Jump to content

AoS 3 New Rules Discussion


Recommended Posts

Is it me, or is the clearer distinction between a normal move, a run move and flee move so, that you can’t flee and run?!?! So, just a base movement when fleeing, correct?

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

14 minutes ago, Malakree said:

11643716_PileIn.png.78d4658781d7d32d7c3694a25ee3b4b9.png

That's pretty huge, nearest enemy unit not model. Doesn't say what happens if 2 units are equally close though.

 

Not really that huge if you take into account new coherency rules. It seems like its mostly to keep the combat doable rather than a nightmare under the old nearest model rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheCovenLord said:

Not really that huge if you take into account new coherency rules. It seems like its mostly to keep the combat doable rather than a nightmare under the old nearest model rule.

I think its still a big deal.  Whether that's a "good" big deal or a "bad" big deal, I'm not sure about.  More then anything this rule previously effected small unit size units/single models.  This generally speaking meant much less for large units before.  So new coherency rules are unlikely to effect how this influences pile in plays.  A single monster now has drastically increased combat flexibility.  Pinning a single model used to just be a matter of keeping 2 models in b2b with it, now you literally have to surround it to pin it into place.  This is not a small thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TheCovenLord said:

Not really that huge if you take into account new coherency rules. It seems like its mostly to keep the combat doable rather than a nightmare under the old nearest model rule.

Considering that you can now re dress the ranks by moving your models 3 inch down the line. You can likely get a lot more models in range if your opponents lined you up in an unfavourable way.  I think this changes is pertty big 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game would be literally unplayable with 1" to 2 model coherency and having to pile in based on the model not the unit. I am glad they spotted this change, the new coherency is extremely unwieldy even with it, it would have been absurd with the old system. 

It does amount to a big buff to units of 5 or less, though. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2021 at 6:19 AM, Marcvs said:

Playing a lot of A Song of Ice and Fire has somewhat changed my mind on this. Playing with movement trays (and all the rules that go with that) feels much more like playing a board game for me, compared to AoS. In particular, I end up feeling that we could just do away with the miniatures and play with the trays and wound counters 🤷‍♂️ . I do agree that AoS feels more like a skirmish brawl than a battle

 

:P You are almost literally describing kings of war which you can literally do away with models and use just movement trays and the models exist more for visual appeal (which is a very strong incentive, people will not play you if you show up with movement trays and no models on them, but it is quite common to make a KoW army with models glues right into a movement tray and dioramaed up)

On 6/8/2021 at 7:58 AM, RuneBrush said:

I'd agree with that.  I think this is one that needs to be experienced in the flesh before we condemn it.  I know the 40k community had similar opinions when it changed in 9th ed, but didn't find it quite as bad in practice.

 

It turned out to not matter for elite units that could almost always end up without half an inch of an engaged units and it did reduce the melee capabilities of hordes, but that also turned out not to matter because the damage isn't what matters to a horde, but its resistance to damage.

 

AoS is, unless they show us different, rather more restrictive in melee than 40k is, with smaller coherency range and weapon ranges meaning this actually dramatically hurts 6 to 10 man elite units. It doesn't matter that much to a horde though, they'll adapt fine. 

 

 

Also 40k biker units do, in fact, move around with the goofy drifting models in the back rank. There's way less bikers and cav in 40k than there is in AoS though, so it's gonna show up in all its goofy horse drifting glory way more often than it does in 40k.

 

On 6/8/2021 at 8:44 AM, PJetski said:

Just gotta run cavalry as 2x3 instead of 1x6

Makes buff stacking less effective and requires multiple combat activations, but that's probably a good thing for the game overall

 

Or it eliminates their existence from list building as their viability is too damaged to be worth considering. Always a danger.

On 6/9/2021 at 2:30 AM, Greybeard86 said:

They want skirmish, but they still want to sell boatloads of models per army. That's my guess anyway.

At the end of the day, "organic" formations and so on end up being a hot mess. Whenever they try to keep "free-form" and fix the resulting "creative geometries" it just ends up being a whole lot of new gamey arrangements.

The miniatures, their footprint / bases, are not designed for gaming purposes, but for display. From the pokey bits to the longish awkward profile of cavalry, those things are not designed to fit "properly" in a very literal sense of gaming. That they keep insisting on restrictive model based rules is baffling to me.

Stop patching the sinking boat. Either reduce model count and embrace skirmish, or go back to shapes.

Also, I get the idea of previewing the rules to generate excitement. But coming from an iteration where shooting felt "too powerful", it seems tone deaf to preview a rule that makes shooting even scarier.

 

 

funny thing is, they have a skirmish game that makes great organic formations. And this is Middle earth SBG. You ever play that game, almost every army naturally organizes into a shield wall with spearmen in a second rank cause of how the game works, both in how certain units support others in combat, but also in how combat gets split off. If you have gaps tween your models, they can get ganged up on and that's always a bad thing, so there's a strong incentive to keep models shoulder to shoulder so every fight ends up as equal. It's pretty great and so well thought out.

On 6/9/2021 at 5:45 AM, Beliman said:

They want skirmish, but they still want to sell boatloads of models per army. That's my guess anyway.

At the end of the day, "organic" formations and so on end up being a hot mess. Whenever they try to keep "free-form" and fix the resulting "creative geometries" it just ends up being a whole lot of new gamey arrangements.

The miniatures, their footprint / bases, are not designed for gaming purposes, but for display. From the pokey bits to the longish awkward profile of cavalry, those things are not designed to fit "properly" in a very literal sense of gaming. That they keep insisting on restrictive model based rules is baffling to me.

Stop patching the sinking boat. Either reduce model count and embrace skirmish, or go back to shapes.

Also, I get the idea of previewing the rules to generate excitement. But coming from an iteration where shooting felt "too powerful", it seems tone deaf to preview a rule that makes shooting even scarier.

 

 

3 manskewers, probably not a big deal.

 

9 man skewers in a unit doing 2 mortal wounds per 5 rolled, much bigger deal. 

 

Depends on if they can get up to 9 or not.

 

On 6/9/2021 at 10:56 AM, Clan's Cynic said:

By that logic, AoS should still be a rank-and-file game since it's been the dominant organisation for most of human warfare and only evolved past it at the end of the 18th century. 

the 20th actually. It wasn't until ww1 that most of europe abandoned rank and file formations. The early clashes between german and french forces involved rank and file formations.

 

The British got a bit of a headstart after the boer war showed them that rank and file doesn't work, most others had to learn fast in early WW1.

 

On 6/9/2021 at 4:36 PM, Grimrock said:

I'm a little confused on this one, is any incremental increase a reinforcement? ie. increasing a 5 man unit to 10, or a 3 man to 6, or a 20 to 40? This would have a really weird impact on units that start at 5 models but only get access to things like banners or leaders at higher model counts (like blood warriors or chaos warriors). 

Older books are not written with the new edition in mind and get to enjoy weird rules interactions like this

 

On 6/9/2021 at 5:15 PM, whispersofblood said:

That is still only 7 dmg to a unit without a ward and a 4+ save, and given that most LRL units are 5 men outside Wardens that is a valuable reinforcement point for each unit.

Its a good unit, its hardly impressive. 

20 Irondrakes do almost 9 dmg, plus the grudge hammer for 20 pts more. So in the ballpark as far as Unleash Hell is going.

Once you get passeds the emotional impact of MW and just deal with the dmg you can move on from the boogeyman.   

They're also minus one to hit, don't forget that

 

They also largely invalidate entire army strategies and only armies that don't rely on characters, have just endless redundant characters (seraphon), or are IDK don't care about Lumineth.

 

Also this is deliberately ignoring the ease at which a lumineth list can increasingly stack buffs on units, even multiple units in a turn. There's a lot of units in the game that aren't super impressive on their own. Like skinks. But I doubt anyone thinks skinks are weak because they don't do great without all the buffs since the buffs are so reliable and easy to put on them.

 

On 6/9/2021 at 6:24 PM, Nadure said:

One thing it would do is punish blobbing by making many endless spells dramatically scarier: many of them target units and not models.

 

It also makes those two notoriously terrible never taken pieces, teclis and kroak, dramatically stronger.

 

On 6/9/2021 at 7:59 PM, Reinholt said:

I feel like KO are the big winner of the reinforcement rules because they are still just taking boats. Unleash Hell Ironclad is still very much a thing.

As a KO player I am sad at how much it narrows KO list building, but fails to actually address what makes the faction overperform. Oh, no, I guess thunderers are off the table now, but, like, balloon boys don't care and they have always done fine shooting too.

 

Albeit I remain convinced triumphs are going away, which WILL ****** KO pretty hard.

 

On 6/9/2021 at 11:15 PM, Ganigumo said:

Terrible change. This makes the lists more samey, and benefits shooting more as shooting units have less benefit from being ran in large units, and you will always want to bring your best units as "reinforced". It also buffs attack priority again in a huge way, since more wounds was often the best way to ensure you could fight after taking a hit.

I bet we're getting the 40k combat priority where charging units fight first, then after things that fight first go the player who's turn it is picks the first unit to fight.

I just don't understand why they're restricting list construction so much, it seems like the objective of this edition was to kneecap hordes, but shooting and teleports have been controlling the meta, and those are getting massive buffs. Like flamers don't care at all about the reinforcement rules, because their buffs are all auras, and you don't need shooting units in big hordes for priority purposes.

Uh, this effects melee and shooting largely the same. Sentinels don't care.

 

Actually, wait, sentinels got a whole bunch better if they lose their 20 man cap, but that's essentially just a sentinels problem. This hurts another dominant shooting army in the snake lady DoK list. And it does hurt one of the KO builds. And it might hurt skinks.

 

On 6/10/2021 at 5:21 AM, Zappgrot said:

I hope that making unit smaller and single model hero's/ monsters stronger does not lead to hero hammer. I find that incredibly boring. I think warhammer 4-5th edition ruined that for me for ever. 

 

Sadly I think you are gonna be out of luck here. GW is pushing monsters super hard right now

 

On 6/10/2021 at 2:48 PM, jake3991 said:

Anyone else feel like unleash hell (stand and shoot) is going to get comped out by the community? That single command ability looks to be majorly problematic for a game that is mostly populated by non-shooting units. Perhaps as more of the rules come out, it will appear to be less of an issue. But as it stands I would have no issue with TOs excluding that command ability from events.

Thoughts?

It's a problem propelled by possibly 30 man sentinel units. And to a lesser extent, an ironclad, though the 'clad is way less points efficient a killer.

On 6/10/2021 at 6:19 PM, Gauche said:

I agree AoS has the best ruleset GW has made in some time but that's not to say the game doesn't have a ton of issues. Removing Battalions is a change I celebrate, without it I have zero interest in the game. Changing how First Turn works is another huge problem and the game needs way more Terrain interaction.

So far nothing I've seen hurts the good parts of the game, it makes it better. 8th to 9th 40K was the same way, the Codexes is where GW is dropping the ball there. They've been doing excellent on their Core Rules for games, they still need a lot of work on army balance.

 

This is how I know you have never played middle earth sbg. ;)

On 6/10/2021 at 7:35 PM, Gaz Taylor said:

No it’s illegal. Simple as that.

 

But, being clear to everyone, legality and morality are not the same thing, and people who equate the two are dangerously wrong.

Advocating piracy is, however, a liability issue and not worth a website opening themselves up to (it may or may not be actually against the law, but what is legal and what an individual or small business can be sued into oblivion for are quite different.). This is, IMHO, immoral on the part of the law, but just the reality we live under.

 

On 6/10/2021 at 9:21 PM, Sleboda said:

First off, the concept of "the community" acting as if it were a single mind is as off as when people say "the fans" could lower ticket prices for football games if they would just stop going. Not only can you not get millions of people to act as one, even if you get many to do so, there are millions (or thousands or whatever) more ready to swoop in and do the thing you don't want them to do.

I listen to a lot of sports talk radio, and every time I hear a caller talk about how "the fans" should do something, I twitch and my eyes roll.

"The community" is not an acting body. It's hundreds of thousands of individuals with individual wants and desires. We really can't base any course of action on the assumption that "the community" is some sort of cohesive body.

Secondly, if GW ever drops physical books, I'm out. There is just something ... real ... about a book. The smell. The sound of a turning page. The lack of glow straining the eyes.  The fact that it doesn't go *poof* when the power runs out.

No, give me physical books as a vital part of my hobby experience. This is a physical hobby, with WYSIWYG physical models, physical dice, physically applied colors, physically present opponents, and physical books.

I also love video games. Heck, I play more Hearthstone than pretty much any other game currently - physical games included, but this hobby of ours is different and it would be worse off for the loss of any of its physical elements.

 

I mean, boy do I really hope they wise up and drop physical books.

 

On 6/11/2021 at 12:44 AM, Fred1245 said:

I'm going to say it here now:

I think stand and shoot is nowhere near as strong as the d6 flee.

Unleash hell is very showy. Ooh Such shoots, much Damages! Pretty colors! But ultimately it's an anemic last stand for the majority of archer models. You'll get some extra casualties you wouldn't have in AoS2, but end up still trapped in combat and still probably being killed the majority of the time.

The D6 flee is game deciding. I guarantee good players will win at least 1 game per event with this ability alone.

The problem with unleash hell is that 20 (or 30 now?) sentinels can be standing behind a screen of wardens and use it to get a free shooting attack with no risk of themselves.

On 6/12/2021 at 9:53 AM, 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. 

Shooting is no more immune to being deathstar buffed than melee is. And all the problematic shooting units get some radical buffing. Without the buffs, they tend to not be impactful, but with them strong to overpowered. Sentinels are a unit that gets access to a lot of buffs. As are stalkers. As are thunderers (but thunderers only get a single turn of deathstar buffing compared to the other two units)

 

Also it looks like sentinels are going to be able to get 30 man units, doubling down on the buff power. While both stalkers and thunderers are taking a hit in their unit size.

 

Sentinels are going to become an even larger issue in the new edition because GW has simply decided not to address them. We'll see where they are pointed, but, well, the current head rules guy is a big ol' elf megafan.

 

On 6/12/2021 at 7:41 AM, whispersofblood said:

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.

 

Your phalanx metaphor is really bizarre and not super reflective of historic reality. Like, what's an ordinary phalanx? Phalanxes aren't properly a think until the pike phalanx, which gets anachronistically applied farther back in greek warfare. Are you talking about the order of battle in a very specific battle between the thebans and the spartans that the thebans won? The battle of Leuctra? Cause what the thebans did was mass their forces agains the spartan's elite and smash them super hard by surprise. The depth of the line was mostly a function of the attempted breakthrough. Being 50men deep didn't make it better at fighting. 

 

On 6/12/2021 at 9:59 AM, Neverchosen said:

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.

 

The changes as previewed will make lumineth better, KO are worse with weaker triumphs (But maybe not worse enough to knock them out of the top), it hurts competitive DoK moderately hard, makes competitive IDK better, and is a wash for seraphon who already had a strong monster heavy list that's clear better now.

 

it's not gonna change the standings much except maybe drop DoK out of it.

 

On 6/13/2021 at 2:15 AM, SorryLizard said:

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?

 

None of these descriptions are super reflective of the reality of the ancient militaries being referenced :P:P

4 hours ago, Scurvydog said:

Yea the new edition does not really "fix" the double turn, it even shifts the endless spells to be in favor of the one taking the turn, where before the one going second chose the first spell to move. 

The command points being generated at the start of the battle round is important though, especially considering the new responses, which gives more agency to the player who does not have the turn.

I get why players who hate the double turn are disappointed by this, at best, half measure, but if we are to deal with it, it is at least better than before.

Something completely different though with the generic artifacts and spell lore, I can't wait to have a wizard Mega Gargant with a flaming titanic club, that is going to be fun ;)

 

Double turn is stronger because choosing to go second the first turn is a lot less damaging. 

3 hours ago, Yondaime said:

Teclis cost 660 point and is made of wet paper, is a really hard model to play properly, he has autocast yes, but you have to make the right choice at the right moment or youll waste those points

Bladelords damage is a joke (they are bodyguards, not hitters)

fun and unique rule=/=say no to rules

 

Teclis can mega buff himself to be very difficult to kill outside mass mortal wounds (so, like, other lumineth lul).

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Howdyhedberg said:

I still dont understand the endless spell rules. During the hero phase, can I pick any endless spell within 30 to control? Or is it the one I spawned? 

 

 

Only the wizard that summoned an endless spell can control it, and he may only control 1 if he summoned more than 1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@stratigo shooting units are hurt less by the reinforcement limit because of combat activations. If I have two units of 10 in melee, I attack with one, get attacked by my opponent (probably targetting the unit that hasn't fought yet lowering it's output) then I can attack with the second unit. If I had a unit of 20 the entire thing could fight before getting hit back, and would be less vulnerable to being wiped out before fighting.

2 units of 10 shooting get just as many attacks as 1 unit of 20, the only difference is how well that unit receives buffs, which is exactly the same problem melee units have.

 

Buffs are the same for both. Targeted buffs prefer big units, but aoe buffs don't care. It might hurt snakes (can they be taken in 20s now?), flamers don't care since both the fatemaster and exalted flamer buffs are auras, skinks are probably weaker but they might get their unit size increased. I don't think the KO list that spams thunderers cares, especially with how much weaker the new triumphs are. You can fit multiple units into a garrison anyways, so you could still jam 20 thunderers into a boat, and they get just as many attacks. (honestly though even with all the other benefits the triumph change will probably be enough to kick KO down, and I heard they're getting significant point increases too)


So both are affected, but melee is hit harder because of combat activations.

Also I've since figured out that the reinforcement limit exists exclusively because battle regiment is too strong. Battle regiment is too flexible, and without a reinforcement limit it would be trivial to fit everything you need into it. This is why there is only a reinforcement limit in matched play, which is the only mode that determines priority by number of drops in turn 1.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:


Also I've since figured out that the reinforcement limit exists exclusively because battle regiment is too strong. Battle regiment is too flexible, and without a reinforcement limit it would be trivial to fit everything you need into it. This is why there is only a reinforcement limit in matched play, which is the only mode that determines priority by number of drops in turn 1.

Which begs the question, why do the AoS rule writers refuse to change the turn 1 priority to what it is now in narrative?.... They hate it so much they dumped all battalion switched over to core battalions, still couldn't get it right, that they then went and implemented measures to try and stop 1 drop 2000pts lists.

There where some inherent problems with battalions which was less about the bonusses and more about tax units ans certain factions getting plain better rules. But this feels like putting a band aid on a bubonic plague victim as you don't want to admit that there is a plague, and the band aid should work right?

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

Don't get me wrong, I think there are some great small tweaks and additions all over the place, but some of the "fixes" to me at least smell like someone that listened to a lot of feedback to come up with solutions to problems, some real some not, but the big thing is, it doesnt feel like they really play the game or have any experience as to what the real issues are, they are treating symptoms explained to them in an email. Without addressing the causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mutton said:

Query: Do all wizards in your army by default get to pick two spells from lores they know? One spell via the enhancement and one spell via the battletome?

My understanding is that the 'enhancements' are what is in the battletome - spell lores, artefacts, traits etc. So it is no different to before. The only difference is if yoj include a core battalion and pick another enhancement, you can pick a spell enhancement and all your wizards then get to pick a second spell.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mutton said:

Query: Do all wizards in your army by default get to pick two spells from lores they know? One spell via the enhancement and one spell via the battletome?

Doesn't seem that way.  Allegiance abilities are split into two parts: Battle Traits, which everything in an army gets, and Enhancements, which are given to specific units. Normally general rules don't override specific ones, but considering this is a new book, they're reclassifying spell lores as an enhancement, and you're still getting the free one, it is definitely the intention that you won't get 2. They might update the battletomes with an FAQ on release but we'll need to wait and see.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Dracan said:

Which begs the question, why do the AoS rule writers refuse to change the turn 1 priority to what it is now in narrative?.... They hate it so much they dumped all battalion switched over to core battalions, still couldn't get it right, that they then went and implemented measures to try and stop 1 drop 2000pts lists.

There where some inherent problems with battalions which was less about the bonusses and more about tax units ans certain factions getting plain better rules. But this feels like putting a band aid on a bubonic plague victim as you don't want to admit that there is a plague, and the band aid should work right?

I don't really get it either. Half the core battalions are bad, and one is so dominant it needed an extra mechanic to nerf it. Maybe they should've just dropped the idea of deploying multiple things at the same time entirely, so if you wanted a bonus on the priority you needed to run less units, which is a clear disadvantage.

The battalion change is just a major miss for me. I'd rather see them removed entirely than get what we have now. But my preference would've been for a more balanced version of the old ones, with some simple generic ones with boring buffs like "1-3 troops, 1 hero, models get +1 to hit within 12" of the hero" 120 points, or "1 troop of 3 or more models, 1 hero, the hero gets a wound shrug if they're within 3" of the troop" 100 points.

I actually do like the concept of "enhancements" being clarified and giving us options though, it's a shame the options to get them are so bad. Like you can get a 1 drop army pretty easily in a more elite force like FeC or BCR, but in order to get a single extra enhancement you need to bring at least 3 heroes, and if you want a second you're at the hero limit and can't run any battalions. Which is insane because battle regiment's ability to get priority is more powerful than most enhancements, and going for an enhancement will often mean giving up priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Which is insane because battle regiment's ability to get priority is more powerful than most enhancements, and going for an enhancement will often mean giving up priority.

I mean, I don't disagree but there's the additional balancing element that the 1-drop must all be deployed at the same time, so the high-drops opponent will be able to deploy with perfect knowledge of the enemy's deployment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Athrawes said:

Only the wizard that summoned an endless spell can control it, and he may only control 1 if he summoned more than 1. 

But may my opponent try to control it? Or during his turn he can control it? Or that's if there are more than 3 endless spells and you have to pick one? Or is it controlled until it's wild or dispelled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@stratigo Sentinels are 10-20 on their pitched battle profile.

@Ganigumo not universally appealing and bad are not the same thing. Different factions react to the different incenative structures differently. My LRL very much care about choosing turn order; my BoC literally don't care at all, and easily carry enough heroes for me to grab extra enhancements, on top of having decent innate CP generation. My IDK also are looking at the core enhancements with lustful eyes. 

The incentive structure is night and day. And, flat incorrect to say that they are universally bad. Perhaps you mean bad for how you play the game and your factions? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Howdyhedberg said:

But may my opponent try to control it? Or during his turn he can control it? Or that's if there are more than 3 endless spells and you have to pick one? Or is it controlled until it's wild or dispelled?

A wizard can only choose to control a spell that they themselves cast.

If that wizard dies, but the spell remains on the table, no one can control it and it is wild until dispelled. 

Each wizard can only choose to control 1 endless spell, and it must be one that they cast. If there are more endless spells on table than wizards that can control them, those spells are wild, and they you and your opponent alternate moving them when appropriate. 

 

Honestly, they lay it out very clearly in the new rules if you just want to give those a read. Free to download on the GW site.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whispersofblood said:

@stratigo Sentinels are 10-20 on their pitched battle profile.

@Ganigumo not universally appealing and bad are not the same thing. Different factions react to the different incenative structures differently. My LRL very much care about choosing turn order; my BoC literally don't care at all, and easily carry enough heroes for me to grab extra enhancements, on top of having decent innate CP generation. My IDK also are looking at the core enhancements with lustful eyes. 

The incentive structure is night and day. And, flat incorrect to say that they are universally bad. Perhaps you mean bad for how you play the game and your factions? 

For the sentinels thing the reinforcement system is replacing max unit sizes. Battleline units can be reinforced twice, and sentinels can be battleline, therefore they can be reinforced twice. The new points charts don't even have a max unit size.

For some reason optional units are in battalions, when the only battalion that actually wants to fill them is battle regiment. The benefits from maxing out the others are very minimal. This is just bad design.

 

There are 6 core battalions. Linebreaker, Grand Battery, and Vanguard are all weak, and there isn't much point to taking them outside of your list not fitting into any of the others. Linebreaker is probably the best because you can use a command with a unit that normally wouldn't be able to, but is pretty restrictive regardless. Hero Monsters are probably going to continue to be the best version of monsters, and battleline behemoths are troops, so the handful of armies that do spam monsters can't even fit into Linebreaker. Vanguard is a hard sell since its so easily comparable to battle regiment in terms of required units.

Warlord and Command Entourage both offer an interesting incentive in the form of enhancements and command points, and Battle Regiment offers you a way to lower drops to get priority. These are the strong ones, and the benefits are significantly better than linebreaker, grand battery, or vanguard. 

In terms of the strength of the rewards I would order them like this Battle Regiment>Command Entourage>>Warlord>Linebreaker>Grand Battery> Vanguard. If you don't care about drops at all for some reason warlord moves to the top and battle regiment to the bottom. If there's a must have extra enhancement the first command entourage moves above battle regiment.

The fact that enhancements are taxed behind a 3 hero requirement is a problem when battle Regiment is so much more useful for most armies. An army seeking an extra enhancement has a 4 drop minimum, or a 9 drop minimum if you need 2 for some reason. An army that doesn't need one will trivially hit 2 drops, with no tax units at all.

The problem with the incentive structure is that it's almost entirely based on how strong the army is. Strong armies often don't need the extra enhancements to compete, so they can go all in on battle regiments. Weaker armies tend to need the enhancements more, to patch up their weaknesses, so they're forced into losing priority. This isn't an interesting decision you make, it's a binary mode of "Can I get priority without being awful".

There are some interesting pieces here, but the system is half baked and not at all interesting. I love the way enhancements work, and there are some really fun combos with the artifacts and spells there, or getting an extra spell known on all your wizards, but extra enhancements are locked behind a boring system that you NEED to go through, and are the most taxed in that system, despite not even being the strongest part of it. The new system is boring, unbalanced, and doesn't solve the problems of the old one.

In games, as in with writing, boring is worse than bad, because at least bad is memorable.

Axe battalions entirely and come up with a better way to get into the enhancement system, which is actually interesting, even if its just " 'X' enhancements for 'X' points/units/etc"



 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

But it does say that, though. In the last sentence of your snippet.

Nope what it says is it cannot be further from it's starting location than it's move. Hence why I specified an oval doing a move around a unit, specifically something which can't fly.

In this case say you have a move of 18" and the path moves around a unit due to the orientation the oval itself is rotated at the end. Now because you've moved in an arc, your whole base is within 18" despite the fact that a part of the base has, in doing so, moved ever so slightly further than it's move distance.

As I said it's splitting hairs and I'd not even bother trying it in a tournament however rules as written the technicality exists...

2 hours ago, TheCovenLord said:

Not really that huge if you take into account new coherency rules. It seems like its mostly to keep the combat doable rather than a nightmare under the old nearest model rule.

It's massive because some of the old tricks you could do which prevented an opponent moving around in combat no longer work. An example being that the 3 points of contact which would prevent an oval from moving no longer works, as long as the model is in base to base with a single model from the enemy unit it is "as close" to the unit as it started.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...