[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

1 minute ago, Perturbato said:

huh ? wasn't it free ?

They get Bless and Smite as standard, but Enhancements give them access to others.  

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

1 minute ago, Erdemo86 said:

1.Can we take the same battalion more than once?

2.what are enhancements? Maybe artifacts count as enhancements? So they would solve the problem of 2nd/3rd artifact?

Only thing we know for sure about Enhancements is giving Priests access to additional universal prayers. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

6 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:

It's theoretically possible, as well, that the new battalions are fundamentally different in some way that essentially makes warscroll ones obsolete, regardless.  

For instance, For the most part the benefits of the Core Battalions are a fraction of the base benefits of the old Warscroll battalions - its conceivable they don't come with a points cost.  

If that's true... how many of the old Warscroll battalions are even remotely viable by comparison, anyway?

That'd be a "soft" removal, without technically invalidating anything.  

That said, I'm personally assuming the core Battlepack only allows Core Battalions...

If battletome battalions just gave the battalion rules benefit and no command point/artefact/lower drops which seems to be the options for the core battalions. I think that would be a fair enough tradeoff. Points values (if core cost anything) for "problematic" battalions could also be changed in the GHB. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

7 minutes ago, Indecisive said:

Reading this Reinforcement business.

Literally why. I honestly don't see why I should bother with that in any sort of friendly game.
It just seems annoying. The example I saw touted somewhere was Anvils + 12 man Raptor blobs and I'm just like, sounds like the problem in that case is Raptor unit size or the CA, not meriting everyone else's listbuilding to get weird because of it.

The thing is there's multiple such instances of particular units & buffs combinations that were oppressive in how much force they could project.  The intent was probably to curb that along with conga-lining screens, and while obviously we haven't seen all the rules yet from what we've seen I'd say they've only been partially successful.  

Vince's Kragnos video handily shows that while the efficacy of screens has been diminished, it hasn't been by a whole lot if you know how to position properly. 

And certain oppressive unit & buff combos aren't going to have been affected by the Reinforcement mechanic unless the new GHB savagely curtails them via points increases and unit sizes.   

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

The real "proof of the pudding" will be the potential points/minimum unit size changes in the GHB. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

2 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Bye bye Deathrattle tarpits 😪

30 Skellies can still be plenty tanky. A with it looking like +'s to armour not being capped and the knock-on effect of reinforcements on other armies their tankiness is going to stay the same relatively. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

2 minutes ago, annarborhawk said:

Or maybe command points will be generated by both players at the beginning of each battle round?

I'd imagine this is how it'll work. Otherwise reactive CA's would be pretty hard to get off. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

2 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Do people really think any lumineth player with more than 2 matches played is going to risk his unit of sentinels just to make 2-3 (4-5 with 20) mw to the unit that is charging?

People must stop posting such bs

How is shooting at a unit that charged another unit 9" away a "risk"? And LRL aren't exactly spoilt for choice when it comes to CAs so they'll more than likely have the spare CP, even with the new CA's.   

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

4 minutes ago, Chikout said:

I understand the concern but there is a thing that bothers me about all the rules news.

When people see expensive new minis, there's always a flurry of comments about how people will change this or that aspect of the mini or kitbash it with another extremely expensive mini. People come with lore and original colour schemes and dozens of other unique and creative changes. 

When people see a rule that is potentially game breaking, everyone is like "I'll use that rule that no-one likes but I won't be happy about it", even though it just rules on page that can be changed for free. 

If you think a rule is broken don't use it. If you're a TO ban it from your event. If you're having a pick up game with a stranger, have a little friendly chat before the game. If you're running a tournament level Lumineth list against someone playing their first game with Sylvaneth try not using some of their stronger abilities. If you play a newbie and wipe the table with them, that's your fault and not the game's. If I played tennis against Federer and he played his best. I wouldn't win a single point. Does that mean tennis is a broken game? I'd like to think he'd lob a few soft balls at me so we could have an enjoyable game. 

When I was a kid playing chess against my dad, he always took four of his pieces off the board at the start and we had a lot of fun games because if it. 

Gw themselves have said many times that they view their rules not as a definitive gospel but as a toolkit which can be used in any way players see fit. 

This is probably a fight against human nature that I'm not going to win, but I think AoS is a cooperative game where the two players try to create a situation where a tense and exciting game is possible. If it turns out that unleash hell   is broken I would be tempted to introduce a house rule that a unit that uses it can't shoot in the next shooting phase. 

On top of all that be aware of the nature of GW marketing. I would be extremely surprised if the marketing team consulted the rules team about what to include in the previews. They almost always focus on destructive abilities and almost never focus on limitations. We don't know anything about limitations on command abilities or second rank fighting or other ways to apply ward saves which we already seen a priest can do. In the rules as we've seen them it's possible to make a unit +1 save -1 to hit and with a 6+ ward save. 

We don't know anything about scenery rules yet. 

But ultimately if you don't think gw is making a good ruleset then just adapt it to fit your needs. It's your game. 

This kind of mindset is all very well for something that is more narratively focused like Necromunda (which I've very much enjoyed playing/arbitrating for 25 or so years). And they can throw all sorts of interesting scenarios and battleplans for narrative or open play. But at the end of the day Matched play is going to be this games bread and butter. And so having a solid foundation that doesn't need a multitude of gentlemen's agreements just to start is something that the dev team should have both envisaged and expected. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

1 minute ago, dirkdragonslayer said:

While it may feel like cheating, GW is probably doing this to counteract spaghetti line formation. IIRC they implemented it in 40k because of 30 conscripts in s thin line bubble wrapping eachother. These layers made it difficult for melee units to reach shooting units like Broadsides or Leman Russ tanks. With smaller boards and a greater emphasis on shooting this edition (from what rules we have seen so far) they are probably doing this so I can't put large narrow lines of spearmen to completely block off archers/artillery.

Personally I am excited to see my Dankhold do more to disrupt people's formations if they aren't careful.

Yes, we know. But it's one thing to try and curb this kind of thing, and quite another to take such broad strokes as the new coherency rules which both kind of fail in their goal and punish larger based units at the same time. Quite the achievement to fail that hard, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

11 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

How the hell is points going to fix the bonkers unit coherensie  rules? 

Doing the "staggered zigzag" means that up to 40mm bases aren't really going to be effected all that much. 50mm+ I agree, especially in relation to oval bases are getting disproportionately punished for WAAC daisy chaining that was only really prevalent in tournaments. 

Now I agree that something needed to be done about this, but the pendulum has swung too much the other way in this instance. And still doesn't even really put down some of the more egregious examples.  

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

3 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Someone is going to make a killing with the movement trays for these formations. (the bowling pin one always worked but I don't think I've seen a proper movement tray for it)

 

Horrors of Tzeentch.
In all seriousness though you'll return 1/6th of the slain models so units with high model counts will net you the most models back, but those models are usually low quality, where elite units will net you back more useful models, but bring back less.
Its pretty even across the board but you're pretty likely to whiff if you don't have many slain models. Getting a mancrusher back would be pretty gamechanging though.

 

 

The thing I don't understand is that changing all buffs to "wholly within" solves a lot of the conga lining problems. Of course the unit champions now don't care about the range though. Seems like a better solution would've just been to make the unit champion's command Wholly within 6 or 12.

The thing is for quite a few instances of screens, staying within buff auras was nice but not necessary for their function. Same thing with being range of CA's, literally just there to be a speed bump and allow the units behind to get the jump on them. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

2 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yes, the other dumb thing about these changes is that they are being put into a game where many units literally aren't allowed to take only 5 in order to avoid the rules. In 40k, even with the doubled 2" basic coherency range, it's extremely awkward to take say 6 models on 60mm round bases, or on 75mm oval bases...but you can always just take 5 instead. And that's what everybody does. It's a stupid rule that doesn't work for those units, but there is a work-around within the rules. 

In AOS, you literally don't have a choice - if your models are in multiples of 3, you either take 3, or you take 6. Nothing in-between is allowed. 

It does seem to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I can understand the want to curb the likes of conga-lining screens, but the simple fact of being 1" within two models for units of 6+ really hampers more elite units unnecessarily. We've seen with the likes of Dire Wolves the shift to having 10 models minimum, and with the lag time between battletome development and production it's not like it's something that's come out of the blue?

With the GHB it could be a case that with increased unit costs that maybe more elite units will get a price structuring that is on a per model basis?    

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

5 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Maybe more CA Reactions (I know that we are not going to have so many CAs and some monsters are going to be insane with that....):

1. A new CA to make them crouch (only for non-monster/ non-cavalry units): -1 to be hit
2. A new CA for HERO units that can pass non-saved wounds to another friendly unit that was giving "Look Out Sir" bonus
3. New CA for MONSTERS units that give them -1 to be wounded.
4. All out Defense= +1 saves (we already have that)

Another thing that they could do is a new Core Batallion like:

• 1 Hero
• 2 battlelines

Each battleline unit from this batallion gain the Bodyguard ability (before allocating wounds to this Hero, you can pass this wounds to... yadda yadda). This ability only works for the Hero of this batallion.

All Out Defence won't work vs Unleash Hell as UH happens in the Charge phase and AOD can only be done in the Shooting or Combat phase. 

[The Rumour Thread]

5 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

10am which timezone? I didn't think they confirmed a time for us, only given the day itself

I think it's 10AM for each relevant timezone. At least pre-orders in the UK usually go up at 10AM GMT. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

Just now, RuneBrush said:

Am I the only one looking at some of these creative Tetris diagrams and thinking that they won't work when you factor in other units and scenery 😉

That's a real possibility, and is only going to exacerbate the frustration of how needlessly complex and unintuitive melee could turn out to be. Where it isn't a case of your opponents tactics or positioning, but the flawed coherency rules that prevent you from bringing your unit properly to bear. 

Now I'm not saying the "sky is falling" just yet, as we haven't got the whole picture when it comes to how the new ruleset will interact and work together. But with just the 2 snippets we've seen the signs aren't promising. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

2 minutes ago, Malakree said:

Jesus my poor 6 man goregrunta squads. God I can already see the weird ass formation they have to move in.

There should be exceptions for units where the models have large numbers of wounds, varanguard, mournfang, goregruntas etc. Probably around 5+ wounds (So gluttons don't get it).

Yeah, there's going to be a lot of "Tokyo Drifting" back ranks for cavalry now. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

2 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

They should not have made the boards smaller. AOS armies already take up a 6X4 board whit ease. Smaller boards will mean manoeuvring becomes a lot less importent. 

Maybe not so much now that the coherency rules are essentially forcing units into loose cubes from what I can tell?

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

3 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I do feel for the fiends, who get a bonus if there's 4+ of them (they come in 3s), but only have 1" range on their primary attack. I like the coherency rules other than some weird interaction with heavy cavalry. 

On the other hand, if you expect at least one of them to die, in a unit of 6 you can have one designated to die no matter what. It doesn't say you can't purposely break coherency, just that there's a sacrifice - so charge 6 man units in and just know at least one will have to die for the extra attacks.

 

2 minutes ago, GutrotSpume said:

Dire Wolves are completely buggered now as well. 

Yeah, the intent is to curb conga-lining screens but there's some real knock-on effects even down to 32mm based infantry. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

1 minute ago, PJetski said:

To be fair, going second in Round 1 was sometimes an advantage depending on the army lists and the battleplan, but going second in any other round was almost always putting you at a disadvantage.

If you are the victim of a double turn that means you are going second in that round. I think it's too soon to say if getting one extra command point on the bottom of round 1 is even a significant advantage since you can use Heroic Actions to generate command points anyway.

The change to endless spells seems much more impactful.

Yeah, the wording is a bit weird so I'm not sure if the extra CP is just for the first round or each round. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

It seems to me that moving endless spells each hero phase makes double turns deadlier, which is ironic since endless spells were introduced as a way to mitigate the effects of double turns. Previously you would drop a spell at the bottom of round 1 as insurance against an enemy winning the priority roll, since if you were going second you could move the spell at the start of the round and disrupt them somewhat.

Now if you cast endless spells at the bottom of a round you could end up going first in the next round AND move the spell without a chance for your opponent to respond. Furthermore, since you control each spell you cast, this could lead to a tremendous amount of damage done through 3+ endless spells in a double turn.

Using endless spells defensively is going to be more difficult because they move at the end of the hero phase after your opponent has a chance to dispel them. You can drop them in the top of round 1, then your opponent gets a chance to dispel before they move again. This was not always the case in 2nd edition.

So spells are going to be more aggressive and less useful on defense. If they don't reduce their damage with the new warscrolls confirmed in GHB 2021 then magic domination armies will get even stronger in 3rd edition.

This does concern me. We already know that going second is being incentivised via extra command points, despite the fact that going second was usually better anyway unless using/going against a pronounced alpha strike army. With this you could functionally cripple multiple units before they really get to act. 

So yeah, hopefully the new warscrolls will have them toned down a bit, as otherwise AoS3 looks to be Age of Shooting/Spells.

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

5 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

The thing about support heroes is very tricky though. You don't want them to be dead at the sight of shooting and magic MW spam, but you don't want them to be not worth the effort to focus down either. Hard to find the middle ground here.

Yeah, I guess I feel it more keenly as I'm a StD player primarily so Hero sniping neuters my main allegiance ability. 

The argument could be made to run as a god army, but from a flavour standpoint that's not a StD army. And if the latest Slaanesh tome is anything to go by, running approximately marked StD units in a god army is going to have limited benefits. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

One of the main issues is that certain armies can just snipe out support heroes with relative impunity. That's not to say that they should be invincible, but having that happen means that a good chunk of the power and flavour of an army can be eliminated with potentially little recourse. The sneak peek at the new shooting rules don't seem to have changed this, and if the +/- are capped at 1 then it's potentially even easier. And it's no coincidence that a good amount of the top performing armies are ones that can have a pronounced shooting presence and/or units that have their abilities baked into their warscrolls and don't rely on support heroes to function at a good level.  

That said there has been somewhat of a trend with "Bodyguard" units that a support hero can pass wounds onto, although that seems like a stopgap rather than a actual solution.  

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

39 minutes ago, Magnus The Blue said:

Announced in one of the GW community videos, so as official as anything else.

You mean the video in this article?
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/02/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-delivers-the-most-comprehensive-ruleset-ever/
If so, it doesn't say anything about taking Battletome battalions away from Matched Play, just that Core book battalions are being added? 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

1 hour ago, Magnus The Blue said:

No battletomb battalions in match play, but there will be generic ones.

Has this actually been officially confirmed anywhere? Or are we still at the "Dude, trust me" stage? I know about the Core book battalions that are coming and for them to be bridging the gap between the "have and have nots". But if this does mean that all Battletome battalions are being nixed from Matched play, it's going to be a big blow for certain armies like Jawz of Mork that pretty much rely on their battalions to make their army work properly. But then again maybe the Core book battalions will be so generally powerful and useful that supplanting the Battletome battalions will be relatively painless?