Scope of change for AoS 3.0

[AaronWilson]

With a lot of leaks coming through, I'm blown away by just how much will be changing with the new game. 

- Command Points completely revamped, a lot more involvement with their use 

- Completely new scoring system for scenarios, moving to a system a lot more like 40k for scoring

- Reinforcement points meaning you will see a LOT of minimum size units, and max size units will be 1 per army. 

- New board size (thought this was given).

AoS 3 is looking like to a completely new game in terms of army construction, what armies will look like on the table, how they will play with all the new CA interactions and how we play the scenarios due to new scoring.

I wasn't expecting such drastic changes, what are peoples thoughts? 

Edited June 11, 2021 by AaronWilson

[Acrozatarim]

The rumoured points costs for Dominion units also lend credence to the suggestion we are gonna see an across-the-board increase in points, which will also have a big impact.

[RuneBrush]

I'm pretty surprised by the scale of changes in truth.  I was expecting AoS3 as more as really good polish.

Cons wise (let's get the grumpy bit out the way first), I worry that changes as big as these will make people think we're going to see this type of massive change every 3 years.  With the information we currently have, it does seem that the game is going to be significantly different to AoS2 (which got cut down in it's prime by a pandemic).  When you invest a big chunk of change into an army and however many hours painting it up, do you want to take the risk that with a new ruleset your force could be invalidated pretty much overnight. 

I also worry that we're getting too many rules.  One of the joys of AoS was that it has a pretty low entry level, the fact that a "young-un" can pick up the rules and understand them was a great selling point.  Moving over to something that almost feels like a legal / quality assurance document though great for adults in a competitive environment, could well be a turn off for people trying to get into the game (disclaimer - I've not read the rulebook, this is me worrying based purely on what I've seen on WarCom)

Pro wise, the biggest for me is that it feels like it should speed games up.  Although I'm a little concerned about the sheer number of new additions and things to remember in each and every phase, you should be able to tailor an army around your own preferred playstyle and have less models on the tabletop to worry about.  I'm also liking that we're going to see less massive blocks of models being fielded (sorry, I know some people prefer this!)

I'm also loving how monsters and heroes should also have more impact.  Part of me says that this really needed to be done with warscrolls, but having that small number of abilities for them to have, should give them a lot more presence in games.

 

[Mcthew]

53 minutes ago, Acrozatarim said:

The rumoured points costs for Dominion units also lend credence to the suggestion we are gonna see an across-the-board increase in points, which will also have a big impact.

They're not massive increases judging by the points costs in arguably the first AoS 3.0 battletome, Soulblight (caveat that with the fact this might change too as GW are notorious for getting these things wrong from the off or a badly joined up). I don't even think it will be points increases that causes problems, more the restrictions now on what you can or can't take.

Older players will have experienced this before. New players will need to decide if they want to accept these restrictions on their previous investment or not. I suspect this might push players towards Narrative more. Not a bad thing really. After all, even GW have suggested players take control of the rules which is why Narrative exists.

Matched play is for tournaments and for playing games with strangers; it's a set of common rules you both sign up to from the beginning of playing. If you don't like those rules, you play a Narrative game instead (or something else).

And how many of us play against strangers or in tournaments on a regular basis? Less than you would think.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Mcthew

[warhammernerd]

This is the 11th edition of Hammer I’ve played. These changes, whilst big, seem pretty manageable and will I suspect make for a far better, more rounded, elegant and strategic game. I’m all in.

 

Whenever things seem to be getting rough in Hammerland, I look to Nigel Stillman's (a former Gdub legend) time immemorial wisdom.

Edited June 12, 2021 by warhammernerd

[Beliman]

38 minutes ago, warhammernerd said:

This is the 11th edition of Hammer I’ve played. These changes, whilst big, seem pretty manageable and will I suspect make for a far better, more rounded, elegant and strategic game. I’m all in.

Completely agree. All this "layers" of rules are more about new choises that each player will be using than anything. We can even play without them, but after 2 or 3 games, pretty sure that they are going to be the juicy part of the whole game:

• If my big hammer unit charge, I want to use mythic shield on them to handle their Unleash Fury? Or maybe I will use my 2 chickens to absorb Unleash Fury and just use Smite to take down some shooting models (because they are less models for each unit than before)?
• My 3+saves boys are attacking the enemy, but I already have more models on this objective... maybe I don't need to give them another +1 to hit that will only kill one or two models... Instead, I give them that +1save to secure the objective.
• My 1D3 mortal wounds on charge units are far away from the enemy, but I think that I can move 1D6" in the enemy move phase to start my own phase with options to flank them and pass next/over their chaff. Take that Unleash Hell!
• I need a medic!!! let's move my Lifeswarm to my big boyz! Wait, I've got lucky with Rally!! Awesome!!
• Oh ******, my 3 models with 4+saves are charged...by a monster... with -3 rend... my bad, can't give them +1save and I didn't buff them in my Hero phase... it will hurt!!

You get the point. All this questions are fun to answer and they explain alot about your gameplay.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Beliman
Grammar

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 hours ago, Mcthew said:

They're not massive increases judging by the points costs in arguably the first AoS 3.0 battletome, Soulblight (caveat that with the fact this might change too as GW are notorious for getting these things wrong from the off or a badly joined up). I don't even think it will be points increases that causes problems, more the restrictions now on what you can or can't take.

Gravelords is an interesting case. At the time it was released, we looked at the tome as receiving mechanical nerfs from Legions of Nagash, but getting hit with points in creases at the same time. But what if those mechanical nerfs actually came with point drops across the board, and all the increases came from the planned across-the-board point increase for AoS 3?

It might be that Gravelords is a special case: Overall, points might rise and army size might decrease in AoS 3, but Gravelords could be intended as an especially hordy army, which is why army compositon still feels a lot like in AoS 2.

2 hours ago, warhammernerd said:

This is the 11th edition of Hammer I’ve played. These changes, whilst big, seem pretty manageable and will I suspect make for a far better, more rounded, elegant and strategic game. I’m all in.

 

Whenever things seem to be getting rough in Hammerland, I look to Nigel Stillman’s a former Gdub legend and his time immemorial wisdom.

I mean, I'm not going to judge this man's opinion on really making an army your own, but THREE coats of gloss varnish? Is your army narrative that you got attacked by giant slugs before battle and are all covered in slime now?

[RuneBrush]

2 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I mean, I'm not going to judge this man's opinion on really making an army your own, but THREE coats of gloss varnish? Is your army narrative that you got attacked by giant slugs before battle and are all covered in slime now?

Lol, don't forget this was written in the days where almost everything was metal - just needed to look at a model and it'd chip 🤣

[Greybeard86]

14 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Lol, don't forget this was written in the days where almost everything was metal - just needed to look at a model and it'd chip 🤣

Pain, just pain. I am painting some old models and they chip at the painting table. How? What...?

[MitGas]

I expected fewer changes to the core rules personally as I thought the basics were in a good place - but I'll wait until I get a proper read of all of them before I form a proper opinion. I'm optimistic although so far I don't see how people's biggest wishes (like shooting being made weaker) got addressed and some of the new warscrolls seem really strong which could be very problematic if some of the older/weaker armies don't get updated ones ASAP. But well, those are just first quick thoughts, it's too early to tell. I'm too lazy to theoryhammer at the moment. 😅

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

The newest article has clarified what "battle packs" are. Apparently, they are suites of rules you agree to use. I think this kind of thing is nice, it gives players an easy way to decide how complex they want their games to be. I imagine most people will still want to play at full complexity eventually, but it's nice that the option is there.

I like that this is in the rule book, because it makes the idea that you can pick and choose your rules "official". You can always do this, of course, but having it as an explicit option in the book will make people consider the idea when they might not have otherwise.

[tripchimeras]

Honestly think a lot of these changes end up being a bit more subtle then they first appear.  Reinforcements in particular doesn't effect nearly as many armies as it first feels like it would.  Aside from things like 3x40 skink spam and poor fyreslayers (seriously I have so much empathy for the 20 people who play them, because they are so screwed) most armies are going to have at most minor adjustments for this rule.  I do think there will be a lot of adjustments, but in the grand scheme of things this isn't like going from 7th edition to 8th or from 8th to AoS haha.  Honestly feels like a closer comp to 6th to 7th, maybe just feels that way to me because going from ranks of 4 to 5 feels pretty similar to the coherence change, in that it really doesn't change THAT much but it feels very strange. 

This feels pretty moderate to me overall.  I just think because AoS has a lot more players who haven't gone through this before that its going to cause a ton of adjustment.

Edited June 11, 2021 by tripchimeras

[Doko]

7 hours ago, Acrozatarim said:

The rumoured points costs for Dominion units also lend credence to the suggestion we are gonna see an across-the-board increase in points, which will also have a big impact.

Yes,these points must be wrong or it is a joke,these units must cost around 1k,the supposed almost 1400 points are as 40% overcosted.

I dont know if i prefer that my new stormcast  gonna be useless with these points or that every other army get the same 40% increase doing all the armys small

[Skreech Verminking]

Well I currently I’m a bit split between being happy or very upset.

as a skaven player I really would like to keep that horde feeling, well hordy, especially when our allegiance really wants us to have at least 40 models.

Now I’m not saying that skaven should be able to field 5x 40 or more units, but as it is currently with unit sizes, Stormvermin, plague monks, and giant rats are currently well in 10s available.

Those units will never, ever see play at all time, should they stay at that size.

Stormvermins would automatically loose their allegiance horde bonus, only being able to be taken in 30s plague monks, can be considered literally useless at size of 20 and loosing every kind of bonus as soon as they loose a model.

now on the other hand, if the min. Size of stormvermin, plague monks and so on, went up to 20 models, this could be a very interesting choice. The skaven would still keep the horde function, yet are a bit restrictive on the all out on hordes.

 

 

[Darkhan]

16 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Well I currently I’m a bit split between being happy or very upset.

as a skaven player I really would like to keep that horde feeling, well hordy, especially when our allegiance really wants us to have at least 40 models.

Now I’m not saying that skaven should be able to field 5x 40 or more units, but as it is currently with unit sizes, Stormvermin, plague monks, and giant rats are currently well in 10s available.

Those units will never, ever see play at all time, should they stay at that size.

Stormvermins would automatically loose their allegiance horde bonus, only being able to be taken in 30s plague monks, can be considered literally useless at size of 20 and loosing every kind of bonus as soon as they loose a model.

now on the other hand, if the min. Size of stormvermin, plague monks and so on, went up to 20 models, this could be a very interesting choice. The skaven would still keep the horde function, yet are a bit restrictive on the all out on hordes.

 

 

60 unit clanrats I say!

[Skreech Verminking]

15 minutes ago, Darkhan said:

60 unit clanrats I say!

Sounds fair to me.

although with all of those horde spells around, it can definitely hurt loosing halve of them

Edited June 11, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Lord Krungharr]

1 hour ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Well I currently I’m a bit split between being happy or very upset.

as a skaven player I really would like to keep that horde feeling, well hordy, especially when our allegiance really wants us to have at least 40 models.

Now I’m not saying that skaven should be able to field 5x 40 or more units, but as it is currently with unit sizes, Stormvermin, plague monks, and giant rats are currently well in 10s available.

Those units will never, ever see play at all time, should they stay at that size.

Stormvermins would automatically loose their allegiance horde bonus, only being able to be taken in 30s plague monks, can be considered literally useless at size of 20 and loosing every kind of bonus as soon as they loose a model.

now on the other hand, if the min. Size of stormvermin, plague monks and so on, went up to 20 models, this could be a very interesting choice. The skaven would still keep the horde function, yet are a bit restrictive on the all out on hordes.

 

 

No worries, we'll all have to buy new updated Battletomes within the next year probably

 

[Angela]

6 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

The newest article has clarified what "battle packs" are. Apparently, they are suites of rules you agree to use. I think this kind of thing is nice, it gives players an easy way to decide how complex they want their games to be. I imagine most people will still want to play at full complexity eventually, but it's nice that the option is there.

I like that this is in the rule book, because it makes the idea that you can pick and choose your rules "official". You can always do this, of course, but having it as an explicit option in the book will make people consider the idea when they might not have otherwise.

I am really hoping that there is a battlepack for casual matched play or what you non-celiacs call beer and pretzel gaming.  I don't think I'm ever going to a tournament and in my group we've never had trouble deciding if we are taking "mean" lists or fun lists or monster-mash lists or any other type of list we'd like to play.

[Sunshine]

I am also surprised by the amount of changes but I will wait and see how things pan out. One thing I am not keen on is bloating the rules.

[Angela]

35 minutes ago, Sunshine said:

I am also surprised by the amount of changes but I will wait and see how things pan out. One thing I am not keen on is bloating the rules.

Teaching someone AOS in the future is going to be like teaching some one to play Fizzbin!

 

[Baron Klatz]

Tbf, AoS 2.9 was a lot like that too with how much the battletomes added on with rule layers. That's why I just used the core rules as a basic and even AoS1 to help newbies into it.

That is something I'm appreciating about AoS 3.0 (besides feeling like a walk around to AoS1's skirmish and Age of Hope vibes) is instead of the rules being scattered through multiple books to where the free download felt like a chunk of a bigger machine ripped out with incomplete stuff they're just putting them all in the Core Rules which is giving a feel of bloat but we're still free to pick and choose how much we use for a starter game like always and indeed the battle packs are even encouraging this.

I do wonder if the download rules will be easier to chew though, AoS2 looked like it was gonna cram in realmscape stuff and a battleplan but that was all left in the rule books so the free rules were just the basics. I expect a similar case here(both altruistically for a lower barrier entry and cynically that the premium version of the core rules is paylocked in the corebook.)

All in all I'm liking the more skirmish balance and the DnD 5th edition rules clarifications to keep things clear. If they can keep the core rules compact enough and offer some tips to help newbies into the game with Open Play casual rules then AoS can be in a great position to go even stronger.

6 hours ago, tripchimeras said:

and poor fyreslayers (seriously I have so much empathy for the 20 people who play them, because they are so screwed)

Haha, i've seen the opposite with their players on discord & reddit and indeed more people looking to jump into them now. AoS3's stronger monsters, heroes and fewer troops works to their strengths and fixes their biggest flaw of needing too much infantry that put people off.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

30 minutes ago, Baron Klatz said:

7 hours ago, tripchimeras said:

and poor fyreslayers (seriously I have so much empathy for the 20 people who play them, because they are so screwed)

Haha, i've seen the opposite with their players on discord & reddit and indeed more people looking to jump into them now. AoS3's stronger monsters, heroes and fewer troops works to their strengths and fixes their biggest flaw of needing too much infantry that put people off.

As player #19… I was running Vorstarg and while I may miss Lords think it makes my list (depending on points) a little more flexible by making my two Magmas a little more potent.

[zilberfrid]

AoS 3 seems to devolve fully to just a bunch of sects. Hate that.

Like removal of batallions, hate spamming more mortal wounds.

Despise the rumour of putting dwarves in the blender.

There is a chance there is some light in the edition, but the only good things I can currently see have to do with models (less ugly Stormcast, good looking Orcs)

Edited June 11, 2021 by zilberfrid

[Skreech Verminking]

51 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

There is a chance there is some light in the edition, but the only good things I can currently see have to do with models (less ugly Stormcast, good looking Orcs)

Meh, they look just barely alright.

After all they aren’t rats

Edited June 11, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Doko]

Im sorry but myself i am fyreslayer player,and in a fyreslayer group one guy said that he was in the playtests of the edition and that he sorry for us because fyreslayers......i say in his words........they are in a very VERY low tier in the testing that they did.

 

I really didnt need hear it,i knew that loose attack twice,smaller units,loose discount for max unit,etc was going to delete us