AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[yukishiro1]

GW has never yet been able to resist power creep across the course of an edition - in fits and starts of course, it doesn't mean every single release is better than what came before, but the overall trend has always been pretty clear, at least in the last decade or so after the release schedules became predictable. Anything is possible, but I definitely wouldn't bank on them finally breaking the habit now.

There are all sorts of complex reasons that power creep happens - basically every natural pressure on game design leads that way. To resist it, you need a very disciplined and organized design plan for your game. And even the most enthusiastic GW supporters would have trouble claiming that GW's design has ever been either disciplined or organized. GW products have many strengths, but those are not among them.

Edited June 25, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Eldarain]

I agree with @Cambyses assessment with the addition that the first books will be powerful in that they will have the advantage of bespoke enhancements, Heroic Actions, Monstrous abilities, Grand Strategies, Battle Tactics etc.

That advantage will quickly fade as they inevitably make more egregious missteps in handing those out to their darlings.

[Fred1245]

2 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

GW has never yet been able to resist power creep across the course of an edition - in fits and starts of course, it doesn't mean every single release is better than what came before, but the overall trend has always been pretty clear, at least in the last decade or so after the release schedules became predictable. Anything is possible, but I definitely wouldn't bank on them finally breaking the habit now.

There are all sorts of complex reasons that power creep happens - basically every natural pressure on game design leads that way. To resist it, you need a very disciplined and organized design plan for your game. And even the most enthusiastic GW supporters would have trouble claiming that GW's design has ever been either disciplined or organized. GW products have many strengths, but those are not among them.

It's not that I don't think the powercurve will be inconsistent, I do, wildly so. I just think based on the most recent three books and a lot of the frankly baffling point changes that GW intends for the edition to creep downwards rather than upwards.

It's hard to make a book equal to what came before it, it's not at all hard to make it worse.

 

I know conventional logic suggests that GW will want every book to be better than the last to sell models (or because they just can't contain themselves) but they had chances for that with Slaanesh, Soulblight, and the Broken Realms books and all they managed to do was sell a lot of Allopexes and make a bunch of DoK players glad they already had Morathi and unbuilt snakes.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Fred1245

[Reinholt]

3 hours ago, Eldarain said:

I agree with @Cambyses assessment with the addition that the first books will be powerful in that they will have the advantage of bespoke enhancements, Heroic Actions, Monstrous abilities, Grand Strategies, Battle Tactics etc.

That advantage will quickly fade as they inevitably make more egregious missteps in handing those out to their darlings.

 

The story of Age of Sigmar, so far, is a series of iterations, rules changes, points changes, and scenario changes that all point to one inevitable, all-consuming goal: making Idoneth Eels even better.

[whispersofblood]

6 hours ago, Reinholt said:

2 turns: 2x shots on my turn, 1x unleash hell to wipe my screen, 2x more shots on my turn, 1x unleash hell when they charge my unit, if I dumped it all into the HGB, which as stated, is not the correct decision (you block and fall away from them to shoot other things). Edit: not usually the correct decision, I suppose. The nice part about long reach shooting is you always have options so there may be games where that is the correct decision. I shouldn't state it as a blanket rule as the optionality of targets is part of the power.

 

Edit: the math is slightly better if you double turn, but if we live in a world where "you must double turn to have a chance" is the dominant paradigm, that means there's no winning strategy and your neutral expectation is a loss. Also assuming I didn't just take multiple Aetherwing units to keep blocking charges... which most stormcast players do.

Wait stop the show.

Why is your opponent not using Runic Fyrewall at least to stop Unleash Hell?

[yukishiro1]

Why would that stop unleash hell? You unleash hell after the charge is complete, this isn't overwatch. It'd take a hell of a positioning trick - very unlikely to be able to pull off with a model with such a large base to put the wall somewhere where it would allow you to get w/in 1/2 inch of the unit but still be outside of LOS of said unit. And even if you somehow managed it, unless you're charging from outside 9", they could just redeploy in a way to get LOS again, so at best you'd just be costing them a CP.

Seems like one of those galaxy brain ideas that's very unlikely to work once it meets reality. 

Or did you mean putting the wall between the chaff unit you're charging and the vanguard-raptors? I mean I guess in theory, if your opponent was careless enough to leave room for that and your priest is close enough to do that in the hero phase and you pass the invocation check...still a hell of a lot of conditions to meet. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Chikout]

So, whether is counterable or not, it's clear that unleash hell is very powerful. What would people want to see in a faq? Gw is very unlikely to cut a core rule anytime soon. For me  l'd like them to make  the range 1inch which  would mean you could only shoot a unit which successfully charged you.  No screens allowed. You could also make it happen on a 6 like 40k but that might nerf it to the point that it's not worth waisting a command point on. 

[Vaporlocke]

29 minutes ago, Chikout said:

So, whether is counterable or not, it's clear that unleash hell is very powerful. What would people want to see in a faq? Gw is very unlikely to cut a core rule anytime soon. For me  l'd like them to make  the range 1inch which  would mean you could only shoot a unit which successfully charged you.  No screens allowed. You could also make it happen on a 6 like 40k but that might nerf it to the point that it's not worth waisting a command point on. 

I'm hoping they change it to only being available to the units being charged, keeps it usable and still powerful but not abusable and broken. 

[PJetski]

Rally, Redeploy, and All-Out Defense are all excellent defensive abilities and all cost the same resources as Unleash Hell. Furthermore, if you are spending command points on defense you will have less to use for offense.

I suspect Unleash Hell is quite strong but I'm going to play a lot of games first and see for myself before I jump to making demands for an errata. It doesn't make sense to do changes on the core rules before we see some battletomes.

[yukishiro1]

To me the weirdest thing about unleash hell is just why it exists at all. What was the impetus? Did anyone really think the game was calling out for a buffed up version of overwatch - uberwatch, if you will? 40k moved in precisely the opposite direction in 9th edition, and the last year of AOS was dominated by shooting armies. 

It may not even end up being all that overpowered, but the question remains: why? Put another way: if AOS 3.0 hadn't had it, would even one single person on the internet have complained that what the new edition really needed was a much stronger version of overwatch? 

[Eldarain]

Another effect of the lead times for printed media? Perhaps the shooting Ascendancy had not become apparent when they were brewing this up?

I don't know. Hard to imagine why.

[Kodos der Henker]

at least in 40k playtester don't get the full or final rules and some changes are made right before printing

high chance that the wording was different and or rules missing so one could spot it because it was not there

[Zeblasky]

7 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

. And even if you somehow managed it, unless you're charging from outside 9", they could just redeploy in a way to get LOS again, so at best you'd just be costing them a CP.

 

I've seen this mistake a few times in this thread, but you can't shoot after Redeploy. You either run or shoot, it's that simple.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Zeblasky

[Boar]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

To me the weirdest thing about unleash hell is just why it exists at all. What was the impetus? Did anyone really think the game was calling out for a buffed up version of overwatch - uberwatch, if you will? 40k moved in precisely the opposite direction in 9th edition, and the last year of AOS was dominated by shooting armies. 

It may not even end up being all that overpowered, but the question remains: why? Put another way: if AOS 3.0 hadn't had it, would even one single person on the internet have complained that what the new edition really needed was a much stronger version of overwatch? 

The same logic holds for redeploy, and if redeploy wasn't here people also wouldn't complain that it doesn't exist.

Why abilities such as this exist at all is very simple, adding reaction abilities was one of main goals in designing this edition.

And the fact that one year was dominated by shooting armies (and IDK) is not reason enough to drop it, just like earlier domination by deathstars and similar shouldn't invalidate all-out attack in combat phase for instance.

[Chikout]

The thing to keep in mind is that the designers thinking pattern is always theme, playability, balance in that order. A unit of archers trying to snap off a shot at a charging monster is very thematic. As @Boar said it also fits the stated aim of decreasing down time, so it also makes the game more playable (in theory). 

[whispersofblood]

8 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Why would that stop unleash hell? You unleash hell after the charge is complete, this isn't overwatch. It'd take a hell of a positioning trick - very unlikely to be able to pull off with a model with such a large base to put the wall somewhere where it would allow you to get w/in 1/2 inch of the unit but still be outside of LOS of said unit. And even if you somehow managed it, unless you're charging from outside 9", they could just redeploy in a way to get LOS again, so at best you'd just be costing them a CP.

Seems like one of those galaxy brain ideas that's very unlikely to work once it meets reality. 

Or did you mean putting the wall between the chaff unit you're charging and the vanguard-raptors? I mean I guess in theory, if your opponent was careless enough to leave room for that and your priest is close enough to do that in the hero phase and you pass the invocation check...still a hell of a lot of conditions to meet. 

It's a failsafe play. If he moves the aetherwings you don't take the shooting. If he doesn't move the aetherwings you are in combat, and of course take the shooting. 

It's not really galaxy brained it's a pretty straight forward play...

[Beliman]

On 6/18/2021 at 4:31 PM, PJetski said:

Has anyone else pointed out the fact that you can't use Fly High if you have an enemy within 3" with the new rules?

Sorry to necromancy this discussion, but reading some FAQ:

Quote

Hitchers:
If this unit is wholly within 6" of a friendly SKYVESSEL immediately before the SKYVESSEL uses its Fly High ability, you can say that this unit will hitch a lift instead of making a normal move (as long as this unit has not already made a normal move in the same phase).

Quote

FAQ:
Q: If I pick a friendly Barak-Zilfin Skyvessel to use the ‘There’s Always a Breeze If You Look For It’ ability in my hero phase, can that Skyvessel use its Fly High ability? If so, can up to 7 friendly models with the ‘Hitchers’ ability move with it?
A: Yes to both questions.

It seems that some units will not need to have an available normal move to use their ability even if they had "instead of a normal move..." in their description.

I just want to say that we need a FAQ to make it clear.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Beliman
grammar

[yukishiro1]

7 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

I've seen this mistake a few times in this thread, but you can't shoot after Redeploy. You either run or shoot, it's that simple.

Oh interesting, you're right. 

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, Boar said:

Why abilities such as this exist at all is very simple, adding reaction abilities was one of main goals in designing this edition.

Agreed. I'm really looking forward to using this vital, key design element with my Bonereapers. 

Oh. Wait.

[Boar]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

Oh. Wait.

Ha! We are all waiting for FAQs aren't we.

[Mutton]

15 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

To me the weirdest thing about unleash hell is just why it exists at all. What was the impetus? Did anyone really think the game was calling out for a buffed up version of overwatch - uberwatch, if you will? 40k moved in precisely the opposite direction in 9th edition, and the last year of AOS was dominated by shooting armies. 

It may not even end up being all that overpowered, but the question remains: why? Put another way: if AOS 3.0 hadn't had it, would even one single person on the internet have complained that what the new edition really needed was a much stronger version of overwatch? 

The real problem with Unleash Hell is the inequity of power between units that can use it. Unleash Hell is fine from a bunch of crossbowman, but nightmarish on warplightning cannons, skinks, or other units fishing for mortals. I don't know how you solve that without fundamental changes to warscrolls or huge points hikes on these specific units (which we obviously haven't seen in this GHB). It'd be an interesting tactical option if it wasn't also a potential Armageddon for melee armies.

[PJetski]

I know people are hating on Unleash Hell but I had a lot of fun using it today with Magmadroths doing d6 mortal wounds followed by a Stomp for D3.

I don't think Unleash Hell is ridiculous. It's certainly strong, but there is plenty players can do to play around it - multi-charging, shutting off command abilities, abilities that disable shooting or prevent being targetted, or using units with defensive bonuses against missile weapons.

The abuse case seems to be double reinforced battleline units and/or units that do mortal wounds on hit rolls of 5/6. If I were to propose any errata (and I'm still not convinced any change is required yet) it would be something like:

• Unleash Hell can't by used if a unit is above its minimum size (extreme option, not needed yet)
• Abilities that trigger mortal wound on hit6 can be errata'd to only work in the Shooting phase - (we should probably do this anyway to prevent more abuse cases moving forward)

[yukishiro1]

17 hours ago, Boar said:

The same logic holds for redeploy, and if redeploy wasn't here people also wouldn't complain that it doesn't exist.

Why abilities such as this exist at all is very simple, adding reaction abilities was one of main goals in designing this edition.

And the fact that one year was dominated by shooting armies (and IDK) is not reason enough to drop it, just like earlier domination by deathstars and similar shouldn't invalidate all-out attack in combat phase for instance.

...sort of? Why is it that all the reactions are to melee or at least close proximity, and none of them are to shooting? I mean yes you can boost your save, but you can do that in melee too. Meanwhile, all the other reactions just happen to mostly strengthen shooting units while mostly weakening melee ones. Seems like a weird choice, even given their chosen theme of "reactions." Why not have a "reaction" that lets a melee unit immediately charge any ranged unit that shoots at it - an inverse unleash hell, if you will? Why does being charged give you the chance for a shooting activation, but being shot doesn't give you the chance of a charge activation? The latter would have done far more to mitigate the advantages of a double turn too, which was one of their stated aims. 

[Vaporlocke]

4 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

...sort of? Why is it that all the reactions are to melee or at least close proximity, and none of them are to shooting? I mean yes you can boost your save, but you can do that in melee too. Meanwhile, all the other reactions just happen to mostly strengthen shooting units while mostly weakening melee ones. Seems like a weird choice, even given their chosen theme of "reactions." Why not have a "reaction" that lets a melee unit immediately charge any ranged unit that shoots at it - an inverse unleash hell, if you will? Why does being charged give you the chance for a shooting activation, but being shot doesn't give you the chance of a charge activation? The latter would have done far more to mitigate the advantages of a double turn too, which was one of their stated aims. 

Wanna take a bet that the designers and/or playtesters main shooting armies?

[Kadeton]

53 minutes ago, Vaporlocke said:

Wanna take a bet that the designers and/or playtesters main shooting armies?

"The designers buff the armies they play so they can personally win more games" is such a flimsy take. I'd bet that they rarely play the game outside of work, if at all - certainly not enough to 'main' an army.