Jump to content

Scope of change for AoS 3.0


Recommended Posts

I had a very long and eventful day and it is possible I will be an inarticulate mess in covering my initial thoughts on many of these new rules, leaks and reveals. I apologize in advance for the lengthy post and often stream of consciousness styled musings. I will state that overall I agree that the changes feel quite drastic and I am both excited and nervous to see what each leak and article reveals. 🤔

Admittedly the changes do feel quite large and always with such changes there is a feeling of hesitancy and trepidation. However, I personally feel cautiously optimistic about almost everything, but it does loose the simplicity that made this game so new player friendly. It was a really fantastic way to introduce my hobby to friends and family many of whom were a little intimidated by past experiences with wargames. Yet, In a way I feel like I am getting back many of the aspects that made me love Warhammer Fantasy without many of the things that I think made that game utterly unwieldy at the best of times. I also have developed a small group of friends that are into the hobby so I feel less pressure of showing new people (although I will always prefer inclusive rulesets). I do think that GW is a little optimistic at how well the current tomes will translate to the new edition considering the breadth of changes but we shall see. Hopefully in play testing they prioritize the books that are least suited for this edition rather than simply go through them in order of which one has been the longest since it's last update (especially as that will likely still involve updating the oldest tomes first). 

The change to table sizes is a great thing in terms of living in a condo in a massive urban centre. It was really difficult to play having to rely on going to local game stores or the few friends that have room for such massive playing spaces. Now we are open to play at many of our homes which is a fantastic feeling. Even if dimensionally my table is a touch too narrow and slightly too long (I hope those dimensions balance out somewhat). The table size will have an effect on shooting which otherwise seems more or less the same.  Higher point costs is a good thing as I am looking to start a new order faction and do not want to create a major collection but it is also something that will change each year and likely trend downward. Hopefully due to the table size this will not be a huge downward trend... heck maybe I will be able to afford Lumineth or Fyreslayers if the points are high enough 😅 

I think tighter Unit Cohesion is actually a good thing and I like the more regimental troop arrangements. Visually and strategically I prefer this style than seeing a massive unit break rank and wrap around a blob which always seemed really weird in a loosely historical setting. I do feel the frustration for specific unit types and hope there is some clarification as keeping together units of ogres, trogoths and goregruntas will be a chore. This is one of the most controversial rules and for good reason but I am hopeful that it will have fun strategic implementations. But people much smarter than I am are a little worried, so I am probably missing the obvious. 

The Hero and Monster rules are a massive win for me. I think that in the epic saga of Gods and Beasts making them more central to the game will help make the paratextual and personal narratives feel more rich. The hero and monster abilities all seem really fun and I love that they have made the combination of monster and hero something truly desirable and suitably epic. Of course this will result in more precarious balance as heroes and monsters may become easily overpowered, so I hope that they will balance units with more hero and monster slaying skills. The command points and command abilities will potentially require more bookkeeping, but I think sound like an improvement to the current case of certain armies drowning in command points while others struggle to gain them at all. I also think the number of generic command abilities makes certain heroes own warscroll abilities feel a touch redundant. But I hope they keep this in mind when updating the battletomes.

I was frustrated about the unit size thing but only because I just finished my Slaves to Darkness army and my units sizes do not work perfectly with the new rules. I hate converting models but none of my friends are stickler's for WYSIWG so I can add the overflow of my 20 model shield unit into one of my 5 model dual weapon units. I will also use this as incentive to buy Khagra's Ravagers to give me two alternate Chaos Warriors incase they increase the unit size to 10 so they can replace the Standard Bearer and musician in a unit and I can merge the 5 model units into 10 and leave my Sword and shield unit untouched. I will also get two new heroes that I have wanted for a while.

Battalions were one of the things I most disliked in AOS they never felt particularly balanced and were often taken only to lower drop counts or to gain a command point. I think that this new system is applicable to most army compositions and the rewards for taking the battalions feel actually related to their battlefield role. I do think it is sad that certain battalions with narrative functions or important rules will vanish but I think some of these compositions and rules could be included as the basis of new army Subfactions. However, without the key limitations and the feeling that I have to buy certain units that do not interest me.

Turn order changes are nice, but I was never particularly against the priority roll off. However, giving more consideration for the roll is ideal as it makes the choice of aiming for a double turn less of a case of always purely benefiting the double turn. I am still not interested in purchasing endless spells but I much prefer what we have seen of the new rules than the older ones. I like the upgrades on the priests and as I run a number in both of my armies this will benefit many other units that always felt like lame wizards.

The new models are fantastic and some of the best I have seen for either of their respective lines and if this quality keeps up I am afraid of what will happen to my money. I feel like the lore is improving and the setting of Ghur and focus on Destruction are really exciting. We are also getting an expansion of the pantheon with the likes of Morathi and Kragnos while also getting a greater emphasis on mortal character perspectives. I do find the aesthetic of the new warscrolls pleasing but the icons for the battalions are a miss for me and I spent a lot of my academic career focusing on semiotics. But eventually I will grow accustomed to them and they do look cool I just hate using a key to understand things that could be simply written out.

I am still holding out hope for new and more involved terrain rules particularly for siege purposes and also for the much lauded but not truly rumoured idea of wandering beasts. I do think that monsters straight up destroying defensible terrain means that we will likely see some rules but less involved than I initially had hoped.

There are probably a host of other thoughts I will share at some point, but it has been a long day and I am exhausted. Writing out my thoughts and feelings on the update show a mixture of excitement and worry. I am hopeful about the new edition and I personally like the majority of changes but I can also see why others are concerned. I truly do emphasize as I have my own concerns, but I really hope people try out the rules before just tossing them aside. Also I look forward to chatting on here about the rules as we develop strategies and try and make sense of anything that is particularly vague opaque in terms of rules, wording and balance. 😁

And if the rules do suck then at least we'll always have Critters and Keys.

Edited by Neverchosen
  • Like 5
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doko said:

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.

If that is true then time to look forward to them joining the Dawn Crusade alliance and giving them Annihilator allies to turn the fiery tide. ;)

I'd personally like to buy extra Annihilators and for Fyreslayer allies hollow them out as lava pot golems in vein of the pot monsters from Elden Ring.

potboys.0.jpg

  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are overpushing big hero monsters, and it is gonna make the ones that are already good just way too good.

 

Also, as a KO player, the unit multiples gives me a bit of indigestion, and I can't imagine how it screws skaven players. Some armies (with, say, a solid lineup of big hero monsters and units that used to be in multiples of 3) are winning big, and some are losing big.

 

KO has no big heros or monsters. Or, ironically, artillery. And has an important unit that is in a multiple of 4. Also I think triumphs are going away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

I think they are overpushing big hero monsters, and it is gonna make the ones that are already good just way too good.

 

Also, as a KO player, the unit multiples gives me a bit of indigestion, and I can't imagine how it screws skaven players. Some armies (with, say, a solid lineup of big hero monsters and units that used to be in multiples of 3) are winning big, and some are losing big.

KO has no big heros or monsters. Or, ironically, artillery. And has an important unit that is in a multiple of 4. Also I think triumphs are going away.

KO has ballon boys in multiples of 3, and Thunderers in multiples of 5. What is in multiples of 4?

For me, KO are more damaged by liberal application of god and blending with religious fanatics than any core rules changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doko said:

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

Not a Fyreslayer player, but still hoping that you get a new AoS 3.0 battletome quickly to remedy this. No one wants another's army to be obsolete with a new edition. It's bad news for all the players.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

KO has ballon boys in multiples of 3, and Thunderers in multiples of 5. What is in multiples of 4?

For me, KO are more damaged by liberal application of god and blending with religious fanatics than any core rules changes.

They increase unit size 4 times

 

So 3 6 9 12 for balloons and 5 10 15 20 for thunderers. That's what I meant by multiple of 4 XD. It hurts thunderers especially to be stuck at a size of 10 to 15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, stratigo said:

They increase unit size 4 times

 

So 3 6 9 12 for balloons and 5 10 15 20 for thunderers. That's what I meant by multiple of 4 XD. It hurts thunderers especially to be stuck at a size of 10 to 15.

In better times, filling an Ironclad would be interesting, but with mw spam, that doesn't seem like a good plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

In better times, filling an Ironclad would be interesting, but with mw spam, that doesn't seem like a good plan.

I mean filling a clad with thunderers is super powerful in an alpha drop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stratigo said:

I mean filling a clad with thunderers is super powerful in an alpha drop

It was used before and we even had a metawatch about it:
 

Spoiler

Wjn8gJNMARQosyDf.jpgyKM5nVhKKEbtH7GB.jpg

But I'm glad that only Barak-Nar will be the only Subfaction wih 15 thunderers. The "only one CA for each unit" rule means that our hammers are going to be very restricted, and KO's don't have Monsters, powerful characters nor Mage/Priests to abuse all this shiny new 3.0 rules.

In other words, we need to exploit as much as we can Unleash Fury and All Out Attack (+1hit) and Barak-Nar is the only Barak can power-scale other Thunderer's by 50% more attacks/wounds.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours 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.

 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that certain armies and certain units will be exceptions to some of these rules. But having this is as a base for everything is great, becuase it provides the designers with greater lattutitude in terms of making each faction different. I wouldn't worry, I highly doubt GW are gonna to do anything which thematically and literally chnages the way armies designed as armies play and look on the table, by which I mean Skaven, Gobbos, Undead etc. Other armies, will I suspect be inched away from spamming their best units which is a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mcthew said:

Not a Fyreslayer player, but still hoping that you get a new AoS 3.0 battletome quickly to remedy this. No one wants another's army to be obsolete with a new edition. It's bad news for all the players.

Highly doubt GW want to make any of their armies obsolete on release of a new addition? Quite apart from the fact there are bucket loads of people at GW equally passionate about all of the factions, it makes literally no sense whatsover from a business perspective to squat armies with established player bases, lore and model ranges. Wouldnt worry. But yes, there might be a hickup or two in the transition. I suspect they will do a decent job tho. 

And just to say, whilst it might sound like I'm some sort of GW apologist, boot licker or fanboi that is very far from the truth. I am just about as salty as it gets with them and call them out all the time. This time however, I think they are making big bold steps and our game seems to have matured considerably. 

Edited by warhammernerd
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beliman said:

It was used before and we even had a metawatch about it:
 

  Reveal hidden contents

Wjn8gJNMARQosyDf.jpgyKM5nVhKKEbtH7GB.jpg

But I'm glad that only Barak-Nar will be the only Subfaction wih 15 thunderers. The "only one CA for each unit" rule means that our hammers are going to be very restricted, and KO's don't have Monsters, powerful characters nor Mage/Priests to abuse all this shiny new 3.0 rules.

In other words, we need to exploit as much as we can Unleash Fury and All Out Attack (+1hit) and Barak-Nar is the only Barak can power-scale other Thunderer's by 50% more attacks/wounds.

 

It means we need to give up everything else and triple down on alpha dropping because if everything else gets weaker, to stay competitive, you have to excise anything not suited. It's a problem with certain kinds of nerfs. Thunderers are weak without triumph support, and 10 are just gonna be subpar no matter what. As a unit they have a really bad return on investment without stacked buffing. Something of a common problem in AoS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, stratigo said:

It means we need to give up everything else and triple down on alpha dropping because if everything else gets weaker, to stay competitive, you have to excise anything not suited. It's a problem with certain kinds of nerfs. Thunderers are weak without triumph support, and 10 are just gonna be subpar no matter what. As a unit they have a really bad return on investment without stacked buffing. Something of a common problem in AoS.

I didn't want to say that.

Imho, we are strong, it's just that we don't have access to this new 3.0 tricks and rules. That's why we need to focus on our gameplay (that maybe it will be a bit diferent) and all new rules that can still help us All Out Attack, All Out Defense and Unleash Hell.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to know what is going on with triumphs since GW made the army entirely reliant on them, but, like, they're kind of a bad mechanic for the game the way they work now IMHO. GW did aetherquartz better, to mys salt, by making it consistent to rules in its own book.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because something becomes slightly less useful than before does not make it "obsolete" and the idea that entire armies become completely "invalidated" is, and always has been, a complete nonsense. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hollow said:

Just because something becomes slightly less useful than before does not make it "obsolete" and the idea that entire armies become completely "invalidated" is, and always has been, a complete nonsense. 

Or you balance an army around a mechanic that goes away and that army drops into trash tier. This is a problem KO has experienced before. Like specifically having rules the army was reliant on getting dramatically changed or outright deleted 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Or you balance an army around a mechanic that goes away and that army drops into trash tier. This is a problem KO has experienced before. Like specifically having rules the army was reliant on getting dramatically changed or outright deleted 

Oh, but if they just nail a god to the forehead of Kharadron, and glue a few Fyreslayers in their beard, I'm sure GW will consider it fixed.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lich King said:

image.jpeg.7745583dd9e64d429085e61097f1d0fc.jpeg

Tactical nuclear Nagash is going to be hilarious. Have him prep up 8 arcane bolts in the hero phase, move, charge, and then stomp for an average of 18 mortal wounds before combat begins. Kabooooooooom. Either that or just always keep 5 or so bolts on tap as a massive deterrent to charging him. Like who would charge him if they're going to eat 6d3 mortal wounds before they even get to attack? Then if they don't get used and your turn is next just dump them at the beginning of the battleshock phase to mess with a unit somewhere or kill a hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or are they changing this game to be more "warmachine-y", lots of little tiny units running around and very complex missions and hero and monsters "actions". It doesn't seem like a fantasy mass battle game anymore, especially with the points hikes

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Grimrock said:

Tactical nuclear Nagash is going to be hilarious. Have him prep up 8 arcane bolts in the hero phase, move, charge, and then stomp for an average of 18 mortal wounds before combat begins. Kabooooooooom. Either that or just always keep 5 or so bolts on tap as a massive deterrent to charging him. Like who would charge him if they're going to eat 6d3 mortal wounds before they even get to attack? Then if they don't get used and your turn is next just dump them at the beginning of the battleshock phase to mess with a unit somewhere or kill a hero.

Funny how even the change to arcane bolt hurts more armies that want to go into melee range 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cronotekk said:

It doesn't seem like a fantasy mass battle game anymore, especially with the points hikes

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cronotekk said:

Is it just me or are they changing this game to be more "warmachine-y", lots of little tiny units running around and very complex missions and hero and monsters "actions". It doesn't seem like a fantasy mass battle game anymore, especially with the points hikes

what point hikes wath have i missed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...