AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[armisael]

55 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

I really like those new rules, I wonder how Wild endless spells will operate. Its obviously not in there now but expanding this system to have wizards battling for control of spells would be pretty cool.

 

Only real complaint would be the 48" for dispelling invocations. That is functionally the entire board, would personally have kept it at 30" like endless spells but that's just me.

“Players alternate picking wild spells to move, so if you have too many spells to control there’s a chance your opponent will use one of them against you.”

I think wild spell will be alternately picked as in AoS 2.0

[SpiritofHokuto]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

It seems to me that moving endless spells each hero phase makes double turns deadlier, which is ironic since endless spells were introduced as a way to mitigate the effects of double turns. Previously you would drop a spell at the bottom of round 1 as insurance against an enemy winning the priority roll, since if you were going second you could move the spell at the start of the round and disrupt them somewhat.

Now if you cast endless spells at the bottom of a round you could end up going first in the next round AND move the spell without a chance for your opponent to respond. Furthermore, since you control each spell you cast, this could lead to a tremendous amount of damage done through 3+ endless spells in a double turn.

Using endless spells defensively is going to be more difficult because they move at the end of the hero phase after your opponent has a chance to dispel them. You can drop them in the top of round 1, then your opponent gets a chance to dispel before they move again. This was not always the case in 2nd edition.

So spells are going to be more aggressive and less useful on defense. If they don't reduce their damage with the new warscrolls confirmed in GHB 2021 then magic domination armies will get even stronger in 3rd edition.

This does concern me. We already know that going second is being incentivised via extra command points, despite the fact that going second was usually better anyway unless using/going against a pronounced alpha strike army. With this you could functionally cripple multiple units before they really get to act. 

So yeah, hopefully the new warscrolls will have them toned down a bit, as otherwise AoS3 looks to be Age of Shooting/Spells.

[Zeblasky]

This pretty much means that endless spells are back on the menu (unless there will be a severe points increase), especially if you have tanky wizards to use them with. Monster Wizards can now now have a Lifeswarm pet to heal themselfs each turn, which seems very strong. Wish Cities had good Monster Wizards though...

 

Having at least a single priest in a army now seems to be a good idea as well, even if you won't benefit from his warscroll prayers. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Zeblasky

[PJetski]

8 minutes ago, SpiritofHokuto said:

This does concern me. We already know that going second is being incentivised via extra command points, despite the fact that going second was usually better anyway unless using/going against a pronounced alpha strike army. With this you could functionally cripple multiple units before they really get to act. 

So yeah, hopefully the new warscrolls will have them toned down a bit, as otherwise AoS3 looks to be Age of Shooting/Spells.

To be fair, going second in Round 1 was sometimes an advantage depending on the army lists and the battleplan, but going second in any other round was almost always putting you at a disadvantage.

If you are the victim of a double turn that means you are going second in that round. I think it's too soon to say if getting one extra command point on the bottom of round 1 is even a significant advantage since you can use Heroic Actions to generate command points anyway.

The change to endless spells seems much more impactful, though it is somewhat mitigated by heroes being able to heal themselves with Heroic Actions.

Edited June 7, 2021 by PJetski

[SpiritofHokuto]

1 minute ago, PJetski said:

To be fair, going second in Round 1 was sometimes an advantage depending on the army lists and the battleplan, but going second in any other round was almost always putting you at a disadvantage.

If you are the victim of a double turn that means you are going second in that round. I think it's too soon to say if getting one extra command point on the bottom of round 1 is even a significant advantage since you can use Heroic Actions to generate command points anyway.

The change to endless spells seems much more impactful.

Yeah, the wording is a bit weird so I'm not sure if the extra CP is just for the first round or each round. 

[PJetski]

Two articles in one day, didn't see that coming

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/07/stormcast-eternals-in-the-new-edition-elite-versatile-champions-of-order/

[PrimeElectrid]

11 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Two articles in one day, didn't see that coming

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/07/stormcast-eternals-in-the-new-edition-elite-versatile-champions-of-order/

This coherency change seems massive? Big effect on screens as they can’t string out as effectively.

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, PrimeElectrid said:

This coherency change seems massive? Big effect on screens as they can’t string out as effectively.

It's a huge change to the game.

Units with 6+ models on large bases (like heavy cavalry) are much weaker

[PrimeElectrid]

4 minutes ago, PJetski said:

It's a huge change to the game.

Units with 6+ models on large bases (like heavy cavalry) are much weaker

Unless they have 2” weapons I guess.

RIP all those Deathriders with swords instead of spears 

[Verminlord]

It was a necessary change with the shrinking board size and I'm glad to see it. Hordes already had a big advantage on a 4x6 with how much space they could control and the obvious advantage of more bodies on an objective. 

I do wish the minimum was 6 models instead of 5 for those elite cav. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Verminlord

[Enoby]

I do feel for the fiends, who get a bonus if there's 4+ of them (they come in 3s), but only have 1" range on their primary attack. I like the coherency rules other than some weird interaction with heavy cavalry. 

On the other hand, if you expect at least one of them to die, in a unit of 6 you can have one designated to die no matter what. It doesn't say you can't purposely break coherency, just that there's a sacrifice - so charge 6 man units in and just know at least one will have to die for the extra attacks.

[GutrotSpume]

Just now, Enoby said:

I do feel for the fiends, who get a bonus if there's 4+ of them (they come in 3s), but only have 1" range on their primary attack. I like the coherency rules other than some weird interaction with heavy cavalry. 

On the other hand, if you expect at least one of them to die, in a unit of 6 you can have one designated to die no matter what. It doesn't say you can't purposely break coherency, just that there's a sacrifice - so charge 6 man units in and just know at least one will have to die for the extra attacks.

Dire Wolves are completely buggered now as well. 

[Ganigumo]

2 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

This coherency change seems massive? Big effect on screens as they can’t string out as effectively.

This rule is awful. It was ripped out of 40k, where there is less focus on melee and smaller units generally, but this will be a disaster here. I'll run through some scenarios.

• 10 infantry with 1" reach. you basically need to be 5*2 or maybe 7 & 3 so you lose combat effectiveness. There's plenty of units this hurts, any 32mm infantry with 1" range thats useful in a unit of 10 just got hurt.
• larger models with 1" reach that come in 3s, stuff like Bullgors who'll need to have bodies in the back just to keep coherency or dragon ogors
• IT DOES NOTHING TO 25MM BASES AT ALL because 25mm is less than an inch you can line up a unit of 25mm models base-to-base and it's still in coherency.
• It benefits hordes and units under 5 models, units under 5 aren't changed, hordes are also relatively unchanged because you always have plenty of bodies in the back, so this just hurts mid-sized units
• Units are going to look weird. Cavalry will have crabwalking models in the back to maximize useful models, you'll have guys standing in the back doing nothing constantly

This rule needed to be for units of 11+ for AoS but instead we're needlessly punishing a lot of units.

[SpiritofHokuto]

3 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I do feel for the fiends, who get a bonus if there's 4+ of them (they come in 3s), but only have 1" range on their primary attack. I like the coherency rules other than some weird interaction with heavy cavalry. 

On the other hand, if you expect at least one of them to die, in a unit of 6 you can have one designated to die no matter what. It doesn't say you can't purposely break coherency, just that there's a sacrifice - so charge 6 man units in and just know at least one will have to die for the extra attacks.

 

2 minutes ago, GutrotSpume said:

Dire Wolves are completely buggered now as well. 

Yeah, the intent is to curb conga-lining screens but there's some real knock-on effects even down to 32mm based infantry. 

[Zappgrot]

4 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

This rule is awful. It was ripped out of 40k, where there is less focus on melee and smaller units generally, but this will be a disaster here. I'll run through some scenarios.

• 10 infantry with 1" reach. you basically need to be 5*2 or maybe 7 & 3 so you lose combat effectiveness. There's plenty of units this hurts, any 32mm infantry with 1" range thats useful in a unit of 10 just got hurt.
• larger models with 1" reach that come in 3s, stuff like Bullgors who'll need to have bodies in the back just to keep coherency or dragon ogors
• IT DOES NOTHING TO 25MM BASES AT ALL because 25mm is less than an inch you can line up a unit of 25mm models base-to-base and it's still in coherency.
• It benefits hordes and units under 5 models, units under 5 aren't changed, hordes are also relatively unchanged because you always have plenty of bodies in the back, so this just hurts mid-sized units
• Units are going to look weird. Cavalry will have crabwalking models in the back to maximize useful models, you'll have guys standing in the back doing nothing constantly

This rule needed to be for units of 11+ for AoS but instead we're needlessly punishing a lot of units.

Holy ******  this rule will make target removal insanely powerful. 

[Zappgrot]

18 minutes ago, Verminlord said:

It was a necessary change with the shrinking board size and I'm glad to see it. Hordes already had a big advantage on a 4x6 with how much space they could control and the obvious advantage of more bodies on an objective. 

I do wish the minimum was 6 models instead of 5 for those elite cav. 

They should not have made the boards smaller. AOS armies already take up a 6X4 board whit ease. Smaller boards will mean manoeuvring becomes a lot less importent. 

[SpiritofHokuto]

2 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

They should not have made the boards smaller. AOS armies already take up a 6X4 board whit ease. Smaller boards will mean manoeuvring becomes a lot less importent. 

Maybe not so much now that the coherency rules are essentially forcing units into loose cubes from what I can tell?

[RuneBrush]

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I would be surprised if they bring save stacking back after they went through all that trouble to remove it. So I hope "ward" is just the new term for "damage prevention roll".

2 hours ago, Acrozatarim said:

The return of the ward phrasing for post-save saves is pretty great - allows for consistent rule interactions across the spread of factions - but I hope they figure out how to fold the ward-save-but-only-versus-mortals into the phrasing elegantly.

I could see that all ignore damage rolls will now become ward saves - and you'll only be able to make a single save roll for each point of damage.

5 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

They should not have made the boards smaller. AOS armies already take up a 6X4 board whit ease. Smaller boards will mean manoeuvring becomes a lot less importent. 

Smaller board size is so that it fits on a dining table more easily.  It also makes manoeuvring more important rather than less.  You've less square inches to play in so a mis-measure here or there will be a lot more devastating!  Armies are likely to shrink in composition too - no horde discounts and smaller max sized units.  Lastly, shaving off a few inches overall also helps armies like Khorne that used to spend 2 or 3 turns trying to get into melee.

[Verminlord]

8 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

They should not have made the boards smaller. AOS armies already take up a 6X4 board whit ease. Smaller boards will mean manoeuvring becomes a lot less importent. 

I think it is all but confirmed that army sizes are going down. 40k 9th all point values went up around 25% to make up for smaller board.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Verminlord

[Ganigumo]

Also for the record 40k unit coherency is within 2" of two or more models, instead of 1" of two or more, so its even more restrictive.

[mojojojo101]

Those coherency rules feel really, really punishing to any army / unit that likes to take 'elite' units of 3 models in multiples. The ones that really, really stick out for me from what I play are Crypt Flayers, Kurnoth Hunters and EvoCats. Feel like they are barely going to be worth bothering with at all now.

[The Red King]

17 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

IT DOES NOTHING TO 25MM BASES AT ALL because 25mm is less than an inch you can line up a unit of 25mm models base-to-base and it's still in coherency.

Hahhaahaha this is hilariously incompetent. I mean I guess it shortens the conga line but the cure is worse than the disease by far!

[Ganigumo]

1 minute ago, The Red King said:

Hahhaahaha this is hilariously incompetent. I mean I guess it shortens the conga line but the cure is worse than the disease by far!

only at for the 3 at the ends of the line, all the other in the middle can be spaced .99" away

[RedemptionUK]

12 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Hahhaahaha this is hilariously incompetent. I mean I guess it shortens the conga line but the cure is worse than the disease by far!

So where do you allocate wounds? After 3 wounds are allocated, the entire line breaks coherency and gets removed if you do that?

[Ganigumo]

4 minutes ago, RedemptionUK said:

So where do you allocate wounds? After 3 wounds are allocated, the entire line breaks coherency and gets removed if you do that?

If you take wounds off the sides they don't break coherency, if you remove them from the middle they'll break.