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.

Remember its the same for your opponent as it is for you. This keeps up the idea of a block of infantry rather than sprawling daisy chains. It might also mean that instead of taking lots of full units you take several smaller ones and then combine attacks; hitting on the flanks of combat instead of having one big unit that hits and then spreads out

the idea behind this rules is that units should form closed blocks instead of congas or line formation, but makes it a time consuming task to execute

make it 6+ models must be in base-to-base contact with at least 2 other models of that unit unless in melee were 1" to 1 other model is enough (movement after close combat must be used to get back in formation) and you get your closed blocks without the need to measure each model everytime you move and the large models can fight in melee

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

Why? What's the issue here?

Issue comes for many in combat. 12 gluttons. If only 6 fight that's squad that's not worth the points when half the squad is just sitting back.

Even 6 loses third of it's melee power...And your only option is units of 3...

These sort of units starts to need bigget discount for full unit...but GW has started to REMOVE discounts for bigger squads...

It's basically GW forcing MSU into the game. Cavalry, 40mm base guys etc don't want to go 6+. Of course some of those have no real way to do it. Glutton on 3 size punch very little and can't have banners etc.

Aye, but don't forget its universal for both sides. In addition this lowers the potential lethality of units. This might return some of the push-shove aspect of close combat which is closer to real world close combat battles. Rather than having big units that hit with everything in their first round of combat. Units behind have to wait their turn to get into the thick of combat.

Of course at the same time GW seems to be adding more and more mortal wound sources and damage.



In the end it will be interesting to test, but to remember that whatever you suffer from your opponent also suffers from in this case.

Nah it just means units get split up. Same as before except now in MSU which is generally superior anyway. Except some armies can't do that as well. So this will screw some armies and help others. Basically if you are 32mm 1" range or bigger you are screwed if you go above 5.

It's not equal for all.

never thought that Protectors will ever see a buff, but now 3" weapon range gives them a big advantage over other elite SC units

I wouldn't be surprised if GW sells new movement trays soon after the 3.0 release.

They already did with Apocalypse.

The new coherency rules are great from a gameplay/narrative perspective (the same as heroic actions and monstrous rampage, everything is more cinematic now)

The problem is, this is an effective nerf to melee combat, reduce the combat efficiency of all mele units with 6+ models by half (or force you to pick polearms that usually got worst stats, how curious that both new Stormcast and new Orruks use polearms, uh.)

That mean the value of shooting is again improved, so this is a nerf to mele and a buff to shooting, something the game desperately not need.

A shooting unit can now shoot you in the shooting phase (you can use +1 save CA here) and shoot you again in the charge phase (no +1 save CA here) with a -1 to hit (let say if it hit before on a 4+ now it hit on a 5+, that is 33% less damage output [1 out of 3 success to hit is now a failure])

So a shooting unit now proyect 166% damage compared to before, while a mele unit of 6+ models proyect 50% the damage that it did before. The +1 hit and +1 save CA can be used by both in the shooting and combat phase respectively (but not the charge phase) so there is no need to account them as they counter each other.

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

Thanks, I am just starting out in AOS and the writing of the rule for a new player moving from very well written rules system left me thinking there is no way they would make it as difficult as it seemed as written.

 kodos wrote:

 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

I’m pretty sure that, technically at least, management count as people.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
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

Until you play big units like Ogres and Minotaurs with 1" range attack weapons and suddenly your 6 man unit can't attack with half his models because this stupid rule.

Meanwhile 25mm based morterk guard with their 2" spears will hit like a fething truck.

Hopefully the new terrain can be assembled in a variety of ways and the walls are stackable.

It's fine, you just need to lose 1 model to be able to hit with all 5 that are left. It's ironically better to not shoot an unit of 6 gluttons so they have to pile in after 1st CC phase to hit with more models than to kill 1 model with shooting.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 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.

Yea I think the system works fine in 40K, but when you get to attack based on weapon ranges it seems like this will nerf melee even more.

I think this just encourages MSU of cavalry units. Also, more likely to "side/strafe" run your cavalry units into your opponent just to keep within range of weapons.

I'll be honest and say that it does feel like this rule wasn't really thought out. I mean, I do not see how I can reliably run more than 5 eels at a time with Idoneth and get everyone into combat, at the same time I am forced into this rule if I want more than 3 man units as the Eels come in pack of 3s.

Unless we are paying for individual models in units and not the current size leaps.

'The Slaves to Darkness Are Out to Conquer the New Edition, and Here’s How They’ll Do It' on Warhammer Community:

 DaveC wrote:
Hopefully the new terrain can be assembled in a variety of ways and the walls are stackable.

Spoiler:

Looking at the way the wooden beams are molded on their it doesn't look stackable, unfortunately. Stuff looks nice, but is probably much more limited than it needed to be.

You can fight in two(ish) ranks with 40mm bases, though. Just space each rank out an inch and have them all nestle into the gaps in b2b, and the second rank is within 1" of the front of the first rank.

It's needlessly fiddly and may not achieve anything besides annoying people, but it's not worse than maximizing 25mm bases with 1" reach. Technically you've even got more wiggle room, as you have a couple spare mm, not just .4.

I like the style of then new terrain. It's not ruins, because they're buildings that haven't been finished yet. Plus the statue and the water sphere are cool.

 DaveC wrote:
Hopefully the new terrain can be assembled in a variety of ways and the walls are stackable.

Press X to doubt.

 Overread wrote:
Remember its the same for your opponent as it is for you. This keeps up the idea of a block of infantry rather than sprawling daisy chains. It might also mean that instead of taking lots of full units you take several smaller ones and then combine attacks; hitting on the flanks of combat instead of having one big unit that hits and then spreads out

Cept you fan still aboslutely daisy chain and attacking with several small units ends up with your units dying before they get to swing most of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 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.

Yea I think the system works fine in 40K, but when you get to attack based on weapon ranges it seems like this will nerf melee even more.

Also when coherency is half as long. it's only 1" in Sigmar


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Nah it just means units get split up. Same as before except now in MSU which is generally superior anyway. Except some armies can't do that as well. So this will screw some armies and help others. Basically if you are 32mm 1" range or bigger you are screwed if you go above 5.

It's not equal for all.

MSU is NOT superior in Sigmar and never has been. Combat alternates activations so splitting up a 6 man unit of Eels for example, just means 3 of your eels are going to die before they swing.

You also don't get the same buff density considering Sigmar tends to use as many targeted buffs as auras.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Aye, but don't forget its universal for both sides. In addition this lowers the potential lethality of units. This might return some of the push-shove aspect of close combat which is closer to real world close combat battles. Rather than having big units that hit with everything in their first round of combat. Units behind have to wait their turn to get into the thick of combat.

Of course at the same time GW seems to be adding more and more mortal wound sources and damage.



In the end it will be interesting to test, but to remember that whatever you suffer from your opponent also suffers from in this case.

Unless I only bring shooting units and monsters. Then I don't suffer at all.

It bothers me that the wooden frames are inset in the stone, I think it makes it look like a toy set.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 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

I’m pretty sure that, technically at least, management count as people.

from those I know from the company I work, I am not entire sure

The recent article on warhammer community about slaves to darkness mentions Grand Strategies. Anyone know anythingabout this yet? Looks like maybe secondary objectives for aos?

 Gallahad wrote:
It bothers me that the wooden frames are inset in the stone, I think it makes it look like a toy set.

I feel the same but then again I really dont like most of GW terrain.

jaredb wrote:
The recent article on warhammer community about slaves to darkness mentions Grand Strategies. Anyone know anythingabout this yet? Looks like maybe secondary objectives for aos?

It looks like you just pick one (or more). If you fulfill it, you get bonus VPs.

In this case, if you pick 'Hold the Line' and you have a Battleline unit somewhere on the field, you get 3 VPs.
So, its a strategy for tough armies facing armies with low raw killing power.

Or if you can teleport/run a minimum point cost batteline unit into a corner on the last turn...

I know it's not, but "dawners" sounds like an in-setting slur, lol.

 Trimarius wrote:
You can fight in two(ish) ranks with 40mm bases, though. Just space each rank out an inch and have them all nestle into the gaps in b2b, and the second rank is within 1" of the front of the first rank.

It's needlessly fiddly and may not achieve anything besides annoying people, but it's not worse than maximizing 25mm bases with 1" reach. Technically you've even got more wiggle room, as you have a couple spare mm, not just .4.

The issue is more with the oval bases of various cavalry units. They will suffer the most on this. At least in 40k you don't have to worry about melee ranges when it comes to bikes and cavalry units.

I still think it's hilarious the VLoZD has a lance with a 1" melee

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Trimarius wrote:
You can fight in two(ish) ranks with 40mm bases, though. Just space each rank out an inch and have them all nestle into the gaps in b2b, and the second rank is within 1" of the front of the first rank.

It's needlessly fiddly and may not achieve anything besides annoying people, but it's not worse than maximizing 25mm bases with 1" reach. Technically you've even got more wiggle room, as you have a couple spare mm, not just .4.

The issue is more with the oval bases of various cavalry units. They will suffer the most on this. At least in 40k you don't have to worry about melee ranges when it comes to bikes and cavalry units.

You can get 5/6 of your cav into melee with 1" reach. One guy has to ride sideways in the back as the connector piece, but it works out. For 60x35 bases, you just have to slide the outer two back an inch and over into b2b, but for 75x42 you do need to angle them a bit to achieve coherency while maintaining that 1" reach to the front line. It's pretty exacting on the larger bases, though, which is annoying. Custom movement trays might be in order if the people you play with aren't down with it being "provable but not exact" for the sake of expediency.

If you ignore the hilarious "crab rider" in the back, it actually give your cavalry a bit of a lance look, as a throwback for all the bretonnian fans out there.