Jump to content

AoS 3 New Rules Discussion


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mcthew said:

Not sure unit sizes will have a big impact though... A unit of 20 hand gunners is still a potent threat with Unleash Hell, and that could be just one reinforcement point. 

Still getting my head around the reasons for the unit sizes. Is the anti-blob rule to reduce horde meta? Is it to reduce one/fewer drops happening in the game? Is it to force people to consider battalions to reduce drops? Is it because they're reducing the board size? Do they think it will make AoS a skirmish game?

Or is it a cost thing? Will the number of models in a box go down while the price stays the same or goes up to make you think this is still good value for money on the tabletop?

So many questions, and this is the first jump into the unknown we've experienced with AoS since it's conception. But it just feels like the wrong direction: blobs and more epic encounters were never a problem with AoS to begin with. So if it ain't broke why change it? And not fix the stuff that is broken?

My guess is “all of the above.” More decision making in list building, reduce lethality by reigning in some of the biggest units that can take best advantage of new CAs, make monsters and heroes more viable, probably has something to do with entry barriers too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

My guess is “all of the above.” More decision making in list building, reduce lethality by reigning in some of the biggest units that can take best advantage of new CAs, make monsters and heroes more viable, probably has something to do with entry barriers too. 

Yeah I think the lethality point is a good one: the rule would make it harder to build deathstars with big blocks of elite troops and then stack buffs -not saying it covers all cases mind you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a big proponent of "wait til you see the full rules", overall most of the changes seem interesting and I'm not overly worried about any of it.

The stand and shoot reaction is the only thing that concerns me, some shooting units are already too strong (in my opinion) and I really want AoS to be more about Melee and Magic than shooting.

Who knows what else is in store, however. Maybe if you charge and wipe out a unit, you get to charge and fight again, meaning shooting units tucked behind a screen suddenly get put at risk of being chomped? 

Can't wait to see the full rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Mcthew said:

If I wanted to play a shooting game, I'd have invested in 40K. But I didn't.

A bit too late here, but if you actually want a melee game, go 40k. I heard a lot that melee there is the meta right now x)

Edited by Zeblasky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm seeing a lot of discussion of the specific impacts of these new rules, but I'm actually concerned about complexity creep.  With adding Heroic actions, Monstrous actions, generic Prayers, even more generic Command Abilities, the ever-growing list of Allegiance abilities, and more new corner case rules (like the new more confusing coherency rule or added list-building complication with whatever Reinforcements are), I don't know if I'm going to be able to actually play the game.  My opponents still ask me what the CV of Arcane Bolt is, so as a 'beer and pretzels' player, I think 3rd ed might just be too much cognitive load.

  • Like 17
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Scurvydog said:

I do not think it is a bad thing to have an overwatch like mechanic, if it was so overpowered why are sisters of the watch and handgunners not dominating who got it built into the warscroll. I am aware this version is stronger, as you can do it even as enemies charge a screen in front, however at least there is a hit penalty.

Well, while handgunners and Sisters (especially Sisters) have very strong shooting, when on inbuild overwatch (or in melee for that matter) handgunners get -1 to Hit, while Sisters lose half of their attacks. With UH handgunners can basically overwatch twice if charged or get a long range overwatch once. While Sisters with UH can either get a long range overwatch with all of their shots on -1 to hit, or, if they get charged, they shoot half of their usual shots with -1 to hit, and half of their shots without. Funnily enough, Sisters get 1 more attack in the second case, due to the unit champion always having +1 attack and basically doing 2 half power attack actions in a row in the charge phase. So charging handgunners or Sisters directly now became almost twice as deadly, but Sisters long range UH is especially deadly if compared to others.

 

As to why they weren't quite meta now, well, because they pay for their inbuild overwatch, if compared to other CoS ranged units.

Edited by Zeblasky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Nacnudllah said:

I'm seeing a lot of discussion of the specific impacts of these new rules, but I'm actually concerned about complexity creep.  With adding Heroic actions, Monstrous actions, generic Prayers, even more generic Command Abilities, the ever-growing list of Allegiance abilities, and more new corner case rules (like the new more confusing coherency rule or added list-building complication with whatever Reinforcements are), I don't know if I'm going to be able to actually play the game.  My opponents still ask me what the CV of Arcane Bolt is, so as a 'beer and pretzels' player, I think 3rd ed might just be too much cognitive load.

This is my concern.  I really enjoyed AOS 1.0 as it was less complex, 2.0 was fine.  This is sounding like too much for me to care about.  My work is complex, my hobby time needs to be relaxing.  

I will wait to see the full rules before making a final decision.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Nacnudllah said:

I'm seeing a lot of discussion of the specific impacts of these new rules, but I'm actually concerned about complexity creep.  With adding Heroic actions, Monstrous actions, generic Prayers, even more generic Command Abilities, the ever-growing list of Allegiance abilities, and more new corner case rules (like the new more confusing coherency rule or added list-building complication with whatever Reinforcements are), I don't know if I'm going to be able to actually play the game.  My opponents still ask me what the CV of Arcane Bolt is, so as a 'beer and pretzels' player, I think 3rd ed might just be too much cognitive load.

My problem isn't even with the complexity, but rather with how ad hoc a lot of the abilities look.

It is layer upon layer of rules that aren't following some general principle.

For example, some cavalry cause mortals on the charge, others get extra damage and rend. But the models look exactly the same (in the case of vampire counts aka soulblight blinklords, black knights and blood knights both look like heavily armored shock cavalry), so why is that the case? And a wide variety of other differences between units, books and abilities.

They "simplified" the core gameplay to add a million exceptions and "special rules" and now, not only it is complex, it just doesn't make sense.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Nacnudllah said:

I'm seeing a lot of discussion of the specific impacts of these new rules, but I'm actually concerned about complexity creep.  With adding Heroic actions, Monstrous actions, generic Prayers, even more generic Command Abilities, the ever-growing list of Allegiance abilities, and more new corner case rules (like the new more confusing coherency rule or added list-building complication with whatever Reinforcements are), I don't know if I'm going to be able to actually play the game.  My opponents still ask me what the CV of Arcane Bolt is, so as a 'beer and pretzels' player, I think 3rd ed might just be too much cognitive load.

I can feel this even knowing there are simpler alter wargames my club plays, i greatly enjoy the AoS community as an entity more so then the generic warming one(not that the latter is bad mind you, just less character and definitely more uniform in the people whom are membzrs) and on broader sense I recognize not everyone has that luxury. I am going to wait and see, but am not very doom and gloom. A big hurdle is the language used seems is good for preventing using purposeful misunderstanding to advantage, it does make it a bit opaque to me as a reader and from some posts here i can tell I'm not alone, this though will go away with use. how much is required and how much is optional is also a big variable 2.0 had À LOT of alternative rules in GHBs campaign books ect. Lastly is how th info is organized, I've seen nothing more complicated then an army book has which gives me some confidence as while complicated that's pretty well organized and no where near as byzantine as some games (WHFB by no means the worst required webcharts, FAQs interacting with each other in a manner that made me feel like GW was hiding profits from taxes in a technician manual translations) If this can be made into a simplified table which so far it does, with the rulebook as a detail reference I'm still up for it as it doesn't complicate things further then Lumineth realm lord's or Nagashs Bonerbois did.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nacnudllah said:

I'm seeing a lot of discussion of the specific impacts of these new rules, but I'm actually concerned about complexity creep.  With adding Heroic actions, Monstrous actions, generic Prayers, even more generic Command Abilities, the ever-growing list of Allegiance abilities, and more new corner case rules (like the new more confusing coherency rule or added list-building complication with whatever Reinforcements are), I don't know if I'm going to be able to actually play the game.  My opponents still ask me what the CV of Arcane Bolt is, so as a 'beer and pretzels' player, I think 3rd ed might just be too much cognitive load.

I also doubt it is complexity whit much depth. 40K got pretty complex. But it's not all that deep. Stacking buffs is low depth  complexity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kaylethia said:

I see it as 'up to ten is free', so I think it would be one reinforcement in your example. 

Remains to be seen whether it'll be 1 reinforcement to add models equal to your minimum unit size, or if reinforcement starts counting at 10 models and allows you to add ten more.

I think it s pretty clear. Do you really believe you could bring a unit of 3 to 9 without any reinforcement point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, azdimy said:

I think it s pretty clear. Do you really believe you could bring a unit of 3 to 9 without any reinforcement point?

How is "Take a unit from 10 - 20 is 1 reinforcement. " clear indication of unit minimum sizes being used for this?

If they had said take *insert unit with minimum size 10 here* from ten to twenty, sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Kaylethia said:

How is "Take a unit from 10 - 20 is 1 reinforcement. " clear indication of unit minimum sizes being used for this?

If they had said take *insert unit with minimum size 10 here* from ten to twenty, sure. 

That's because the example you are fixated on isn't from the rule. It's from a fellow board member who is explaining how it would work and using a unit that comes in sets of 10 as an example. 

The rest of the context would let you know this. 

It's also very likely that what comes in the box will more or less be the unit sets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

Followed by a pointless article on Soulblight which all Soulblight players already know about if they have (had the misfortune of) buying the battletome.

Do you think WarHamCom are reading this Forum and have been scared off now revealing anything remotely interesting for AoS 3.0😜?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Followed by a pointless article on Soulblight which all Soulblight players already know about if they have (had the misfortune of) buying the battletome.

Do you think WarHamCom are reading this Forum and have been scared off now revealing anything remotely interesting for AoS 3.0😜?

It does clear up one point that has caused a lot of argument re blood knights. They can definitely charge after using riders of ruin and the move is a  "normal move".

Riders of Ruin lets them make a normal move even when enemies are within 3”, trample straight over them (inflicting mortal wounds in the process), then charge straight back into the unit with deadly lances for masses of damage.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

It gives us an idea of the increasing armour saves GW are going with, not just for the poster boys which is a good thing IMO.

I may have to re-evaluate how effective loincloth armour is!

 

EDIT: it seems they may have snuck in a new unit type that we haven't seen for the KruleBoyz; Beast-breakaz. As well as hinting at more swamp gribblies! 

Edited by Xs_0013
See above
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Laststand said:

It does clear up one point that has caused a lot of argument re blood knights. They can definitely charge after using riders of ruin and the move is a  "normal move".

Riders of Ruin lets them make a normal move even when enemies are within 3”, trample straight over them (inflicting mortal wounds in the process), then charge straight back into the unit with deadly lances for masses of damage.

I am sorry, but that is just wonky and immersion breaking. Let me trample you, then let me lance you, but I won't do both at the same time...🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

I am sorry, but that is just wonky and immersion breaking. Let me trample you, then let me lance you, but I won't do both at the same time...🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

If you start the movement phase within 3" of the enemy then you finished the previous combat phase within 3" of an enemy.

So you would have lanced somebody, then trample them on your way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Followed by a pointless article on Soulblight which all Soulblight players already know about if they have (had the misfortune of) buying the battletome.

Do you think WarHamCom are reading this Forum and have been scared off now revealing anything remotely interesting for AoS 3.0😜?

MEME ORIGIN] First Time? Meme | James Franco - YouTube

They usually talk about all factions, but like a presentation. If we are luck, they could talk about new rules or a new interaction, maybe a reedited warscroll or even a new unit if it's a faction in the starting set of the edition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

I am sorry, but that is just wonky and immersion breaking. Let me trample you, then let me lance you, but I won't do both at the same time...🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

Of course, because lances are by every definition a close quarters weapon like a sword, or an axe, or a large fish. 5e7d3f6cfd8f3137ff92ccf03efa6709.gif

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PJetski said:

If you start the movement phase within 3" of the enemy then you finished the previous combat phase within 3" of an enemy.

So you would have lanced somebody, then trample them on your way out.

Maybe, the wording just sounded very odd to me. Maybe it is me, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Laststand said:

It does clear up one point that has caused a lot of argument re blood knights. They can definitely charge after using riders of ruin and the move is a  "normal move".

Riders of Ruin lets them make a normal move even when enemies are within 3”, trample straight over them (inflicting mortal wounds in the process), then charge straight back into the unit with deadly lances for masses of damage.

That’s not actually borne out by the wording of the ability. It’s exactly the same as when the unit was first previewed; the warcom fluff doesn’t reflect the rules as written. I’m too lazy to go check but it would not be surprised if this is a copy and paste of the original SBGL preview article.

Normal moves started within 3” of an enemy are a retreat and ineligible for charging. 3.0 might change this mind, but in 2.0 it doesn’t work like they think it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came on here yesterday for first time in a while after complaining to my much more optimistic friends to give them a rest from my pessimism and instead complain to strangers on the internet for a change.  And within 10 minutes of scrolling through comments I found myself instead writing paragraphs of text defending the game...  I don't know if this says more about me or the internet (probably me), but I find it funny either way.

All of that aside, I think the reinforcement rules have really turned me around on things a little.  I still have very real concerns about coherency and the pro shooting CA's, but the reinforcement rules put a lot of these in a different perspective.  All of a sudden the worries about working with giant unit blocks that aren't on 25mm are a little less concerning because there aren't going to be a lot of giant unit blocks not on 25mm bases.  The shooting CA's are a little less worrisome if you are going to have to spread them across msu's (though I'm still worried about these).  I also think one of the game's cardinal sins in 2nd edition was the over-lethality of units. So many times I'd read about a new unit ability that was contingent upon a unit surviving a round of combat and thinking "well that's useless".  Because by and large units really didn't survive rounds of combat very often unless they struck first, at least not crippled.  The reinforcement rule makes this much more likely, or at least it means the combat phase activation interplay will be much more meaningful.  Additionally it is a soft debuff on shooting. 

Think its overall effectiveness will be very dependent on how its applied within army books (with conditional battlelines and what units get the single tag placed on them), but its got potential to be a really positive change that mitigates some of the other potential issues introduced by other new rules.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, tripchimeras said:

So many times I'd read about a new unit ability that was contingent upon a unit surviving a round of combat and thinking "well that's useless".  Because by and large units really didn't survive rounds of combat very often unless they struck first, at least not crippled. 

So what you are saying is…Slaangor Fiendbloods are the new meta.  😈😈😈

Im on board.

  • Haha 2
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...