Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There was a dearth of units dealing MWs on 6s to hit, it was something people wanted more of in AoS. /s

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
fething dammit GW. I wanted to be optimistic but the back of my head knew this was coming.

I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
fething dammit GW. I wanted to be optimistic but the back of my head knew this was coming.

I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.

Probably the fact that Lumineth can "Overwatch" with their archers when an enemy unit charges into the shieldwall in front of them

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
fething dammit GW. I wanted to be optimistic but the back of my head knew this was coming.

I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.

One of the biggest problems with AoS is mortal wound spam--armies dealing out a lot MWs commonly using abilities/buffs so their attacks are dealing them. If you ask players what they dislike about AoS, it is possibly the most common answer after double turn. And they just gave it to all the Krulboyz. This is paired with there being no design conundrum whatsoever; this is not a difficult dance to appease old players verses new, maintain theme while keeping things simple, or a difficult mechanic to balance. These abilities could easily be made to either trigger on the wound roll or have the hit roll wound automatically instead of dealing mortals. It is just bad on multiple levels and honestly speaks to a certain disregard for players' concerns.

Oh and they just broke cogs when used in hi-magic armies to boot. Tzeentch and Lumineth can easily pile around them and be getting 3-5 extra spells every turn. This speaks simply to a sheer lack of consideration for the consequences of warscroll changes on the table. It further shows that while GW is obviously making some great updates to the core rules their classic issue of not understanding/not thinking things through remains as strong as ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rihgu wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
fething dammit GW. I wanted to be optimistic but the back of my head knew this was coming.

I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.

Probably the fact that Lumineth can "Overwatch" with their archers when an enemy unit charges into the shieldwall in front of them

This is a problem because of MWs on the shooting attacks, not because of the ability to overwatch.

Ah, oops. I took your post as a response to tneva's about Lumineth sentinels.

But yea, 3.0 definitely looks like Age of Mortal Wounds.

Noticed also lambent light holds until next hero phase. While irrelevant in aos2 it now becomes good charge deterrant. Dare to charge near sentinels? Eat 10.5 mw's...

Have fun. They don't even　care about that -1 to hit thing...

Hopefully new points compensate but not hopeful.

Even as lumineth player(one of 11) i'm starting to feel dirty. So far good buffs seen for shooting in general and lumineth loves several changes(life swarm btw comboes nicely with teclis. You can basically heal 3d3 if you only do new heroics on your turn. 4d3 if both...) seen so far.

Rihgu wrote:
But yea, 3.0 definitely looks like Age of Mortal Wounds.

It's never not been that. They have half a decade of people complaining about stuff dealing too many MWs and they ignore it outright. It shows me that while they have (clearly) gotten better at writing rules they are still doing it in their own bubble. And I do give them credit for getting better at that; the changes to the core rules have been great and they look both thematic and fun without being overpowering. I think they really worked hard and did a lot of internal testing to get them there. Which actually makes their inability to replace "hit roll of 6" with "wound roll of 6" all the more infuriating.

My eyebrows hurt a little after the Swampcaller's poison ability.

Forgo casting to give a unit MWs on unmodified 5+ to hit? Oh... OK then. And they equal the damage characteristic? Huh.
The killaboss with this upgrade does 4.3 MW or so per turn, and a single hero is pretty small potatoes.

If those archers come in big units (or the army has attack multipliers), its going to be nuts.

-----
Also, am I reading the implication right and the new swamp orcs are just going to be folded into the general Orc Warclans book?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.

I think he's worried that GW are doing something very new with 3rd Ed AoS: Introducing units that cause mortal wounds. It's something that's not really been all that prevalent in the game before, so this sudden addition of so many new sources of Mortal Wounds are a concern.

Wondering if they are going to cap MW output somehow...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.

I think he's worried that GW are doing something very new with 3rd Ed AoS: Introducing units that cause mortal wounds. It's something that's not really been all that prevalent in the game before, so this sudden addition of so many new sources of Mortal Wounds are a concern.

thanks, I needed that.

" Lumineth can "Overwatch" with their archers when an enemy unit charges into the shieldwall in front of them"


Amazing how things are looking better in the new edition aren't they?



Well they have no los requirement to begin with, so...

Their war scroll rules are the problem, not the core rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I am confused - which change are you concerned about? I'm very out of the AoS loop.

I think he's worried that GW are doing something very new with 3rd Ed AoS: Introducing units that cause mortal wounds. It's something that's not really been all that prevalent in the game before, so this sudden addition of so many new sources of Mortal Wounds are a concern.

Thanks all. Disappointing for sure unless some other mechanic reigns this in.

Do chaos warrior shields still block mw on 5+?

So in the article for Orruk Warclans they discuss venom encrusted weapons: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/08/discover-how-command-abilities-are-the-key-to-success-with-the-orruk-warclans-in-the-new-edition/

When a non mount attack for a model with this weapon hits on a 6, auto mortal wounds to the number of damage from that weapon, and the attack sequence ends - do not roll to wound or to save rolls.

So if a unit has these players will have to roll for each model individually as otherwise no way to know which attacking model rolled the '6'?
Also if a 6 is rolled do all of the other hits from that model get ignored or is the cessation of the attack phase ONLY for the dice that rolled the 6?

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
So in the article for Orruk Warclans they discuss venom encrusted weapons: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/08/discover-how-command-abilities-are-the-key-to-success-with-the-orruk-warclans-in-the-new-edition/

When a non mount attack for a model with this weapon hits on a 6, auto mortal wounds to the number of damage from that weapon, and the attack sequence ends - do not roll to wound or to save rolls.

So if a unit has these players will have to roll for each model individually as otherwise no way to know which attacking model rolled the '6'?
Also if a 6 is rolled do all of the other hits from that model get ignored or is the cessation of the attack phase ONLY for the dice that rolled the 6?

Why would you even ask a silly question like are all the other hits ignored? That's ridiculous and nobody would think that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Thanks all. Disappointing for sure unless some other mechanic reigns this in.

I was being sarcastic. Age of Sigmar is a MW generating factory. 3rd Edition AoS seems to be building a second factory to pump out even more Mortal Wounds.

It's one of AoS' biggest failings: Everyone and his dog has a way (if not 2+ ways) of generating MWs. It's why I always make fun of Endless Spells whenever a new set comes out, because, inevitably, 2 of the 3 will just be new ways of causing MW in slightly different ways.

More MWs! More ways to shoot your opponent off the table! Ridiculously restrictive coherency rules that make 9th edition's rules look positively permissive! Everything the AOS player base was crying out for! GW truly is a master at reading the room.

Remember: Everything above 5 models is a horde, so needs to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit.

This will of course create situations where 5 big models in a unit can stretch out to full coherency, but 6 of the same have to be crammed together to avoid accidentally losing models.

Within 1" of 2 models, not 2.

In other words, in AOS 3.0 it is literally not possible for 6 32mm base models to stand base-to-base in a line.

sound familiar if you play 40k, so Rank&File it is again (as 6 large models need to be in 2 ranks, like it used to be in good old Warhammer Fantasy)

mortar_crew wrote:
Their war scroll rules are the problem, not the core rules.

the core rules were never a big problem, in none of the GW games, it was always a problem with the unit/army rules

for now it looks like the AoS Team is at least playing their own game but they are not playing all factions there and only with the studio models, hence why changes are looked at a closed bubble of limited factions and maximum 1 of each unit (they just don't know that 5 wizards around Cogs might be a problem because they never thought about playing 5 as they don't have enough painted models)

Oh it's 1". Even better.

"Best rules ever!"

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
So in the article for Orruk Warclans they discuss venom encrusted weapons: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/08/discover-how-command-abilities-are-the-key-to-success-with-the-orruk-warclans-in-the-new-edition/

When a non mount attack for a model with this weapon hits on a 6, auto mortal wounds to the number of damage from that weapon, and the attack sequence ends - do not roll to wound or to save rolls.

So if a unit has these players will have to roll for each model individually as otherwise no way to know which attacking model rolled the '6'?
Also if a 6 is rolled do all of the other hits from that model get ignored or is the cessation of the attack phase ONLY for the dice that rolled the 6?

You don't need to care about which model throws attack. You pick up weapon for unit to attack. Then you roll dice for each attack for that weapon for the unit. Every 6 causes MW's and you remove those dices from hit pool. Roll to wound for rest.

It's simple. Basically no different to say lumineth weapons except MW count is based on damage value of weapon which means if it's random amount you would need to then roll mw amount separately. Also more powerful generally than lumineth.

1. Allow scale creep until most models are on 32mm bases rather than 25mm bases.
2. Change coherency rules to penalise models that are more than 25.4mm away.
3. Profit?!

I think it should have kicked in at 11+ instead of 6+ but it doesn't seem that bad to me. I am actually glad because I always hated when the viable tactic was stringing things out in some weird noodle because it just doesn't feel very narrative and that is important to me. Yeah I know I can just not do that (and I do), but it is still an artificial handicap which reduces fun for me.

But I actually like paying attention to formation and ideal placement, and I can definitely see how other people would find this change as unfun for them as it is fun for me. So I certainly respect the position of people who do not like it

Well it was never going to be 11+. Can't just copy&paste from 40k rules if it's different

I do hate how 40k and AoS have so many very similar rules that are not quite the same. Dumb stuff like one system counting wounds remaining and the other counting wounds received. I always have to stop and remember which slight variation of many things the particular game I’m playing uses.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh it's 1". Even better.

"Best rules ever!"

People¹ wanted Ranks back, so the AoS dev team² obliged!





¹ We don’t know who exactly, but surely some.
² Tim in Accounting.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh it's 1". Even better.

"Best rules ever!"

People¹ wanted Ranks back, so the AoS dev team² obliged!


¹ We don’t know who exactly, but surely some.
² Tim in Accounting.

¹ the Managment said we need to use the same Core Rules for The Old World and meant those people want a Rank&File game

Are people really complaining about slightly more compact unit footprints?

Why? What's the issue here?

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Are people really complaining about slightly more compact unit footprints?

Why? What's the issue here?

Units with larger than 25 or even 32mm Bases, meaning units of 6+ of cavalry, monstrous infantry, etc. are very hard to keep in coherency once in combat or being unable to pull them all in weapon range.