Sure, but right now the choice is basicly guards or nothing. With the new rule every single battleline becomes capable of protecting the slann, against shooting and melee, which means it may be more efficient to simply put those 100-something points into buying something fancier than a glorified slann-upgrade and simply rely on your other battleline to keep your slann safe. At least in certain matchups. Sure, I'm just saying Guard are going to need a bit of a buff. They already kinda do, if you want them to be an actual unit (and not just a slann upgrade) but with this new rule it's even more noticeable that that's all they are. Imho, "prodding" at a unit that's hiding behind another is kinda stupid in 99% of the cases And honestly, varying melee range could be dropped as far as I'm concerned. In most cases it feels like a very game-y mechanic that doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense with what it's supposed to represent. Aside from the fact that they can't like @VikingRage pointed out, there's also the issue that it doesn't solve any of their issues. To be able to use the attack in the hero phase they need to have been in combat for a turn already. At which point either the rippers are dead (or seriously maimed) or your target is probably dead. Either way, that heroic action is a bit pointless. Which is a general issue for us. With most of our army leaning towards being glass cannons and little to no movement in the hero phase, this isn't going to be super usefull. As an aside; shame it doesn't work for minor mounted heroes. Things like the ripper chief, scar vet on cold one, etc. would still make a lot of sense to have their own little retinue like the rule is supposed to represent.
Come up with alternative profiles for different weapons (if you think it's even worth doing), and then we might have something to work with. Otherwise, you're just presenting a scenario where one weapon option will always be superior. Then again, this is a game that shits on polearms for little to no reason, so what would I know.
Hey all, we are getting a little far out into the weeds from the rumour mill and into theory crafting (I am guilty of this as well) and it might behoove us to move the discussion to a thread better dedicated to such an in depth back and forth (besides, those threads need love too). Some likely candidates being... How is 3rd Edition going so far? 3.0 Battletome Wishlisting/Theorycraft And lastly, we haven't crossed this line yet, but here is a *erm* subtle reminder before we get there. We are all in this swampy jungle together, but we all have different experiences, metas, playstyles, and wishes for where the game is going. Careful when calling out each other's opinions as outright wrong because they differ from your own. Please come at it from a "I disagree because of this, but what is your reasoning?" Or at least something other than "You're obviously wrong." You can come at me guns blazing, but not everyone is up for the more confrontational style of discussion these conversations tend to escalate to. We don't need to go Kumbaya, but lets try to take the edge out of it. And my apologies for when I have been a bit blunt or brusque myself. Peace and Love Y'all
No worries, we have only gotten a partial reveal including a lot of disparate parts and it's all a bit foggy still
Imho, most weapon profiles are too similar too begin with. And the range trade-off is rarely interesting either, with clear superiour choices depending on how easy it is to stack buffs for that particular unit (e.g. spear-types are basicly always better if buff stacking is easy, as it means more buffed attacks, whereas if you're stuck with unbuffed then the sword-type is 9 out of 10 times better) So I'm fine with it becoming one profile, much like say skeletons got in their new tome.
...So you're advocating that saurus warriors should have a 2"/3+/3+/-1/1 attack profile? May as well just scrap warriors altogether and field Saurus Guard instead, since there's no real difference between the two units at that point.
When on earth did he say that? He said the weapon profiles should be combined, which in no scenario gets to the profile you just put out there. At best it would be the current Club profile, maybe with 2" reach. And "no difference between the units" because a temporary 6 month rule makes one special rule obsolete? Sure, I guess if you ignore the different wounds, points cost, and number of models.
Yep, that's a thing that irks me. in a season you fight with 2 ranks, in another season it's an impossible feat.
What @cyberhawk94 says pretty much. I never argued for any specific weapon profile, and definitely not for a profile that's better than both of their current profiles. All I'm saying is the following: 1) I think (most) 32mm models (and smaller) should be able to attack in two ranks (in so far AoS has "ranks"). It fits with their larger unit sizes and weaker individual models, and it removes some of the more awkward positioning issues caused by simply having a big unit size. (there are also some bigger units for whom it might make sense, I'll get back to that later ) 2) I don't particularly care about melee weapons having different ranges. Reaching over a screen to poke a unit behind it is, imho, rather silly and game-y for 99% of units. So just give them standardized ranges, and only allow units to attack the models that they can reach without having to poke over a screen. 3) Spears/Clubs are too similar regardless, and imho, we're better off just having 1 profile for balancing purposes. At least then buffs from spells/abilities/etc. don't need to be balanced around the notion that they can also be put on the other weapon. More generally speaking, different weapon load-outs that still fill the largely the same niche (e.g. spear v.s. sword, axe v.s. club) are nearly always a pointless choice, as either it's too similar (e.g. some SCE units with hammers v.s. swords) or there's a very clear superiour option (e.g. spears are basicly always the better option in large units, similarly, the scar vet on carno just picks whichever weapon synergizes best with the current artifact of the month). Either way, it's only an illusion of choice. In these cases we'd be better off if the load-out was purely cosmetic. The only times the loadout is potentially a meaningfull choice is (provided the choices are somewhat balanced of course ) 1) when special abilities are attached to the choices (e.g. flamethrowers v.s. bow on a stegadon) 2) when the weapons fill vastly different niches (e.g. bow v.s. sword on kurnoth hunter) 3) when it comes with significantly different pointcosts (e.g. solar engine v.s. ark of sotek on a bastiladon) The best way to implement this would imho be via a keyword that you give to the relevant units, idunno, say <MASSED RANKS> or something. This would make it easier to balance things, because you could just take away the keyword from problematic units if needed. It'd also allows for potential combined arms units when two units share the keyword (e.g. saurus warrior unit #2 can join ranks with unit #1, or an oldblood joining ranks) which would be interesting, you could even use this to create temporary hordes, which imho would be a very interesting thing to explore. It'd also allow you to create a keyword for things like the lumineth wardens, were fighting in 3 ranks might even be acceptable. And lastly it'd allow you to give the keyword to some bigger models should that be something that would be interesting (e.g. SCE vindicators might make sense) I doubt it'll happen. Especially the more sophisticated implementation with keywords and potentially interesting interactions between units I just mentioned. But I hope that at least some part of this rule carries over.
Mostly because if you want to go on that route ("of course my long spear, so similar to a sarissa, should have a range longer then your sword"), then you should have a significant malus when you're in really close combat, when my gladius becomes much more effective.
Yup, plus you'd also need to go back to formations mattering again. A single spear or pike isn't anywhere near as much of an advantage, especially if it's 2 guys with swords v.s. 1 guy with a spear. At the very least you need equal numbers, and even then you need a proper formation & coordination to really take advantage of your reach. And those formations aren't as flexible & mobile, it needs a certain depth & width to be effective, flanking is much more important against long pikes & similar weapons, etc. Not to mention it's just kinda weird that you can just poke over a screen to stab the guy they are actively trying to block you from reaching.
It's worth pointing out that the design philosophy you're trying to suggest here is not a given certainty in GW's wheelhouse at the moment. False dichotomies courtesy of rules published outside of individual warscrolls like what we saw with Bonds of Battle do exist (Clanrats in particular have the dubious distinction of being one of the only 3rd Edition battleline units to still retain different weapon options on their warscroll, only to have one of those options invalidated as blatantly inferior in Skaven armies due to faction rules that are not intrinsic to the unit itself), but they're not particularly concerned with "fixing" those any time soon.
I may just be getting tired but the seasons of war and constant meta shifting has kind of diminished my desire to play AoS this last year. I know some people like having constant change, but I don't like the new editions every few years, the new meta every year with the new season book, I prefer balance over constant change to make people buy new models...
I've said multiple times that I really wish GW would focus on balancing the armies against each other and internally rather than just changing which units are good by changing the game rules every year. It's a stupid idea and while it looks pretty on paper it's just another way to try to squeeze more money out of the playerbase.
Agreed. While not necessarily a result of any disdain for the Seasons of War, my local gaming group tends to prefer Contest of Generals instead as a much more consistent ruleset for games.
Yeah, fast paced seasons & lots of changes don't really mix well with a slow paced tabetop game with a collecting aspect. It's the e-sports approach to balance & engagement. And given how succesfully it sucks money out of wallets I doubt it'll dissappear anytime soon.