Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules

[mojojojo101]

2 hours ago, Ferban said:

Also, if battle tactics are worth 40% of your potential points in a turn, then missing out on a tactic is a HUUUUGE disincentive to take the double.  Sure, there may be games where it still makes sense.  But I think this game is going to be I Go You Go the majority of the time. 

The thing I find odd about this is it by far the most impactful in competitive tournament play.

In casual or one off games the pay off of trading a battle tactic for dealing a severe blow to your enemy isn't reaaly that interesting. Just take the double. Win the game.

In tournament play where overall score might be needed to divide multiple 5-0 records, it's more impactful because dropping a battle tactic might be the difference between winning and not.

It seem to be a much bigger disincentive to the people who most like the double turn while not really changing the dynamic at all for the people who struggle with it.

 

Going to have to wait and see what actual battle tactics look like but this seems odd to me.

Edited April 24 by mojojojo101

[Mutton]

I'd be fine with GHBs just being mission packs with no extraneous rules changes. Especially so if they add battle plans for team battles or FFA.

[Bosskelot]

Continuing on with the added seasonal rules is a massive turn-off for me. Thought it was one of the worst aspects of 3rd.

As above GHBs just being mission packs would be fine.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 hour ago, Bosskelot said:

Continuing on with the added seasonal rules is a massive turn-off for me. Thought it was one of the worst aspects of 3rd.

As above GHBs just being mission packs would be fine.

If the recent article is telling us all there is to know about seasonal rules, I am OK with how they are now. Everyone getting a honour guard unit with one of three traits for a few months seems fine, IMO.

I strongly disliked the recent Andtor rules, too, but mostly because of how much they push faction list building towards generic options, how intrusive the seasonal mechanics were and how the GHB battle tactics just don't feel fun. If new seasons don't have these kinds of generic must-takes, intrusive mechanics and battle tactics, I am fine with getting a different little gimmick every year.

[Beliman]

It is weird that we talked about Magic, Commands, Movement, Fighting, Battle Traits & Formations and Battlepacks/Battleplans... but we still don't have any article about the Shooting Phase?

[Marcvs]

8 minutes ago, Beliman said:

It is weird that we talked about Magic, Commands, Movement, Fighting, Battle Traits & Formations and Battlepacks/Battleplans... but we still don't have any article about the Shooting Phase?

Maybe it's because there's very few changes? Are we expecting anything major? (apart from what we know already, no shooting if you're in melee, which is big but already "spoiled")

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

22 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Maybe it's because there's very few changes? Are we expecting anything major? (apart from what we know already, no shooting if you're in melee, which is big but already "spoiled")

A more concrete idea of what reduced shooting range means would be nice. I would like to see if there are specific abilities on shooting attacks other than "shoot in combat", as well.

Would be cool to see them say something like "there are no more mortal wounds on hit for shooting attacks" or "the line-of-sight system has been reworked" if those changes are in the game.

[TechnoVampire]

25 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

A more concrete idea of what reduced shooting range means would be nice. I would like to see if there are specific abilities on shooting attacks other than "shoot in combat", as well.

Would be cool to see them say something like "there are no more mortal wounds on hit for shooting attacks" or "the line-of-sight system has been reworked" if those changes are in the game.

I pray that there is little to no mortal wounds on hit for shooting attacks 🙏 and would generally like to see a reduction in mortal wounds across the board. 

[Beliman]

54 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Maybe it's because there's very few changes? Are we expecting anything major? (apart from what we know already, no shooting if you're in melee, which is big but already "spoiled")

Imho, it's about the impact of this "minor" changes:

Who will have the "shoot in combat" USR, what to expect to see with units with 5 shooting profiles, is there any diference between ranged units and artillery, how they interact with terrain rules and I wouldn't  mind to see a few warscrolls.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Just now, TechnoVampire said:

I pray that there is little to no mortal wounds on hit for shooting attacks 🙏 and would generally like to see a reduction in mortal wounds across the board. 

The new Skaven hero only has Crit(Auto-Wound), which is much better.

 

14 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Imho, it's about the impact of this "minor" changes:

Who will have the "shoot in combat" USR, what to expect to see with units with 5 shooting profiles, is there any diference between ranged units and artillery, how they interact with terrain rules and I wouldn't  mind to see a few warscrolls.

One of my number 1 wishes is that we don't see units with 4 barely different shooting profiles anymore. I can get behind one profile for a big main gun and one for all the small guns, but having to also roll for the pistol that one guy on the model happens to be carrying is super tedious.

[TechnoVampire]

24 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

The new Skaven hero only has Crit(Auto-Wound), which is much better.

I agree, though with rend 2 that’s likely to cause damage. I’m ok with that as a specialised unit though. What I really don’t want to see is another iteration of 30 sentinels doing mortals from 30” and ignoring line of sight, or 12 bolt boyz doing 2 mortals on a 5 to hit or 3 on a 6. 

[OkayestDM]

2 hours ago, TechnoVampire said:

I agree, though with rend 2 that’s likely to cause damage. I’m ok with that as a specialised unit though. What I really don’t want to see is another iteration of 30 sentinels doing mortals from 30” and ignoring line of sight, or 12 bolt boyz doing 2 mortals on a 5 to hit or 3 on a 6. 

Replacing mortal wounds with auto-wound or 'becomes 2 hits' abilities would be much better to create impactful shooting that still has counterplay.

Mortal Wounds would work best with heroes, monsters, spells, and defensive units like Liberators (a unit that has few attacks and is meant to take it on the chin, but due to mortal wounds still has the potential to do some damage on the return swing.)

Offensive units should have more attacks, deal more damage and have access to abilities that improve their offensive ability, but no mortal wounds (the Kroxigor warscroll demonstrates this perfectly.) 

[Lucentia]

I think there's probably space for specialist anti-armour units with mortal wound abilities, if rend is down as a general rule, armies will still want some tools to deal with 2+/3+ armour with All Out Defence and the like.

[Marcvs]

16 minutes ago, Lucentia said:

I think there's probably space for specialist anti-armour units with mortal wound abilities, if rend is down as a general rule, armies will still want some tools to deal with 2+/3+ armour with All Out Defence and the like.

agreed. With the first unit we were shown starting from a 3+ with two ways to get +1 (AoD and SCE Finest Hour) my bet would be for the level of MWs to remain more or less unchanged -although, it could still be less prevalent in shooting and moved to spell for instance.

[TechnoVampire]

1 hour ago, OkayestDM said:

Replacing mortal wounds with auto-wound or 'becomes 2 hits' abilities would be much better to create impactful shooting that still has counterplay.

Mortal Wounds would work best with heroes, monsters, spells, and defensive units like Liberators (a unit that has few attacks and is meant to take it on the chin, but due to mortal wounds still has the potential to do some damage on the return swing.)

Offensive units should have more attacks, deal more damage and have access to abilities that improve their offensive ability, but no mortal wounds (the Kroxigor warscroll demonstrates this perfectly.) 

Completely agree. Mortal wounds should be given as specialist cases where they make sense and not as the standard form of dealing damage. 
leaning into other forms of damage (as you suggested) opens up more specialised units and interesting interactions on the table which I’m all for. 

Edited April 25 by TechnoVampire

[OkayestDM]

35 minutes ago, Lucentia said:

I think there's probably space for specialist anti-armour units with mortal wound abilities, if rend is down as a general rule, armies will still want some tools to deal with 2+/3+ armour with All Out Defence and the like.

I can get behind that. Trading off between high rend and MW output on can-opener units can create specialization and continue to support unique roles, but it has to be done with the consideration that high armor should actually mean something. 3.0 managed to make both high armor and high rend largely meaningless with the prevalence of mortal wounds and save stacking. The later is being greatly reduced (though Stormcast and similar tanky armies will likely have some access to it), and so MWs also need to see a decline - or else very judicious distribution - otherwise they will once again become the go to. 

You are correct though, MWs are an important tool to keep high saves from dominating the game, and all armies should have some degree of access to them in one form or another.

3.0 made respectable progress in curtailing MW spam, I'm hopeful that they will continue to improve in their distribution and implementation. 

[Ferban]

6 hours ago, Beliman said:

It is weird that we talked about Magic, Commands, Movement, Fighting, Battle Traits & Formations and Battlepacks/Battleplans... but we still don't have any article about the Shooting Phase?

I think it is notable.  But I'm taking it to mean that there are few changes in the Shooting Phase so the article wouldn't have much to say.  Probably sticking with true line of sight, etc. 

Maybe they'll do an article on the new terrain module and shooting will get covered within that.  If they talk about "Obscuring" or "Covering" terrain, that might be the needed hook to talk about the (presumably) minor changes to shooting. 

[Gailon]

2 hours ago, Ferban said:

I think it is notable.  But I'm taking it to mean that there are few changes in the Shooting Phase so the article wouldn't have much to say.  Probably sticking with true line of sight, etc. 

Maybe they'll do an article on the new terrain module and shooting will get covered within that.  If they talk about "Obscuring" or "Covering" terrain, that might be the needed hook to talk about the (presumably) minor changes to shooting. 

Terrain rules have the potential to have the largest impact on shooting. That and the warscrolls themselves. 
 

would love to see line of sight blocking terrain that actually blocks line of sight. 

[JackStreicher]

It‘d be a lie to say I am not looking forward to playing the new edition, these previews however have taken away my excitement. I want to play an immersive battle game, not compete for a meaningless trophy at some tournament.

Edited April 25 by JackStreicher

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

It‘d be a lie to say I am not looking forward to playing the new edition, these previews however have taken away my excitement. I want to play an immersive battle game, not compete for a meaningless trophy at some tournament.

I'm the opposite. I like most of the #NEWAOS articles and I can't wait to learn more about this edition.

I'm not a fan of batlle tactics but I will wait until I see more things.

[MitGas]

I really don‘t like the battle tactics. If I want to play a game in a game, I‘ll play FF7 Rebirth where I can at least look at Tifa. I hope that the modular nature of the rules will truly let people not use that aspect.

[Chikout]

1 hour ago, MitGas said:

I really don‘t like the battle tactics. If I want to play a game in a game, I‘ll play FF7 Rebirth where I can at least look at Tifa. I hope that the modular nature of the rules will truly let people not use that aspect.

How can you say that when we haven't seen today's article yet?  The concept of battle tactics isn't a problem, the way they were executed in 3rd was.

Take slay the warlord. There's nothing uninteracive about that battle tactic. It reinforces the narrative of the game rather than going against it like some of the book battle tactics do. If the article comes out and it's all the same as before with tactics for doing non interactive nonsense then I'll be right there sharing my disappointment with GW but it's not time for that yet. 

 

6 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

It‘d be a lie to say I am not looking forward to playing the new edition, these previews however have taken away my excitement. I want to play an immersive battle game, not compete for a meaningless trophy at some tournament.

I'm not sure what is so lacking in immersion about the rules we've seen so far. I admit that battle tactics is probably the most important aspect of the game that's problematic but I'm at least going to wait until I read the article before I make my mid up. Praying is more thematic. The list building is narratively logical. Interactivity looks to have been improved. AoS has always been an objective control game. That hasn't changed. 

Edited April 26 by Chikout

[JackStreicher]

4 hours ago, Chikout said:

objective control game. That hasn't changed. 

And it’s lazy. There’s ways to integrate make objectives instead of magic curcles

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

6 hours ago, Chikout said:

How can you say that when we haven't seen today's article yet?  The concept of battle tactics isn't a problem, the way they were executed in 3rd was.

Take slay the warlord. There's nothing uninteracive about that battle tactic. It reinforces the narrative of the game rather than going against it like some of the book battle tactics do. If the article comes out and it's all the same as before with tactics for doing non interactive nonsense then I'll be right there sharing my disappointment with GW but it's not time for that yet. 

 

I'm not sure what is so lacking in immersion about the rules we've seen so far. I admit that battle tactics is probably the most important aspect of the game that's problematic but I'm at least going to wait until I read the article before I make my mid up. Praying is more thematic. The list building is narratively logical. Interactivity looks to have been improved. AoS has always been an objective control game. That hasn't changed. 

I hope today's article on Battle Tactics is good. I can't say that I really enjoy Battle Tactics in their current form, but it's not like I have never had fun moments with them. I still like the idea of having some kind of secondary system. Anything that can encourage movement on the board and make the game less static (although AoS already does a good job with that).

I recently played a Core Rules only game, and was reminded how much battle tactics have changed since the start of AoS 3rd. Cities of Sigmar have a tactic where you need to destroy 3 units in the shooting phase, which is so difficult that I have never managed to do it even though I play a shooting list. In contrast, the core book basically has "just go destroy a unit, idk". All the tactics were so easy that you literally could not fail to get them every turn.

I hope 4th manages to strike a balance. I think ideally, we get a few tactics that are not impossible, but also not guaranteed and encourage players to make use of the whole playing field. I don't mind faction specific battle tactics, they could be a great tool to reinforce the flavour of a faction. But there needs to be much tighter balancing on them. No more free "just move two units up the board I guess" tactics like Daughters of Khaine get.

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

I very much want my cake and to eat it too when it comes to Battle Tactics.

They peeve me greatly when an opponent effortlessly pulls them off, and when they run completely counter-intuitively to the way the battle is going. I've often thought that the game would be better off without them. 

... but then they do make me think. I'm lazy when it comes to formulating a battle plan, and would easily fall into the trap of playing games the same way every time. I guess Battle Tactics circumvent that, to a greater or lesser extent.