AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[EnumaEilish]

21 minutes ago, Keilerei said:

Are we getting this right? I am not a native speaker, but could it just mean 6“ in 3 dimensions vertically? From a piece of terrain down to the table?  
 

asking for my 12 Gore gruntas 

The vertical coherency is mostly for terrain. If some models are on a cliff, they're still in coherency with models on the ground as long as the cliff is less than 6 inches.

[elescapo]

7 minutes ago, EnumaEilish said:

The vertical coherency is mostly for terrain. If some models are on a cliff, they're still in coherency with models on the ground as long as the cliff is less than 6 inches.

Right. Think of coherency as a box, 1" wide and 6" tall.  If any part of the neighboring model's base is anywhere inside that box, it is in coherency.

[Keilerei]

47 minutes ago, EnumaEilish said:

The vertical coherency is mostly for terrain. If some models are on a cliff, they're still in coherency with models on the ground as long as the cliff is less than 6 inches.

I think that describes what I actually ment. Just for clarification, we still can do conga lines and larger units of cav. But say one model is standing in Top of terrain, More than 6“ apart from the rest of it’s unit, measured from table to Cliff, in that case it’s outside of the Box and broke coherency?

[Grimrock]

Yeah the more I think about that coherency rule and the more examples I see the more I think there has to be something we're missing. Nobody in their right mind could look at that rule and think it's a truly good idea, any amount of consideration can show why it's just an absolutely horrible change for the game. There must be a mistake right? So many units have just become awful. Like unusable awful. Half the attacks, half the frontage for screening, and significantly reduced control over how you remove casualties because the slightest misstep means you're breaking coherency. What in the world is going on here?

[Zappgrot]

3 hours ago, Verminlord said:

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.

I don't know i can cram more models into my admech army then ever before.   So in my experience that's only true in 40k for the elite armies.  I do hope they shrink the armies down to mach the board. But i doubt it tough. They want to sell models afther all 

[Zappgrot]

3 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

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.

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.

Yes that last line is exactly the problem. It is going to lead to big piles of punch ups for the entire game.  And those are basically stat checks.  Whit a large board you need to think about where you need to go and how long it will take to get there. On a small board where every unit can get to half the board in 2 turns it doesn't matter.  (also i don't know about how ppl you know play khorne but  i don't need no 3 turns to get into melee not even 2 most of the time mortals ftw.) 

[Malakree]

15 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Yeah the more I think about that coherency rule and the more examples I see the more I think there has to be something we're missing. Nobody in their right mind could look at that rule and think it's a truly good idea, any amount of consideration can show why it's just an absolutely horrible change for the game. There must be a mistake right? So many units have just become awful. Like unusable awful. Half the attacks, half the frontage for screening, and significantly reduced control over how you remove casualties because the slightest misstep means you're breaking coherency. What in the world is going on here?

With my Ardboys I think I could get about 80-90% in combat with proper placement, it's going to slow the game right down though just due to how precise it will need to be.

Brutes I can abuse the special weapons 2" range to get a unit of 10 in range.

For goregruntas the best I could get to was this before I ran out of space with frontage and adjacency.

So in a sad twist, adding the 6th goregrunta actually causes you to have 1 less in melee..? It's mad.

[Zappgrot]

3 minutes ago, Malakree said:

With my Ardboys I think I could get about 80-90% in combat with proper placement, it's going to slow the game right down though just due to how precise it will need to be.

Brutes I can abuse the special weapons 2" range to get a unit of 10 in range.

For goregruntas the best I could get to was this before I ran out of space with frontage and adjacency.

So in a sad twist, adding the 6th goregrunta actually causes you to have 1 less in melee..? It's mad.

I am verry intrested in how you would get your ardboys in. I think this rule is going to waste at least 30% of their attacks cause you need to have some dudes standing in the back.  This rule is just flat out a terrible idea and will slow the game the hell down. If they wanted ranks they should have stuck whit  fantasy. I also hate how this is again a melee nerf.   Aos is starting to lean towards 40k fantasy edittion if you ask me. 

[Zappgrot]

29 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Yeah the more I think about that coherency rule and the more examples I see the more I think there has to be something we're missing. Nobody in their right mind could look at that rule and think it's a truly good idea, any amount of consideration can show why it's just an absolutely horrible change for the game. There must be a mistake right? So many units have just become awful. Like unusable awful. Half the attacks, half the frontage for screening, and significantly reduced control over how you remove casualties because the slightest misstep means you're breaking coherency. What in the world is going on here?

Gw wants the games to be alike so ppl wil jump over? I don't know but this rule will indeed have a major impact. I don't think anny of may melee armies wil now function like they used to. 

[Fuxxx]

I'm torn on the new rule. I really like blocks of models. My favorite systems are Kings of War and Warhammer 8th Edition. But the quote on quote encirclement you could to with AoS was quite nice and it's a bit sad to see it gone. Looks more like armies in formations though I think

I don't know if we're missing something. Might be that we get a rule for second ranks and such and than that's that
 

[Grimrock]

15 minutes ago, Malakree said:

With my Ardboys I think I could get about 80-90% in combat with proper placement, it's going to slow the game right down though just due to how precise it will need to be.

Can you show me what formation you used to get 80-90% in combat with the Ardboys? I'm assuming you mean a unit of 10, but I can't work a frontage of bigger than 6 without making it vulnerable to coherency loss. I think you can stagger them in mini triangles, bu that only gets them into combat if the opponent is somehow a perfectly straight line or they've obliged you and organized themselves in a similar formation that you can just slot into. 

Edit: Also, the issue with your gore gruntas is they're stuck in that exact position until they've lost a model unless you want to just give up a model for free. They can't pile in after a charge, and if the opponent hasn't lined up perfectly for you (ie. they're in a circle or curved line) you're more likely to get 2 models in combat than 4. That's a much bigger loss than one model.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Grimrock

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

It does feel like something is missing here, perhaps some consolidation action at the end of the combat phase? 
 

As is second pile-in abilities now particularly excellent as a chance to allow you to go all out in first attack and then consolidate with second if you punched hard enough to clear some space.

[Verminlord]

32 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

I don't know i can cram more models into my admech army then ever before.   So in my experience that's only true in 40k for the elite armies.  I do hope they shrink the armies down to mach the board. But i doubt it tough. They want to sell models afther all 

Well, they did exactly that with 40k which is their biggest cash cow so "they want to sell models" isn't really a great argument.

Of course some factions will have more models. Some factions specialize in hordes, or in admech's case infantry. That doesn't change the fact that every single 40k army including ad mech costs more points in 9th than in 8th after the move to a smaller board.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

16 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

I don't know i can cram more models into my admech army then ever before.   So in my experience that's only true in 40k for the elite armies.  I do hope they shrink the armies down to mach the board. But i doubt it tough. They want to sell models afther all 

Games Workshop can't really control the size of armies.  Sure, they can make everything cost more points, but that's not going to stop players from playing bigger point limits.  Army size is almost always a player controlled issue.  My experience over several miniatures games from many companies has found that games will naturally move to the point where players don't feel like they have to compromise leaving out a type of unit or have a list with a deficiency/gap they have to work around.  Barring that, almost all miniatures war games I have played the points get bumped up to 25% after the group has been playing a while.  Even if the previous total was listed by the designers (rarely done) as the intended points limit. 

I also think it is incorrect to say that GW is increasing the points cost of things.  More likely, I suspect, they are just resetting a bunch of stuff back to the beginning of an edition points costs. As the edition continues, it sees points decreases to attempt to make weak units more viable.  As GW probably learned, "No nerf, only buff." keeps the players happier (yes, I know they do nerf things too).

If you want smaller games, talk to your opponent.  I already have to do this as my primary AoS opponent likes 2500 point games which I can accomplish with my S2D (barely), but not with my LRL army save fielding Teclis to use up a huge chunk of points.  Without him, I don't have 2500pts of LRL models as they were all about 20% more money than I was expecting, and I don't really have the available funds to get any Wave 2 stuff yet.

[Grimrock]

14 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

It does feel like something is missing here, perhaps some consolidation action at the end of the combat phase? 
 

As is second pile-in abilities now particularly excellent as a chance to allow you to go all out in first attack and then consolidate with second if you punched hard enough to clear some space.

Really good call actually. Maybe a new command ability for units that will allow them to reform after combat? Something simple like a 3" movement would make a massive difference.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Grimrock

[Freejack02]

3 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Maybe a new command ability for units that will allow them to reform after combat?

But how bad is it going to feel to burn CAs just so your melee troops can do what they were brought to do?

[whispersofblood]

Looks like they reduced lethality. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

2 minutes ago, Freejack02 said:

But how bad is it going to feel to burn CAs just so your melee troops can do what they were brought to do?

40k doesn’t make you pay a CA to consolidate if that makes you feel any better.  Just has to be towards nearest enemy and max of 3”.  So something along those lines solves a lot, if certainly not all, issues…

[ageofpaddsmar]

Ignore this just read something that smashes what u wrote lol

Edited June 7, 2021 by ageofpaddsmar
Comment now obsolete

[Vaporlocke]

59 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Yeah the more I think about that coherency rule and the more examples I see the more I think there has to be something we're missing. Nobody in their right mind could look at that rule and think it's a truly good idea, any amount of consideration can show why it's just an absolutely horrible change for the game. There must be a mistake right? So many units have just become awful. Like unusable awful. Half the attacks, half the frontage for screening, and significantly reduced control over how you remove casualties because the slightest misstep means you're breaking coherency. What in the world is going on here?

Come on, we all know the answer to fixing a shooting/magic heavy meta is to absolutely cripple melee.

[Neverchosen]

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

New cav meta! Credit to @BaylorCorvette

I just keep imaging the horses wheeling into that position in the charge and all that comes to my mind is the proper name of this edition,

Age Of Sigmar: Cavalry Drift!

[Malakree]

38 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Edit: Also, the issue with your gore gruntas is they're stuck in that exact position until they've lost a model unless you want to just give up a model for free. They can't pile in after a charge, and if the opponent hasn't lined up perfectly for you (ie. they're in a circle or curved line) you're more likely to get 2 models in combat than 4. That's a much bigger loss than one model.

As the paw print only has 5 models it would still be under the 1 model coherency. My point was that it's basically impossible to fit the 6th in and get 5 in combat. What that means is a unit of 5 gets all 5 ggs in while a unit of 6 only gets 4.

The 6th goregrunta makes your units damage potential WORSE!

41 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Can you show me what formation you used to get 80-90% in combat with the Ardboys? I'm assuming you mean a unit of 10, but I can't work a frontage of bigger than 6 without making it vulnerable to coherency loss. I think you can stagger them in mini triangles, bu that only gets them into combat if the opponent is somehow a perfectly straight line or they've obliged you and organized themselves in a similar formation that you can just slot into. 

It's to do with the fact the models are on round bases so by using models in base to base you can create a wave like line on the front row where the 2nd "rank can actually get within 1" to attack. It's really awkward though and would be horrific to do with units of 20-30 taking ages to make sure it's right. The 80-90% variance is based on how your opponent is lined up and what models are already locked.

[Grimrock]

7 minutes ago, Malakree said:

As the paw print only has 5 models it would still be under the 1 model coherency. My point was that it's basically impossible to fit the 6th in and get 5 in combat. What that means is a unit of 5 gets all 5 ggs in while a unit of 6 only gets 4.

The 6th goregrunta makes your units damage potential WORSE!

It's to do with the fact the models are on round bases so by using models in base to base you can create a wave like line on the front row where the 2nd "rank can actually get within 1" to attack. It's really awkward though and would be horrific to do with units of 20-30 taking ages to make sure it's right. The 80-90% variance is based on how your opponent is lined up and what models are already locked.

Gotcha, for some reason i thought you were being sarcastic on the gore grunta comment haha. Communicating in text can be such a pain sometimes. Yeah like you said, it'd almost be better to pay for 6 and not put the 6th model on the table, which is just... so bad from a game perspective. And I agree on the big units too, the thought of trying to use a 30 man bloodletter unit when they were already extremely marginal at best is just depressing. Well I'm going to try to hold out hope that some missing rule will come up in another preview or when the book drops. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Grimrock

[Verminlord]

Well seeing as we have adopted 9th Ed 40k coherency, perhaps we will also get 40ks combat range rules.

In the last battletome of AoS 2, skeleton spears lost their 2" reach, even blood knight and black knight lances are 1". I think the only things with melee reach in the book are single heros/monsters. Every 3.0 warscroll so far has also all been 1" reach.

So maybe 2" reach is going away in favor of multiple ranks. Or perhaps 2" range will include 3 ranks?

[PJetski]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

Looks like they reduced lethality. 

Just for melee attacks, and only from units with 6+ models. Shooting, magic, monsters, and heroes are deadlier than ever