AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Enoby]

17 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

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

It would be cooler if it didn't impact 32mm bases more than 25mm it doesn't seem right that chaos warriors are more hurt by a flank than marauders. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 minute ago, Enoby said:

It would be cooler if it didn't impact 32mm bases more than 25mm it doesn't seem right that chaos warriors are more hurt by a flank than marauders. 

I just said it in another post, but I will say it again: 25mm bases are just a mistake we will have to live with. They just don't work well with GW's basic design of measuring everything in inches.

[Fuxxx]

21 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I just said it in another post, but I will say it again: 25mm bases are just a mistake we will have to live with. They just don't work well with GW's basic design of measuring everything in inches.

Yeah my problem basically is this whole 25mm is just short of an inch so, if you're base to base you're within an inch of 2 models even if you are on the far fringe of the unit stick. Like... technically if you're in contact with a model that's in contact with an enemy you're just in an inch and can attack with 1" weapons right now. That's just a bit too wonky for me as a system. It's not a Warhammer Fantasy forum, so that's not that good of an argument, but the fact I didn't have to measure for each model whether it's able to attack or not just made it a bit easier.

[Schulzy]

15 hours 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.

Just when we thought 1" range on Namarti Thralls couldn't get any worse...

[Greybeard86]

5 hours ago, Indecisive said:

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

 

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

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.

Honestly, this is an issue of trying to use skirmish rules with too many models; formations existed for a reason, both historically and in games.

40K gets away with skirmish a bit more since unit sizes used to be smaller (not anymore now in 9th, with super-prevalence of necron/admech/sister blobs of 20). The moment you start growing unit sizes the whole individual model accounting thing becomes impractical.

So, how many editions with clunky rules until we get back "blocks/trays" instead of "handfuls of models"?

 

[Golub87]

Just now, Greybeard86 said:

 

Honestly, this is an issue of trying to use skirmish rules with too many models; formations existed for a reason, both historically and in games.

40K gets away with skirmish a bit more since unit sizes used to be smaller (not anymore now in 9th, with super-prevalence of necron/admech/sister blobs of 20). The moment you start growing unit sizes the whole individual model accounting thing becomes impractical.

So, how many editions with clunky rules until we get back "blocks/trays" instead of "handfuls of models"?

 

To be perfectly honest, I do miss square basses and movement trays. WHFB battles felt like... well, battles.

I can easily live with not seeing another noodle formation ever again.

I would also like to see rules where slain models are removed starting from the ones closest to the attacking unit. Now that would give some bite to flanking attacks. It would also be very deadly for thin formations if you can hit them with something powerful with small footprint (like a monster) and split them in half.

 

If only something is done about shooting (-1 if shooting at any units within 3" of your own units, -1 if LoS is drawn trough your own unit, engaged shooters can't shoot, any of the above) and the game might be worth playing.

[Marcvs]

Just now, Golub87 said:

To be perfectly honest, I do miss square basses and movement trays. WHFB battles felt like... well, battles

Playing a lot of A Song of Ice and Fire has somewhat changed my mind on this. Playing with movement trays (and all the rules that go with that) feels much more like playing a board game for me, compared to AoS. In particular, I end up feeling that we could just do away with the miniatures and play with the trays and wound counters 🤷‍♂️ . I do agree that AoS feels more like a skirmish brawl than a battle

[whispersofblood]

10 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 won't lie my first thought was that it makes Broad Axe HGB addressable. My second though was that coherency rules make MV values a critically determinate value on combat units. It's not just about getting into charge range anymore it's about your positioning relative to the unit you are charging which to me is a good change imo. 'Lethality' at the moment is that combat units effectively remove units they charge making defending objectives pointless. Not shooting units off as this doesn't gain control of objectives. 

This change also makes units like 20 HGB significantly less effecient in combat, where as before the incentive was to concentrate buffs, this incentive is significantly reduced. Leading to an emergent medium sized combat meta. A feature of which is combats over multiple player turns, also decreasing the benefits of the double turn as the player on the double doesn't have the ability to force highly lethal combats back to back and secure objectives in both battlerounds without active response.

There is still only one kind of competitive shooting army and that is the highly mobile one. So I'm interested in seeing how board sizes, objective placement and battleplans make it hard for blood stalkers and KO to take and hold objectives.

It's a huge buff to units like Namarti thralls who have multiple attacks and can return models in the battle shock phase. As they had no place in the previous incentive structure. It also restricts the insane mobility of units like Morrsarr Gaurd if they want to maximize their attacks, and prevent losing models to coherency. 

This is a really good change which the positive effects to the whole game aren't all immediately obvious.

Edited June 8, 2021 by whispersofblood

[Golub87]

Just now, Marcvs said:

Playing a lot of A Song of Ice and Fire has somewhat changed my mind on this. Playing with movement trays (and all the rules that go with that) feels much more like playing a board game for me, compared to AoS. In particular, I end up feeling that we could just do away with the miniatures and play with the trays and wound counters 🤷‍♂️ . I do agree that AoS feels more like a skirmish brawl than a battle

Well, you can use the same argument for AoS - I have used empty bases as model-stand ins (for testing purposes or because the models were not assembled/painted) and it actually made the game less stressful - spiky bits are a pain for pushing around. Models themselves are not needed in either case. That said it is nice to have a visual representation and the hobby aspect of assembly and painting is fun (for me more than the game itself).

One of the problems with AoS is poor game design choice when it comes to scale. The game is designed like a skirmish game, with each individual model being independent or semi-independent, powerups, buffs. Terrain rules are also reminiscent of a small scale skirmish. But in reality the scale is like a full battle wargame when it comes to model counts and table sizes. This is yet another thing that make it such a pain to play.

[Enoby]

2 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

It's a huge buff to units like Namarti thralls who have multiple attacks and can return models in the battle shock phase. As they had no place in the previous incentive structure. It also restricts the insane mobility of units like Morrsarr Gaurd if they want to maximize their attacks, and prevent losing models to coherency. 

I don't play Idoneth so correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't Namantri Thralls only attack in one rank, and as they come in units of 10 they'll struggle to get the backline in? Whereas eels from what I've seen tend to just come in units of 3s, and so aren't impacted by the new coherency rules. 

While they can return models, I think Namantri thralls will suffer from losing half of their attacks as they can't stretch around a unit.

[zilberfrid]

2 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I just said it in another post, but I will say it again: 25mm bases are just a mistake we will have to live with. They just don't work well with GW's basic design of measuring everything in inches.

I'd sooner say using Imperial is a mistake. Get with SI already!

[JackStreicher]

I call this the Egg Attack Formation! (60mm x 35mm Cavalry bases)

You will be able to strike with 9 at a 1" range.
 

Edited June 8, 2021 by JackStreicher

[Golub87]

Just now, JackStreicher said:

I call this the Egg Attack Formation! (60mm x 35mm Cavalry bases)

You will be able to strike with 9 at a 1" range.
 

Nothing more inspirational than sideways cavalry charges

[JackStreicher]

1 minute ago, Golub87 said:

Nothing more inspirational than sideways cavalry charges

They Tokio-drift their horses' flanks into the enemy. Should cause impact hits if you ask me XD

Edited June 8, 2021 by JackStreicher

[Greybeard86]

16 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

One of the problems with AoS is poor game design choice when it comes to scale. The game is designed like a skirmish game, with each individual model being independent or semi-independent, powerups, buffs. Terrain rules are also reminiscent of a small scale skirmish. But in reality the scale is like a full battle wargame when it comes to model counts and table sizes. This is yet another thing that make it such a pain to play.

 

25 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

 I do agree that AoS feels more like a skirmish brawl than a battle

 

28 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

I would also like to see rules where slain models are removed starting from the ones closest to the attacking unit. Now that would give some bite to flanking attacks.

It is designed to be a skirmish like 40k, but they simply keep adding models to the table. They are doing the same in 40K now (20 models blobs) and it is going to be a major PITA.

9 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I call this the Egg Attack Formation! (60mm x 35mm Cavalry bases)

You will be able to strike with 9 at a 1" range.
 

If we cannot represent well actual individual combat, let's be done with it. Things like this are awfully visually and make no sense from a simulation perspective. Aside from being atrocious time-wise.

 

[whispersofblood]

15 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I call this the Egg Attack Formation! (60mm x 35mm Cavalry bases)

You will be able to strike with 9 at a 1" range.
 

Or... You could accept that 10 man units of 1" reach Cav aren't optimal combat configurations, and perhaps they are designed to be 5 man?

[Sarouan]

16 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I call this the Egg Attack Formation! (60mm x 35mm Cavalry bases)

You will be able to strike with 9 at a 1" range.

That's really what I don't like with this new coherence rule : it makes the unit formation look even sillier.

I'll be honest, that's not a change I like to see. The rule works in 40k because melee works with bases, not inches. In AoS, it's totally not the same.

I really hope it's not a fatal flaw of the rule design team, here. In all cases, it certainly doesn't make the game simpler and more intuitive, IMHO.

[Laststand]

2 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Or... You could accept that 10 man units of 1" reach Cav aren't optimal combat configurations, and perhaps they are designed to be 5 man?

It is going to be a very slow playing experience if everyone has 2k pts of minimum sized units. If the counter to that is across the board points increases GW will sell fewer models. There has to be some other rules element to this that hasnt been explained yet. 

[Greybeard86]

8 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Or... You could accept that 10 man units of 1" reach Cav aren't optimal combat configurations, and perhaps they are designed to be 5 man?

Then do not allow them to be 10 man? The problem is more general, though, Tokyo drifting bases are going to be a thing if you attempt to represent individual combat with bases that are conceived for display.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Greybeard86

[Beliman]

23 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I call this the Egg Attack Formation! (60mm x 35mm Cavalry bases)

You will be able to strike with 9 at a 1" range.
 

I really like the name!

[Enoby]

18 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Or... You could accept that 10 man units of 1" reach Cav aren't optimal combat configurations, and perhaps they are designed to be 5 man?

Also, there are some heavy cavalry that come in units of 3, and it seems a shame that they are one model off being able to attack with all models in a unit of 6.

If you can still undersize units, it may be more beneficial to undersize a unit 6 by 1 to make them do more damage.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Enoby

[Golub87]

1 minute ago, Enoby said:

Also, there are some heavy cavalry that come in units of 3, and it seems a shame that they are one model off being able to attack with all models in a unit of 6.

If you can still undersize units, it may be more beneficial to undersize a unit 6 by 1 to make them do more damage.

Yeah, this hurts Fiends. And if the rumors about no more buff/debuff sackings are true, Fiends are back in the bin, just as they started to shine

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

39 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

Nothing more inspirational than sideways cavalry charges

Would you like to be broadside tackled by a horse? Didn't think so.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

32 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Or... You could accept that 10 man units of 1" reach Cav aren't optimal combat configurations, and perhaps they are designed to be 5 man?

*cries in 10 min size Dire Wolves*

[whispersofblood]

11 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Also, there are some heavy cavalry that come in units of 3, and it seems a shame that they are one model off being able to attack with all models in a unit of 6.

If you can still undersize units, it may be more beneficial to undersize a unit 6 by 1 to make them do more damage.

It doesn't really. You can move out of coherency and then remove the model that takes you out of coherency as a casualty if required. 

In practice you put all 6 into combat range. Put the return damage on the model that breaks coherency. If it doesn't die from attacks; remove it and now you are in coherency.

Fiends are actually totally fine, they retain all their benefits at 4 models anyway.