shaking the box for the sake of it.

I feel like the new battalions and reinforcement system incentivize bringing a good mix of troops. Some heroes, some monsters, some big units, some small ones... For the most part, that's already how a lot of good lists were built before. Which probably means that the average player will be more likely to build a good list. Which is nice.

[Zeblasky]

So, a bit late, but let's talk about the idea that core shooting rules are bad. First, I'll have to repeat the usual fact about the shooting - ask for examples of OP shooting, and it's always Lumineth, Kharadon, Seraphon. All this while Cities have Sisters of the Watch - damage per point one of the best unbuffed shooting units in the entire game AND with overwatch. They also have Irondrakes, which at one point you could buff up so much, that 30 of them damage wise could solo an entire enemy army off the board (and I am not joking here). But do why you see them so rarely on the board and why a lot of people barely aware that they exist?  Because in order to use the effectively, you need to teleport them to their targets, they don't want to do a basic move. And that was quite expensive and unreliable, especially due to auto dispells.

 

So damage and focus fire are not main problems with shooting, especially when big potential damage comes with serious drawbacks. Usually problems with shooting balance come from too powerful combination of high and/or reliable damage, high range, high mobility and survivability. Kharadon has extreme mobility, good range and high damage. Their tankiness though point wise is not too great, leading to "kill everything or lose" meta.  Limineth instead can reliably hit anything almost anywhere from a backline safety, leading more to an NPE situation, while being quite tame damage wise; their main problem is an ignore terrain rule, which is, well, questionable. And Seraphone overbuffed skinks have everything going for them, potential wise transforming from 240 point unit into a ~600 points of shooting tanky mobile cute lizards of doom; their stacking buffs are very reliable and you get all of them almost always. So all of those problems are not created because of core rules. They are created because of wascrolls or battletomes giving some units too much of everything. Too much power, not enough drawbacks or risks. There is a lot of other very solid shooting in this game, that has enough going for them with a certain setup without having too much power or being too abusive. There are also quite a few shooting units that are actually quite underpowered (Cygors anyone?) and need direct combat buffs and/or better rules to be competitive. It's just the usual situation of OP, UP and balanced, nothing new.

 

But even if you were to discard anything I said above, just ask yourself - what problems that are caused by shooting are impossible to fix with warscroll or battletome changes and require only core rules changes? Sure, with some core rules changes you could make shooting more diverse and interesting, but that would also make the game more complex.

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Zeblasky

[Ghoooouls]

1 hour ago, Zappgrot said:

If you waste all your points on ineffective units. Then your army is going to be easy to smash.  No matter if they are on objectives or not.

So lets hope point costs compensate for the rules changes.  

Well yeah obviously, who spends 2k on ineffective units?

Warriors are a fairly decent and cheap unit. Even if they are 10 min, if their points stay the same (or go down slightly like zombies and dire wolves did), then they will remain a fairly decent and cheap unit.

I just think wait until the book is out and the new GHB is out before worrying over what could be nothing.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Ghoooouls

[Lord Krungharr]

I feel like an ambush CA would have been a nice one to add to generic list.  

Tomorrow I might do a preliminary practice match between my Khorne mortals and Ogors just to see how some of what we know plays out.   

[Mcthew]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I feel like the new battalions and reinforcement system incentivize bringing a good mix of troops. Some heroes, some monsters, some big units, some small ones... For the most part, that's already how a lot of good lists were built before. Which probably means that the average player will be more likely to build a good list. Which is nice.

I've become a teensy bit more positive about the new rules, but only through curiosity. Some factions I play may become more interesting. I still think Nighthaunt will be better under AoS 3.0 if the max unit sizes are changed. Heroes tend to be cheaper too and mobile; and while the +1 save CA is useless on them, the others are definitely not. Lots of non-CA ability buffs from heroes and the allegiance abilities. And a few nerfs to opposing players that can be used in any turn. All they lack is a monster or two.

Khorne on the other hand... oh how I weep for my Khorne army!

[Mcthew]

2 hours ago, SorryLizard said:

Liberators, Judicators, Chaos Warriors, etc. all come in boxes of 10 so at a guess any unit that comes in boxes of 10 will be minimum 10.

I hope so, although Deathrattle Skeletons come in boxes of 20, but so far they have a min size if 10.

Plenty of time for GW to change that though.

[Greybeard86]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I feel like the new battalions and reinforcement system incentivize bringing a good mix of troops. Some heroes, some monsters, some big units, some small ones... For the most part, that's already how a lot of good lists were built before. Which probably means that the average player will be more likely to build a good list. Which is nice.

I’d love for that to be true. Because many competitive armies in AoS are painfully boring. 
 

For me, the question is what should armies look like? Unit size, variety of types? And how will the new edition answer that question?

[Ganigumo]

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I feel like the new battalions and reinforcement system incentivize bringing a good mix of troops. Some heroes, some monsters, some big units, some small ones... For the most part, that's already how a lot of good lists were built before. Which probably means that the average player will be more likely to build a good list. Which is nice.

I was writing a post about how the reinforcement system was a solution looking for a problem (since it doesn't affect most lists written now), and battalions still have unequal access because allegiance warscroll access varies too wildly when something clicked for me.

The reinforcement system exists because battle regiment is too flexible.

 

Without reinforcement limits it becomes way too easy to fit a whole army into battle regiment (assuming your tome actually can fit into it, unlike bcr for example...). So instead of putting harsher restrictions on battle regiment to make it nearly impossible to run a one-drop army without serious sacrifices they used the reinforcement system to limit the size of units in battle regiment.

[Cronotekk]

19 hours ago, Beliman said:

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.

They just exacerbated the games main problems, dominance of heavy magic/shooting armies, while nerfing every other playstyle. Having more small units means its harder to buff you units against shooting AND your will be less effective in melee due to combat activations. Rally is so irrelevant that it will not improve survivability in a game full of tiny MSU units 

[dirkdragonslayer]

6 hours ago, Ghoooouls said:

Well yeah obviously, who spends 2k on ineffective units?

Warriors are a fairly decent and cheap unit. Even if they are 10 min, if their points stay the same (or go down slightly like zombies and dire wolves did), then they will remain a fairly decent and cheap unit.

I just think wait until the book is out and the new GHB is out before worrying over what could be nothing.

Maybe not the full 2000 points, but I like have one or two fun units just for me. In 40k it's usually a Trukk full of Flash Gitz or Kustom Boosta Blastas. In AoS I have a Dankhold since he looks so cool next to my gitz. Some times people obsess over meta choices so hard they miss the cool but less optimal ones.

[Neverchosen]

10 hours ago, Grimrock said:

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.

Yeah it is going to be an interesting time seeing how these characters all interact with the new rules and the more prominent characters are all going to have the biggest changes. I am interested in seeing what happens to ye ol' Celestant Prime. For being Sigmar's right hand, this character has always felt like a slight afterthought on the battlefield which will now be compounded by a lack of Monster keyword. But it is very apparent that SCE are going to get an update to their rules and I can see ol' Prime getting a second swing at greatness. Although the Stardrake has always put the Prime in an odd position as both the named leader of the faction but also the discount centre piece for the army. I wonder if making him a priest would benefit his role on the battlefield?

Either way it is a stunning model and cool character that feels like a forgotten alternate choice to the many other cool centre pieces in the army. Yndrasta also compounds this issue by doing the angel thing in a more classical style...


I do like that the other major players all feel like they are going to get much better and GW either paired them with monsters or made them into monsters. I think the Celestant Prime is on my mind as I am hoping to get the Star Drake this model better fits my budget. 

Edited June 13, 2021 by Neverchosen

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, Neverchosen said:

Yeah it is going to be an interesting time seeing how these characters all interact with the new rules and the more prominent characters are all going to have the biggest changes. I am interested in seeing what happens to ye ol' Celestant Prime. For being Sigmar's right hand, this character has always felt like a slight afterthought on the battlefield which will now be compounded by a lack of Monster keyword. But it is very apparent that SCE are going to get an update to their rules and I can see ol' Prime getting a second swing at greatness. Although the Stardrake has always put the Prime in an odd position as both the named leader of the faction but also the discount centre piece for the army. I wonder if making him a priest would benefit his role on the battlefield?

Either way it is a stunning model and cool character that feels like a forgotten alternate choice to the many other cool centre pieces in the army. Yndrasta also compounds this issue by doing the angel thing in a more classical style...


I do like that the other major players all feel like they are going to get much better and GW either paired them with monsters or made them into monsters. 

I would love to see Prime get different rules based on your Stormhost. Maybe he is a WIZARD in a Celestial Warbringers army, a 5+ ward in Hammers of Sigmar, and he can fight first in a Celestial Vindicators army.

[Neverchosen]

1 minute ago, PJetski said:

I would love to see Prime get different rules based on your Stormhost. Maybe he is a WIZARD in a Celestial Warbringers army, a 5+ ward in Hammers of Sigmar, and he can fight first in a Celestial Vindicators army.

Wow this is a simple yet brilliant way to improve the character. It would also make him feel like a direct counter/foil to Demon princes choosing a Mark of Chaos. 

[SorryLizard]

8 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

I’d love for that to be true. Because many competitive armies in AoS are painfully boring. 
 

For me, the question is what should armies look like? Unit size, variety of types? And how will the new edition answer that question?

Will it be like the romans? Various heavy infantry in blocks with some skirmishers? Sarmatians or Parthians where it's all skirmisher cavalry with one hammer blow shock unit? Greeks with dense heavy infantry and some skirmishers? Or more like Carthage with a plethora of different troops and nationalities in a riotous mix?