AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[SpiritofHokuto]

The real "proof of the pudding" will be the potential points/minimum unit size changes in the GHB. 

[Nightseer2012]

17 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Bye bye Deathrattle tarpits 😪

Why?  A unit of Skeletons can be upgraded to 30 in as small as a 1000 point game since they are battleline.  If you want to do that to grave guard instead, just take a Wight King tax for your general, and they become battleline as well.  In a 2000, you can take your 30 GG, and still have 2 reinforcements to take either 2 packs of 20 skellies, or another squad of 30 GG .  It looks like you can still do some big swarms of things, you just have to pick one or two things to be swarms. This only limits you to 2 packs of 30 GG in a 2000 point game.  That isn't actually too bad imo.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Nightseer2012
spelling

[Mcthew]

1 minute ago, SpiritofHokuto said:

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. 

But they're so cheap to field *sob*.

I wouldn't be so miffed but Zombies get a 20 minimum size whilst Skellies can a messily 10. (And no, I don't think SBGL is a good tome to be honest, not even for 3.0).

[Nightseer2012]

2 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

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. 

Right, I knew they existed before but you got nothing for taking under strength units.  You just lose the points.  If they are specifically putting a limit of "Only 1 of each type of unit" can be undermanned, it sounds like they don't want you to abuse it... somehow?  Which means there might be some benefit we haven't seen yet to being undermanned.

[Mcthew]

3 minutes ago, Nightseer2012 said:

Right, I knew they existed before but you got nothing for taking under strength units.  You just lose the points.  If they are specifically putting a limit of "Only 1 of each type of unit" can be undermanned, it sounds like they don't want you to abuse it... somehow?  Which means there might be some benefit we haven't seen yet to being undermanned.

Well it might mean that unless the new SCE models in the Dominion boxset come as a minimum size of 3, then it limits how many of those you can field?

Honestly I don't know if this is mysterious or just another irritation. Maybe undermanned units come with different coherency rules or something, otherwise what's the point?

[SorryLizard]

I suspect - but have no proof beyond gut feel - that minimum unit sizes will remain whatever comes in 1 box for the models. So 5s for Hearthguard, 20 for marauders, etc.

[Gauche]

Interesting seeing the doom and gloom people with the leaked changes and WHC shown changes. I think people who only play AoS are in a unique position since they've never really gone through a modern GW Edition change. It's kind of a waste to apply any of these changes to the game you currently know and play, it will be an entirely new game soon. No existing army lists are likely to survive for a whole host of reasons. The tricks you know will change or won't work anymore. The meta will completely change, etc. etc.

Try not to think of the changes in terms of games you've played or armies you've fielded but instead just look at how they change individual units. Build from there as more is leaked. It's the best way to keep yourself from going crazy. Source: Gone through almost every 40K Edition change and several other big system changes.

Now if a change legitimately makes you frown I can't say anything against that. I'd just advise taking a "Wait and see" approach. Many small changes look stupid but make sense when you get the whole picture. That's part of the reason I wish GW didn't drip feed changes but what can you do?

[Fuxxx]

"Ok guys, before we allowed you to take smaller units if you lacked a model or two. But you have to understand us as a company. We have to make money somehow. So the lax times are over, even if you want to you are not allowed by the rules to take smaller units!"

Ok just making fun of it, and to be frank: You always only have one unit of a type that is too small anyways, you would have to run them small on purpose to have more..

[zilberfrid]

2 minutes ago, Gauche said:

Interesting seeing the doom and gloom people with the leaked changes and WHC shown changes. I think people who only play AoS are in a unique position since they've never really gone through a modern GW Edition change. It's kind of a waste to apply any of these changes to the game you currently know and play, it will be an entirely new game soon. No existing army lists are likely to survive for a whole host of reasons. The tricks you know will change or won't work anymore. The meta will completely change, etc. etc.

Try not to think of the changes in terms of games you've played or armies you've fielded but instead just look at how they change individual units. Build from there as more is leaked. It's the best way to keep yourself from going crazy. Source: Gone through almost every 40K Edition change and several other big system changes.

Now if a change legitimately makes you frown I can't say anything against that. I'd just advise taking a "Wait and see" approach. Many small changes look stupid but make sense when you get the whole picture. That's part of the reason I wish GW didn't drip feed changes but what can you do?

Wait and see and stop purchasing stuff. It might not work later, or the faction might get mutilated.

If 3rd edition turns out okay, return to it.

[Gauche]

Just now, zilberfrid said:

Wait and see and stop purchasing stuff. It might not work later, or the faction might get mutilated.

If 3rd edition turns out okay, return to it.

Yup also good advice. I started one army I want to play no matter what for the end of 2.0 but I'm waiting on everything for 3.0 to drop before picking a second army.

[Enoby]

I've just seen the battalion rules and they are really weird... not bad, but nothing like old battalions 

(Not sure if okay to share pic)

[Mcthew]

2 minutes ago, Fuxxx said:

"Ok guys, before we allowed you to take smaller units if you lacked a model or two. But you have to understand us as a company. We have to make money somehow. So the lax times are over, even if you want to you are not allowed by the rules to take smaller units!"

Ok just making fun of it, and to be frank: You always only have one unit of a type that is too small anyways, you would have to run them small on purpose to have more..

Wouldn't mind that but how many starter sets include understrength units? Should say on the Dominion box "box contents might not be legal for Age of Sigmar 3.0" but I doubt they'll do that.

[Darkhan]

1 minute ago, Enoby said:

I've just seen the battalion rules and they are really weird... not bad, but nothing like old battalions 

(Not sure if okay to share pic)

DO SHARE!

[Fuxxx]

Just now, Enoby said:

I've just seen the battalion rules and they are really weird... not bad, but nothing like old battalions 

(Not sure if okay to share pic)

Oh come on that's baiting us what do they say? I don't need pictures. I only need infos to feed my overly hyped brain with!

[Fuxxx]

1 minute ago, Mcthew said:

Wouldn't mind that but how many starter sets include understrength units? Should say on the Dominion box "box contents might not be legal for Age of Sigmar 3.0" but I doubt they'll do that.

Well it's not like it'd be illegal! You'd only have 1 unit each that's under strength and that would be legal

To be more on topic: While I love my Gobbos, for Age of Sigmar I only play Stormcasts. I really don't like moving masses of miniatures in a skirmish-style game. And my Stormcast units are always small since they are so expensive, so for me nothing much changes. It prohibits the 9 Raptors in an Anvils army shenanigans but I think that's rather good since I never liked that idea. 

I like to have more stuff to spend my command points on. Would be nice if they scaled with the point size of the game though. Only problem is, that I tend to forget a lot of stuff as is and now with even more abilities to remember that might trip me up even more. I wrote cheat sheets for my 1000P games to think of all the abilities

[Enoby]

Okay, so without sharing, there are 6 battalions, each require different combos of unit types (some optional)

The unit types are

Leader, sub leader (9 or less wounds leader), troops (not leader, monster, or artillery), artillery, monster

Each battalion gives one (or more) of the following six abilities:

Unified (one drop)

Expert (once per battle, all out attack or defence for free)

Magnificent (extra enhancement, whatever that is - artifact?)

Slayers (once per battle, all our attack or unleash hell for free)

Strategist (one command point for free when you want it once per battle)

Swift (once per battle at the double or forward to victory for free)

Will type up the rest

[Darkhan]

[Fuxxx]

It was just now posted in the rumor thread: 

I like it. I liked my thematic battallions but at least no ones left out and the impact of these is minimal. You seem to even have to take special ones to get artifacts or whatever enhancement could mean here. I wonder whether they'll be free.

 

[Enoby]

The battalions are (required number not in brackets, maximum optional in brackets)

Warlord: 1 (2) leaders, 2 (4) sub leaders, 1 (2) troops. Gives strategist and magnificent 

Battle regiment: 1 leader (2 sub leaders), 2 (5) troops, (1 monster or artillery). Gives one drop

Grand battery: 1 sub leader, 2 (3) artillery. Gives slayers

Vanguard: 1 sub leader, 1 (3) troops. Gives swift

Line breaker: 1 leader, 2 (3) monsters. Gives expert 

Command entourage: 1 leader, 2 (3) sub leaders. Gives  strategist and magnificent 

[Gauche]

If there's a no leak rule please delete my post. :]

[Mcthew]

31 minutes ago, Darkhan said:

What's a "battlepack"? Are we using new terminology now too?

[SorryLizard]

47 minutes ago, Gauche said:

Yup also good advice. I started one army I want to play no matter what for the end of 2.0 but I'm waiting on everything for 3.0 to drop before picking a second army.

Yes, excellent advice.

Unless you absolutely MUST have the starter box for the models then just wait for the release, the hype to die down, the first FAQ to come out. Play with what you have and see if youre liking the new iteration. Then, well informed post-FAQ and a few games you can make informed, sensible decisions about what new stuff to buy or if you're happier stopping playing 3.0 and just playing 2.0 rules with friends instead.

Do not start spending money based on speculation and WarCom marketing hype and thn finding £100 or more of stuff in boxes you don't want to build or play with anymore.

There might be short term supply issues but if you eventually want X model or Y unit then you'll be able to get it eventually.

[Mcthew]

11 minutes ago, SorryLizard said:

Yes, excellent advice.

Unless you absolutely MUST have the starter box for the models then just wait for the release, the hype to die down, the first FAQ to come out. Play with what you have and see if youre liking the new iteration. Then, well informed post-FAQ and a few games you can make informed, sensible decisions about what new stuff to buy or if you're happier stopping playing 3.0 and just playing 2.0 rules with friends instead.

Do not start spending money based on speculation and WarCom marketing hype and thn finding £100 or more of stuff in boxes you don't want to build or play with anymore.

There might be short term supply issues but if you eventually want X model or Y unit then you'll be able to get it eventually.

Really like this. Encapsulates where I am right now. It won't take much for me to cancel my pre-order for Dominion, and makes me appreciate 2.0 more, which really is a simple, clean ruleset, faction rules aside.

I wonder then if 2nd Edition players/groups will be a 'thing'? 

I certainly hope it will be on this forum as I edge closer to staying put on AoS 2.0.

[Gauche]

5 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Really like this. Encapsulates where I am right now. It won't take much for me to cancel my pre-order for Dominion, and makes me appreciate 2.0 more, which really is a simple, clean ruleset, faction rules aside.

I wonder then if 2nd Edition players/groups will be a 'thing'? 

I certainly hope it will be on this forum as I edge closer to staying put on AoS 2.0.

In my experience there will be an extreme minority that prefers the old ruleset and keeps it, everyone else will move on. Happened with every game I've ever played. Even mostly happened when Fantasy turned into AoS and that was huge.

[whispersofblood]

10 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Really like this. Encapsulates where I am right now. It won't take much for me to cancel my pre-order for Dominion, and makes me appreciate 2.0 more, which really is a simple, clean ruleset, faction rules aside.

I wonder then if 2nd Edition players/groups will be a 'thing'? 

I certainly hope it will be on this forum as I edge closer to staying put on AoS 2.0.

You are just nervous it happens at every edition change. You'll play 10 games, love it and never look back.