AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[jhamslam]

4 hours ago, PJetski said:

You don't need to kill a Bastiladon with mortal wounds, you just needed to reduce it to its first bracket (3+ wounds) to change the save to 2+ and make it Rendable.

Vince mentioned on stream that that doesnt work anymore.

 

Dice rolls can go below zero now in the new Core Rules. So bastiladon no longer unrendable 

[PJetski]

1 hour ago, jhamslam said:

Vince mentioned on stream that that doesnt work anymore.

 

Dice rolls can go below zero now in the new Core Rules. So bastiladon no longer unrendable 

I know, that's why I said "needed" (past tense)

[Fairbanks]

3 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

If someone makes a compilation of all point changes, please link it to me, I would be quite grateful. It would be interesting.

If it’s like the other points releases, there will be a mark next to the entry to denote there has been a change (if rumo(u)rs are true, likely up.

1 hour ago, CaptainSoup said:

 

It appears to me that they costed the "centerpieces" pretty highly. Why not encourage low points cost hordes AND large centerpiece models? Seems pretty dumb of GW to not do both for even greater profits.

That is of course, the reason they did all this in the first place was for the sake of balance and improving the game, and that if the game is good then people will buy regardless...

But naaah that can't be it, GW must be the greedy corporation that only cares a
bout selling models. So corrupt! 😂

 

I remember a lot of people complaining how starting in 7th Ed Fantasy “GW were trying to make hordes better to sell more models, but the game is better at lower model count.”

Should we be complaining when they finally took our advice?

[Zeblasky]

1 hour ago, Fairbanks said:

I remember a lot of people complaining how starting in 7th Ed Fantasy “GW were trying to make hordes better to sell more models, but the game is better at lower model count.”

Should we be complaining when they finally took our advice?

You can't remind people of such things during sacred period of new edition release rants, that's illegal!

[Coyote]

1 hour ago, Fairbanks said:

If it’s like the other points releases, there will be a mark next to the entry to denote there has been a change (if rumo(u)rs are true, likely up.

I remember a lot of people complaining how starting in 7th Ed Fantasy “GW were trying to make hordes better to sell more models, but the game is better at lower model count.”

Should we be complaining when they finally took our advice?

6th Ed best ed

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, CaptainSoup said:

If GW wanted money, they wouldn't have nerfed horde armies like they did lol. 

Nah. Just like Nagash, they already grabbed that cash. By nerfing now, after all those sales, Matched Play players are left with a points gap in their armies (models they purchased but will no longer be using) that must be filled with new purchases. 

More money!

[Zeblasky]

Still though, guys, while we have enough info to start panicking, there are 2 things still missing - 3.0 warscrolls and potential day 1 FAQ. If warscrolls are largely unchanged or FAQ won't happen, then yes, there are some serious problems ahead of us. I am however very interested to see warscroll book as of now, because due to a few very weird point changes (Sorceress on Dragon just can't be more expensive than Dreadlord, it makes zero sence!) I feel that some warscroll changes must have happened. Otherwise it would make no sence at all.

[CaptainSoup]

18 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Nah. Just like Nagash, they already grabbed that cash. By nerfing now, after all those sales, Matched Play players are left with a points gap in their armies (models they purchased but will no longer be using) that must be filled with new purchases. 

More money!

Then why keep the model already sold in stock? You're not making the money you were wanting to make before with it. It would be more cost effective to outright stop making the model.

 

The reality is, you're right to an extent. GW makes money on their models. They also make an avalanche of cash on books, keeping things fun in their games (as long as it's popular) and now keeping up with their broader community of customers that enjoy their games.

It's always fun to poke holes in this conspiratorial idea that GW is twirling their own mustaches while they conspire to sell models and only models and nothing else when, if you take a moment and look at the here and now, that the reality is way more nuanced than that. Now and days GW has their finger on the pulse of their community and it's helping pay them dividends in the market. Sure they're not perfect, but it's not the early 2000s anymore. Tom Kirby is gone, he can't hurt you anymore...

[Joseph Mackay]

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

$

Then why make him unique in the first place?

[SentinelGuy]

4 hours ago, Coyote said:

6th Ed best ed

I second that

[novakai]

3 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

Still though, guys, while we have enough info to start panicking, there are 2 things still missing - 3.0 warscrolls and potential day 1 FAQ. If warscrolls are largely unchanged or FAQ won't happen, then yes, there are some serious problems ahead of us. I am however very interested to see warscroll book as of now, because due to a few very weird point changes (Sorceress on Dragon just can't be more expensive than Dreadlord, it makes zero sence!) I feel that some warscroll changes must have happened. Otherwise it would make no sence at all.

FAQ maybe but i don't know where you getting the idea that a warscroll book happening, traditionally GW don't really make sweeping changes to warscrolls unless it a Battletome update for an army.

i can see FAQ reworded some thing so they can work in 3.0 like changing a +1 to hit or save ability to be modify the characteristic as to circumvent the stacking cap but not anything major

[Sagittarii Orientalis]

I am very frustrated to know that there is a modified version of Total Commitment(banning reserves) among the new handbook battleplans.

Total Commitment itself was an inequitable penalty against factions with moderate power(at best) such as Stormcasts and nighthaunt. Since the launch of AoS 2.0, I never understood the addition of hideously designed mission. The mission itself not only leave the worst offenders of the meta at the time unscathed, but also penalise rather underwhelming factions instead.

Had there been battleplans penalising factions with strong magic, abilities letting a unit fight twice, etc., the battleplans might have looked more balanced.

 

P.S.

I also find it hilarious that the rules designers thought putting units in reserve was too powerful to warrant a ban, but teleportation abilities like Seraphon's or Kharadron's are not. Those abilities are not limited to once-per-battle, and provide far more mobility compared to regular reserve rules. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Sagittarii Orientalis

[Dracan]

you still get the +1 if you have +2 and they have -1.

Another thing i was wondering is the few rules that directly state + or - 2 do they still work?

Something like Plague of flies for Nurgle.

[Zeblasky]

3 hours ago, novakai said:

FAQ maybe but i don't know where you getting the idea that a warscroll book happening, traditionally GW don't really make sweeping changes to warscrolls unless it a Battletome update for an army.

Because there's literally a physical warscroll book for all races in 3.0 release.

[Acrozatarim]

16 minutes ago, Zeblasky said:

Because there's literally a physical warscroll book for all races in 3.0 release.

Wait, what? I hadn't noticed any announcement of a book that has all the warscrolls for 3.0 in one place.

[Dongilles]

20 minutes ago, Zeblasky said:

Because there's literally a physical warscroll book for all races in 3.0 release.

?? this is something I have not heard!

 

[Fred1245]

23 minutes ago, Zeblasky said:

Because there's literally a physical warscroll book for all races in 3.0 release.

Links or it didn't happen. I've seen nothing to suggest anything but the endless spells are getting updated warscrolls.

[sandlemad]

Yeah, where's this coming from? The GHB preview explicitly lists all the 'legal' books (see here: https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/5582) and there's no mention of a warscroll book, just the core book, GHB, BR books, and battletomes.

Doesn't sound particularly plausible, hard to imagine GW would just invalidate everything, including recent '3.0 ready' tomes. Are you sure this isn't reverb from someone misinterpreting the 'Pitched Battle Profiles' book that comes with the main GHB?

[Zeblasky]

An damn, that's my bad, guys. I've read about "The Pitched Battle Profiles" and for some reason thought it would be a book with new warscrolls, so was keep expecting it to show up, but it was just the points book. Gotta check my facts twice from now on. Sooo, yea, the only hope now is a big day 1 FAQ for all.

[Phasteon]

3 hours ago, Dracan said:

you still get the +1 if you have +2 and they have -1.

Another thing i was wondering is the few rules that directly state + or - 2 do they still work?

Something like Plague of flies for Nurgle.

New RAW it would be -2 (to cancel out +1) but no more than -1 in total. 

[John Edwards]

1 hour ago, sandlemad said:

Yeah, where's this coming from? The GHB preview explicitly lists all the 'legal' books (see here: https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/5582) and there's no mention of a warscroll book, just the core book, GHB, BR books, and battletomes.

Any confirmation on what "single" means in the profiles? I'm assuming it means you can only have one of this unit type in your army in matched play.

[PrimeElectrid]

Let’s start a movement to get all TOs to ban Tooth and Nail (aka Total Commitment v2) from all tournament packs. Because it still sucks that one battleplan arbitrarily switches off one armies’ allegiance ability. Who’s with me?

Edited June 18, 2021 by PrimeElectrid

[sandlemad]

That's kind of the unfortunate thing with any early FAQ. There's glaring things we can hope it addresses (e.g. what's up with OBR and command abilities?) but barring another set of point adjustments or outright warscroll rewrites, which seem pretty unlikely, it's not going to do anything that will meaningfully help Slaanesh or address any of the other bizarre and seemingly senseless changes.

[Sagittarii Orientalis]

24 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Let’s start a movement to get all TOs to ban Tooth and Nail (aka Total Commitment v2) from all tournament packs. Because it still sucks that one battleplan arbitrarily switches off one armies’ allegiance ability. Who’s with me?

As far as I know, most of the tournaments did not include Total Commitment in their mission packs for balancing problems. I am not too worried about tournies in that regard.

I think the real problem lies in non-tournament pickup games.

Granted, the chance of getting Total Commitment/Tooth and Nail might be low. But it is nevertheless frustrating to prepare for a mission that heavily penalise factions which do not even overperform. Especially if you are playing Stormcasts or Nighthaunt.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Sagittarii Orientalis

[Arzalyn]

25 minutes ago, John Edwards said:

Any confirmation on what "single" means in the profiles? I'm assuming it means you can only have one of this unit type in your army in matched play.

It means you can't reinforce that unit. Unique is the one that limits how many of that unit you can have.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Arzalyn