Jump to content

The Rumour Thread


Recommended Posts

I think issue is that when they are straigth up 40% (or more depending on how accessible max pts on primaries are) of your scoring they become too important and hence very tricky to balance as in practice the difference between almost auto score and too many hoops/rng to jump through is fairly small. The preview is partial so maybe we will see each GA have one easy and one hard so let's see I suppose.. But I don't really see benefit of having 6 universal + 2 GA specific instead of just writing 8 universals and leave it at that...? Seems u only introduce another variable to drive imbalance (just look at recent meta with BW/Gitz in the top, IJ/Kbz at bottom and SBGL/OBR in top while NH struggle...)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Hollow said:

To play devil's advocate, there are numerous examples of when orders from high command dictate that there is a high-priority target on the field. The eradication of said target would be seen as more of a victory regarding a larger war. The BT is simple and clear. Not sure why people would want to have it be needlessly complicated. 

Don't really have an issue with that, ie I agree with you that killing a preselected unit is a perfectly fine battle tactic to include. My issue is just the asymmetry in that the death/chaos one's are things u want to do anyways so it's just a matter of planning the flow of your game in the rigth way. Whereas Order/Destruction ones are quite likely to be bad for your overall board position so they fall more in the category of random sh-t u do to score points which doest feel like playing a wargame properly... Ofc there will be situations where eg makes sense for a destruction army to charge in with 3 units that happens to be on the territory borderline but its way way more situational at least imo, can't really think of a game where taking an objective or killing a unit is not something u will do between the 5 rounds on other hand..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Hollow said:

To play devil's advocate, there are numerous examples of when orders from high command dictate that there is a high-priority target on the field. The eradication of said target would be seen as more of a victory regarding a larger war. The BT is simple and clear. Not sure why people would want to have it be needlessly complicated. 

Yea if it was actually a high priority target I'd get that, but it can be any chaff unit really.

It's already needlessly complicated as is, just not thought out well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MotherGoose said:

Yea if it was actually a high priority target I'd get that, but it can be any chaff unit really.

It's already needlessly complicated as is, just not thought out well.

A more interesting tweak would be putting another requirement on top. Kill X with Y. Kill X in Y turns. Something like that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MitGas said:

Disregarding your tone and that it’s possible with probably every faction (SOB might be the exception) to get it done, how is making sure that two units wander off to fulfill the battle tactic any fun at all? 
 

That‘s my bigger gripe with battle tactics. Do random stuff for points. That‘s like when you have to do extra things in hard mode of a game (not use ability X, don‘t jump, whatever) for a challenge. 
 

 

See, now this is the productive discussion about battle tactics and their implementation. I totally agree there were plenty in 3rd that just felt like the random tasks you do to get Steam achievements without relating to anything a general might want to accomplish in a battle, or anything a player might think is cool to do. 

Cutting off the flanks of your opponent's battle line does mirror strategies employed by real historical armies (to whatever degree you think those should be mapped on to a setting with magic and dragons,) so from that angle I can see why a designer might want to encourage it in game. But outside of any narrative reasons for doing so, it does seem like it can easily feel like either (1) something random you're doing because the game says you should, or (2) an unearned reward for having two units that you were already planning to send up the flanks for some other purpose. Army-specific battle tactics were often poorly done, but I wonder if having to go more broad with them in 4th will mean they mostly fall in to one of those two camps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ejecutor said:

And were they good? I like that new approach.

I'm ngl I don't think many people have bought them since they're £35 each, and I don't know anyone that plays crusade. There were significant lore developments in both though I heard. I think they're written to be faction agnostic for the rules portion but it definitely feels to me like they're intended to be played with imperium vs tyranids or imperium/admech vs necrons but idk the actual campaign rules in them

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, michu said:

Don't know about the Nids campaign, but the Necrons one introduced a civil war between loyalists of Szarekh and the Sautekh Dynasty of Imotekh the Stormlord.

I would love it if AoS follows that pattern and releases campaign books every 4-5 months like 40k is currently doing.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battle Tactics are for matched play. I can see how they help ensure the most technically proficient player wins and why they are popular with the designers right now. I’ve been avoiding them as I see them as an unnecessary complication. Maybe one day, I’ll force myself to give them a try.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2024 at 9:56 PM, Marcvs said:

The paradox being that now (not) scoring a battle tactic is the main balancing mechanic for double turns. So if you decide to play without them, you've increased the problematic aspects of the double turn

I don't find the double turn to be problematic. 

  • Like 6
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, michu said:

Don't know about the Nids campaign, but the Necrons one introduced a civil war between loyalists of Szarekh and the Sautekh Dynasty of Imotekh the Stormlord.

The Nid campaign introduce the whole concept of the Nid has flanked the imperium coming from below the galactic plane and brought some heavy stuff

Spoiler

They teased that their bring in litteral nid biomass deathstars

Imperium response was to form an elite force call the Solblades made from all the imperium factions; SM, IG, Todes, SoB, Admech ect ect. They created the Sanctus Line and various Anchor worlds to wall off the mass invasion to even putting the Phalanx (Dorn big space station) 

Oghram campaign was kind of a nothign burger as of now it just basically ment that the nids has broken through the wall like the kool-aid man. As yet not actual follow up for the 4th Tyrnanic wars bacuse they went back to dealing with the Necron nexus

2 hours ago, Ejecutor said:

I would love it if AoS follows that pattern and releases campaign books every 4-5 months like 40k is currently doing.

I think they would as they're teasing the whole Hell crown playing a pivotal role in the whole Vermindoom

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2024 at 9:08 PM, Tonhel said:

Sigh. Are you really believing that every army in an Alliance will be good at everything? Come on. 😉

Even the most die hard fan has to see that some armies in an Alliance will have an easier time to get those BTs than others. Do you really think that FS will have the same mobility as other Order armies when the indexes are released.

 

At this point I don't believe anything beyond the fact that we're getting new rules across the board. I know there's no reason to not consider the current state of the existing armies as at least a starting point, but we simply have no idea what balancing measures they might have implemented.

Plus, as it's been already pointed out, FS are really not a good example here. Like it's been pointed out already by someone else, there always had been access to tunnelling and fast moving monsters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tonhel said:

Lol, indeed we clearly dont have your tactical intellect😂

Edit: As I said the Reclaim the Realms is a very difficult BT for Fyrseslayers and they will have a much harder time to pull it off compared to other Order factions, but luckly not for you it seems. 😄 

Turn 1, 2 magmadroths. You run with both.

Enjoy your 4 points.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Grungnisson said:

At this point I don't believe anything beyond the fact that we're getting new rules across the board. I know there's no reason to not consider the current state of the existing armies as at least a starting point, but we simply have no idea what balancing measures they might have implemented.

Plus, as it's been already pointed out, FS are really not a good example here. Like it's been pointed out already by someone else, there always had been access to tunnelling and fast moving monsters.

 

5 hours ago, Iradekhorne said:

Turn 1, 2 magmadroths. You run with both.

Enjoy your 4 points.

@Grungnisson What army is worse in the Order Alliance than FS in getting this BT?

It is ofcourse not as easy to just put two Magmadroths as close as possible to the enemy quarters and run. Theoretically maybe, but there is ofcourse your opponent that will try to counter this.

I.e with FS, When using two Magmadroths you are committing 600+ points to it. Are really going to risk those with running them forward in turn one? A third of your army points is already isolated and than you are not certain if your opponent will not try to move a faster or equal as fast unit (probably cheaper unit) to get in the 6" range and block the BT. Or maybe your opponent had already deployed their army so that it's almost impossible or just needs a simple use of the redeploy ability to counter it.

I can't believe you think it's just a case of running with two high priority targets in the enemy quarters and expecting your opponent will just let you take the BT. 

My point is that in the Alliance order, FS are the weakest army in getting this BT. It costs a lot off effort. CoS have their Copters, Dark Riders and etc.. Idoneth have their eels and sharks and they are just a faster moving army. It's a bit stupid to list all the other Order faction units, but still it's clear that FS (as the faction roster currently is more limited in options and are in worse place to pull the BT off.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+++ Mod Hat On +++
Firstly thanks for getting back to rumours folks but I do have to address a couple of points based on recent posts.

1) Tactics belong in other topics not the rumour thread

2) @The_Tallest_Ork we treat everybody with respect here and not sneering at people about tactics. If this is something you are going to struggle with, this isn’t the forum for you. 
 

Back to rumours about made up things like rat men. No such thing 😉

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dragon-knight77 said:

The Nid campaign introduce the whole concept of the Nid has flanked the imperium coming from below the galactic plane and brought some heavy stuff

  Reveal hidden contents

They teased that their bring in litteral nid biomass deathstars

Imperium response was to form an elite force call the Solblades made from all the imperium factions; SM, IG, Todes, SoB, Admech ect ect. They created the Sanctus Line and various Anchor worlds to wall off the mass invasion to even putting the Phalanx (Dorn big space station) 

Oghram campaign was kind of a nothign burger as of now it just basically ment that the nids has broken through the wall like the kool-aid man. As yet not actual follow up for the 4th Tyrnanic wars bacuse they went back to dealing with the Necron nexus

I think they would as they're teasing the whole Hell crown playing a pivotal role in the whole Vermindoom

So in the end they are books with more or less significant lore movement, considering how much 40k lore is moving. Fingers crossed for that approach for AoS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...