Age of Sigmar: 4.0 What would you like to borrow from 40k 10th edition?

[Beliman]

(killing some time before work calls me again)

So, after Adepticon preview, we know a few things about 10th edition of 40k. It seems that it will be a shake up, with a lot of changes:

Spoiler

1. Index/Compendiums free from day 1. For all armies.
2. New App that works
3. Morale phase becomes Battleshock phase and it's tied in to Command/Hero Phase. Models don't die anymore, they are handicapped/debuffed
4. Psychic phase removed. It's like Horus Heresy, you cast spells in the phase that the spell is supposed to be cast. E.g: a fireball on your shooting phase.
5. Datasheets=Warscrolls. Every unit has their own profiles. Same as AoS.
6. Universal Special Rules.
7. 1 full spread page rules for your army/subfaction. Not sure what it means, but it seems that you will have one page rule for Orks or one page rule for Freebooterz (or any other faction). 
8. Warlorts traits, artifacts, etc... still in (same with AoS, let's see if they still have points and bought with Commands).
9. List Building: 1 HQ/leader, 3-6 Battlines (yep, no Troops, but Battlelines) and 0-3 all other units. Really close to what we have in AoS.
10. Stratagems are going to be Commands Abilities: A few generic ones and 6 for each army/subfaction. A lot less Commands to play with. Exactly as AoS.
11. Objective Secured Removed. New Datasheet/Warscroll stat Objective Control (OC). "this model counts as X for capturing objectives".
12. Lower Ap/Rend, new balance between Strength and Thougness (buffs for thougness, less buffs for Strength). The game will have less Lethality
13. Combat Patroll boxes are going to be completely legal for small games.

GW revealed a new Datasheet for Termagants too:

Spoiler

So, what would you like to see/borrow for Age of Sigmar 4.0? 

Imho, I wouldn't mind to have the same OC stat and a few Universal Special Rules (but only a few, no need to have 14 pages split between armory and Abilities like Horus Heresy). I really like how magic works in Horus Heresy too, it's really nice to have ranged fire followed with a lightning bolt.

AoS have more active abilities like Monstruous Rampage and Heroic Actions. Maybe GW could remove the mechanic but turn them as USR (e.g: all monster could have their own Monstruous Rampage printed as an ability in their own warscroll).

I'm happy that GW is removing some of 40k lethality, and I'm very curious about debuff from Battleshock. That means that we are going to have more time to play with our miniatures on the table, and that's completely fine by me. Btw, I'm not going to start a debate for SvsT.

Not sure about the faction/subfaction abilities. I'm not sure that I completely like what we have in 3.0 even if it's really good to play with.

About the Combat Patrol box, I expect exactly the same for AoS. Boxes with 500p that you can legally play. It's had to imagine that we didn't have that before...

[GrimDork]

On a cursory look at the data sheets having an OC stat seems like it would be a sensible addition to the AoS warscroll.

[Kosmion]

I would honestly just like to see more granularity to the game: SOME rerolls not go overboard with it, having spells/effects/abilities do something else than just mortal wounds in some way or another, items costing pts

[Skreech Verminking]

7 hours ago, Beliman said:

(killing some time before work calls me again)

So, after Adepticon preview, we know a few things about 10th edition of 40k. It seems that it will be a shake up, with a lot of changes:

  Hide contents

1. Index/Compendiums free from day 1. For all armies.
2. New App that works
3. Morale phase becomes Battleshock phase and it's tied in to Command/Hero Phase. Models don't die anymore, they are handicapped/debuffed
4. Psychic phase removed. It's like Horus Heresy, you cast spells in the phase that the spell is supposed to be cast. E.g: a fireball on your shooting phase.
5. Datasheets=Warscrolls. Every unit has their own profiles. Same as AoS.
6. Universal Special Rules.
7. 1 full spread page rules for your army/subfaction. Not sure what it means, but it seems that you will have one page rule for Orks or one page rule for Freebooterz (or any other faction). 
8. Warlorts traits, artifacts, etc... still in (same with AoS, let's see if they still have points and bought with Commands).
9. List Building: 1 HQ/leader, 3-6 Battlines (yep, no Troops, but Battlelines) and 0-3 all other units. Really close to what we have in AoS.
10. Stratagems are going to be Commands Abilities: A few generic ones and 6 for each army/subfaction. A lot less Commands to play with. Exactly as AoS.
11. Objective Secured Removed. New Datasheet/Warscroll stat Objective Control (OC). "this model counts as X for capturing objectives".
12. Lower Ap/Rend, new balance between Strength and Thougness (buffs for thougness, less buffs for Strength). The game will have less Lethality
13. Combat Patroll boxes are going to be completely legal for small games.

GW revealed a new Datasheet for Termagants too:

  Hide contents

So, what would you like to see/borrow for Age of Sigmar 4.0? 

Imho, I wouldn't mind to have the same OC stat and a few Universal Special Rules (but only a few, no need to have 14 pages split between armory and Abilities like Horus Heresy). I really like how magic works in Horus Heresy too, it's really nice to have ranged fire followed with a lightning bolt.

AoS have more active abilities like Monstruous Rampage and Heroic Actions. Maybe GW could remove the mechanic but turn them as USR (e.g: all monster could have their own Monstruous Rampage printed as an ability in their own warscroll).

I'm happy that GW is removing some of 40k lethality, and I'm very curious about debuff from Battleshock. That means that we are going to have more time to play with our miniatures on the table, and that's completely fine by me. Btw, I'm not going to start a debate for SvsT.

Not sure about the faction/subfaction abilities. I'm not sure that I completely like what we have in 3.0 even if it's really good to play with.

About the Combat Patrol box, I expect exactly the same for AoS. Boxes with 500p that you can legally play. It's had to imagine that we didn't have that before...

While I do find the idea of having only 0-3 max. Units with the other battlelfield role, I don’t think this is a great idea.

the most lethal units in the games are often heroes or battleline anyways.

and those restrcition would make it incredible hard for armies to play multiple units of smaller unreliable ok-ish units like chaos spawns or weapon teams.

which would in all in all just be a nerf to certain list that weren’t considered good enough or would just nerf a bunch of armies, which seem to be struggling more and more, explicitly skaven

but personally I don’t mind the toughness and strength characteristics coming back to aos, while also making certain special rules more universal.

It makes the game easier and somewhat maybe just maybe helps the balancing of armies across the range a bit easier, but that’s more or less a dream and less likely said going to be the truth.

[Gareth 🍄]

I'm quite interested in the idea of a unit having reduced effectiveness instead of just losing more models to battleshock.

[Dogmantra]

Not necessarily stuff from the new announcement, but stuff from 40k in general that I would like to see:

• Totally agree with the addition of Objective Control as a stat. I believe Kings of War has a similar stat. It's already a dial the AoS team fiddle with a fair bit, formalising it as a core characteristic will save a lot of text and hopefully encourage some interesting designs that might differentiate units a bit better (already imagining choosing between a good defenses and good objective control to build towards either slogging over singular objectives or running around opportunistically swiping objectives).
• Better differentiation between weapon roles via a few special rules. This is something 40k and Kill Team both do really well imo. You can sort of see this with the new Kharadron Overlords book which has pinched the 40k Flamer gimmick of d6 shots which auto-hit for its Fumigators. Kill Team does it so well that simply with the core weapon rules they recently managed to model a syringe full of tranquilisers as a standard gun with no extra explanatory text required!
• Role Keywords. Something that I think would help to make standardised rules for weapons more plausible is a small bank of keywords that are applied liberally to units. I'm not sure if Fast Attack and such will stay as keywords or not but looking at the Termagant datacard it clearly has the Infantry Keyword. At the moment in AoS stuff that interacts with "Infantry" actually interacts with "units with a wounds characteristic of less than 4 that do not have a mount (excluding companions)" which is a bit of a mouthful. Add Infantry, Cavalry, maybe Irregular to the already existent Artillery, Hero, and Monster, and the designers now have a lot of space to play with that is already kind of there but is also very wordy. I'm not saying force organisation charts by the way, just stuff that interacts with them. Infantry & Cavalry as keywords and things that affect it could also bring in a teeny bit of that historical flavour. Again, nothing huge like changing to full on rank & flank play, but a few little bits and pieces to nod to the weapons' actual historical roles.

 

I'm not sold on splitting magic up into the different phases. If it means we get a nice variety of effects then I am all for it, but I don't think a variety of effects requires the splitting up of magic. Looking at something like the Khorne prayer scripture, they have several neat effects that aren't just straight MWs to the enemy, and a lot of it works because it's in the Hero Phase.

[JerekKruger]

On 3/24/2023 at 3:35 PM, Kosmion said:

I would honestly just like to see more granularity to the game: SOME rerolls not go overboard with it, having spells/effects/abilities do something else than just mortal wounds in some way or another, items costing pts

I'd quite like to see re-rolls kept as a way to identify really elite stuff and some heroes. There's so few possible hit and wound rolls (does anything in the game hit or wound on a 6+ natively?) that giving an elite unit hit or wound on 3+ with a reroll is a way to make them a bit more powerful (8/9 for 3+/rr vs 5/6 for 2+). The main criticism of re-rolls is they slow the game down, but if they're on expensive elite units you're already reducing the overall rolling load by having fewer, smaller units so it's not so bad.

I completely agree regarding spells/effects/abilities doing something more interesting than mortals. Not sure what sort of things though: AoS's simplified rules does reduce the options in that regard I think.

Items costing points: yes please. Bring back WFB style magic items so I can roleplay creating my cool unique characters with their suits of armour, weapons etc. That said, I doubt this will happen.

[Fairbanks]

On 3/24/2023 at 3:01 AM, Beliman said:

About the Combat Patrol box, I expect exactly the same for AoS. Boxes with 500p that you can legally play. It's had to imagine that we didn't have that before...

How about a 750p format called Vanguard?

[gnaleinad]

I hope that AoS 4.0 will not happen until start of 2025.

Because I hope that there will be at least 1.5 years of data collection & balancing after all the battletomes that is coming out is released. 

Really hope that can create different battleplan plans & tactics for 1k games, almost everyone agree that only 2k games can see some reasonable balancing and counter play. 

When is the Alves from realm of Shadow coming anyway? 

 

Anyway regarding 40k, I hope that instead of making AoS like 40k they should make 40k like AoS. Double turn!!!! (most likely will cause a riot hahaha)

 

Edited March 28, 2023 by gnaleinad

[CDM]

I'm excited for 10 th and as we know it's been. Mess for a while!

I honestly cannot fathom why they are sticking with codexes again. You're going blank slate with indices again, everything playable for your faction from launch. I would imagine those datasheets for units and factions would be available from launch physically and digitally! Why oh why would you want the endless stagnant army refresh happening after waiting for a dumpy book to be released!?

They said that it would be one rule in one out meaning those indexes are only temporary again . What could they include? Different strategems and factions? The biggest concern is waiting all those year's for your faction again only to be at the end of an edition cycle. I just find the need for battletome and codexes to be unnecessary. Just digitise rules and release campaigns and lore events to shake things up seasonally like they have been doing

 

[MitGas]

Personally I wasn't a huge fan of what AoS 3.0 added but I welcome 40k looking at it cause the 40k rules are truly weak.

Regardless, I'd like them to work on their wording of their rules more than anything else. E.g. Kill Team, the rules are overcomplicated because they're written badly, they are not necessarily bad rules in themselves though (they're not great rules either to be fair). I think with AoS 3.0 it's a similar situation. I've heard from a few people that WarCry seems to have the best ruleset by a long shot. I don't play it myself so I can't comment further on it but it seems to me that clear, easy to understand rules are way better than gimmicks left and right. If they'd bring back things like S and T in AoS, I wouldn't have a problem with it but I'm not sure if it's a wise move.

I'd work on a way to fix one major problem in AoS to me:  you can cripple units too easily, which means one or two mistakes can cost you the game. This would be acceptable for really good players but I think beer and pretzel players are who should be the focus ultimately and deployment errors and double-turns can ruin the fun quickly. Anyways, I often hear that other systems have better rules than GW stuff - I can't say much about that either as I only play GW TT games but I think they'd really need to rethink their core games from the ground up.

[RyantheFett]

1 hour ago, MitGas said:

I'd work on a way to fix one major problem in AoS to me:  you can cripple units too easily, which means one or two mistakes can cost you the game. This would be acceptable for really good players but I think beer and pretzel players are who should be the focus ultimately and deployment errors and double-turns can ruin the fun quickly. Anyways, I often hear that other systems have better rules than GW stuff - I can't say much about that either as I only play GW TT games but I think they'd really need to rethink their core games from the ground up.

When I quit the FFG/AMG games they had 2 of their games that had rules that one mistake would cost the game. And the third game they were attempting to make everything die faster to quicken up the game. So that mindset is in a few places. Overall I found that the GW games were slightly better overall, but both had their pros and cons.

9ed had a lot of issues but the concept of their strength/toughness I love. Makes me exited for 10ed since it look like it kept that concept, but just stole everything else from AoS lol. Would love a way to toughen up the Sigmar units as well.

[Greyshadow]

I wonder what lessons they could bring across from Warcry? A few universal rules could be good and I have noticed war scrolls have been trending leaner - which is a good thing. A card of army rules for each army would be great too. Full alternate activation system? Now that would be interesting.

[OkayestDM]

I really like the change to battleshock. If I recall from the stream, they said that at least one of the things it would do is make that unit less effective at holding objectives. To my mind this is a big design win, as it intuitively directs players towards the primary victory condition for the game (which will be helpful for newer players especially.) A much better fit than the old "lose more models for losing models" design.

Adjacent to that point, the Objective Control stat is a must-have feature for AoS 4. Fine-tuning which units are good or bad at controlling objectives has huge implications for different armies, and can dramatically affect both list building and play style (and create better internal balance.)  Balancing offensive punch against objective control is already a factor in the game, but this could give it a lot more weight and nuance.

I'm not sue how I would feel about the magic phase being done away with and integrated into the other phases, but I'm not against it either. Command abilities have gotten a lot better since they were moved into the phase where they matter, so I see potential there.

[Beliman]

Anybody remember the old White Dwarf Subfactions? I have the feeling that the new subfaction-faction rulesheets can be expanded really easy:

Spoiler

New Battletome with 3 faction datasheets:

1. Space Marines
2. Ultramarines
3. Space Wolfs

New Angels of Death campaign with 2 more factions:

1. Blood Angels
2. Dark Angels

New White Dwarf series with another new faction (like we used to have):

1. Ravenguard

 

Easier than what we had before, and you only need to carry 1 rulesheet, instead of 3 o 4 books. And GW can still update them with a new rulesheet with the same name.

[NinthMusketeer]

It seems to me that almost everything 10th is gaining is coming from AoS already. (Maybe it should adopt random initiative too!*) Mainly the OC stat and USRs seem like the main things that AoS would benefit from. Universal rules for Deep Strike alone would save a LOT of warscroll space.

*It's a JOKE, calm down everyone

[Beliman]

USR seems to be good. The Anti-X is really good to design specialist units and we already hace Critical Wounds game-wide on any 6 so...

I woudn't mind to have something like that but specially tweaked for AoS:

Artillerty with Anti-Monster/Behemoth (2+)

[KingKull]

Toughness and no double turns.

[NinthMusketeer]

Keywords for infantry, cavalry, beast, monstrous/brute versions of the three would be extremely helpful when writing out a great deal of rules. Imagine if instead of explaining out what a Galletian Champion is the GHB could just say "Infantry Hero".

[Chikout]

5 hours ago, KingKull said:

Toughness and no double turns.

The exact opposite of this. It surprises me that many comments are asking for the game to become more complex. The old world is coming back. It will have strength toughness and a conventional turn order. AoS 3 has been good but it's already creeping towards unnecessary complexity. They need to remove grand strategies and any battle tactics that aren't counterable. I do like the concepts behind battleshock, USRs and objective control. They would all work within the existing framework of AoS. 

As for spell abilities. Within the current rules you can have spells that buff or debuff: moves, charges, attacks,hits, wounds,  damage, saves, wards, command abilities, other spells, objective control, move sequence and fight sequence. That's 26 abilities. Then you have focused damage, Aoe damage, teleports etc. GW relies too much on mortal wounds, but they could easily be more imaginative without changing the core rules at all. 

The core tennant of removing bloat and making the game experience smoother is something I'm all for. Let the old world have all the crunchy rules. As a big warcry fan, I love that I can internalise all the rules and focus on my strategy and tactics instead. 

 

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, Chikout said:

As a big warcry fan, I love that I can internalise all the rules and focus on my strategy and tactics instead. 

For whatever reason, I thought that Warcry already uses a Str vs Th without the Hit Roll. I'm totally fine if GW remove all the crunch rules like Heroic Actions and Monstruous Rampage and instead build a basic system for all this actions (Stratagems? Commands? whatever..).

Btw, any one remember all the discussions about Commands (in addition, use an action out-of-phase, who can recieve the command, etc..)? It seems that something like this could help:

Spoiler

[zilberfrid]

Tyrranids, or a life destruction faction that evolves to the niche they need to devour more.

[Chikout]

26 minutes ago, Beliman said:

For whatever reason, I thought that Warcry already uses a Str vs Th without the Hit Roll. I'm totally fine if GW remove all the crunch rules like Heroic Actions and Monstruous Rampage and instead build a basic system for all this actions 

  Hide contents

 

It does use strength and toughness, but it combines rolling to hit, wound and save into one roll. My objection isn't to the idea of the stats themselves but to the idea of an AoS statline getting longer. 

[Bosskelot]

3 hours ago, Chikout said:

The exact opposite of this. It surprises me that many comments are asking for the game to become more complex. The old world is coming back. It will have strength toughness and a conventional turn order. AoS 3 has been good but it's already creeping towards unnecessary complexity. They need to remove grand strategies and any battle tactics that aren't counterable. I do like the concepts behind battleshock, USRs and objective control. They would all work within the existing framework of AoS. 

As for spell abilities. Within the current rules you can have spells that buff or debuff: moves, charges, attacks,hits, wounds,  damage, saves, wards, command abilities, other spells, objective control, move sequence and fight sequence. That's 26 abilities. Then you have focused damage, Aoe damage, teleports etc. GW relies too much on mortal wounds, but they could easily be more imaginative without changing the core rules at all. 

The core tennant of removing bloat and making the game experience smoother is something I'm all for. Let the old world have all the crunchy rules. As a big warcry fan, I love that I can internalise all the rules and focus on my strategy and tactics instead. 

 

Toughness does not make the game complex.

[Chikout]

2 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:

Toughness does not make the game complex.

As I said above, it doesn't make the game complex by itself but if it is added to the current AoS ruleset without taking anything away it does make the game more complex.   The addition of any rule that is layered onto the current system would do the same. If you were to combine  wound and save  into  a strength Vs toughness roll I might be ok with that.