Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules

[ScionOfOssia]

1 hour ago, Ferban said:

It's been a while since we had news, but today is all about terrain. 

Overall, I'm really positive on the terrain.  AoS has always lacked a solid system of terrain rules.  This fixes that, but also keeps things relatively simple.  Just a few major keywords and simple abilities.  No worries about "difficult" terrain halving movement or some kind of "anti-charge" terrain.  Just a cohesive system that should still be relatively effective. 

One thing I really like is that units benefit from cover if they are behind the terrain at any distance.  No more needing to be within 1" of the thing to get the benefit.  Of course, they didn't discuss what "behind" means, so that remains to be seen.  But overall, I think this is a hugely positive change for AoS. 

I think “Behind” equals “Draw a line between you and them and if it crosses over it, they’re behind it”

[Ferban]

1 hour ago, ScionOfOssia said:

I think “Behind” equals “Draw a line between you and them and if it crosses over it, they’re behind it”

I would love for that to be the rule.  I'm not a huge fan of "true" line of sight.  The models are on bases.  Let's use them.  

[ScionOfOssia]

19 minutes ago, Ferban said:

I would love for that to be the rule.  I'm not a huge fan of "true" line of sight.  The models are on bases.  Let's use them.  

I think that remains the case generally, it’s just that now if you cross that terrain with LOS from the base, you can’t shoot them. Meaning Katakros can now hide from a gunline, and other large units. 

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

Seems a little bit odd that the faction terrain can be demolished, but generic terrain can't. Hey-ho. 

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

Seems a little bit odd that the faction terrain can be demolished, but generic terrain can't. Hey-ho. 

I think it's good. If faction terrain is still free and can be set-up by the player, at least let the opponent have the option to destroy it.

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

27 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I think it's good. If faction terrain is still free and can be set-up by the player, at least let the opponent have the option to destroy it.

True.

There's going to have to be more careful consideration about where to set up faction terrain now, knowing that the enemy can always just smash it! 

[Sarouan]

3 hours ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

Seems a little bit odd that the faction terrain can be demolished, but generic terrain can't. Hey-ho. 

Because it they were, why bother putting meaningful restrictive terrain if they can just be destroyed at any player's whim.

It also messes with tournaments (organizers don't really like when players move terrain out of the tables that were designed to have a specific set).

Edited May 10 by Sarouan

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

To be honest, I'm still not 100% convinced that making any terrain destructible is the way to go. I'd prefer it to cost points to use faction terrain, and have it indestructible. But that's just me speaking from ignorance, really.... after playing a few games with the new rules I might love having my Daemonettes decimating my enemy's Loonshrine! 

[Ferban]

I like the idea of faction terrain being destroyable.  But I'm assuming it works like "Smash to Rubble" does now.  The physical terrain piece remains on the board, but it loses it's faction rules.  

So it might still block LOS or have other generic terrain properties, but it won't give your Saurus a bonus to bite rolls or allow your Slaanesh hero to make a sacrifice.  

I'd re-evaluate my thoughts if it removed the faction terrain from the battlefield entirely.  

[Boingrot Bouncer]

I just hope that they then make certain faction terrains less impactful or very hard to destroy. If gitz for example lose their loonshrine early it will greatly hamper them, both for the moon light it gives and how it bring back models. 

Sure, you can position it to not be easy to hit, but it's very hard to protect it from shooting. On the other side in season 3 it could be smashed on a single dice roll by a monster so perhaps I am overly pessimistic.

[Beliman]

No more AoS articles this week? I have a ton of questions about the rules...

[Sarouan]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

No more AoS articles this week? I have a ton of questions about the rules...

You'll have a ton very soon, since preview starts tomorrow.

[Lucentia]

Everybody has a ton of questions, the game isn't out yet!  Plus, y'know, they haven't even gotten to the Wednesday article slots, there's still three days in the week.

And even if the big preview show does take up all this week's AoS news, it'll lead straight into faction articles next week anyway.

[Sarouan]

They definitely thought much more about the Spearhead mode. With all the game accessories and the maps, you can tell it's sacrificing looks for gameplay.

I'm not a big fan of the maps that clearly have objectives drawn directly on it with what is obviously deployment zones delimited by a line also drawn on it. It looks ugly, to me. But it's really helpful for the people focused on pure gameplay.

It just tells me this edition isn't made for me, IMHO.

[Tonhel]

6 hours ago, Sarouan said:

They definitely thought much more about the Spearhead mode. With all the game accessories and the maps, you can tell it's sacrificing looks for gameplay.

I'm not a big fan of the maps that clearly have objectives drawn directly on it with what is obviously deployment zones delimited by a line also drawn on it. It looks ugly, to me. But it's really helpful for the people focused on pure gameplay.

It just tells me this edition isn't made for me, IMHO.

I was initially very interested in Spearhead, but now seeing it visually with those 5 big objectives that almost fill the whole battlefield. Big turn off.

[Flippy]

6 hours ago, Sarouan said:

I'm not a big fan of the maps that clearly have objectives drawn directly on it with what is obviously deployment zones delimited by a line also drawn on it. It looks ugly, to me.

This game mode is suppose to be quick and focused on gameplay. In regular AoS setting the deployment zones and objective placement takes time - in Spearhead you just place the board on the table (with some pre-defined terrain) and can start with deployment.

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

11 hours ago, Tonhel said:

I was initially very interested in Spearhead, but now seeing it visually with those 5 big objectives that almost fill the whole battlefield. Big turn off.

I'm a bit the same. Are those big objectives actually meant to be anything in particular? I mean, beyond simply 'objective markers'? I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the lore. 

[Beliman]

There are some warscrolls flying around. The Ratling Warpblaster seems to be good, 20" range and can chew throw units with 10+ models. Ratogres too, but 4+ hit and -1 rend, their damage will bw for the sheer  number of dice than for the quality of the attacks.

So, formations:

Masterclan: In enemy Hero Phase, move one non-Monster unit.

Skryre: in your shooting phase, pick 3 units and roll a dice. On 1, 1 mw. 2-5, +1 to wound. On 6, Rend +1.

Random abilities:

Greyseer: Still throw 3D6 to cast.

Clawlord: can damage Clanrats to change OC to 3.

They have an enhancement of Bodyguard 4+.

 

[Tonhel]

It seems that nothing has changed for characters with the exception that Command trait is renamed to Heroic trait. Imo, a bit of a bummer.

Edited yesterday at 09:16 AM by Tonhel

[Beliman]

Most of the abilities are active or require some finess from the players. The "skills expression" that Matt talked seems to be on point, without becoming teddious.

Btw, it seems that armies are going up 15% in points and the game promotes multiple units doing diferent things (hero+unit doing mini-combos). 

Terrain, magic, endless spells, etc... everything seems to be more interactive, kudos to the team.

I can't wait to play 4.0

[Chikout]

Since no-one else is posting them, here are the battle traits for the Skaven and the Lumineth. It should give you an idea what to expect from the indexes. 

[PraetorDragoon]

I wish those gnawhole abilities were on the gnawhole terrain.

[ScionOfOssia]

8 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

I wish those gnawhole abilities were on the gnawhole terrain.

What a coincidence, they have it, and more

 

[Tonhel]

I do hope when i.e Lumineth receives it battletome that the lores will be expanded a bit. As the lore is chosen per amy and not per wizard I find 3 spells not enough, certainly not for one of the more magical armies in the game. Not saying that there need to be 12+ different spells, but 5-7 different spells per lore would be nice. 

Also was doubling the move characteristic to overpowered? Now it is only +4". Still good for infantry, but not so great for cavalry. 

And how does the Lore of Hysh work with the Wind and Stone mages?

Edited 17 hours ago by Tonhel

[Sprues&Brews]

We've played AOS 4th edition! Here's our thoughts after our first demo game!

https://spruesandbrews.com/2024/05/19/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-4th-edition-playthrough-first-impressions-skaventide/