Between more units with a 5 in their point cost and staying the same price while their constituent units got more expensive, are the starblood stalkers now more viable looking? You’re now only paying an extra 25 points above the 2 hero’s base cost for 4 skinks + the deep strike on them all (…and the tax on the old blood losing his command ability I guess) which is halved from before, on top of skink unit sizes dropping down to 10 making the value a lot better on that deal also pretty interesting that we lost sylvaneth as allied units (which was weird to begin with) and gained CoS as allies, makes sense given the new lore around us and skinks living in cities
Fangs of Sotek have always had embassies in the CoS. We got Sylvaneth as allies due to the Thunder Lizards background if I recall. We should have had CoS in the BT, and I wouldnt have minded keeping Sylvaneth. But eh. CoS opens up a lot of options.
Starblood Stalkers look like a steal now. The Oldblood not having the command ability doesn't matter. He is just a cheap beatstick for the MSU grind. (And you probably don't want other Saurus models anyways). The Priest is still our best model pretty much, lol. And the Chameleon Skinks will always have uses. The limitation to Thunder Lizards is annoying, but I guess Steg Chieftain is ok at his new point value if running Prime Warbeast and Cloak of Feathers. The "Armoured Crest" rule on Stegadons might become real handy if people commit to the MSU game. /edit: Also should be easy to pick up two additional artifacts, so having to take the Fusil is not such a large drawback anymore.
Question about the new GHB preview: Mega-Gargants are obviously listed on the Sons of Behemat page, but there was no reference to Order armies being able to take a Kraken Eater as a mercenary. Will this still be a thing?
I could be wrong but I just realized the new way stricter limitations on hero unit numbers + command abilities new thing probably makes them a better deal too on that front too, given they collectively only count as 1 despite the priest and old blood both having the hero keyword maybe worth taking even in non-thunder lizard lists? Though it seems like they might be the 3.0 meta choice anyway from what people are saying
They can only be used in Thunder Lizard lists. I count the Oldblood just as a freebie throwaway hero. But I think we don't have problems with the hero cap. Six is plenty.
Is that a new thing in 3.0 that units can’t be used if their sub faction keyword doesn’t align? I thought they just didn’t benefit from the subfaction abilities/command things like before
Will definitely have to look at the Graves Warband again. Now all we need at the Battletome FAQs/Erratas and we will have a pretty decent picture of what we can do.
I am hoping that the oldblood on carno command ability will be errata'ed to something useful because it was barely usable before and now is extra useless not being able to stack +1's to hit anymore. That's the only way I can see his points going up 40 while the vet only goes up 5...
Just a random question to anyone who feels like giving their honest theory, especially if you have any knowledge or experience with the industry. But what are people's real opinions on why they made such massive changes to AoS 3? I mean, they very clearly decided that they didn't want people playing a certain way (no more big hordes, new coherency rules actively nerf your hordes if you do take them, point increases almost across the board to force smaller armies overall, forcing most of your units to be MSU, making it much more difficult to stack buffs, etc.) But why do you think they wanted to force the specific style of play that 3e seems really strange. Why force your players to use smaller armies with less models? Don't they want to sell more models? Are they trying to force people to buy the big, expensive monsters and elite troops? Are they trying to get people to buy a new army because their current one sucks now? I know that Warhammer has never truly been a balanced game, but despite all the touting of how simplifying the rules and taking away a lot of the unique tools each army had by removing so many things from the game is supposed to "balance" the game and "encourage more variety" in listbuilding, I see both of those statements as patently false. Because A: the new rules still make certain armies better (Lumineth, Stormcast, Vampires, KO) while making others worse. Anyone with weak base warscrolls is getting hit hard by the hard limits on buff stacking, and yes, that includes us, although I'm not really on the "Seraphon are dead" train of thought, yet. Anyone who relied on big hordes who isn't Gitz or Skaven is getting neutered pretty hard. Did they really just thematically want a new edition that focused on monsters and heroes? Because that's how they present it when talking in their videos. I know that no one really knows why, but I just thought it would be interesting to see what people's thoughts and opinions were on this, as it's something I've been thinking about ever since the rules leaks started coming out.
It makes sense to really shake things up every so often to incentivize people to buy new models or armies. They don't have a rotation mechanic like magic the gathering for instance, so they need to do something occasionally to shake stuff up.
Dont work for a game company but spent many years working in a game store and watching the trends. What I believe to be happening is that GW as a company has come to the belief that people do not want to play a 2.5 hr game moving 100s of minis around the table and so have modified their game to appeal more to casual players and skirmish players who only want to spend maybe an hour getting a game in. So for the last 3 years they have consistently implemented changes into 40k and AoS in attempts to simplify the game, speed it up, and make it more like the skirmish games they see making so much money. You can see this with the unit formation changes, the way combat has been reworked, the removal of multiple saves, the limitation of rerolls, the smaller table size in 40k, and the increase in points and the encouragement of a few big expensive units over msu strategies.
I suspect it has to do with the fact that expanding the player base improves their revenue potential the most. It's not like they kicked their hardcore fans in the teeth any more than normal, so they won't lose that base. Smaller, faster games means it's easier for new players to hit 2k points and play the game "proper." Also by cutting down hordes and spam as competitive options, they further allow players who collect for variety from getting stomped by players with more models at hand. Like if you're new to the hobby building your first 2k of Seraphon, and someone tells you you need 60 skinks or you're gonna have a bad time, then you are less likely to try your hand at playing and instead just paint your big dinos. My wild guess at least!
Honestly it’s kind of working on me, I’ve always been someone more into smaller skirmish games with the main war game too daunting, but the changes to unit sizes and army sizes in general is actually kind of enticing me to start playing
I feel like that speaks a lot to GWs failure as a company to encourage slow grow leagues and smaller point games. Early Privateer Press warmahodes for all its flaws was big on supporting local leagues and encouraging people to collect over time, so that the game could grow without burning people out. After a couple months of playing in the league, everyone had an army they could take to tournaments, as well as unique league prize support as a ty for continuing to buy product and play. GW has always been "buy now, buy often, buy it all. you wanna play dont you? buy models, buy books, buy faq, buy chapter approved, buy suppliments buy buy buy!" and its always made it daunting for new players and stunted local growth. Now that its coming back to bite them, the are trying to change things up and its hurting the people who have played their games the longest, and I dont like that.
The points changes in general aren’t that big of a deal, so we lost 1 salamander. The more frustrating thing is the points changes don’t seem like they were really not thought out and slapped together. This doesn’t make for much smaller games, 1 smaller unit or 1 less unit. After playing a couple games, the games honestly take so much longer, but it is more enjoyable. They will need to make a lot of changes but overall I really like 3e so far.
I figured as much, it's pretty obvious with the new edition that they want smaller, faster games all around. I've been a fan of Warhammer for quite a few years, but just got into actually playing in 2019. I've got to say it kind of sucks to have spent quite a bit of time and money over the last two years getting a big army with 80+ Skinks, 80 Warriors, 30 Knights and multiple dinosaurs, only to have the game change so drastically to where now I will barely be able to use any of those units. Makes sense. That seems to be the current trend in most "geek" hobbies nowadays. The "dumb it down so that the younger kids will get into it" mentality never made sense to me. Kids got into Warhammer Fantasy and 40k 10 years ago with the more complicated rules they had back then, so why do we need everything simplified even further to try and entice new people today? It's the same problem I have with D&D 5e and other RPGs. "Let's dumb the game down to draw in younger players, at the cost of variety, flavor and customization options for the people who have been playing already." I personally also think that assuming that "kids these days" somehow won't be able to understand or get into the current edition of whatever game or hobby you're talking about unless you "simplify" it is rather counter-productive. Because if the new players they want to attract really aren't capable of understanding the rules as they are now, that's not a good sign for the state of society But if they are capable and the game companies are just assuming they aren't, that's rather condescending... Also, how much can you keep "simplifying" the rules before you're literally just saying "roll a dice, whoever rolls higher wins!" Because if every new edition has to be simpler and more streamlined than the previous one, that's where you'll end up eventually I haven't even been in the hobby side of things that long and I can already see that GW loves to rely on FOMO and the "Leage of Legends" style of marketing. Constantly releasing products that are only going to be available once and that's it, so rush to get it now or you may never get it at all. Plus, as you said, churning out a never-ending stream of rule changes, updates, FAQs, and supplements to force you to keep buying or not be able to play anymore (unless you have other players who all agree to stick with a particular ruleset).
I don't think this edition is particularly simplified, to be honest. The changes that mean more people might be enticed to play are purely about reducing the amount of effort to build and paint a 2k army. The game is as complex as ever and possibly more than 2nd Edition. And of course for those of us who like giant armies, we do have a 3k game ruleset now...