Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

27 minutes ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

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. 

Bringing battle tactics more closely into alignment with the fiction would definitely help. Or victory points in general. I have a fairly easy time understanding how controlling territory could mean that you win a battle in AoS. I can understand how that might be the aim of the mission.

But it is harder to rationalize how something like this can be the "aim" of the battle for my army:

Quote

Led into the Maelstrom: You complete this battle tactic if all of the following are true:

• At least 2 friendly units charged this turn.
• At least 1 friendly Battleline unit charged this turn.
• At least 1 friendly HERO charged this turn.
• At least 1 friendly Battleline or HERO unit that charged this turn is within 3" of an enemy unit at the end of the turn.

[Boingrot Bouncer]

Another downside of faction specific BT:s that I have realised is that as an opponent it's impossible to memorize all factions different BT:s meaning I can't plan ahead to stop my opponents BT:s (if it's even possible), compared to the eight or so standard BT:s that everyone use.

So for me I would like perhaps 10 BT:s that you can counter play and maybe at most onebor two faction specific that I can keep in my memory that my opponent can do in the game. 

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

1 hour ago, Boingrot Bouncer said:

Another downside of faction specific BT:s that I have realised is that as an opponent it's impossible to memorize all factions different BT:s meaning I can't plan ahead to stop my opponents BT:s (if it's even possible), compared to the eight or so standard BT:s that everyone use.

So for me I would like perhaps 10 BT:s that you can counter play and maybe at most onebor two faction specific that I can keep in my memory that my opponent can do in the game. 

Oh, I gave up trying to remember even a fraction of all the Battle Tactics a long time ago! Just remembering the ones available to me is challenging enough to my poor memory. 

[Gareth 🍄]

Quote

The General’s Handbook 2024-25 also includes two extra battle tactics for each Grand Alliance, alongside the Honour Guard Season Rule. These provide some extra flexibility outside of universal battle tactics, and replace faction-specific battle tactics.

Quote

Since all battle tactics are now part of the annual General’s Handbook, the Warhammer Studio will have more opportunities to balance battle tactics and ensure a fair playing field as the edition progresses. 

From the article today: Battle Tactics Are the Key to Winning in Warhammer Age of Sigmar – Here’s How They Work in #NewAoS - Warhammer Community (warhammer-community.com)

[Boingrot Bouncer]

Somewhat positive about the battle tactics, they don't seem to be to easy to do, and can be planned on how to do or counterplay. Still need to see them all before final judgement.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

4 minutes ago, Gareth 🍄 said:

From the article today: Battle Tactics Are the Key to Winning in Warhammer Age of Sigmar – Here’s How They Work in #NewAoS - Warhammer Community (warhammer-community.com)

Pretty nice! I think this new approach to battle tactics addresses a few of the weaknesses brought up in this thread.

If the new system is a base of 6 generic battle tactics and 2 Grand Alliance specific seasonal ones, that seems much easier to handle. Both in terms of mental load and balancing. If they stick with this system and don't add battle tactics back into Battletomes, I think that's an improvement.

The generic tactics seem to focus on movement and fighting (so far), which is good because it makes the game more dynamic. They are tactics you can realistically consider during list building, both for your list and in terms of counter play. They also seem neither completely free nor impossible. I also like how the GA specific tactics allow the writers to express the flavour of the different alliances. It's cool that belonging to a GA will have an effect on how an army can win games.

[Chikout]

The article directly says the ghb tactics release faction specific ones. Here's hoping they stick to it. Also adding flavour text makes a surprising amount of difference.

Now that the rules jargon has been tightened up, I really would like to see gw add more flavour text back into the game, especially on the warscrolls. 

[Ferban]

Battle tactics article today.  A disappointment, but not nearly as bad as it could have been. 

Essentially, the 3.0 system of tactics is staying.  You pick one each turn, you have one turn to do it.  You get points.  So, I imagine some of the current criticisms will stay.  For me, the biggest is that it can start to make games feel homogenous if you build a list and just do the same five tactics every game.  In the same order.  That makes the game feel samey even across very different battle plans.  So, not ideal.

Looking on the bright side, though, this system has some modest improvements over 3.0's system.  Yes, tactics are staying.  But they are getting rid of book tactics.  I disliked those not only because of the disparity in difficulty (there were haves and have-nots), but also because GW used them as a balancing tool.  Army underperforming?  Here's an easy battle tactic.  It's lazy and artificially inflates the data without addressing the underlying weaknesses or problems of the army.  And if you're playing PtG, it does nothing to help the army.  They stay just as bad as they ever were. 

The GHB will also add two per grand alliance.  Maybe that's good?  But I worry if games started to feel samey with the battle tactics that lasted one season, how samey will it feel with battle tactics that last an entire edition?  

On balance, this is the biggest disappointment.  But I think its unlikely to be much worse than the current edition.  So it doesn't stop me wanting to play 4.0 (there have been so many huge improvements announced).  I think overall 4.0 will be better.  It's just disappointing this one area of complaint didn't see significant revision.  

Also, losing out on 40% of the turn's points is going to be too much to recover from in most cases.  Double turns are going to be far, far more rare.  

[Flippy]

1 hour ago, Gareth 🍄 said:

From the article today: Battle Tactics Are the Key to Winning in Warhammer Age of Sigmar – Here’s How They Work in #NewAoS - Warhammer Community (warhammer-community.com)

When I saw a title (Battle Tactics Are the Key to Winning in Warhammer Age of Sigmar) I died a little inside. But it still looks better than the current edition. Not perfect, but maybe acceptable.

[Gareth 🍄]

I wasn't a huge fan of battle tactics before but I at least prefer what they're doing in 4th than what they did in 3rd.

I'm happy that the faction specific tactics are gone and can't be used as freebies to 'balance' struggling battletomes, and pleased that they've resisted making buckets of universal ones so I can learn them easily. I think it's good that they're all going to be in the annual General's Handbook and they can shake them up there if needed, and I kinda like that you can't pick a battle tactic if you choose to take the double turn.

Edited April 26 by Gareth 🍄

[OkayestDM]

I agree with the general consensus here. This isn't what I wanted, but it is an improvement. 

I don't know if they're piling too much incentive on not taking the double turn, but there won't be any way to know for certain without actually playing games.

Overall, I can live with this, so long as they stay true to it.

[Chikout]

42 minutes ago, OkayestDM said:

I agree with the general consensus here. This isn't what I wanted, but it is an improvement. 

I don't know if they're piling too much incentive on not taking the double turn, but there won't be any way to know for certain without actually playing games.

Overall, I can live with this, so long as they stay true to it.

With a more limited pool of battle tactics, there will be plenty of cases where taking the double will allow you to deny a tactic to your opponent. If neither of you are scoring tactics that turn, the benefits of the double remain. 

[Satyrical Sophist]

42 minutes ago, Chikout said:

With a more limited pool of battle tactics, there will be plenty of cases where taking the double will allow you to deny a tactic to your opponent. If neither of you are scoring tactics that turn, the benefits of the double remain. 

Late in the game you might not be able to score a battle tactic either. With only 8 total possible battle tactics you might have a harder time getting 5 of them. If you have something like Gotrek stood directly in the middle of the board then you can’t really score seize the centre, the enemy general’s regiment might be unkillable, or already wiped out meaning you can’t score Slay the Entourage, and your army might not be able to reach the flanks that turn for take the flanks. In that case it might be better to take the double now, knowing you couldn’t score anyway.

I’m curious as to whether people might be incentivised to build their generals regiment differently due to this. You definitely don’t want to have a screen or something in your generals regiment, but I could also see some armies deliberately taking an extra drop in order to deny it. 

[Baron Klatz]

I’m happy about it. Looks like the best middle grounds they can take and keep the system balanced without being overwhelmed by too many choices but not bland either.

Meanwhile using Grand Alliances is a great move to keep flavor up and give a narratives to the Alliance system(certainly happy they’re using it for more than an organization site)

We’re still looking at things in voids but I honestly think when we see the whole package and how all the Azyrian cogs mesh with eachother AoS4 is gonna be a well oiled machine(that certain rats will want to take-steal)

Also loved Honestwargamer’s memes on it.

 

Edited April 27 by Baron Klatz

[Tonhel]

If they wanted to keep the BT, then it was better to just keep the universal ones.

The problem with Alliance BsT instead of Faction ones is that for some factions its much easier to succeed in the battle tactics than others.

I.e I think the BT "Reclaim the Realms" is so much easier to achieve with Idoneth or Sylvaneth than it is for Fyreslayers. 

 

[TechnoVampire]

10 hours ago, Ferban said:

But they are getting rid of book tactics.  I disliked those not only because of the disparity in difficulty (there were haves and have-nots), but also because GW used them as a balancing tool.  Army underperforming?  Here's an easy battle tactic.  It's lazy and artificially inflates the data without addressing the underlying weaknesses or problems of the army.  And if you're playing PtG, it does nothing to help the army. 

Amen to this. I absolutely hated book tactics being used as a balancing measure for the same reasons. I’ll be very glad to see that become a thing of the past. 

[Beliman]

10 hours ago, Tonhel said:

The problem with Alliance BsT instead of Faction ones is that for some factions its much easier to succeed in the battle tactics than others.

I don't think it matters. I mean, that happens with generic BT too.

The main problem with this system is not where BT comes from. The main problem is when some armies have 2 easy BT and other have 6.

[Tonhel]

7 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I don't think it matters. I mean, that happens with generic BT too.

The main problem with this system is not where BT comes from. The main problem is when some armies have 2 easy BT and other have 6.

Imo, because of the nature of BTs some armies have a bigger pool to chose from than other armies. Even when there are no faction specific BTs anymore.

In our small group I am the one less attached to AoS. But still we tried to ignore BTs as much as possible, I think with how 4th is done, the connection of BTs with double turn will make it much harder to ignore it.

[Chikout]

11 hours ago, Tonhel said:

If they wanted to keep the BT, then it was better to just keep the universal ones.

The problem with Alliance BsT instead of Faction ones is that for some factions its much easier to succeed in the battle tactics than others.

I.e I think the BT "Reclaim the Realms" is so much easier to achieve with Idoneth or Sylvaneth than it is for Fyreslayers. 

 

If Fyreslayers can still tunnel it won't be that hard. The obvious counterplay to this battle tactic is to zone out one quarter of the board. The best way to score it might actually be to take out a unit in the centre of the board to clear some space. A big hard hitting Fyreslayers unit might be well suited to that. 

Edited April 27 by Chikout

[Beliman]

7 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

Imo, because of the nature of BTs some armies have a bigger pool to chose from than other armies. Even when there are no faction specific BTs anymore.

That's exacty what I said. The problem is not Alliance vs Generic vs Faction battletactics. The problem is how dificult or easy are going to be in an asymetric game.

[Tonhel]

17 minutes ago, Beliman said:

That's exacty what I said. The problem is not Alliance vs Generic vs Faction battletactics. The problem is how dificult or easy are going to be in an asymetric game.

Yes, I am agreeing with you.

The Alliance BTs, create a unbalance in an Alliance. But I probably explain it wrong 😄 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

11 hours ago, Tonhel said:

If they wanted to keep the BT, then it was better to just keep the universal ones.

The problem with Alliance BsT instead of Faction ones is that for some factions its much easier to succeed in the battle tactics than others.

I.e I think the BT "Reclaim the Realms" is so much easier to achieve with Idoneth or Sylvaneth than it is for Fyreslayers. 

 

Still feels like the variation in difficulty is within reasonable bounds. That could change in the future if they are not careful and write a "destroy a unit with shooting" tactic or something, but for the ones we have seen it seems fine.

IMO, having a faction that is less mobile struggle with mobility-related stuff (be it picking engagements, objective scoring or BTs) is just part of the expression of faction identities.

[Chikout]

12 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Still feels like the variation in difficulty is within reasonable bounds. That could change in the future if they are not careful and write a "destroy a unit with shooting" tactic or something, but for the ones we have seen it seems fine.

IMO, having a faction that is less mobile struggle with mobility-related stuff (be it picking engagements, objective scoring or BTs) is just part of the expression of faction identities.

Yeah. Every unit moves, every unit fights. One way to stay away from enemy units is to kill them.  I think they've struck a reasonable balance so far.

That said AoS and indeed all Warhammer games are fundamentally assymetrical by design. That death battle tactic looks easy unless you're up against 4 megas. Having to take one down from full health in a turn is going to be tricky. 

Edited April 27 by Chikout

[Tonhel]

10 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Still feels like the variation in difficulty is within reasonable bounds. That could change in the future if they are not careful and write a "destroy a unit with shooting" tactic or something, but for the ones we have seen it seems fine.

IMO, having a faction that is less mobile struggle with mobility-related stuff (be it picking engagements, objective scoring or BTs) is just part of the expression of faction identities.

Yes, you are right and we only know 1 of the 2 Alliance battle tactics, but imo this BT creates an unbalance in an Alliance that wasn't needed. BT's are still a very deciding factor in winning or losing the game. There are only 8 in total, if not all factions have the same amount of BTs that are usefull, they will start the game with a handicap that imo could be avoided.

I disliked faction BTs, but switching to 2 Alliance BTs is imo not a better solution.

[Tonhel]

3 minutes ago, Chikout said:

That said AoS and indeed all Warhammer games are fundamentally assymetrical by design. That death battle tactic looks easy unless you're up against 4 megas. Having to take one down from full health in a turn is going to be tricky. 

Which is really unfun when you have that match up. So it's either easy or impossible. This isn't good game design,. No matter how people try to explain it.

Edited April 27 by Tonhel