AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Gauche said:

Operating under intent vs. RAW has almost always been the safe bet though. :]

And yet their officially published, in the magazine, from their most veteran rules dude word is "play with the rules as they are in the text, not what you, personally, think they should be.

[Ganigumo]

A few oddities:

Unique wizards and priests can't learn any spells from spell lores, because they didn't specify that the spell lores or prayer scriptures enhancements can ignore the rule that unique units can't recieve enhancements. (Errata incoming?)

 

Even if you purchase an extra triumph you can't use it unless you have less points than your opponent.

[Gauche]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

And yet their officially published, in the magazine, from their most veteran rules dude word is "play with the rules as they are in the text, not what you, personally, think they should be.

Which I didn't get because almost every time they FAQ something it goes the intent way and not the RAW way. But I guess intent is way more nebulous so they hedge their bets by saying that.

[Grimrock]

Oof, ok so hot take time. I've been through all the rules and... I'm pretty disappointed. They didn't fix battleshock, they didn't bring in the 40k terrain, they didn't bring in 40k engagement range. All the things I was hoping against hope for to give the smallest positive ray have just been totally left out. The book layout is great, comments and references are great, and the clarity in the rules themselves is pretty solid apart from a wonky issue or two. Play wise though I think this may very well be the worst set of rules I've seen for AoS. I'm not whining and saying it's time to quit and burn your models, but nothing I've just read gets me excited for the game. There's good stuff here and there, but the fiddliness of coherency is going to be a nightmare, not to mention the way that it arbitrarily nerfs bases bigger than 25mm. I can kind of see them aiming for smaller units and more objective based play, but then they do something like making 4/6 triumphs being about killing one variety of models or another and make one of the glorious triumphs just hands down easier to achieve in 90% of games. It's all just so... bleh. I'm going to need to try out a few games and get a real feel for it but I'll need to wait until the GHB is previewed or leaked so we can get the proper points values.

[Zeblasky]

So no rules for enhancing melee fighting in multiple ranks? Well then, it's going to be okay for most infantry - a nerf, but a minor one, if you position them right, which can be supplemented with abundant CP buffs. But for cavalry and monstrous infantry... Not great.

[Nagash42]

unless they have reach weapons.

[BrotherTalarian]

I don’t know, so far everything they’ve shown looks awesome. 
 

Can people who have gripes with the new rules elaborate as to why they don’t like them, or what makes them awful? 
 

Is it simply because it’s change and everyone is frustrated that they need to learn new ways of playing? Or do they genuinely think they’re poor rules because X/Y reason? 
 

Coherency seems to be the biggest gripe, it’s a non-issue in 40K. Also, having a single file models spread across to grab territory, deny zones, screen etc. Looks super lame aesthetically, and mechanically is meh, IMO, as it doesn’t feel very “realistic” or the intention of the game. 

Anyhow, I’m curious why those that are frustrated are frustrated. 
 

Cheers

[Neverchosen]

16 minutes ago, BrotherTalarian said:

I don’t know, so far everything they’ve shown looks awesome. 
 

Can people who have gripes with the new rules elaborate as to why they don’t like them, or what makes them awful? 
 

Is it simply because it’s change and everyone is frustrated that they need to learn new ways of playing? Or do they genuinely think they’re poor rules because X/Y reason? 
 

Coherency seems to be the biggest gripe, it’s a non-issue in 40K. Also, having a single file models spread across to grab territory, deny zones, screen etc. Looks super lame aesthetically, and mechanically is meh, IMO, as it doesn’t feel very “realistic” or the intention of the game. 

Anyhow, I’m curious why those that are frustrated are frustrated. 
 

Cheers

I am with you on everything here, I think my only gripes are around army compositions (reinforcements and possible unit size changes in particular) as I do find it a little vague and over complicated but the end result will hopefully be better balanced games.

I will find it frustrating if I have to track down additional Warcry boxes for my Iron Golems and Untamed beasts if their unit size goes up. I have already had to figure out what to do with my chaos warriors either if they go up or if they max at 15. But none of these are gameplay related and more of a meta gripe.

[Ganigumo]

6 minutes ago, BrotherTalarian said:

I don’t know, so far everything they’ve shown looks awesome. 
 

Can people who have gripes with the new rules elaborate as to why they don’t like them, or what makes them awful? 
 

Is it simply because it’s change and everyone is frustrated that they need to learn new ways of playing? Or do they genuinely think they’re poor rules because X/Y reason? 
 

Coherency seems to be the biggest gripe, it’s a non-issue in 40K. Also, having a single file models spread across to grab territory, deny zones, screen etc. Looks super lame aesthetically, and mechanically is meh, IMO, as it doesn’t feel very “realistic” or the intention of the game. 

Anyhow, I’m curious why those that are frustrated are frustrated. 
 

Cheers

Coherency isn't the same as 40k. 40k is 2" and the new aos rules are 1" which is a HUGE difference especially in a game where melee range is a thing. 40k allows 10 models on 32mm bases to stand shoulder to shoulder, aos 3 doesn't.

 

The battalion change isn't a good one. Battle regiment required an entire system (reinforcements) just to try to keep it in check and its still going to show up in 90% of lists. There are only 6 of them, half of them are awful, all of them are boring, and it doesn't inspire listbuilding. They should've either put this on top of the old system, adjusted the old system to make battalions less important, or just scrapped the entire thing. It also does nothing to actually solve the original issue. Before it was based entirely on your armies' access to good battalions, now its about how well the units you have access to fit into battle regiment.

regroup makes engaging difficult, since it has the potential to add an extra d6" on top of any important charge thats under 9" (9" charges are unreliable most of the time)

Save bonuses are everywhere, and while you cant go higher than a +1 you can negate rend, which will slow combats.

Unleash hell measures distances after the move, and doesn't require the unit shooting to be the one being charged

Unique characters can't learn additional spells

 

Those were the biggest changes, the rest of it was pretty inoffensive and the priest changes were welcome.

The latter 2 issues will probably get errata'd

The rules in general seem to push towards making engaging in combat harder, which is a wierd direction to take a fantasy battle game. Melee multi model units are most negatively affected, while single models and shooting units are hurt the least or got better

[Sharklone]

58 minutes ago, BrotherTalarian said:

I don’t know, so far everything they’ve shown looks awesome. 
 

Can people who have gripes with the new rules elaborate as to why they don’t like them, or what makes them awful? 
 

Is it simply because it’s change and everyone is frustrated that they need to learn new ways of playing? Or do they genuinely think they’re poor rules because X/Y reason? 
 

Coherency seems to be the biggest gripe, it’s a non-issue in 40K. Also, having a single file models spread across to grab territory, deny zones, screen etc. Looks super lame aesthetically, and mechanically is meh, IMO, as it doesn’t feel very “realistic” or the intention of the game. 

Anyhow, I’m curious why those that are frustrated are frustrated. 
 

Cheers

Coherency isn't the same. 40k is 2inches. 1inch affects every model above 25mm.

In a game that's dominated by shooting. They've hurt melee and just made shooting better. Unleash hell is an ability that seraphon had, and GW erratad because it was too strong. Now everyone can do it. Units that do mortals when shooting don't care about -1 to hit. I know it's the crutch example, but 20 lumineth archers on average do 6-7 mortals to a unit that has charged the screen in front of them. Then they get to shoot them again in their turn. Then if turn order stays the same they get to shoot again. That's 18-21 mortals. On average. Before you can even get to the unit causing you problems. 

 

Edit. For the third shot. It's regardless of who goes. Either you charge them and get shot. Or its their turn and you get shot. 

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Sharklone

[BrotherTalarian]

21 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Coherency isn't the same as 40k. 40k is 2" and the new aos rules are 1" which is a HUGE difference especially in a game where melee range is a thing. 40k allows 10 models on 32mm bases to stand shoulder to shoulder, aos 3 doesn't.

 

The battalion change isn't a good one. Battle regiment required an entire system (reinforcements) just to try to keep it in check and its still going to show up in 90% of lists. There are only 6 of them, half of them are awful, all of them are boring, and it doesn't inspire listbuilding. They should've either put this on top of the old system, adjusted the old system to make battalions less important, or just scrapped the entire thing. It also does nothing to actually solve the original issue. Before it was based entirely on your armies' access to good battalions, now its about how well the units you have access to fit into battle regiment.

regroup makes engaging difficult, since it has the potential to add an extra d6" on top of any important charge thats under 9" (9" charges are unreliable most of the time)

Save bonuses are everywhere, and while you cant go higher than a +1 you can negate rend, which will slow combats.

Unleash hell measures distances after the move, and doesn't require the unit shooting to be the one being charged

Unique characters can't learn additional spells

 

Those were the biggest changes, the rest of it was pretty inoffensive and the priest changes were welcome.

The latter 2 issues will probably get errata'd

The rules in general seem to push towards making engaging in combat harder, which is a wierd direction to take a fantasy battle game. Melee multi model units are most negatively affected, while single models and shooting units are hurt the least or got better

Cool, thanks for the reply! 
 

I fail to see your point about coherency. What makes it bad? Was standing shoulder to shoulder important? See my previous opinion about it, what makes it horrible for you? 
 

You mentioned the new battalions make list building uninspired. The old ones legit gave you no option. “Take these things for X buff”. It forced the player to take units. Now they have the option, and can choose themselves what to take, and what battalion to built towards.  Every army has access to them and puts the onus on the player to make a decision they want. I think it’s definitely an improvement to the old system. 
 

I actually love this CA. If you get double turned and moved close enough to the enemy, you don’t feel cheated and have the chance to retreats and prevent being charged. It’s also a tactical choice the player need to make. Use the CA, that is precious and can now be used in a dozen different ways, and MAYBE move far enough, or hold on to it, get charged, and use it elsewhere. All our defence, perhaps? 
 

UH I agree is very strong, I agree. I believe/hope it’s adjusting we need to do and strategize. Similar concept to using CPs wisely, though I feel we’ll see a lot of this. 
 

Another good point. Seeing as the reinforcement rules indicate that several armies will be smaller, at least MSU, it might not be as big of an issue. The point arises again where the player needs to decide how to spend their CP. 

Oh? Not familiar with the wizard thing, seems odd and not intended? 
 

overall I think it gives the player more agency, forces them to think and make decisions. I think that’s important and healthy for a game.  

 

39 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

I am with you on everything here, I think my only gripes are around army compositions (reinforcements and possible unit size changes in particular) as I do find it a little vague and over complicated but the end result will hopefully be better balanced games.

I will find it frustrating if I have to track down additional Warcry boxes for my Iron Golems and Untamed beasts if their unit size goes up. I have already had to figure out what to do with my chaos warriors either if they go up or if they max at 15. But none of these are gameplay related and more of a meta gripe.

Yeah, unfortunately they seem to be shifting min unit sizes etc. Which is definitely frustrating from a individual/purchase perspective -.- 

[BrotherTalarian]

4 minutes ago, Sharklone said:

Coherency isn't the same. 40k is 2inches. 1inch affects every model above 25mm.

In a game that's dominated by shooting. They've hurt melee and just made shooting better. Unleash hell is an ability that seraphon had, and GW erratad because it was too strong. Now everyone can do it. Units that do mortals when shooting don't care about -1 to hit. I know it's the crutch example, but 20 lumineth archers on average do 6-7 mortals to a unit that has charged the screen in front of them. Then they get to shoot them again in their turn. Then if turn order stays the same they get to shoot again. That's 18-21 mortals. On average. Before you can even get to the unit causing you problems. 

 

Edit. For the third shot. It's regardless of who goes. Either you charge them and get shot. Or its their turn and you get shot. 

 

Thanks for the reply, man.

 

See my previous (3 min ago) post about coherency. Sure the distance if different, but what about it do you not like? The principle is the same. 
 

As for lumineth, I guess your gripe is that they haven’t made shooting weaker, or melee better opportunity to get closer? 
 

We might see points increases for them, perhaps not. 
 

I agree, shooting is strong, and UH definitely seems to help strong shooting armies even more. I suppose that’s where increased armour saves help. We can also use redeploy to get in a better tactical position?

 

hard to tell how games will play out without actually playing.

 

overall though, as mentioned just above,  I love how the player has a lot more decision making power. There’s more flavour for epic monsters and heroes. 
 

The game just “feels” mor magical and mighty. 
 

Who knows, I might come back in a month or two from now and say the game is ****** and shooting needs a nerf. But right now I’m enjoying the previewed changes

 

oh yeah, I think the lumineth range is more of a lumineth problem, than a AoS 3 problem. Points increases might change this, so don’t lose hope

[Sharklone]

8 minutes ago, BrotherTalarian said:

Thanks for the reply, man.

 

See my previous (3 min ago) post about coherency. Sure the distance if different, but what about it do you not like? The principle is the same. 
 

As for lumineth, I guess your gripe is that they haven’t made shooting weaker, or melee better opportunity to get closer? 
 

We might see points increases for them, perhaps not. 
 

I agree, shooting is strong, and UH definitely seems to help strong shooting armies even more. I suppose that’s where increased armour saves help. We can also use redeploy to get in a better tactical position?

 

hard to tell how games will play out without actually playing.

 

overall though, as mentioned just above,  I love how the player has a lot more decision making power. There’s more flavour for epic monsters and heroes. 
 

The game just “feels” mor magical and mighty. 
 

Who knows, I might come back in a month or two from now and say the game is ****** and shooting needs a nerf. But right now I’m enjoying the previewed changes

 

oh yeah, I think the lumineth range is more of a lumineth problem, than a AoS 3 problem. Points increases might change this, so don’t lose hope

No worries.

My main gripe with coherency is that for any cav or non 25mm infantry with a 1 inch reach, it's essentially halving their output. Looking at something like ogre gluttons, blight kings, flayers, vargheists, crypt horrors. all on 40s they have to line up in 2 ranks now to maintain coherency, sacrifing damage . Their other option is to run units of 4, but at. 5+ save blight kings a 4+), anything with shooting is likely to kill one or 2 with unleash hell. I understand the intent was to stop units stringing out, but I don't think this was the way to do it. within 2 and 2 inches would have been much easier to manage and no result in fiddly measuring. 

As for points, you could be right. Maybe shooting becomes much more.expensive who knows. I was just expecting a bigger shake up to what the meta is I guess. To clarify, my problem isn't really with shooting and unleash hell itself. It's the warscrolls that have access and the interactions some armies can have with it.

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Sharklone

[Dressedspring1]

21 minutes ago, BrotherTalarian said:

See my previous (3 min ago) post about coherency. Sure the distance if different, but what about it do you not like? The principle is the same

If I try and pile into combat with me melee unit on 32mm bases I literally cannot get all of them into combat while maintaining coherency

[Grimrock]

1 hour ago, BrotherTalarian said:

I don’t know, so far everything they’ve shown looks awesome. 
 

Can people who have gripes with the new rules elaborate as to why they don’t like them, or what makes them awful? 
 

Is it simply because it’s change and everyone is frustrated that they need to learn new ways of playing? Or do they genuinely think they’re poor rules because X/Y reason? 
 

Coherency seems to be the biggest gripe, it’s a non-issue in 40K. Also, having a single file models spread across to grab territory, deny zones, screen etc. Looks super lame aesthetically, and mechanically is meh, IMO, as it doesn’t feel very “realistic” or the intention of the game. 

Anyhow, I’m curious why those that are frustrated are frustrated. 
 

Cheers

I won't repeat what @Ganigumo said about coherency as he summed that up very well. Tighter coherency makes it more difficult to move models without trays, it slows down piling in, and it makes it so fewer models can attack. It also has bizarre effects like how you can get more attacks with a 5 model unit than 6 (for example, a reinforced unit of Mighty Skullcrushers), so it might actually be desirable to pay for 6 models and just leave one model at home. I see absolutely no benefit to having coherency written in this way. Even conga lines won't go away as 25ml bases can still do them.  

I do have some other problems with the rules. A large part of them source from things they could have done to improve the game but chose not to. They didn't improve the rules on terrain, which is a massive missed opportunity. The rules in 40k are right there and hugely improve the gameplay experience, but they weren't ported over. They didn't port over the combat ranges for 40k either. They're a critical component with making the coherency work in 40k, but again they weren't used. They didn't fix the issue with low drops deciding first turn in matched play. It works with the roll off in the other two styles, why did they leave it busted in matched? Now players are just bound to chase after the Battle Regiment instead of creating interesting and diverse compositions. 

My other main complaint comes from the things they added to missions. The Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics sound like great ideas on paper, but in practice they're shockingly underdeveloped. Of the 3 Grand Strategies they provide in the book there is one that is totally situational and based on your opponent and their army (but you have to pick it before you see their army), one that is very difficult to achieve, and one that is mind-numbingly easy. Of the 6 Battle Tactics they provide, 4 are just some variant of 'pick an enemy unit and kill it', one is based on objective play, and one is to get near the middle of the table. These aren't incentives for creative tactical play that make the game more interesting or challenging. They're just basic things you should be doing anyway. I can only imagine that they'll add more of these to battletomes going forward (like they did with faction specific objectives in 40k), but the basic system could have been so so much better. Also I can hardly imagine an easier Grand Strategy than 'keep at least one battleline unit alive', so any faction based strategies would have to be shockingly trivial to warrant use. 

In the end I'm just not seeing anything that makes me go 'Wow, what a great change!'. Like I do think the rules for monsters and heroes are cool, but if they're just going to re-balance the cost for those units (ex. like the rumors say for Archaon) then I don't see the attraction. Sure you can do more cool things, but it's just more book keeping and more effort to remember just the right rule for just the right occasion. Mission tweaks are cool, but when the choices are so obvious and everyone can do them without thinking, then what's the point? The only thing that's actively exciting for me is Path to Glory, but that could've been a campaign book instead of a whole new edition. This is probably the most aggressive set of changes in an edition shift I've ever been a part of, and in the end I really don't see any improvements. The game isn't unplayable or anything, I'm going to try it out and see how it goes. I guess the one positive thing I can say is they've set a fairly solid foundation that could definitely be built on and improved. Maybe we'll see it start to get fleshed out with the GHB?

Edited June 14, 2021 by Grimrock

[JackStreicher]

So what changed about combat, battleshock and how to gain artefacts?

[Vaporlocke]

1 hour ago, BrotherTalarian said:

I don’t know, so far everything they’ve shown looks awesome. 
 

Can people who have gripes with the new rules elaborate as to why they don’t like them, or what makes them awful? 
 

Is it simply because it’s change and everyone is frustrated that they need to learn new ways of playing? Or do they genuinely think they’re poor rules because X/Y reason? 
 

Coherency seems to be the biggest gripe, it’s a non-issue in 40K. Also, having a single file models spread across to grab territory, deny zones, screen etc. Looks super lame aesthetically, and mechanically is meh, IMO, as it doesn’t feel very “realistic” or the intention of the game. 

Anyhow, I’m curious why those that are frustrated are frustrated. 
 

Cheers

Let me guess, you play armies that got boosted by the changes.

 

I'll give you a quick overview of what its like from one of the bottom of the barrel armies that just got demolished even further, Beasts of Chaos. 

The changes to coherency means that not only is one of our few viable strategies, speed bump screens as board control, got harder to pull off but now our already lackluster melee took a huge hit since all of our actual combat units (bestigor, bullgor, and the one dude in the universe that actually runs dragon ogres) are all on 32mm+ bases with 1" reach. 

We actually had good battalions that gave us one of our few advantages in controlling the first turn, and our ability to be marked and souped into other chaos armies is gone now too. Keep in mind this is a faction that has to fight tooth and nail for any little edge we can get just to not get blown out.

Smaller board sizes reduces our movement advantage, another kick while we're down. 

I'm still waiting to see how bad we get nailed in the GHB before even trying to come up with a new list, the loss of max discounts and the reinforcement rules aren't going to do me any favors.

So yeah, as a horde-based melee army general pardon me if I'm not all sunshine and roses about watching the rich get richer while I get a sewer tank dumped on my head. I'm sure we'll get an early army book written by the bin guy again guaranteeing we stay at the absolute bottom.

[Grimrock]

41 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

So what changed about combat, battleshock and how to gain artefacts?

Generally? Nothing. Combat still works pretty much the same as it did before. There are some extra clarifications in the Core Concepts section like you can only get one ability that triggers on a roll. There's a special section that breaks down Strike First and Strike Last and how they interact with eachother. I think the damage section is a bit nicer too but I don't think there were any changes in how it works. Battleshock is pretty much the same. The only change I noticed is they made a difference between slain models and models that flee. Artefacts are bundled into the Enhancements system now, but they haven't really changed. You still only get one that can go to any hero and if your sub allegiance specifies one then you have to take that first. 

Edit: there is one more big change to battleshock, but it's in the rules for commands. A command can only be issued once per phase, so you can't toss out multiple Inspiring Presences anymore.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Grimrock

[JackStreicher]

5 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Generally? Nothing. Combat still works pretty much the same as it did before. There are some extra clarifications in the Core Concepts section like you can only get one ability that triggers on a roll. There's a special section that breaks down Strike First and Strike Last and how they interact with eachother. I think the damage section is a bit nicer too but I don't think there were any changes in how it works. Battleshock is pretty much the same. The only change I noticed is they made a difference between slain models and models that flee. Artefacts are bundled into the Enhancements system now, but they haven't really changed. You still only get one that can go to any hero and if your sub allegiance specifies one then you have to take that first. 

What? So they incorporated 40K rules without the additional 40K rules that made them work in the first place?

 

Let me guess they truly added miscast which Nagash will suffer from while Teclis doesn‘t care?

[JackStreicher]

8 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Generally? Nothing. Combat still works pretty much the same as it did before. There are some extra clarifications in the Core Concepts section like you can only get one ability that triggers on a roll. There's a special section that breaks down Strike First and Strike Last and how they interact with eachother. I think the damage section is a bit nicer too but I don't think there were any changes in how it works. Battleshock is pretty much the same. The only change I noticed is they made a difference between slain models and models that flee. Artefacts are bundled into the Enhancements system now, but they haven't really changed. You still only get one that can go to any hero and if your sub allegiance specifies one then you have to take that first. 

What? So they incorporated 40K rules without the additional 40K rules that made them work in the first place?

 

Let me guess they truly added miscast which Nagash will suffer from while Teclis doesn‘t care?

[BrotherTalarian]

21 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

I won't repeat what @Ganigumo said about coherency as he summed that up very well. Tighter coherency makes it more difficult to move models without trays, it slows down piling in, and it makes it so fewer models can attack. It also has bizarre effects like how you can get more attacks with a 5 model unit than 6 (for example, a reinforced unit of Mighty Skullcrushers), so it might actually be desirable to pay for 6 models and just leave one model at home. I see absolutely no benefit to having coherency written in this way. Even conga lines won't go away as 25ml bases can still do them.  

I do have some other problems with the rules. A large part of them source from things they could have done to improve the game but chose not to. They didn't improve the rules on terrain, which is a massive missed opportunity. The rules in 40k are right there and hugely improve the gameplay experience, but they weren't ported over. They didn't port over the combat ranges for 40k either. They're a critical component with making the coherency work in 40k, but again they weren't used. They didn't fix the issue with low drops deciding first turn in matched play. It works with the roll off in the other two styles, why did they leave it busted in matched? Now players are just bound to chase after the Battle Regiment instead of creating interesting and diverse compositions. 

My other main complaint comes from the things they added to missions. The Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics sound like great ideas on paper, but in practice they're shockingly underdeveloped. Of the 3 Grand Strategies they provide in the book there is one that is totally situational and based on your opponent and their army (but you have to pick it before you see their army), one that is very difficult to achieve, and one that is mind-numbingly easy. Of the 6 Battle Tactics they provide, 4 are just some variant of 'pick an enemy unit and kill it', one is based on objective play, and one is to get near the middle of the table. These aren't incentives for creative tactical play that make the game more interesting or challenging. They're just basic things you should be doing anyway. I can only imagine that they'll add more of these to battletomes going forward (like they did with faction specific objectives in 40k), but the basic system could have been so so much better. Also I can hardly imagine an easier Grand Strategy than 'keep at least one battleline unit alive', so any faction based strategies would have to be shockingly trivial to warrant use. 

In the end I'm just not seeing anything that makes me go 'Wow, what a great change!'. Like I do think the rules for monsters and heroes are cool, but if they're just going to re-balance the cost for those units (ex. like the rumors say for Archaon) then I don't see the attraction. Sure you can do more cool things, but it's just more book keeping and more effort to remember just the right rule for just the right occasion. Mission tweaks are cool, but when the choices are so obvious and everyone can do them without thinking, then what's the point? The only thing that's actively exciting for me is Path to Glory, but that could've been a campaign book instead of a whole new edition. This is probably the most aggressive set of changes in an edition shift I've ever been a part of, and in the end I really don't see any improvements. The game isn't unplayable or anything, I'm going to try it out and see how it goes. I guess the one positive thing I can say is they've set a fairly solid foundation that could definitely be built on and improved. Maybe we'll see it start to get fleshed out with the GHB?

Good points. I see how coherency can certainly be a nuisance for several armies. I imagine the change in points (things seem to be going up?) and unit sizes (MSU) might change this.

I’m PUMPED for PtG! 

8 minutes ago, Vaporlocke said:

Let me guess, you play armies that got boosted by the changes.

 

I'll give you a quick overview of what its like from one of the bottom of the barrel armies that just got demolished even further, Beasts of Chaos. 

The changes to coherency means that not only is one of our few viable strategies, speed bump screens as board control, got harder to pull off but now our already lackluster melee took a huge hit since all of our actual combat units (bestigor, bullgor, and the one dude in the universe that actually runs dragon ogres) are all on 32mm+ bases with 1" reach. 

We actually had good battalions that gave us one of our few advantages in controlling the first turn, and our ability to be marked and souped into other chaos armies is gone now too. Keep in mind this is a faction that has to fight tooth and nail for any little edge we can get just to not get blown out.

Smaller board sizes reduces our movement advantage, another kick while we're down. 

I'm still waiting to see how bad we get nailed in the GHB before even trying to come up with a new list, the loss of max discounts and the reinforcement rules aren't going to do me any favors.

So yeah, as a horde-based melee army general pardon me if I'm not all sunshine and roses about watching the rich get richer while I get a sewer tank dumped on my head. I'm sure we'll get an early army book written by the bin guy again guaranteeing we stay at the absolute bottom.

I don’t think your passive aggressive tone is needed. I'm asking a simple question.

For the most part people complain without giving context, without knowing the full story, and without having tried the new system. Some don’t bother to think of new ways to play, or discover strategies. They just complain. 

I'm curious what people that dislike the new rules have to say, and why they're unhappy and create a discourse.

I play a random mix of WE/DE/Empire/Dwarves from fantasy, so CoS, and SBGL, primarily Bloodknights. With the new rules I’ve been taking a look at new list building and synergies, as I find that aspect fun. 
 

 

[Grimrock]

10 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

What? So they incorporated 40K rules without the additional 40K rules that made them work in the first place?

 

Let me guess they truly added miscast which Nagash will suffer from while Teclis doesn‘t care?

Yup, exactly my issue with combat ranges. And yeah, miscast is a thing. Roll a double 1 and you take d3 mortals and that wizard can't cast anymore that hero phase. Odds are low it'll have an impact for most casters, but with Nagash casting 8 spells a turn it'll probably happen way more often than you'd like. I mean Tactical Nuclear Nagash is still a thing (prime 8 arcane bolts and unload 9d3 mortal wounds on whoever is unfortunate enough to end up in combat with you), but you better hope you don't double 1 on the first spell. No way to reroll either which surprised me. I figured they would add a generic command ability that let a wizard or priest re-roll once in the hero phase but I guess not. They did add a pair of generic command traits for that but, you know, character model. Good times.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Grimrock

[Vaporlocke]

6 minutes ago, BrotherTalarian said:

 

I don’t think your passive aggressive tone is needed. I'm asking a simple question.

For the most part people complain without giving context, without knowing the full story, and without having tried the new system. Some don’t bother to think of new ways to play, or discover strategies. They just complain. 

 

 

As opposed to being super chipper while dismissing legitimate concerns of people? 

[JackStreicher]

Can someone give me the link to the rules review?

[GutrotSpume]

Wow they didn’t add 40K style rules for fighting in combat! So any unit that is minimum 10 models, or needs more than 5 to be effective in combat, on bigger than a 25mm base that only has a 1 inch reach is pretty rubbish now! What planet are GW on that they thought this was a good idea? 

Why is choosing who gets first turn still there? 

Why is battleshock unchanged when it never had much of an impact anyway?

I’m hoping there’s more to grand strategies and battle tactics in the GHB but these seem half baked and easy to score.

Edited June 14, 2021 by GutrotSpume