• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS NEW *rumor*

No revelations here. I'm a little hesitant about the teases I've seen. It could be just that the changes seem pretty different to me. I haven't played 40K, and I've seen several comments that 40K & AoS are becoming more similar. I assume that will make it easier on the designers, but I kind of liked that the two games were more distinct. Maybe some of the rumors are true about AoS taking on a more skirmish/hero flavor and TOW becoming the battlefield of many/big units?
 
You would think that with two separate design teams, they'd try their own stuff, instead of constantly borrowing from one for the other. A little is fine, but to go so far as put detachments and the coherency rules from 40k In AoS, in what I assume is an effort to shrink the game like they did for 40k... Just seems unfortunate for those of us who liked 2.0 in essence.

I'm still of a mind that 3.0s development is colored by some sort of competitiveness/frustration between the main studio and the FW studio producing ToW.
Could just be nothing though.
 
@ArtoriusaurusRex @Erta Wanderer yeah that's true, I guess I just wasn't impressed with saurus warriors in the early games I tried them out so I gave up on them awhile ago. Granted I never tried the battalions out but I've mainly been playing starborne and knight heavy KC lists
 
Out of all Coherency seems like a blunt copy-paste from 40k without considering differences in systems.

I cannot imagine how they tested it and decided "yeah, thats okay". Melee alreadt was in dire situation and they punched it one more time.

It more or less worked in 40k, because 40k had less hordes to begin with. But more importantly, it don't have weapon ranges. It is quite easy to get all 10 Sydonian Dragoons in melee, but getting 10 saurus knights - almost impossible without losing coherency.
 
Nart said:
Out of all Coherency seems like a blunt copy-paste from 40k without considering differences in systems.

I cannot imagine how they tested it and decided "yeah, thats okay". Melee alreadt was in dire situation and they punched it one more time.

It more or less worked in 40k, because 40k had less hordes to begin with. But more importantly, it don't have weapon ranges. It is quite easy to get all 10 Sydonian Dragoons in melee, but getting 10 saurus knights - almost impossible without losing coherency.
Click to expand...

Who knows? They might just change melee combat entirely to be like 40k. They seem to want those two games to be as close as possible, lol!
 
The only way I can see to get 10 Knights all into combat under the new cohesion rules is to be attacked from all sides.
 
Maybe weapon ranges will represent the range that a unit can fight from behind the first rank. 1" range meaning a model has to be within 1" of the "engaged" row to also fight.


Now that's a nice fool's hope
 
Last edited:
ArtoriusaurusRex said:
Maybe weapon ranges will represent the range that a unit can fight from behind the first rank. 1" range meaning a model has to be within 1" of the "engaged" row to also fight.


Now that's a nice fool's hope
Click to expand...

Basically 40k.
Once 40k was shortly explained with "fantasy in space".
I don’t want AoS to become "40k, but fantasy"
 
Nart said:
It more or less worked in 40k, because 40k had less hordes to begin with. But more importantly, it don't have weapon ranges. It is quite easy to get all 10 Sydonian Dragoons in melee, but getting 10 saurus knights - almost impossible without losing coherency.
Click to expand...
To be honest what confuses me more is screening. What exactly is the point of a 10 man screen if they need to be organised into 2 ranks? They'l barely cover any ground. Like what exactly is the idea? I assume they were simply trying to deal with some of the sillier screens, like putting a unit of 40 skinks in a big circle and screening your entire army that way. But this seems to be swinging wildly in the other direction.
 
Putzfrau said:
Don't be so doom and gloom man, hard to see the forest when we're just getting pictures of the leaves.

The game will be different, but i wouldn't start making any drastic definitive statements.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sometimes I'm on the worse side, but think this that way. Units, unless stated otherwise in a massive FaQ, will continue on their current unit sizes and horde bonuses won't apply. Which means, Saurus wont have 2 attacks on their clubs/spears and Skinks will barely shoot. Unit size for both of them is currently capped to 30, as you can only invest 2 reinforcement points on battleline units.

I'll talk about Seraphon, as they're the only army I play. Almost evey unit we use to deploy is paying extra cost. Sallys x3, Terradons x2, Kroxis x2, Skinks x4 or screens of MSU (which are now worse due to coherency), Saurus x2 or x4... And so on. Meanwhile our efficiency went down.

The last game I played was against Vampires. I used a FoS list with 3 Sallys and a blob of 40 Skinks with a Priest and Starpriest. My friend had 2 units of 5 Blood Knigts; one of them faced my Sallys and the other one my unit of Skinks. The unit facing the Salamanders had 3 casualties on first turn and the one facing the Skinks had almost 2 casualties and 2 wounds. Next turn, he charged my Blob and I survived long and good to hold the objetive they were in and the Sallyes died because a double charge (my bad) but not without wipping one more Knight.

My point is, what do we have, if we are not longer allowed to have a blob, to counter things like these? Math wise, a MSU Blood Knights deals 10.76 Wound to 4+ save (any behemoth or Saurus MSU). Yeah, we can screen the hell out of our army, double and quadruple screens for the same price until a Stegadon comes and kills the 5 Knighs next turn, but are we playing AoS or chess?

I know this is a strategy game and most of the time I play like chess, sacrificing a unit hoping RNGesus bless me unscathered and not a rival's double turn so I can counter him next time.

TL:DR. There are better units in MSU than others and that´s a fact. We barely have something to counter an elite unit like a Varanguard or Blood Knigts 1vs1.
 
Canas said:
To be honest what confuses me more is screening. What exactly is the point of a 10 man screen if they need to be organised into 2 ranks? They'l barely cover any ground. Like what exactly is the idea? I assume they were simply trying to deal with some of the sillier screens, like putting a unit of 40 skinks in a big circle and screening your entire army that way. But this seems to be swinging wildly in the other direction.
Click to expand...
you don't need to double rank you can just triangle cap the line
 
So i have a quick question. Why are we so doom and gloom about our screens.

We can still deploy skink screens in a line as its written for the same reason as to why 25mm bases can attack with 1 inch weapons in two lines. 1 inch extends further then a 25 inch base. So we can still be in a line and maintain coherency on skinks.

It sucks for saurus but screens isnt really what they were used for to begin with
 
Moulinglacia said:
So i have a quick question. Why are we so doom and gloom about our screens.

We can still deploy skink screens in a line as its written for the same reason as to why 25mm bases can attack with 1 inch weapons in two lines. 1 inch extends further then a 25 inch base. So we can still be in a line and maintain coherency on skinks.

It sucks for saurus but screens isnt really what they were used for to begin with
Click to expand...
i don't know really the coherency rules are fine won't even couse problems most of the time. even with 32mm you can cap the ends so you can still put them in a line just like always just 2 shorter then we used to.
even in melee pile ins it isn't going to matter since most of the time you want to be fighting 2 ranks deep and if you can't fight 2 deep you can sacrafice 1 model and just do what we always have. this change barely matters in the long run
 
Erta Wanderer said:
you don't need to double rank you can just triangle cap the line
Click to expand...
You mean like this?

upload_2021-6-12_13-36-32.png

The issue with a formation like this is that the moment you suffer any losses you're forced to break coherency.
Or at least, I don't really see a way to remove 1 model from this and still have the unit be coherent under the new rule.


It also doesn't help that it looks rather silly and unnatural, though that's a minor issue in comparison.
 
Canas said:
You mean like this?

View attachment 93706

The issue with a formation like this is that the moment you suffer any losses you're forced to break coherency.
Or at least, I don't really see a way to remove 1 model from this and still have the unit be coherent under the new rule.


It also doesn't help that it looks rather silly and unnatural, though that's a minor issue in comparison.
Click to expand...
i do mean like that and the answer is to take models from the middle not the ends as even with the gaps they would still be 1" from each other. or loose 1 model an have done with it. or if they drop them bellow 5 it wont matter
 
Erta Wanderer said:
i do mean like that and the answer is to take models from the middle
Click to expand...
not the ends as even with the gaps they would still be 1" from each other[/QUOTE]
1) That only works with skinks and their tiny base. Stuff like saurus can't pull this off with their bigger bases
2) It's still problematic if your losses happen an an inconvenient manner to multiple attacks. E.g. Lose 2 models during shooting, then lose an additional 1in melee (more of a concern for units with better stats than it is for skinks)
3) It still means you cover significantly less ground with an MSU of skinks. Going from a line with 10 models with 0.98" bases with 9 1" gaps between them to just 8 models with 0.98" bases and no gaps. That's still a pretty major cut-back.
4) A honeycombed rank still allows the line to be slightly longer, as it allows the use of 5 models and 4 gaps in the frontline, plus a model in the backline and part of its gap (though even this is a significant reduction compared to the original 20" we could almost reach)

So it's still a fairly massive nerf to screens. And basic MSU screens do not seem like they are the main culprit abusing daisy-chaining.
 
Erta Wanderer said:
i do mean like that and the answer is to take models from the middle not the ends as even with the gaps they would still be 1" from each other. or loose 1 model an have done with it. or if they drop them bellow 5 it wont matter
Click to expand...

I'm not following, where can you remove a model a still have the unit be cohesive?

Looking at that image I can't find anywhere that won't break unit cohesion, and from there I can't see a way to get it back until you are down to 5 models and the rules change.
 
xoid said:
I'm not following, where can you remove a model a still have the unit be cohesive?

Looking at that image I can't find anywhere that won't break unit cohesion, and from there I can't see a way to get it back until you are down to 5 models and the rules change.
Click to expand...
no thats not what i meant. when you have a model out of cohesion at the end of a turn that model dies and thats it it doesn't daisy chain down the line you just loose one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top