AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Christopher Rowe]

13 minutes ago, Furuzzolo said:

Yesterday we played a game with the new rules and we used the arcane bolt as ppl are talking it should  work (trigger during every phase). My monster with arcane bolt on ended up killing a bilepiper, a great unclean one and a unit of Plaguebearers flye-riders in one single turn...are we sure it work on every phase?? 😅  

THe spell seems to make more sense if you cast it and, before your next hero phase, you can ONCE unleash the effect.

Well, that's not how it works according to the rules, and I for one don't agree a universal spell with a casting value of 5 should work that way. "If successfully cast at the start of any 1 phase before your next hero phase..."

Edited June 28, 2021 by Christopher Rowe

[Fred1245]

16 hours ago, Andalf said:

It sounds a lot like Yuki just doesn’t like playing AoS?  Because the steps he plainly spit probabilities for are the only things you really do...  whether it’s casting a spell, or charging, or rolling for sides/first turn... 

It sounds to me like you've kind of missed the point.

In order to avoid a unit of 30 sentinels nuking you on the charge you have to have take multiple risks, invest multiple units, enough points to take the geminids, a spell cast, and possibly several other abilities.

In order to nuke a charging unit with 30 Sentinels you need: 1 CP.

The problem is that there is a disproportionate effort vs reward difference in the shooting players favor.

[Christopher Rowe]

10 minutes ago, Fred1245 said:

...enough points to take the geminids...

I have clearly missed a memo. Or at least an updated warscroll somewhere. How exactly do geminids counter this ability?

[PJetski]

10 minutes ago, Fred1245 said:

 

The problem is that there is a disproportionate effort vs reward difference in the shooting players favor.

Why do you consider this to be a problem? 

[Greybeard86]

5 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Why do you consider this to be a problem? 

How could it not be a problem? The counterplay is more uncertain and resource intensive than the move, making to move "imbalanced".

[SentinelGuy]

4 minutes ago, Christopher Rowe said:

I have clearly missed a memo. Or at least an updated warscroll somewhere. How exactly do geminids counter this ability?

Their ability changes in the new GHB. Now when they move over a unit it takes a mortal wound on a 2+ and cannot use CAs. It's actually a pretty handy spell for stopping CAs generally, and for drawing out dispels.

[SentinelGuy]

18 minutes ago, Fred1245 said:

It sounds to me like you've kind of missed the point.

In order to avoid a unit of 30 sentinels nuking you on the charge you have to have take multiple risks, invest multiple units, enough points to take the geminids, a spell cast, and possibly several other abilities.

In order to nuke a charging unit with 30 Sentinels you need: 1 CP.

The problem is that there is a disproportionate effort vs reward difference in the shooting players favor.

People are getting far too hung up on Unleash Hell when there are plenty of ways to counter it.

Take cheap chaff units and charge them in first.

Shoot their shooting units to reduce return fire.

Run MSU lists.

Take more/better wizards.

Take hordes and swarm them.

[PJetski]

6 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

How could it not be a problem? The counterplay is more uncertain and resource intensive than the move, making to move "imbalanced".

I did not suggest that it was or was not a problem; I asked why they consider it to be a problem. 

Should counterplay be easier and more reliable than the strategies they are countering? Would the game be better if unbinding and dispelling was as easy - or even easier - than casting the spells? Would it be more fun?

People are talking about Unleash Hell like the only unit in the game is Lumineth Sentinels.

[Frowny]

10 minutes ago, SentinelGuy said:

People are getting far too hung up on Unleash Hell when there are plenty of ways to counter it.

1) Taking cheap chaff to stop shooting units strength is a cost imposed on taking melee units and melee centered armies, which now might need an accompanying chaff unit. This is exactly the cost we are all worried about, now just codified by you into a direct point cost. It feels strange to say that to even the odds against  300 points of shooters, your 300 points of melee needs to take a further 80 points of chaff to take the unleash hell. It should be lopsidedly in favor of the melee unit or at least an even fight (300 pts vs 300 pts). 

2) Taking shooting units to counter shooting units is a problematic solution, but it sounds like you agree that shooting is quite strong.

3) See #1. This is the same point. Dividing up your 300 point melee unit into 3x100 point units still means you lose 100 points on the charge, where before you lost zero, with minimal changes to the shooting unit I would consider this a buff to shooting. 

4) Spending more points on better and more wizards to counter shooting units is exactly the same as #1. You are proposing a tax on armies that rely on melee.

5) This at least needs more explanation. Also losing a hundred points of a horde on the charge still seems to advantage the shooting unit, where before the horde would have lost nothing on the charge and would have much better odds of wiping the shooters out efficiently. 

 

 

That being said, overall I think the new rules are cool and do indeed give a lot more interaction in opposing turns, and I'm not entirely opposed to unleash hell. I think unleash hell will be interesting, although think the opportunity cost may be a little low. You will use it nearly 100% of the time with the relevant units, since CP's are relatively plentiful and fight twice abilities (or shoot twice abilities) are amazing. I think it will not be an interesting decision, since when appropriate, it is so obviously the best choice that it isn't a decision. 

I'm also super excited about redeploy since it also helps in melee vs melee matchups as you can keep a unit safe from a charge to guarantee a strike youreslf. Also gives reason to have flank attacks/ pincers, since then units can't as easily redeploy away.

I think the biggest fix will just be selective nerfing of a few shooting units points. balance is definitely doable to balance in the current ruleset. Mostly it is just things with very high output with either a good to hit or MW on 6's. Selective nerfs to Irondrakes, lumineth archers and DOK Stalkers would probably be fine as a place to start. I think my challenge is more that they got off with on-rate increases, rather than even bigger increases than other units given how much extra utility they got. The new missions also help them a lot. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

35 minutes ago, Frowny said:

I think the biggest fix will just be selective nerfing of a few shooting units points. balance is definitely doable to balance in the current ruleset. Mostly it is just things with very high output with either a good to hit or MW on 6's. Selective nerfs to Irondrakes, lumineth archers and DOK Stalkers would probably be fine as a place to start. I think my challenge is more that they got off with on-rate increases, rather than even bigger increases than other units given how much extra utility they got. The new missions also help them a lot. 

At this point, I seriously wonder if GW still has some kind of rabbit they can pull out of their hat in form of the new edition FAQ. Except for coherency and Unleash Hell, the rest of AoS seems very well designed. But coherency seems like a lot of squeeze for very little juice, and Unleash Hell seems to exacerbate the problems with a lot of players had with some already badly designed warscrolls.

If we see warscroll changes as part of the FAQ, those problems could all be adressed. Ogor Gluttons could get that 2" reach they need and Sentinels could get their Sunmetal Weapons limited to the shooting phase, that kind of thing. I am doubtful we will see this, but the two aspects of coherency and unleash hell seem just really out of whack with the rest of AoS 3's very solid and fun design.

[SentinelGuy]

49 minutes ago, Frowny said:

1) Taking cheap chaff to stop shooting units strength is a cost imposed on taking melee units and melee centered armies, which now might need an accompanying chaff unit. This is exactly the cost we are all worried about, now just codified by you into a direct point cost. It feels strange to say that to even the odds against  300 points of shooters, your 300 points of melee needs to take a further 80 points of chaff to take the unleash hell. It should be lopsidedly in favor of the melee unit or at least an even fight (300 pts vs 300 pts). 

2) Taking shooting units to counter shooting units is a problematic solution, but it sounds like you agree that shooting is quite strong.

3) See #1. This is the same point. Dividing up your 300 point melee unit into 3x100 point units still means you lose 100 points on the charge, where before you lost zero, with minimal changes to the shooting unit I would consider this a buff to shooting. 

4) Spending more points on better and more wizards to counter shooting units is exactly the same as #1. You are proposing a tax on armies that rely on melee.

5) This at least needs more explanation. Also losing a hundred points of a horde on the charge still seems to advantage the shooting unit, where before the horde would have lost nothing on the charge and would have much better odds of wiping the shooters out efficiently. 

 

 

That being said, overall I think the new rules are cool and do indeed give a lot more interaction in opposing turns, and I'm not entirely opposed to unleash hell. I think unleash hell will be interesting, although think the opportunity cost may be a little low. You will use it nearly 100% of the time with the relevant units, since CP's are relatively plentiful and fight twice abilities (or shoot twice abilities) are amazing. I think it will not be an interesting decision, since when appropriate, it is so obviously the best choice that it isn't a decision. 

I'm also super excited about redeploy since it also helps in melee vs melee matchups as you can keep a unit safe from a charge to guarantee a strike youreslf. Also gives reason to have flank attacks/ pincers, since then units can't as easily redeploy away.

I think the biggest fix will just be selective nerfing of a few shooting units points. balance is definitely doable to balance in the current ruleset. Mostly it is just things with very high output with either a good to hit or MW on 6's. Selective nerfs to Irondrakes, lumineth archers and DOK Stalkers would probably be fine as a place to start. I think my challenge is more that they got off with on-rate increases, rather than even bigger increases than other units given how much extra utility they got. The new missions also help them a lot. 

Having to take chaff or wizards is a tax that everybody pays, it's not solely a combat army issue.

I agree on changing specific units though. Lumineth archers should be a lot more expensive. Irondrakes should definitely not be battle line - I don't think they need a further points increase at the moment. I have never faced or used stalker so cannot comment on them.

[Neverchosen]

The longer I have been able to sit with the rules (still not functionally playing with them sadly) the more I am seeing both the pros and cons. I still overwhelming like the changes but I do still find it hard to digest the sheer amount of things and special rules occurring (neither a pro nor a con more of an issue with my own ability to adjust to some of these changes). However, my biggest gripe is also the most obnoxious possible nitpick which is I hate the unit designations in the Battalions. I wish there were appropriate icons for unit types such as cavalry, fliers and ranged units. There is the sad reality is that the line would clearly still need to be drawn somewhere and I love the freedom and variety of the current battalions.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Neverchosen

[Andalf]

Everybody keeps mentioning the units that weren’t fixed as though the changes do NOTHING to help mitigate the worst offenders.  IMO, I don’t think anybody can come out and say that’s true.  I acknowledge the fact that Unleash Hell exacerbates the specific issues with Sentinels, (I take personal exception against Stormfiends and they’ve been around since the start of AoS2 no?) but it is an in game mechanic that you need to learn how to play into.  You can’t play around these parts of the game and ignore them like you used to and just go about buff-star-death-maxing your own forces to the point it’s not even a strategy/battle tactics game but a dice off version of Digital Pocket Monsters.  I’m not saying “git-gud” please don’t go there, I’m just saying it’s been a part of the game since day one, and this set of rules does push the envelope closer to a good balance IMO.

I think what they’ve done most, in order to level this playing field, is spread the activations out across the army while trying to lower the amount of units brought to the table.  Not just this but with the battalions armies are going to really look alike build-wise in order to gain those inherent benefits.  There are a lot of 4-5 drop lists I’m seeing show up, 3-4 characters, rarely more than 3 choices outside of that and basic battle line options.  It’s good because I’ve noticed all of my worthwhile General/Wizard/Endless Spell combinations in heroes are around 450 points no matter the battle tome.  There’s just as much shooting as ever, but fewer units are worth chucking 30 damage into, and wasted damage is going to be something that really separates the good generals from the best ones.

Even via the coherency changes.  If I take a unit of 6 Ogor Gluttons and they all survive through the charge into combat, I then get my 3” pile in, slide some models so I can get all 6 in.  There are a ton of armies you can expect to lose the ogre to the return swing, before coherency kicks in.  Finally, and I really like how this plays on the table, the best generals are going to HAVE to know EXACTLY how many resources go into which one of their activations moving through each phase, or an ability won’t land or you’ll run out of the CP to do it.  Having 9 Gluttons in a unit isn’t a bad thing if it’s your goal to take every charge you can with it, soaking two units of Blood Knights on the charge or a double fighting IJ/FeC list is a requirement for some armies who can’t go toe to toe with them.  In theory, double reinforcing a batteline option is the list building counter to the OTT shooting that may still be out there, because the most aggressive shooting lists are either losing models to the new reinforcement rules on a per unit basis, or the buffs you’d stack on them outside of Unleash Hell don’t go as far so they might not represent the absolute most efficient use of points in those slots anymore (looking at you Raptors and Tzeentch Flamers).

 So now those bigger units are lasting longer into games and forcing more interactions between the players using them to settle the victory conditions rather than just whichever death star activates first/doesn’t fail its buffs.  AND it’s really up to the individual which ones come along for the ride because you can’t stick as many eggs in each basket anymore, and all of the new BT’s have shown that with the Wholly Within changes and plethora of synergies baked in to each army now, especially the sub factions.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Andalf

[Fred1245]

@Andalf You put forward the idea of every army being much more cookie-cutter as a positive thing. Generally it is not considered as such.

 

[Fred1245]

3 hours ago, Frowny said:

1) Taking cheap chaff to stop shooting units strength is a cost imposed on taking melee units and melee centered armies, which now might need an accompanying chaff unit. This is exactly the cost we are all worried about, now just codified by you into a direct point cost. It feels strange to say that to even the odds against  300 points of shooters, your 300 points of melee needs to take a further 80 points of chaff to take the unleash hell. It should be lopsidedly in favor of the melee unit or at least an even fight (300 pts vs 300 pts). 

2) Taking shooting units to counter shooting units is a problematic solution, but it sounds like you agree that shooting is quite strong.

3) See #1. This is the same point. Dividing up your 300 point melee unit into 3x100 point units still means you lose 100 points on the charge, where before you lost zero, with minimal changes to the shooting unit I would consider this a buff to shooting. 

4) Spending more points on better and more wizards to counter shooting units is exactly the same as #1. You are proposing a tax on armies that rely on melee.

5) This at least needs more explanation. Also losing a hundred points of a horde on the charge still seems to advantage the shooting unit, where before the horde would have lost nothing on the charge and would have much better odds of wiping the shooters out efficiently. 

 

 

That being said, overall I think the new rules are cool and do indeed give a lot more interaction in opposing turns, and I'm not entirely opposed to unleash hell. I think unleash hell will be interesting, although think the opportunity cost may be a little low. You will use it nearly 100% of the time with the relevant units, since CP's are relatively plentiful and fight twice abilities (or shoot twice abilities) are amazing. I think it will not be an interesting decision, since when appropriate, it is so obviously the best choice that it isn't a decision. 

I'm also super excited about redeploy since it also helps in melee vs melee matchups as you can keep a unit safe from a charge to guarantee a strike youreslf. Also gives reason to have flank attacks/ pincers, since then units can't as easily redeploy away.

I think the biggest fix will just be selective nerfing of a few shooting units points. balance is definitely doable to balance in the current ruleset. Mostly it is just things with very high output with either a good to hit or MW on 6's. Selective nerfs to Irondrakes, lumineth archers and DOK Stalkers would probably be fine as a place to start. I think my challenge is more that they got off with on-rate increases, rather than even bigger increases than other units given how much extra utility they got. The new missions also help them a lot. 

The problem is that those nerfs don't consider the armies as a whole.

Irondrakes are the only Cities of Sigmar unit I've heard mention of being powerful for months and DoK are 100% reliant on their stalkers and Morathi to compete since the new book. Also, Bloodstalkers already got a far above rate increase(the only major shooting unit that did) at 18%.

An army like lumineth has enough variety of viable units that eating a significant nerf to their best ones is pretty survivable, armies like DoK and CoS don't necessarily have the same luxury.

[Boar]

35 minutes ago, Andalf said:

Even via the coherency changes.  If I take a unit of 6 Ogor Gluttons and they all survive through the charge into combat, I then get my 3” pile in, slide some models so I can get all 6 in.  There are a ton of armies you can expect to lose the ogre to the return swing, before coherency kicks in.

I am not sure if you are saying that you can break coherency during pile-in. If so than no, you must end every move in coherency, and pile-in is move. If you are not saying that diregard this transmission.

[TimeToWaste85]

On 6/7/2021 at 6:10 PM, Fuxxx said:

I'm torn on the new rule. I really like blocks of models. My favorite systems are Kings of War and Warhammer 8th Edition. But the quote on quote encirclement you could to with AoS was quite nice and it's a bit sad to see it gone. Looks more like armies in formations though I think

I don't know if we're missing something. Might be that we get a rule for second ranks and such and than that's that
 

Round bases with rank and file? I think they’re gonna give us a month or two like this and then “introduce” the movement trays that LOTR uses. Meet the AoS 3.0 boss. Same as the WHFB boss (mind you, WHFB is what got me into miniatures in the first place and I have zero regrets). 

[Andalf]

You remove models outside of coherency at the end of each turn.  You can move outside of coherency all you like in pile ins as long as models are within .5” with each other, with the expectation that at the end of your turn you remove models outside of coherency when you have more than 5 models not within 2.  That’s how I’m reading the rule anyways.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Andalf

[Boar]

3 minutes ago, Andalf said:

You can move outside of coherency all you like in pile ins as long as models are within .5” with each other

No you absolutely cannot

[Andalf]

This is moving, I really think piling in is different.

My arguments are starting to sound like wishlisting though.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Andalf

[Christopher Rowe]

4 minutes ago, Andalf said:

This is moving, I really think piling in is different.

Yeah, that's what your argument really hinges on. I agree that it's clear the models wouldn't be removed until the end of the turn (well, I should say "a" turn), but the question is whether or not piling in is "movement." Since the rules for piling in (12.2) specifically say that you "make a pile-in move" I think you've got an interesting idea that the rules, unfortunately, don't support.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Christopher Rowe

[Boar]

So this (moves happen amogn others in combat phase)

and this (pile-in move)

 

4 minutes ago, Andalf said:

This is moving, I really think piling in is different.

There is no need for guessing, rules are out

[Andalf]

Thanks for the clarification, the instance hasn’t turned up in any of my games yet with my Stormcast but I suppose I was building the case for that specific unit which comes at 6 models only.  I was very much hoping this was the case for my Sequitors.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Andalf

[Christopher Rowe]

2 minutes ago, Andalf said:

Thanks for the clarification, the instance hasn’t turned up in any of my games yet with my Stormcast but I suppose I was building the case for that specific unit which comes at 6 models only.  I was very much hoping this was the case for my Sequitors.

It would be cool if it did work that way, kinda. I wonder if we're going to start seeing any tactical disruptions of coherency and thus self-sacrificing models in weird corner cases. From the other side, are there many/any units or spells or abilities ("enhancements") that allow your opponent to choose which models are removed when one must be removed?

[Boar]

1 minute ago, Christopher Rowe said:

From the other side, are there many/any units or spells or abilities ("enhancements") that allow your opponent to choose which models are removed when one must be removed?

THere are abilities etc. that target models. So Gargants, Troggboss, Mortek Catapult comes to mind