AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Zeblasky]

Btw, I wonder why they gave so much lore about new Cities, even gave Cities related terrain, but haven't revealed any new gameplay details for them. Seems a bit... Weird.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

6 hours ago, Koala said:

In general i am a great proponent of "try it first, complain later or never".

And i can certainly see something interesring or understandable in most previewed changes.

 

But they DO seem to push AoS into the direction of 40k. ( Higher complexity, more "free rules", also rules/text overlap)

And quite frankly 9th Ed. has caused me and half my friends to stop playing 40k. 

To call me worried would be an understatement.

Agreed.  Save I either don't mind or even like many of the changes made to 40k.  It's probably due to me finally giving into Warhammer during 40k's 7th ed, but I have always viewed 40k as a very complicated, if often shallow game.  So I never really minded the dozens of CP per game, hundreds of stratagems and other laundry lists of things going on with the game.  I largely view them in the same vein of worrying about pistols or dozer blades.  I don't want AoS to be like that. I found few CP and fewer things to spend them on very refreshing.  I absolutely adore not having to ask my opponent (my group doesn't often play/pretty casual) what their unit's Toughness  is every other unit every turn.

To which point, what I think works or what I want in 40k isn't what I necessarily want is AoS. Take coherency, I think it works in 40k as the game has double the distance to work with, largely being shooting focused (or at least more so than AoS) and generally has smaller units of everything (it's uncommon/rare for a datasheet to allow more than 10 in a unit). One of the things I like about AoS is the larger units and don't want to be pushed to smaller/MSU units.  As much as it might balance the game, I kinda also don't want 40k terrain rules.  I like rattenkrieg in 40k, but prefer a much more open battlefield with AoS.  With AoS 2nd ed, I truly enjoyed the freedom of individual models played in a rank and file way.  I was ecstatic that Lumineth Vanari further encouraged that with Shining Companies.  See spoiler for a fairly common deployment of my army in terms of ranking up.

Spoiler

Which works fine early game even with the new coherency rules. However, once in combat I kinda need as much as I can get swinging their weapons as Chaos Warriors and Knights even buffed with Daemonic Power aren't exactly tearing through the enemy.  I have also had to use positioning of enveloping/encircling to either direct a Fall Back to a favorable direct or prevent it entirely while my evil dudes whittled them down since they are tough not strong.  And you know what? It wasn't the martial brutality I was hoping for with my army, but I came to enjoy this sort of control and attrition play style as it matched surprising well with actual rank and file games I had previously played.  I found despite not really putting much of a dent into my opponent's army, they'd often remove more of mine than I did theirs; I found I could still squeeze out  some wins through having a better plan and managing to execute it.

 

The more rules I see for AoS 3rd edition, the less interest I have. The rules seem to want to fundamentally take the game in a direction I don't really want to go.  I don't want MSU units to become prevalent.  I loathe the idea of AoS battleplans becoming the homogeneous mush that 40k 9th have become.  In short, I already play 40k, I don't really want to play 40k of Sigmar.  Which maybe AoS won't be.  But the rules shown aren't doing a good job of relieving my concern.  In fact, they seem to want me to move further away from how I want to play the game.

[jake3991]

Anyone else feel like unleash hell (stand and shoot) is going to get comped out by the community? That single command ability looks to be majorly problematic for a game that is mostly populated by non-shooting units. Perhaps as more of the rules come out, it will appear to be less of an issue. But as it stands I would have no issue with TOs excluding that command ability from events.

Thoughts?

[TheCovenLord]

7 minutes ago, jake3991 said:

Anyone else feel like unleash hell (stand and shoot) is going to get comped out by the community? That single command ability looks to be majorly problematic for a game that is mostly populated by non-shooting units. Perhaps as more of the rules come out, it will appear to be less of an issue. But as it stands I would have no issue with TOs excluding that command ability from events.

Thoughts?

I won't jump to any conclusions until I can see the full rule set. In a vacuum with our current edition, yes, it does look a little nutty.

 

But there have also been rumours about significant change to points values, unit sizes and unit allowances. A unit of 10 models shooting twice is way less menacing than 20-40 shooting twice. And that is only one of many rumoured rules to come. So it may be a complete non-issue in the context of 3.0.

 

We will just have to see and hope GW doesn't drop the ball (even though they do have a bit of a worrying history...).

[frenk_castle]

6 minutes ago, jake3991 said:

Anyone else feel like unleash hell (stand and shoot) is going to get comped out by the community? That single command ability looks to be majorly problematic for a game that is mostly populated by non-shooting units. Perhaps as more of the rules come out, it will appear to be less of an issue. But as it stands I would have no issue with TOs excluding that command ability from events.

Thoughts?

Even if all the rumours are true unless units rules (weapon profiles) change drastically I still think Unleash Hell will be pretty serious and impactful ability. And as a person who likes to play melee armies, Khorne, Ogors, Nighthaunts, and probably only person who played Anvils thought 2ed as mostly melee army this has me worried. Will of course wait and see. Hopefully I will be able to get new rulebook, Stormcast battletome and generals handbook early for some "test" games and then see what I think after I play few games.

[frenk_castle]

One question I have is with rumoured chagne of Mystic Shield to get it back to +1 save,and will All Out Defence giving +1 save and that Heroic Action (Finest Hour I think) that gives +1 save is this means GW is backtracking on their previous decisions? Usually when a person/company goes back and forth in decisions like this I get worried cause that could be an indication they do not know what they want (or how to achieve it) and are just trying at random hoping to stumble upon a solution.

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

Agreed.  Save I either don't mind or even like many of the changes made to 40k.  It's probably due to me finally giving into Warhammer during 40k's 7th ed, but I have always viewed 40k as a very complicated, if often shallow game.  So I never really minded the dozens of CP per game, hundreds of stratagems and other laundry lists of things going on with the game.  I largely view them in the same vein of worrying about pistols or dozer blades.  I don't want AoS to be like that. I found few CP and fewer things to spend them on very refreshing.  I absolutely adore not having to ask my opponent (my group doesn't often play/pretty casual) what their unit's Toughness  is every other unit every turn.

To which point, what I think works or what I want in 40k isn't what I necessarily want is AoS. Take coherency, I think it works in 40k as the game has double the distance to work with, largely being shooting focused (or at least more so than AoS) and generally has smaller units of everything (it's uncommon/rare for a datasheet to allow more than 10 in a unit). One of the things I like about AoS is the larger units and don't want to be pushed to smaller/MSU units.  As much as it might balance the game, I kinda also don't want 40k terrain rules.  I like rattenkrieg in 40k, but prefer a much more open battlefield with AoS.  With AoS 2nd ed, I truly enjoyed the freedom of individual models played in a rank and file way.  I was ecstatic that Lumineth Vanari further encouraged that with Shining Companies.  See spoiler for a fairly common deployment of my army in terms of ranking up.

  Reveal hidden contents

Which works fine early game even with the new coherency rules. However, once in combat I kinda need as much as I can get swinging their weapons as Chaos Warriors and Knights even buffed with Daemonic Power aren't exactly tearing through the enemy.  I have also had to use positioning of enveloping/encircling to either direct a Fall Back to a favorable direct or prevent it entirely while my evil dudes whittled them down since they are tough not strong.  And you know what? It wasn't the martial brutality I was hoping for with my army, but I came to enjoy this sort of control and attrition play style as it matched surprising well with actual rank and file games I had previously played.  I found despite not really putting much of a dent into my opponent's army, they'd often remove more of mine than I did theirs; I found I could still squeeze out  some wins through having a better plan and managing to execute it.

 

The more rules I see for AoS 3rd edition, the less interest I have. The rules seem to want to fundamentally take the game in a direction I don't really want to go.  I don't want MSU units to become prevalent.  I loathe the idea of AoS battleplans becoming the homogeneous mush that 40k 9th have become.  In short, I already play 40k, I don't really want to play 40k of Sigmar.  Which maybe AoS won't be.  But the rules shown aren't doing a good job of relieving my concern.  In fact, they seem to want me to move further away from how I want to play the game.

I get what you are saying, but you are thinking about these rules in the context of AoS2.0.

Chaos Knights are the perfect beneficiary of almost all the changes. 15 wounds at 5 men; good dmg per model; but don't scale as Enscorcelled weapons are 1" and they don't do enough on the charge to break large units with lances.

In AoS 3.0 units are smaller anywhere from 50-80% fewer bodies. Boards are about 25% smaller, so their movement is comparatively faster. They haven't lost any of their defence and have gained access to offensive and defensive buffs in command abilities letting you tailor on the board. They are good against monsters as they have a MW save. 

You really need to rethink what armies are going to look like in the face of these rules. And *then* decide if you like how it plays. 

We've already seen the change to pile-in moves regarding coherency. And, because combat necessarily includes losing models you can attack optimally and then remove models as casualties that are out of coherency.

S2D is actually primed to be a very good faction in this ruleset. They have access to nearly every keyword that has been improved or increased in utility. 

[Envyus]

4 hours 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😜?

You do know that Soulblight is good? It’s not a bad tome. 

[Eldarain]

11 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

We've already seen the change to pile-in moves regarding coherency. And, because combat necessarily includes losing models you can attack optimally and then remove models as casualties that are out of coherency.

I thought the Coherency rules said you can't finish any move out of coherency preventing optimal pile in and losing the offending models to return damage.

[Reinholt]

11 minutes ago, Envyus said:

You do know that Soulblight is good? It’s not a bad tome. 

To address a few points and quote one:

1. 95% of the changes we have seen for AoS 3.0 are quite positive. The army building rules, the wording changes, a lot of the hero and monster abilities, most of the command abilities, etc. I think this is good for the game.
2. Coherency is needlessly complicated as they have written it. I would not be shocked to see GW revise it. Just be within x" of the unit leader is probably the easiest way to make it work, and allow all units to have a designated leader for movement and if that one dies, you nominate a new one at the end of the phase. Also, major changes to weapon ranges or the 40k style rank fighting will need to be introduced, or GW will primarily have nerfed their model sales because 32mm+ bases only work in 5 or less units for 1" weapons.
3. Soulblight, to me, are a big maybe. There's a lot of stuff in that book which seems less than useful, some baffling design decisions around how magic was allocated, but also some clearly decent stuff and a shocking amount of mobility. There might also be some real power pieces if the rumor about Blood Knights from today's article (that they can leave combat and then charge back in the same turn) is true. In general I think the jury is still very much out on SBG but my tentative prediction is that they are decent but not great with one or two potential power lists.
4. The one change I hate for the game so far is Unleash Hell. I say this as someone who plays shooting armies because I already am thinking hard about how I can abuse it. The biggest winner from everything I have seen about 3.0 so far might also be the KO, as they just DGAF about most changes and the ones they do are largely positives for them.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Reinholt

[Darkhan]

On 6/9/2021 at 1:00 AM, Envyus said:

It shouldn’t. Particularly since it looks like it can only be used once a turn.

Whops, did not mean to quote;p

Edited June 10, 2021 by Darkhan

[Envyus]

1 minute ago, Darkhan said:

 

What does this have to do with what I said.

[Darkhan]

Just now, Envyus said:

What does this have to do with what I said.

Nothing, quote was a misclick, scoll up.

[Darkhan]

6 minutes ago, Darkhan said:

Whops, did not mean to quote;p

Original source: 

[BaylorCorvette]

6 minutes ago, Darkhan said:

Original source: 

 

Behemoth units are 0-4 not 3+. The 3+ is battleline (for 2k).

[Darkhan]

1 minute ago, BaylorCorvette said:

Behemoth units are 0-4 not 3+. The 3+ is battleline (for 2k).

I'm not the translator, only the messenger🤣

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

13 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:

Behemoth units are 0-4 not 3+. The 3+ is battleline (for 2k).

That brief moment of super excitement for the new monster meta dashed by more accurate translation 😂

[Popisdead]

2 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

Btw, I wonder why they gave so much lore about new Cities, even gave Cities related terrain, but haven't revealed any new gameplay details for them. Seems a bit... Weird.

What I feel the Cities is, is a method to keep some older armies alive in AoS and give a blend in mechanic for newer models (hey you have wanderers?  buy the new Warsong Rev, then more Sylvaneth!) and also give a sense of grounding.  

People really struggled with the realms and AoS 2 did a lot to help concrete, as did some novels like City of Secrets.  Gotta remember this game is 6 year old.  Fantasy Edition 1 was maybe lived for about that time or less?  But not a lot changed other than making it less D&D ish.  

Even at my old age I am happy GW has given this exciting ride for us to go along with.  So I expect more Cities to come and the next three years to have a lot more interest.

[Darkhan]

More stuff:

[PJetski]

I'm gonna miss my squad of 9 Raptors, but I'm glad the game is moving away from big elite killy units and spammable hordes

[Mcthew]

3 minutes ago, Darkhan said:

More stuff:

Bye bye Deathrattle tarpits 😪

[Nightseer2012]

5 minutes ago, Darkhan said:

More stuff:

Any word on if under strength units will cost an appropriate amount of less points?  Otherwise, benefits of doing this are escaping me.

[SpiritofHokuto]

2 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Bye bye Deathrattle tarpits 😪

30 Skellies can still be plenty tanky. A with it looking like +'s to armour not being capped and the knock-on effect of reinforcements on other armies their tankiness is going to stay the same relatively. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by SpiritofHokuto

[Mcthew]

Note to self: stop looking at existing battletomes with glee, thinking this is your time in the 3.0 sun.

Yes, I'm talking to you Nighthaunt and Tzeentch.

For what GW giveth they can (and do) just as easily taketh away.

[Grimrock]

Just now, Nightseer2012 said:

Any word on if under strength units will cost an appropriate amount of less points?  Otherwise, benefits of doing this are escaping me.

Well understrength units have existed since the first generals handbook and they've never been discounted. No guarantee they won't be, but it would be a little surprising. I don't think it's supposed to be an advantage as such, just a way to deal with the fact that the old boxes came in weird numbers to fit rank and file (like 16 or 12 models). The only benefit I can think of is you can get around coherency issues by taking a unit of 5 large ovals instead of 6.