Jump to content

AoS 3 New Rules Discussion


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Verminlord said:

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?

Screenshot_20210607-181630.jpg

Kragnos' Dread Mace has a 3" reach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in a vacuum, it's a weird change that will making fighting in melee much worse for big blocks of infantry, which would be quite an unneeded nerf. And it does create some formation challenges for certain units. But, as Verminlord said, it could be a part of a wider change. So I'd wait and see what will happen before starting to distribute torches and pitchforks. There could definetly be additional rules or even price changes that will make sence of this.

 

I do wonder though if 2.5 mm bases coherency rules will be FAQed as well to consider those bases theoretically slightly bigger than an inch for coherency rule only, as to prevent single file spagetti lines. Would be a weird fix, but still.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Eldarain said:

We know melee ranges remain as the 3.0 scrolls have them. 

What supplemental system could work with the existing system to allow >25mm base units to not lose a ton of melee output if they don't have enough reach to fight in ranks?

Just because things have melee ranges doesn't discredit anything. Rules do not have to be a word for word port of 40k combat range; they never are. They ported coherency, why wouldn't they port a version of combat range that is already designed to work with those coherency rules?

All they would need to change is the definition for engaged units. The 2nd rank rule would fix most of the issues people are complaining about.

Edited by Verminlord
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure feels like movement trays, formations, and all things square are on the upswing
I gotta say, I do kind of like it, units of large models count are obnoxious to play with/against sometimes due to skirmish style positioning and movement of them. At least now all those rats or whatever will be plonked onto something and pile-in is quicker

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Verminlord said:

Just because things have melee ranges doesn't discredit anything. Rules do not have to be a word for word port of 40k combat range; they never are. They ported coherency, why wouldn't they port a version of combat range that is already designed to work with those coherency rules?

All they would need to change is the definition for engaged units. The 2nd rank rule would fix most of the issues people are complaining about.

Sure. That's what I'm asking. What rule would be compatible with weapons having a set range. "If within 1/2 inch of a friendly model that is within 1/2 of the enemy may measure it's melee weapons from that friendly units base"

Seems like a bit of a mess. I'm open to hearing possible examples that are more elegant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That coherency rule is a bit of a disaster with a base 1" coherency, unlike the base 2" you get in 40k. You literally cannot put 6 32mm base models in a straight line base-to-base according to that rule. So much of the strategy in model placement is removed by the rule; it somehow manages to be both awkward to enforce in practice and to dumb down the game at the same time, which is quite the combination. 

Also, not a fan of the "More MWs for you! And for you! And for you!" approach to game design. AOS is already overflowing with mortals, what it didn't need was even more ways to generate incidental MWs. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Verminlord said:

Just because things have melee ranges doesn't discredit anything. Rules do not have to be a word for word port of 40k combat range; they never are. They ported coherency, why wouldn't they port a version of combat range that is already designed to work with those coherency rules?

All they would need to change is the definition for engaged units. The 2nd rank rule would fix most of the issues people are complaining about.

Combat range within weapon range to a friendly, eligible to fight model is my guess. 
 

I don‘t mind the rule as much. What I mind are the awkward Cavalry formations we‘ll see

Edited by JackStreicher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Also, not a fan of the "More MWs for you! And for you! And for you!" approach to game design. AOS is already overflowing with mortals, what it didn't need was even more ways to generate incidental MWs. 

My main issue is not about more mortal wounds (let's be honest, AoS 2.0 started with Evocators that already do more damage than Anihilators, that's without taking in consideration all other over the top 2.0 battletomes...), but that 3.0 seems to punish melee armies and empowers shooting armies.

  1. Unit Coherency seems to buff (again) shooting armies: Less models hitting in melee means less damage in melee (that's fine, I'm all for it, but what about shooting armies?),
  2. Montrous Rampage means more dmg  within 3", so you want to shoot them? If rumors are going to be true, points maybe will rise and we are going to deal with less monsters but more powerful ones... easy targets for our shooting.
  3. Blaze of Glory punish units that kill SCE within to be 1" from SCE. Again, you want to shoot them.

I will wait until I see that CA Reactions or whatever they are called to start panicking (even if I play KOs), but it seems that Magic (at least Endless Spells) and Shooting are going to be really powerful. And that's what we already have.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

My main issue is not about more mortal wounds (let's be honest, AoS 2.0 started with Evocators that already do more damage than Anihilators, that's without taking in consideration all other over the top 2.0 battletomes...), but that 3.0 seems to punish melee armies and empowers shooting armies.

  1. Unit Coherency seems to buff (again) shooting armies: Less models hitting in melee means less damage in melee (that's fine, I'm all for it, but what about shooting armies?),
  2. Montrous Rampage means more dmg  within 3", so you want to shoot them? If rumors are going to be true, points maybe will rise and we are going to deal with less monsters but more powerful ones... easy targets for our shooting.
  3. Blaze of Glory punish units that kill SCE within to be 1" from SCE. Again, you want to shoot them.

I will wait until I see that CA Reactions or whatever they are called to start panicking (even if I play KOs), but it seems that Magic (at least Endless Spells) and Shooting are going to be really powerful. And that's what we already have.

We will have to wait and see until we have the full picture. Personally, I like the intent of the new coherency rules, making blocks of units the default shape instead of lines. But right now the implementation is not looking super fun. It looks fiddly and has too many weird edge cases.

Let's hope that the rules about who is in combat change, too. Because this whole thing would not be nearly as bad if getting models in the second rank into combat was more forgiving, especially on cavalry.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AaronWilson said:

Very much like the change to endless spells, solves the issue of the bound spells from Seraphon being a have in a world of have nots. Great addition for priests as well, all in all good changes. 

Except now you’re taking stuff away and/or making one army less unique. Cities and Seraphon got ‘special’ rules for the generic Endless Spells because gw were too lazy to make unique ones for them, and now they’re giving the compensation they got to everyone else 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

Except now you’re taking stuff away and/or making one army less unique. Cities and Seraphon got ‘special’ rules for the generic Endless Spells because gw were too lazy to make unique ones for them, and now they’re giving the compensation they got to everyone else 

Lets agree to disagree, I think it's a good change. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

Endless Spells because gw were too lazy to make unique ones for them

Calling designers, sculpters and/or writters lazy because some armies doesn't have endless spells (nor terrain/ prayers) is a bit too much.

I'm pretty sure that GW employers were working on other things instead of just being too lazy...

Edited by Beliman
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Calling designers, sculpters and/or writters lazy because some armies doesn't have endless spells (nor terrain/ prayers) is a bit too much.

I'm pretty sure that GW employers were working on other things instead of just being too lazy...

He called GW lazy not the people working there. GW could have instructed and given the designers, sculpters and rules writers time and resources to make endless spells for every army but they didn’t. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Joseph Mackay Just porting this over from the other thread. Removing melee ranges would necessitate rewriting every warscroll. It's much easier just to adapt the current rule. "In order to attack with a melee weapon, a model must be in range of the target unit or within half an inch of a another model from the same unit which is in range." I'm no rules writer but that would probably work. 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see until they show us the combat section of the rules. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GutrotSpume said:

He called GW lazy not the people working there. GW could have instructed and given the designers, sculpters and rules writers time and resources to make endless spells for every army but they didn’t. 

Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "lazy" (I'm not an english speaker).
If you work on another thing (example: krule boys) instead of Terrain for Cities or Endless Spells for Orruk Warlans, it's because your boss is lazy?

Sorry if I'm not understanding what he wanted to say, I'm not used with that meaning of lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like a big unit getting charged from the side may be a little bit more tricky with coherency. Not impossible to fit them in, but more awkward - you can't just stretch the unit around a model anymore, you have to ensure 2 ranks. Not an issue for 25mms, but for 32mms it's going to be tricky to mount a counter attack.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chikout said:

@Joseph Mackay Just porting this over from the other thread. Removing melee ranges would necessitate rewriting every warscroll. It's much easier just to adapt the current rule. "In order to attack with a melee weapon, a model must be in range of the target unit or within half an inch of a another model from the same unit which is in range." I'm no rules writer but that would probably work. 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see until they show us the combat section of the rules. 

There are definitely a bunch of ways to both allow two ranks of models to fight regardless of weapon range, and still have weapon ranges be relevant. I think your wording would actually work pretty well, because it means that models can always attack when they are in range themselves, no matter what rank they are in (units with 25mm bases and 2" reach retain the ability to fight in three ranks).

There is supposedly a "fall back" reaction to charges, as well. Maybe that's a way to allow melee units with high ranges to out-range other melee units. Get attacked, fall back, the opponent is not longer in range with all models when they attack, but you are. It would obviously need some careful rules writing, but it would be a way to keep ranges above 1" relevant even if two ranks can fight by default.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Enoby said:

It seems like a big unit getting charged from the side may be a little bit more tricky with coherency. Not impossible to fit them in, but more awkward - you can't just stretch the unit around a model anymore, you have to ensure 2 ranks. Not an issue for 25mms, but for 32mms it's going to be tricky to mount a counter attack.

 

That would kind of be an emergent flanking bonus, which honestly is kind of cool.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, PJetski said:

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

I don’t know, but magic seems a little bit nerfed because priests can Bann spells now?oh only endless spells..

shooting will get some adjustments I think, but we’ll see.

Edited by Erdemo86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wouldn't that half inch within an model mean that 25mm based models could fight in 3 ranks with 1" weapons? I really don't like the interactions with small bases, for everything else this might be fine

can priests ban spells? I thought they could just banish persisting miracles from other priests?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fuxxx said:

But wouldn't that half inch within an model mean that 25mm based models could fight in 3 ranks with 1" weapons? I really don't like the interactions with small bases, for everything else this might be fine

can priests ban spells? I thought they could just banish persisting miracles from other priests?

25mm is about an inch, so I am not sure how you are picturing this. If the distance from the first rank you have to be in to get an attack is a half inch, models in the third rank have no way to get close enough to the first rank to fight, unless I am missing something.

But really, 25mm bases were a mistake that was made right at the start that we now have to live with. It's just a base size that will always result in shennanigans unless GW switches to metric at some point.

As for priests: The article says they can banish endless spells and invocations, but they don't provide a rules snippet for it, so who knows? Warcom makes these mistakes sometimes.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...