AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Golub87]

In all of my wargaming hobbies, people can play against me with empty bases as far as I am concerned.

This is an expensive hobby and excluding financially less fortunate from any space due to aesthetic reasons is never a good thing.

[Abstract_duck]

12 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

In all of my wargaming hobbies, people can play against me with empty bases as far as I am concerned.

This is an expensive hobby and excluding financially less fortunate from any space due to aesthetic reasons is never a good thing.

Yeah, agreed. I'd definitely pass playing with someone who's very adamant about these things. It would probably not bode well for a friendly game if someone cares that much about the shape of your plastic. I feel GW's stance makes economical sense for a company because they want to make money.. but I feel like there is no other reasonable defense of the stance.

That said, if i use empty bases and the like, I would be more lenient in regards to re-do's, if my opponent claims they've had a mix up about what unit it represents. If i feel like they are abusing it, I can always choose to play with someone who doesn't. 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Abstract_duck

[Zeblasky]

As an owner of 40 commitioned painted Sisters of the Watch, I feel slightly depressed right now, so does anyone has any estimates how soon a new FAQ could be made?

[Christopher Rowe]

I don't follow any "official" paint schemes at all, but then I play Seraphon so those are a bit loosey-goosey anyway (my Skinks are orange and purple, my Saurus Guard have purple skin, etc).

Which reminds me of something I was going to ask about. This is almost certainly a non-starter because the assignment of matched play points is already so complicated (and contentious), but!

It seems to some of us Seraphon players, who have two major sub-factions, that units should be pointed out depending on which sub-faction they're being run in. For example, Saurus Knights are worth a lot more in a Coalesced Seraphon army than they are in a Starborne Seraphon army.

One really problem, of course, would be that some armies have lots and lots of sub-factions. I'm told, however, that the Seraphon sub-faction differences are a lot more profound than, say, which Chamber a Stormcast Eternal is from.

[TimeToWaste85]

I paint my Khorne stuff in red and gold. If I got told I could only play one specific Khorne army when those have always been the chosen colors…I’d laugh my ass off at the person and tell them to get stuffed. 
 

I know my local GW has no issue with paint colors and applauds well-painted stuff, no matter the scheme. 

[Fred1245]

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I was both thrilled and annoyed with that FAQ comment.

Thrilled because it was nice to see the "official" stance that this is a 3D model game where the toys on the table connect directly to the rules their visual appearances represent, and that matters. Proxies - boo!

Annoyed because they once again made it a permission thing. If you rightly claim that you want the look of the models to matter and ask your opponents to play by that recommended guidance, you have to take the risk of the opponents besmirching you to others. 

Come on GW, take a firm stance, or at the very least give those players who agree with your official stance some stronger supporting language to use in defending their position as the correct one.

On the whole, though, I loved that entry.

Proxies, including using color schemes clearly tied to one set of rules as something other than those rules, are one of the Great Hobby Evils.

Personally I think one of the absolute most garbage things you can do is try to pigeonhole people into stupid ****** like 'your army must be hammers of sigmar because it's blue and gold!!!!'

The only possible motivation behind behind it is a Karen-esque powerplay to enforce your will on others to the detriment of definitely tournament play but also the hobby as a whole. Only the most self entitled, self involved, borderline sociopathic people on the planet could possibly care about something so stupid. 

ESPECIALLY when you consider that in AoS, less than 10% of the playerbase even knows ANY subfaction color that isn't part of the box art. At least in 40k most people know the big name marine schemes, nobody who doesn't play stormcast knows anything but Hammer's of Sigmar.

Trying to tie rules to paint schemes is stupid and has always been stupid which is why every time it comes up it is soundly rejected. Even GW's events don't usually actually ENFORCE it, even if the rule is on the books.

You can also tell that they're full of ****** too because when you point out that under the same logic both ANY conversion and ANY non-standard posing should be banned, you get 'well wait a minute now!!!' Oh really? My army being blue totally breaks the game for you but you completely changing your model's silhouette is fine because...why exactly? That's a far more significant and hard to account for change than color scheme.

You want every army the correct scheme? Fine, put up or shut up. Build every model in your army to look EXACTLY like the box for your entire army. Make a mistake? Toss the model. Any attempt at repair won't exactly match how it's 'supposed' to look so throw it out.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Fred1245

[Howdyhedberg]

1 hour ago, Zeblasky said:

As an owner of 40 commitioned painted Sisters of the Watch, I feel slightly depressed right now, so does anyone has any estimates how soon a new FAQ could be made?

I feel you... But I have 20 sentinels in my Lumineth army... So I guess that makes up for it.

 

But honestly, they made them and the handgunners worse! They should boost their stats now I feel .. dmg 2 or rend 1 would make up for it!

[yukishiro1]

2 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

As an owner of 40 commitioned painted Sisters of the Watch, I feel slightly depressed right now, so does anyone has any estimates how soon a new FAQ could be made?

Why do you think it isn't intended what they did to them? I mean yes, it makes no sense. But that doesn't mean GW didn't mean to do it. GW does things that doesn't make sense all the time. Kroak was 320 points for a whole year and they refused to change it 6 months in because "they didn't have enough data." 

I can't see any way it wasn't intended. This wasn't some weird interaction that slipped through the cracks, this was a deliberate change to make these units worse at overwatch at the same time that they made everyone else better (because previously they couldn't do it at all). 

I feel for you having your unit made terrible for no reason. But I unfortunately wouldn't expect a fix any time soon, if ever. Slaangors were terrible and a literal joke in the community...and they got their points cost bumped up in GBH 2021.

GW doesn't rewrite scrolls, and they don't change points except every 6 months. You're looking at December before you get a "fix," and it'll probably be just becoming 10 points cheaper or something. 

Edited July 3, 2021 by yukishiro1

[yukishiro1]

I can see why they take the stance they do on proxies, they're a miniatures company, they're not going to encourage you to use competitors' products. 

This recent attempt to shoehorn everyone into using the "official" paint scheme is a complete joke, however. As in I literally snorted when I read it. There is no way this possibly catches on, and they're only making themselves look foolish for trying. I don't even know what the "official" paint schemes for most of my armies are, and I guarantee you nobody else does either. 

More generally, I am really disappointed by GW's recent attempt to grind the hobby out of the hobby. Conversions have gone from encouraged to barely tolerated and only if you use 100% GW or scratch-built bits, they now demand your armies be painted in the "correct" color schemes...what is the point of having a hobby game where you are discouraged from hobbying? What's next - no more 3rd party bases either? Nothing but 100% GW plastic bases with 100% GW texture paint is acceptable? 

What happens when they come out with a new sub-faction with a color scheme that happens to be very similar to one of my schemes - there's only so many color schemes out there, after all, this is bound to happen for some people at some point. Do I now have to repaint my whole army if I don't want to use that sub-faction? 

It sorta kinda almost makes sense in 40k to say that Space Marines obviously painted as Ultramarines can't be Blood Angels because those are so iconic that it really is like using proxied Space Marines for Stormcast or something like that in terms of how disruptive it is to the game aesthetic. It makes absolutely no sense to try to shoehorn that level of compliance into a game without iconic color schemes or iconic factions like AOS. Most people don't even know what their sub-factions supposed color scheme even is, much less what anybody else's are. 

Edited July 3, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Orkmann]

I think that the faq, which is implying that not following official paint schemes is considered proxying, is silly, but there is no reason to make too much out of it. That sentence is taken from the old /aos2 designer commentary, so it is hardly a recent thing GW trying to sneak into the game.

[Zeblasky]

2 hours ago, Howdyhedberg said:

I feel you... But I have 20 sentinels in my Lumineth army... So I guess that makes up for it.

 

But honestly, they made them and the handgunners worse! They should boost their stats now I feel .. dmg 2 or rend 1 would make up for it!

Yes, the irony of units with overwatch getting much worse after changes, which gave everyone overwatch is not lost on me. Handgunners got +5 pts, Sisters got +20, their overwatch was made worse with -1 to hit AND being possible to use only once and only on one unit per phase, without a chance to stack with Unleash Hell CA. Which, if it was possible, would only bring their damage up to a long range overwatch anyway.

This is a nerfhammer out of nowhere. Sisters might survive it, but Handgunners were very dependant on their overwatch. Buuut, as I was writing it, I've had some interesting thoughts in this thread. Sort by date, yea, I should have made just a usual thread, not a question one.

As of now, consensus goes like this: 
1) Free Unleash hell or CA Unleash hell both can be only used once per phase, never together.
2) Free Unleash hell can be used as many times as enemy units finish a charge near it, even when you in melee already (they've removed old overwatch restrictions), and you can also use UH CA on any unit on top.

Yeeeep, no middle ground here, it's not looking pretty either way. Oh, there is also a thought, that any CA, that can be used without a command point being spend, is potentially not a used CA, and it can be used again, lol. I think I've opened a huge can of worms... sorry...

 

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

Why do you think it isn't intended what they did to them? I mean yes, it makes no sense what they did to them. But that doesn't mean GW didn't mean to do it. GW does things that doesn't make sense all the time.

I can't see any way it wasn't intended. This wasn't some weird interaction that slipped through the cracks, this was a deliberate change to make these units worse at overwatch at the same time that they made everyone else better (because previously they couldn't do it at all). 

Look up the question thread I've posted in this message. The more I try to understand the rules interation here, the more I see, that those "free" command abilities created a huge gap in the rules due to "using command abilities" being synonymous with "spend CP, issue, receive, resolve" sequence. If you're not following this sequence... this is not a command ability?

Edited July 3, 2021 by Zeblasky

[zilberfrid]

7 hours ago, Maogrim said:

Just a question, since it came up in the FAQ:

How does everyone feel about players who have their army completely painted up in a certain color scheme, but keep switching subfactions for 'better' rules? 

I guess I can appreciate people wanting to enjoy different play styles without buying and painting the same faction twice, but on the other hand I think it's nice if an army project has an ongoing identity..

Considering a City can be changed entitely in lore (say, Anvilgard), that rule doesn't make sense. Not that I ever keep to an official paint scheme anyway.

Even if you use your own paint scheme, a new City or Stormhost could be released that uses your colours, which may invalidate your army through battleline loss.

Even if they took a 40k like stagnant approach, I still think it's nonsense.

As for proxying, GW has dumped too many models since the start of AoS to have that be a defensible statement. Your Swordmasters can be another greatsword unit. Your Glade Guard can be Sisters of the Watch, and your Disposessed Thunderers can be Handgunners.

Sure, they want you to buy new armies all the time, but since they don't make an official roadmap when you can bin your models, it could literally be days between purchase and not being able to play them.

Like the Cursed City heroes, they already lost their points costs.

Edited July 3, 2021 by zilberfrid

[SentinelGuy]

5 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

As an owner of 40 commitioned painted Sisters of the Watch, I feel slightly depressed right now, so does anyone has any estimates how soon a new FAQ could be made?

Standard GW tactic of the past 15 years. Now you need to go out and buy Lumineth Sentinels or Irondrakes. 12 months down the line and they'll change the rules again and you'll need to buy something else.

As for the ongoing conversation about people proxying, I long for the day that somebody kicks off about my 5th edition metal wood elf spearmen standing in for dreadspears or eternal guard. They're elves with spears and shields and I'll always make it clear what units are before the game begins. If people are incapable of grasping something so simple then they shouldn't be playing. In the old days there would be jokes about feeling the power of the dreadsock, but not many people probably get the reference now. 

In my opinion GW needs to be careful as they're starting to sound like they're gatekeeping the hobby. It's going to be hilarious when they start showing all those old White Dwarf magazines with conversions and counts as pictures in Warhammer+, when they're a step away from banning that sort of thing from events altogether.

[Zappgrot]

6 hours ago, Golub87 said:

In all of my wargaming hobbies, people can play against me with empty bases as far as I am concerned.

This is an expensive hobby and excluding financially less fortunate from any space due to aesthetic reasons is never a good thing.

 While i agree whit the point I hate playing against empty bases.  I would let them just use my stuff.  Sharing is caring

[Golub87]

2 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

 While i agree whit the point I hate playing against empty bases.  I would let them just use my stuff.  Sharing is caring

100%

If I have stuff that I am not using with me, it is available.

[Beliman]

16 minutes ago, SentinelGuy said:

Standard GW tactic of the past 15 years. Now you need to go out and buy Lumineth Sentinels or Irondrakes. 12 months down the line and they'll change the rules again and you'll need to buy something else.

My suggestion: never buy anything from GW just for the power-level and quality of their rules. 

 

[SentinelGuy]

13 minutes ago, Beliman said:

My suggestion: never buy anything from GW just for the power-level and quality of their rules. 

 

I mostly agree, but there comes a point when constantly losing with a pretty army kills the enjoyment of the hobby. I've seen so many people drop out after being disappointed with units they had spent hours building and painting. I actually think it's worse now because the prices are so high.

Edited July 3, 2021 by SentinelGuy
Spelling

[Zeblasky]

6 minutes ago, Beliman said:

My suggestion: never buy anything from GW just for the power-level and quality of their rules. 

 

But I bought Sisters just because I wanted to play Wood Elves Wanderers Archers with a semi competitive army qq

[Kodos der Henker]

11 minutes ago, Beliman said:

My suggestion: never buy anything from GW just for the power-level and quality of their rules. 

with that point, buying just the models and play a different game will be the better option

always losing because you just bought the models you liked and don't want to buy more is not a good option either
so kind of the middle buy the good stuff that you like, don't spam and hope the nerfhammer only hit you once per edition

[TimeToWaste85]

just spoke with a friend who owns a store and he said it’s the tightest rule set GW has made since AoS came out (including 40k during that time). Excited to give it a go. 
 

oh, and prior to owning a store he traveled to the Vegas tourneys that used to run. So not just someone random. I trust his judgement on it. 

Edited July 3, 2021 by TimeToWaste85

[Kodos der Henker]

13 minutes ago, TimeToWaste85 said:

it’s the tightest rule set GW has made since AoS came out (including 40k during that time)

well, that is a very low bar to hit, the previous "4 page rules" + Errata is not something you have trouble to beat if you try

[TimeToWaste85]

7 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:

well, that is a very low bar to hit, the previous "4 page rules" + Errata is not something you have trouble to beat if you try

Including 40k rules over the past 7-8yrs. Don’t skip that part. 

[Kodos der Henker]

8 minutes ago, TimeToWaste85 said:

Including 40k rules over the past 7-8yrs. Don’t skip that part. 

8th Edition core rules were similar made as the first AoS rules, 4 pages and be done
so yes, as I played 40k during that time (and AoS2 had the better rules set of those 2 games), the bar is set very low here

Edited July 3, 2021 by Kodos der Henker

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, Kodos der Henker said:

with that point, buying just the models and play a different game will be the better option

always losing because you just bought the models you liked and don't want to buy more is not a good option either
so kind of the middle buy the good stuff that you like, don't spam and hope the nerfhammer only hit you once per edition

Edited (I don't want to sound rude, sorry):
Yes, that was my point. Looking for a win is just one of the things to stay in to this hobby, but not the only one. That's what I wanted to say with my last post. There are people that can  win using  Stardrakes and we even saw Skywardens in some tournaments, I'm pretty sure that Sisters or any other unit that is nerfed can still be used (and win) even if it's not the best one.

2 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

But I bought Sisters just because I wanted to play Wood Elves Wanderers Archers with a semi competitive army qq

I completely understand that. I had 60 arkanatus because of 1.0, a big fail from me. I'm fine with just (even if they become broken or one of the worst units in the game). The hobby is not cheap, it will not happen again. 

2 hours ago, SentinelGuy said:

I mostly agree, but there comes a point when constantly losing with a pretty army kills the enjoyment of the hobby. I've seen so many people drop out after being disappointed with units they had spent hours building and painting. I actually think it's worse now because the prices are so high.

Winrate is something big in this hobby (nobody likes to lose). I can't suggest anything, 3.0 is really new, so my expercience is a bit limited. 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Beliman
Edited

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Feel there's a bit of excess negativity floating around here.  Just a reminder that we want constructive discussions here please, bashing GW for the sake of it isn't constructive.