NinthMusketeer

I don't think anyone wants 40k levels of rend. But AoS has more units that deal MWs than units with rend -2 or better and that is completely absurd. IMO, mortal wounds should not be dealt on the hit roll except for very niche cases. It allows the unit to skip rolling to wound and armor saves, which is too much. I would flat-out eratta all abilities that currently deal MWs on the hit roll to instead wound automatically. Make it so MWs from attacks are only triggering on the wound roll. Skipping one step of the attack sequence is ok, skipping two is not.

The opinion I have found to be in the overwhelming majority is 'mortal wounds are a good mechanic, there are just too many of them.' It sums up my feelings as well, so I think we are on a similar page.

I think you will definitely have a market. And I think if you are quick about it to build a meta army while it is still meta you'll be able to sell to FOTM players who will pay a fortune to have a ready-made army.

While GHB21 does offer a lot to players using monsters it offers a lot for players KILLING monsters as well. The extra benefits to using monsters are offset by said monsters being a liability if not handled carefully. It is an artful dynamic that from my initial impression works well mechanically and is a great example of just how much fun GW's thematic rules writing is when they get it right. Also, there are problems which completely overshadow those potentially caused by a monster-heavy skew anyways. Compared to double turn shooting, heroic recovery/amulet of destiny exploits, and hell even just the abysmal point cost balancing there's nothing about GHB21's matched rules that cause more than a ripple.

Chiming in with my experience; the new rules are great. Literally everyone I've talked to at my flgs thinks they are fun and an upgrade from 2nd edition. Though there are of course problems. To break it down to major points: Cons -Heroic recovery becomes extremely oppressive quite easily. Monster heroes healing 2d3 wounds a round are a problem. Especially when combined with... -The amulet of destiny core artifact is ludicrously overpowered. Consider that it is, in practice, 50% extra wounds (it takes 3 damage to deal 2 wounds). And worse still it combines exceedingly well with heroic recovery. -Overabundance of MWs has not only been unaddressed but doubled-down on. And in a way that feels less thematic than before. Poison being something that ignores armour entirely? Zombies ripping through plate with ease? These things aren't even fun in a narrative sense let alone gameplay. -1 extra CP does nothing to mitigate the strength of a double turn, and getting a round 1-2 double still means one must ****** up hard to not seal the victory right off. Combined with unleash hell it makes shooting armies even more stifling than they already were. Pros -GW nailed the promised aspect of providing more gameplay during the opponent's turn. Between heroic & monster actions and the new CP dynamic there are almost always significant choices to be made even when it is not your turn. -Heroic & monster actions are fun. There are a lot of play/counterplay options which arise from them and they really support the above point. Better yet they have a self-balancing element since there is only one hero action to be made regardless of the number of heroes and monster actions cannot be duplicated. -The new CP dynamic is fun. Those new command abilities have quite an impact but at the same time are prevented from becoming oppressive by the limits on bonuses to hit/wound/save and because of the anti-stacking elements. Losing CP at the end of round means they get spent on things left and right, coupled with choices that we very much do want to spend them on. -Battle tactics give an extra element to play around, and one that changes from turn to turn. They are also balanced very well against VP from objectives such that one cannot win if they ignore either side of the equation. In a similar vein GW has continued the trend of simply having really good scenario design for AoS matched play.

Version 2.0 of the main rules is up! Next is going through the warband tables, followed by the reward tables, then getting the FFA scenario document together. Main Changes: -Updated wording to make use of GW's snazzy new terminology, and as always to try and improve readability. -Champions have been renamed Warlords and divided into three categories based on strength with tailored benefits/downsides to level the playing field between them without simply resorting to a huge spread of starting followers. -1 renown can now be spent to gain a bonus enhancement of any type (instead of just an artifact) but it must still be rolled. -Quests can be embarked upon for 1 renown and allow for obtaining bonus enhancements that are picked instead of rolled. Quests are now the means to unlock endless spells, invocations, and battalions. -Speaking of battalions, most of the core ones are available and as part of updating the warband tables I will be adding lists of warscroll battalions that can be taken from each faction. -Faction terrain is now free (given that every monster has the capacity to destroy it). -Restrictions on summoning have been loosened and warbands who wish to invest in that will find it much easier to do so.

Quick update; still working on it. Real life hit me with a lot of nastiness this past week, one thing after another. Thus the delay.

Thematically speaking I would put LC w/shield with the warrior chamber as it fits with the shield wall, LC on foot with the exemplar chamber because hitting things hard is what they do, and dracoth rider with the harbinger chamber simply due to movement speed. Fluff-wise, the personality and temperament of the individuals involved matters far more than their gear & mount. Mechanically the strengths & weaknesses can be analyzed but you mentioned this isn't about optimization, and this part will change in a few months with the new battletome anyways.

The Matched Play rules in the upcoming GHB include a page which specifically lists publications that are permitted for use. That list does not contain the books which had mercenary rules, so they will not be legal for Matched.

You cannot make a normal move while in combat. By extension something that could be done "instead of a normal move" could not be done either. However, not all teleport abilities work that way. And more importantly we don't have the FAQ documents for battletomes yet, which are likely to clarify and/or change wording. I would not be surprised if the "instead of a normal move" wording was replaced so they could still jump out of combat (I wouldn't bet on it either, though).

"At the start of the hero phase, starting with the player whose turn is taking place, each player can pick 1 Hero to perform a heroic action"

Yeah, there is an accessibility factor there that is powerful. I just think it hasn't been used to do anything (yet). Like, tracking the progression of your heroes... as they hit a threshold to get a command trait. That's it, there's no other hero progression. Units only unlock some once-per-game triumph abilities. Everything else is only increasing the force org limits and adding more of the same enhancements we already have.

I think there is a very pragmatic observation to be made here--the company without the relentless marketing is out of business.

I am planning to run one at my flgs (as opposed to Road to Renown) because the new PtG is very much matched play + extras. There isn't much in the way of crazy stuff going on and it is quite plain as a narrative system. (This is only half a criticism--I think they set up a good skeleton then didn't put any flesh on it. But it is also simply a totally different system from old PtG which is neither good nor bad.) Because it is relatively vanilla it will serve well for my community to get into 3rd without layering a whole bunch of extra stuff on top. But in all likelyhood we will return to RtR for subsequent leagues because much of the goal for us is to specifically get away from the balance inadequacies of matched.

Can you elaborate? I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

Tournament play is not representative of most players' experience. And remember; balanced armies don't win tournaments. Once in a while there will be some outlier sure, but anything that shows in the top 25% with any regularity will by necessity be something that absolutely crushes people on the casual level. What needs to be called out when both sides are talking is not LRL as a whole but rather the specific units being used. THAT would be far more luminating. I was going to write something out but the forum auto-filled it with the last post I made and heck, it is just as relevant now. So here we go, again...

It's just a quest, unfortunately.

Tournament play is not representative of most players' experience. And remember; balanced armies don't win tournaments. Once in a while there will be some outlier sure, but anything that shows in the top 25% with any regularity will by necessity be something that absolutely crushes people on the casual level. What needs to be called out when both sides are talking is not LRL as a whole but rather the specific units being used. THAT would be far more luminating.

I will say I do tend to be more critical of things when I know I can/have done better myself. I should probably dial it back a bit, at least here. In other news, no point costs for any battalions? Given warscroll battalions can be used in PtG that seems a recipe for disaster.

Given the quality of the points having playtesters getting stats wrong on the warscrolls they are testing makes more sense.

It definitely isn't obscure interactions or combos, because honestly even internet communities tend to be relatively forgiving about that stuff. It's stuff like first-battletome Depravity, Petrifax, LRL Sentinels, Zombies, etc. Stuff that is obvious upon reading to anyone with a degree of experience. Stuff that yeah, a bunch of unqualified players could do better. And did for that matter, prior to the first GHB. I've said it before; I could spit out the most balanced set of point costs AoS has ever seen (that's a low bar, mind) given maybe a month of doing it on the side with my own time. I'm far from unique in that.

Lumineth as an army are for the most part brilliantly designed and about as well balanced as one can expect. Unfortunately certain units are so poorly done they give the entire faction a bad name.

People taking about sentinels as if they aren't going to be rocking +2 to cast from twinstones and an extra spell from cogs, plus re-roll via shrine or aetherquartz. Teclis? ****** that, bring more sentinels. And heavens forbid the opponent actually tries to charge them and gets unleash hell to the face for their trouble. What I am wondering is if their point cost is taking into account a nerf via eratta.

Of course the points are a crapshow of irrational choices. That's what matched play is; a good base set of rules brought low by absolutely inane point costs. You will all still need to self balance like before, and points are still a guideline at best like before. That's the devil we know, it is what Matched has always been. Also lol at it not even taking one page for someone to make the argument that an army which doesn't win tournaments is bad.

UPDATE! Road to Renown will be staying the same for 3rd edition, remaining as an alternate system for those who prefer something different from the new PtG. This will include the continued incorporation of new content from what GW releases (where appropriate). I am aiming to have the third edition update finished by release day, it will include core battalions (from the core rules) and quests (from the PtG rules) but mostly be rewording to take advantage of new terminology GW has established.