Scope of change for AoS 3.0

[zilberfrid]

On 6/13/2021 at 10:28 AM, Fellman said:

what point hikes wath have i missed?

I haven't seen the exact points, but it seems most armies had 10-20% points increases.

I think that's just resetting between editions.

Edit: nope, it's just random what points were changed to what.

Edited June 18, 2021 by zilberfrid

[BigNStinky]

Some RUMOUR SOURCES* have indicated most factions will increase by some amount of points. Similar to 40k back when it had its edition change.

 

Some I suspect will not change significantly (ex: SoB as they cannot radically alter points for such a limited force without cutting off ~20%? possible list configurations and many of the rest required CP purchases which I have also heard are on their way out of listbuilding).

Edited June 13, 2021 by BigNStinky
Changed teaser to rumours as it was not an official GW teaser

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

10 hours ago, BigNStinky said:

Some RUMOUR SOURCES* have indicated most factions will increase by some amount of points. Similar to 40k back when it had its edition change.

 

Some I suspect will not change significantly (ex: SoB as they cannot radically alter points for such a limited force without cutting off ~20%? possible list configurations and many of the rest required CP purchases which I have also heard are on their way out of listbuilding).

We also know that some factions still have the ability to run horde builds. Soulblight Gravelords are rumoured not to have received a point increase, for example.

Here's a (presumably) perfectly legal 3.0 Gravelords list that effortlessly puts 100+ bodies on the board:

Allegiance: Soulblight Gravelords
- Lineage: Vyrkos Dynasty
Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon (435)
Belladamma Volga, First of the Vyrkos (200)
Radukar the Beast (315) (Summons 10 Direwolves)
Necromancer (125)

30 x Deathrattle Skeletons (255)
10 x Dire Wolves (135)
20 x Deadwalker Zombies (115)
20 x Deadwalker Zombies (115)
20 x Grave Guard (280)

Total: 1975 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 0
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 150

 

[stratigo]

23 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

I haven't seen the exact points, but it seems most armies had 10-20% points increases.

I think that's just resetting between editions.

This is always smoke and mirrors though. They do this every edition and then walk it back immediately. It’s more for maintaining the current point cost than anything my else, every book comes out significantly under pointed and every bi yearly adjustment adjusts points down for the armies that have yet to get their new tome to offer some competition to the power creep of new books

si higher point costs will last, realistically, maybe 6 months, for those factions not getting updates yet

[Perturbato]

Hey, maybe it has been discussed before but in V2 we have to defense against mortal wounds (runeshields) and FNP against both mortal wounds and regular wounds ..

 

What is the ward save ? Is it the FNP against all or the defense against mortal wounds ?

[Cronotekk]

On 6/13/2021 at 2:25 AM, Tiger said:

That dynamic and immersion belonged to a different era and game. The WM taste is definitely present in AoS, I don't find it that surprising as WM had aspects that are appealing for the modern gamers.

What different era? Last month?

[Mcthew]

Despite a bit of griping, I do find that AoS 3.0 is changing my hobby behaviour, maybe for the best?

For example, now happy to buy Dominion, but won't be buying the GHB (I know that sounds odd, but bear with me here).

My recent navel gazing has made me appreciate what I like and invest in, for AoS. I don't play competitively, so for me it's the fun of the game, the models and the narrative. I'll get that, I think, from Dominion. The GHB21 looks like a waste of investment, if I'm honest. Aside from the battle plans, which I'm sure I can view elsewhere, the book is completely disposable and replaceable by the various free apps available from GW and the core book content. 

And I'm not happy with just playing in Ghur at the moment, so until they open other realms (and possibly a realm book) I'll ditch the realm rules entirely.

So no reason at all for me to buy the GHB for the first time since getting into AoS - Games Workshop has made this easier for me! 😜 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Mcthew

[Gauche]

Just to preface my thoughts I'll say where I'm coming from since everyone in this hobby has their own background that heavily informs their opinions. I play competitively, only, and have been into wargames for 17 years. My main game was 40K but I'm likely switching to AoS because I just think it's better. I did not play 2.0 but I've binged tons of Battle Reports and other content to get a tenuous grasp on how things were.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far I've found myself liking almost every change from 2.0 to 3.0. So far the only thing I don't like, which I haven't been able to confirm if it's true or false, is that in Matched Play the person with Turn 1 Priority MUST Take Turn 1. I've seen some reviews say that's present, others made no mention.

Everything else looks better. I like the options for Heroes and Monsters. Monsters should get some extra "oomph" and a chart of options is more fun than Impact Hits or Stomps. Heroes are all over the place in AoS so the chart for them also fills in gaps. Getting harassed by ranged? Try and heal up. Beatstick? Be more of one. No Wizards? You can Dispel anyways. Heroes feel very tool-boxy without seeming overpowered or gamey.

I like all the Magic changes. Miscasts are needed to prevent HEAVY Magic armies like LRL and DoT from just going off with impunity. I would have preferred it to do damage on a 2 or 12 but it's a start. The changes to Bolt and Shield are good, Bolt is way more interesting to use and Shield is more versatile because you don't have to already have a unit with good Saves to get mileage out of it. The other Core Spells are interesting, making Terrain into LoS Blocking is strong and FLY can help some armies get around screens when they ordinarily struggle to. The changes to Endless Spells, although we haven't seen Warscrolls yet, are pretty simple and they're both easier to use and easier to dispel.

Prayers are very interesting now with Miscasts of their own and some pretty powerful effects. The 6+ Ward has my eye on tarpits, I know everyone is in love with Curse but they balanced it well with a very short range.

The new Artifacts, Traits, etc. etc. all have a place and will likely see some use, which is good. Warscroll Battalions going away way a personal hope of mine and the Core Battalions are interesting without being too game altering. My fear is that the single drop one will still run the show, at least competitively, but there are other options and they'll be very attractive to more casual players as well.

 

I've seen a lot of people say 2.0 was their favorite rule set ever and I have no problem with personal preference. I just think 3.0 is fixing all the big issues from 2.0. No more conga-lining, no more holding multiple Objectives with one massive unit. Priority is way more of a choice now when you'd previously either take the double or just leave the status quo because you were winning and didn't want to risk giving up a double. Missions are more interesting, not only focusing on the Objectives but also Tactics and Strategies you tailor for that game. And no more Deathstars, units are more aggressively capped and you can't load them up with Command Abilities.

Will there be new problems that come up in 3.0? Of course! But that doesn't mean you don't fix the problems you know about and GW did a good job there. I only hope they don't drop the ball with the Army Books like 40K has with Codexes. Time will tell.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Gauche

[Fairbanks]

I need some time to warm up to this ruleset. There’s bolted-on rules and added bloat to what used to be a very clean and simple ruleset, which is my key issue with 40K’s move to 9th. Its also given me this bottomless pit feeling that if I wasn’t already invested in the product, or if I hadn’t come into the edition from playing all of 2.0 and 1.0 (even the pre-GHB nightmare), I’d have started reading the ruleset for the first time, put the book down, and found something else to play. It’s written in Lawyerese and it didn’t need to be.

There’s one big Negative that sticks: I really don’t like the new Cohesion Rules. They are too finicky and don’t accomplish very well what everyone thinks it was supposed to (removal of Congalines, when unit size reduction is what has ended the eyeblight). It’s a rule I know will be a big topic in future “That Guy” Conversations. And it’s funny I say all this, because I probably followed the rule to a tee subconsciously through 2.0 as I am a casual player.

I also await the inevitable breaking of the ruleset. Just something to add  Fffto the current chorus of “Wait, is that what they intended to do? That did the opposite.” Battalions especially seen like a good place to ruin the ideal army.

[Mcthew]

So as things are leaked, dribbling out from the GHB 21 like so much Nurgle goo, and that tourneys are likely to switch from 2k to 1.5k for the immediate future... Are we seeing a shift away from Matched Play and tournaments as a whole?

Given that in most tournaments you'll be unlikely to field all those major monsters you wanted to play with (SoB apart) as battleline and monster tax will have increased making those options non-viable, are we more likely to see open play or narrative as the preferred methods of play? 

As someone with a couple of god models, the idea of having them just sat on a shelf gathering dust because they've gone up 200 pts or so leaves me a little annoyed. Open play allows me to field these.

But then Matched Play are the rules that bind competitions together and encounters versus strangers. If that's your only means of playing AoS, and you don't have that local group of likeminded players, then doesn't that penalise your hobby too?

[whispersofblood]

11 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

So as things are leaked, dribbling out from the GHB 21 like so much Nurgle goo, and that tourneys are likely to switch from 2k to 1.5k for the immediate future... Are we seeing a shift away from Matched Play and tournaments as a whole?

Given that in most tournaments you'll be unlikely to field all those major monsters you wanted to play with (SoB apart) as battleline and monster tax will have increased making those options non-viable, are we more likely to see open play or narrative as the preferred methods of play? 

As someone with a couple of god models, the idea of having them just sat on a shelf gathering dust because they've gone up 200 pts or so leaves me a little annoyed. Open play allows me to field these.

But then Matched Play are the rules that bind competitions together and encounters versus strangers. If that's your only means of playing AoS, and you don't have that local group of likeminded players, then doesn't that penalise your hobby too?

There are a lot of assumptions built into this that I think you'd need to explain before you got a satisfactory response. 

Why are tournaments moving to a lower points total?

The Gods( and demi-gods) are all for the most part stronger. They reasonably dominate your army build now however so your army is much smaller. They will look a lot more like DoT Archaon builds. But, that army was destroying all comers at the end of the edition.

In the matched play battle pack monsters are intrigual to the game. They score more points but also killing them gives your opponent more points. 

Most battleline units compare decently against each other. And, you can make interesting armies with battleline-if units with characters and sub-factions which opens up more playstyles and army builds. 

[stratigo]

tournies are doing no such thing.