AoS NEW *rumor*

[xoid]

Well I guess melee armies trying to avoid combat will help speed up the game. /s

 

[Just A Skink]

If you have kroak or slann, you will swim in CP.

I know this statement has been made several other times, but I've not found it to be quite accurate. Unless by "swimming" in CP you mean 1 or maybe 2 extra per round? At least that's been my experience using a Slann, plus a Starpriest, plus a Saurus general with Mighty Warleader. Maybe 1-2 extra CP, all of which I tend to have to spend.

 

[Putzfrau]

Either way, you're sacrificing something.

... That is how age of sigmar works. It's a series of trades you're trying to stack in your favor. That's literally how you play the game.

Units that can eat unleash hell should be built into your army list if you depend on melee for your damage. If you aren't doing that it's a list building problem, not an unleash hell problem.

I still don't think the game needed unleash hell, but that doesn't change the fact that it does indeed exist. So you work around it.

And who said anything about 100 points? Aetherwings exist

 

[Christopher]

Is it just me or does today's Kharadron Overlords preview article seem to have a little more meat on it that most of those we've seen previously?

 

[xoid]

... That is how age of sigmar works. It's a series of trades you're trying to stack in your favor. That's literally how you play the game.

Units that can eat unleash hell should be built into your army list if you depend on melee for your damage. If you aren't doing that it's a list building problem, not an unleash hell problem.

I still don't think the game needed unleash hell, but that doesn't change the fact that it does indeed exist. So you work around it.

And who said anything about 100 points? Aetherwings exist

The question becomes how many chaff units will be needed to get charges off safely each round. We may end up seeing some odd looking lists.

 

[Putzfrau]

The question becomes how many chaff units will be needed to get charges off safely each round. We may end up seeing some odd looking lists.

Not so much. Someone's army has what, probably 2 max scary unleash hell units? You don't need to do it all the time, just if you have something clutch that you don't want to risk you have something eat the overwatch first.

 

[Christopher]

Not so much. Someone's army has what, probably 2 max scary unleash hell units? You don't need to do it all the time, just if you have something clutch that you don't want to risk you have something eat the overwatch first.

Seems like some people will recognize chaff for chaff and not use the ability when being charged by such a unit, though, doesn't it? Thus "saving" it for the more potent charging unit one is presumably setting up to follow?

 

[Canas]

... That is how age of sigmar works. It's a series of trades you're trying to stack in your favor. That's literally how you play the game.

Units that can eat unleash hell should be built into your army list if you depend on melee for your damage. If you aren't doing that it's a list building problem, not an unleash hell problem.

In principle I agree. But I don't think there's anything quite as impactfull, yet still super basic, as unleash hell. Unleash hell feels like it takes it a step too far. I think the thing that's annoying about unleash hell is that it is effective against what should really counter it.

Simply put, heavy cavalry or infantry should never be afraid to actually charge a unit of archers. Not unless those archers are hiding behind a minefield or something. Those archers should only be scary while they manage to stay out of range, protected by their own screens or other obstacles. Yet Unleash hell turns this around and suddenly powerfull melee units are scared to actually charge into the melee.

And who said anything about 100 points? Aetherwings exist

Sure for some, but plenty of other armies that don't have acces to such cheap fodder. Those are kinda screwed

Not so much. Someone's army has what, probably 2 max scary unleash hell units? You don't need to do it all the time, just if you have something clutch that you don't want to risk you have something eat the overwatch first.

There's still the issue of the other player protecting his own stuff though. Even if he only has 2 scary units, keeping at least one alive & save for 2-3 turns should not exactly be difficult if he screens halfway decently. Plus, a dedicated ranged faction will have at least have decent shooting on even his more basic units. So 2-3 turns of unleash hell from a powerfull ranged unit, or 4-5 from decent ranged units seems fairly plausible if you're facing a dedicated ranged army. Which means you should probably count on needing 100-200 points of sacrificial fodder (depending on the faction you play), just to be able to cover your charges.

Seems like some people will recognize chaff for chaff and not use the ability when being charged by such a unit, though, doesn't it? Thus "saving" it for the more potent charging unit one is presumably setting up to follow?

If the fodder reaches the big scary ranged unit the unit then can't use unleash hell anymore. In which case you probably might as well just shoot the fodder and get them out of the way (unless there's another oppertunity for unleash hell elsewhere, or you need that CP for something else obviously)

 

[Tyranitar]

Let's get some games in before we get overly concerned about the new rules. Too much has changed. I'm also assuming the winter faq points changes will be pretty large

 

[xoid]

I had missed the part about the unit using Unleash Hell needing to be more then 3" from all units other then the one that charged, so I now better understand how charging with chaff works better, as after that charge you can charge with something stronger safely.

 

[NecridHydra]

But nothing prevents your enemy to shoot your charging unit from behind. In the few games I've played, I've deployed my shooting units behind something scarier and my rival has done the same to me.

I remember charging with a Stegadon Chief to some Decimators or Retributors and a unit of Raptors, too far away to charge them, dealed 7 wounds to him.

Unleash Hell shouldn't allow you to shoot a unit who isn't charging you, as Fantasy did.

 

[Putzfrau]

In principle I agree. But I don't think there's anything quite as impactfull, yet still super basic, as unleash hell. Unleash hell feels like it takes it a step too far. I think the thing that's annoying about unleash hell is that it is effective against what should really counter it.

Simply put, heavy cavalry or infantry should never be afraid to actually charge a unit of archers. Not unless those archers are hiding behind a minefield or something. Those archers should only be scary while they manage to stay out of range, protected by their own screens or other obstacles. Yet Unleash hell turns this around and suddenly powerfull melee units are scared to actually charge into the melee.


Sure for some, but plenty of other armies that don't have acces to such cheap fodder. Those are kinda screwed


There's still the issue of the other player protecting his own stuff though. Even if he only has 2 scary units, keeping at least one alive & save for 2-3 turns should not exactly be difficult if he screens halfway decently. Plus, a dedicated ranged faction will have at least have decent shooting on even his more basic units. So 2-3 turns of unleash hell from a powerfull ranged unit, or 4-5 from decent ranged units seems fairly plausible if you're facing a dedicated ranged army. Which means you should probably count on needing 100-200 points of sacrificial fodder (depending on the faction you play), just to be able to cover your charges.


If the fodder reaches the big scary ranged unit the unit then can't use unleash hell anymore. In which case you probably might as well just shoot the fodder and get them out of the way (unless there's another oppertunity for unleash hell elsewhere, or you need that CP for something else obviously)

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, i think we are just starting to get into this extensive theorycrafting territory that i'm always reluctant to get into. I more or less agree at a high level. I think unleash hell is not the best inclusion in a game that was already suffering from a ranged problem... but it also coincides with a lot of other changes that also have pretty huge impacts on the game. I'm willing to give it a try.

In terms of the other, more specific scenarios you're talking about... there's just too many variables to have a meaningful conversation about. You can theorycraft some ideal scenario where unleash hell is a pain and i can do the same because when you're theorycrafting ideal scenarios you don't have to deal with, you know, actually playing the game. A lot of things are much harder to accomplish in practice.

Basically, i agree in principle but not in degree.

 

[Putzfrau]

Seems like some people will recognize chaff for chaff and not use the ability when being charged by such a unit, though, doesn't it? Thus "saving" it for the more potent charging unit one is presumably setting up to follow?

You can't use unleash hell once a unit is within 3'' of the shooting unit.

 

[Canas]

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, i think we are just starting to get into this extensive theorycrafting territory that i'm always reluctant to get into. I more or less agree at a high level. I think unleash hell is not the best inclusion in a game that was already suffering from a ranged problem... but it also coincides with a lot of other changes that also have pretty huge impacts on the game. I'm willing to give it a try.

O sure, it can always end up fine in the end, who knows maybe GW finally found the secret formula to make things balanced
But you know, somehow I doubt that

Anyways we'l see. Hopefully the flaws get fixed quickly enough. Simply changing it to the original overwatch rules (so only the target of the charge, hitting on 6's) would probably be sufficient to reign in most (theoretical) problems.

 

[Nart]

But nothing prevents your enemy to shoot your charging unit from behind.

THAT is the main problem. If unleash hell worked like FB's stand and shoot, it won't be nearly as problematic. And the problem is not that it will wipe whole units, no. It will do additional damage, which shouldn't be done at all. And it is in the game, when shooting was already dominating. The ability is especially strong, when a unit already hits on 2+ or 3+.

My theory is that GW tried to make game as reactive as possible and just didn't come up with any better ideas.

Let's get some games in before we get overly concerned about the new rules.

I've got some games and I am getting concerned. For armies which have shooting only as a support, it won't be huge, but for top tier shooting units it is quite the opposite.

When my skink screen was charged by pigs, I unleashed hell with salamanders and killed 1. It is less attacks and +1 to battleshock tests, which shouldn't happen at all.

 

[Putzfrau]

O sure, it can always end up fine in the end, who knows maybe GW finally found the secret formula to make things balanced
But you know, somehow I doubt that

Anyways we'l see. Hopefully the flaws get fixed quickly enough. Simply changing it to the original overwatch rules (so only the target of the charge, hitting on 6's) would probably be sufficient to reign in most (theoretical) problems.

I keep hearing original overwatch, but is that in reference to 40k rules or fantasy? Because stand and shoot in fantasy has always been -1 to hit.

I think even making it 6's doesnt solve the problem because the biggest issues are units that don't care about hitting (thanquol, sentinels, etc).

List building just hasn't adjusted to deal with it. Melee units also got a lot stronger just by the sheer fact of having relatively easy access to +1 save and having a smaller table. The smaller table really makes a big difference in how many free turns of shooting you're getting.

Still think unleash hell was unnecessary but I don't think it's a massive problem. There are bigger issues in 3.0 IMO.

 

[Canas]

I keep hearing original overwatch, but is that in reference to 40k rules or fantasy? Because stand and shoot in fantasy has always been -1 to hit.

The 40K one, didn't know fantasy had one as well.

I think even making it 6's doesnt solve the problem because the biggest issues are units that don't care about hitting (thanquol, sentinels, etc).

Most of those are limited either by reinforcement size (e.g. sentinels will only really become problematic in larger units with respect to unleash hell, a MSU is probably acceptable for unleash hell) or have a cap on their damage which can be played around to some extend (E.g. thanquol can be charged by a carnosaur or other single entity units with relative little problems). Admittadly both of these are still super problematic in the right situation.

Things like Salamanders, Flamers or shooting heroes/behemoths work against any target. Which is why those are currently focused on I guess.

List building just hasn't adjusted to deal with it. Melee units also got a lot stronger just by the sheer fact of having relatively easy access to +1 save and having a smaller table. The smaller table really makes a big difference in how many free turns of shooting you're getting.

Meh I doubt listbuilding will really fix the inherent issue of a mechanic like unleash hell which covers what normally should be a weakness. Again, archers are supposed to be vulnerable to charges from melee infantry, that's kind of their main weakness. So giving them an effective counter to charges is questionable at best. The +1 to save is nowhere near enough to counteract that.

The smaller board size might help, but if you can't screen well enough to at least get 2 rounds of unleash hell in, no matter the board size, you've screwed up your initial formation considerably. So I doubt that'l really fix much either, not unless the board size becomes so small we end up seeing people simply running into pile-in range instead of charging.

At best, we'l simply see a bigger focus on ranged units with pure-melee factions defaulting to only using stuff that's sufficiently sturdy to survive unleash hell reliably (e.g. stonehorns might rise in dominance), or simply has enough bodies to soak up the bullets (e.g. summoning builds). And everything else drops a tier or two in viability.

And at worst we'l basicly only see ranged armies, though that's probably a bit too pessimistic

Regardless we'd probably have been better off without its existance.

Still think unleash hell was unnecessary but I don't think it's a massive problem. There are bigger issues in 3.0 IMO.

That may be true. 3.0 seems to have a lot of weird stuff going on...

 

[Canas]

THAT is the main problem. If unleash hell worked like FB's stand and shoot, it won't be nearly as problematic. And the problem is not that it will wipe whole units, no. It will do additional damage, which shouldn't be done at all. And it is in the game, when shooting was already dominating. The ability is especially strong, when a unit already hits on 2+ or 3+.

My theory is that GW tried to make game as reactive as possible and just didn't come up with any better ideas.



I've got some games and I am getting concerned. For armies which have shooting only as a support, it won't be huge, but for top tier shooting units it is quite the opposite.

When my skink screen was charged by pigs, I unleashed hell with salamanders and killed 1. It is less attacks and +1 to battleshock tests, which shouldn't happen at all.

This pretty much. Even if you play around it perfectly, even if it doesn't do loads of damage, even if it only ends up killing fodder. It's still essentially just a bunch of free extra damage by units which needed no help to begin with.There's just really no need for this to exist, and all it does is make already powerfull units even more powerfull.

 

[Killer Angel]

I keep hearing original overwatch, but is that in reference to 40k rules or fantasy? Because stand and shoot in fantasy has always been -1 to hit.

The 40K one, didn't know fantasy had one as well.

WHFB had stand & shoot with -1, but in old fantasy shooting was almost always just a way to soften the target (the instances when it was a decisive tool were rarer), so it was not a big deal to lose a couple of guys in the charge.

40k got stand and shoot at 6 unmodified (with rare exceptions able to shoot at 5+, and flamers with autohit).

however, and this is a big game changer, the shooting was from the charged unit. Not from a support unit.
The only army that has ever been able to shoot chargin units with supports, is the Tau. And that was the main reason why it was so hard to charge tau gunlines.
AoS is replicating that deadly effect with Unleash Hell.... only on a superior magnitude.

 

[Putzfrau]

The 40K one, didn't know fantasy had one as well.


Most of those are limited either by reinforcement size (e.g. sentinels will only really become problematic in larger units with respect to unleash hell, a MSU is probably acceptable for unleash hell) or have a cap on their damage which can be played around to some extend (E.g. thanquol can be charged by a carnosaur or other single entity units with relative little problems). Admittadly both of these are still super problematic in the right situation.

Things like Salamanders, Flamers or shooting heroes/behemoths work against any target. Which is why those are currently focused on I guess.



Meh I doubt listbuilding will really fix the inherent issue of a mechanic like unleash hell which covers what normally should be a weakness. Again, archers are supposed to be vulnerable to charges from melee infantry, that's kind of their main weakness. So giving them an effective counter to charges is questionable at best. The +1 to save is nowhere near enough to counteract that.

The smaller board size might help, but if you can't screen well enough to at least get 2 rounds of unleash hell in, no matter the board size, you've screwed up your initial formation considerably. So I doubt that'l really fix much either, not unless the board size becomes so small we end up seeing people simply running into pile-in range instead of charging.

At best, we'l simply see a bigger focus on ranged units with pure-melee factions defaulting to only using stuff that's sufficiently sturdy to survive unleash hell reliably (e.g. stonehorns might rise in dominance), or simply has enough bodies to soak up the bullets (e.g. summoning builds). And everything else drops a tier or two in viability.

And at worst we'l basicly only see ranged armies, though that's probably a bit too pessimistic

Regardless we'd probably have been better off without its existance.


That may be true. 3.0 seems to have a lot of weird stuff going on...

Again, i don't necessarily disagree i just don't know if the conclusions you're drawing about the impact on army builds are necessarily true. Tzeentch, daughters, seraphon, LRL and KO all get hit hard by the various 3.0 changes and point increases. Hard enough to matter? I dunno. Hard enough to make unleash hell not annoying? Not totally sure. But I think it's easy to paint a picture where it warps the whole game when i really don't see that happening.

Even if you take salamanders, a full unit with 8 shots is getting like 3 shots through unless you spike it, doing like 4-6 damage all things considered. That's not really that horrendous to deal with.

By far the biggest changes to the game are the way points are scored, and that will certainly warp the way armies are built ESPECIALLY if tournaments start going off total point score and not just giving a static number for major victories. Just like in 40k now, top tier players will be encouraged to bring lists that can't just win, but max points.