Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules

[The_Tallest_Ork]

My biggest concern is whatever this card system they've mentioned winds up being. 40k's secondary objectives are probably the clunkiest and least fun element of 10th edition, and it would be a major turn off to have to deal with that in both systems. 

Everything else I can be cautiously optimistic on, but the fewer notes this game takes from competitive 40k the better.

[EthanolMuffins]

8 hours ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

I'd much prefer a quick and easy-to-learn game to a perfectly balanced one. People are always going to view things as imbalanced anyway. 

100% agreed, 40k’s focus on the competitive scene and making everything about balance kinda ruined it for me

[Bosskelot]

40k 10th isn't really built for comp players.

 

It's very much meant to appeal to ultra-casual garagelords who play 1 game every 3 months, or super new players. That's what the system is built around.

Edited March 24 by Bosskelot

[Beliman]

18 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:

40k 10th isn't really built for comp players.

 

It's very much meant to appeal to ultra-casual garagelords who play 1 game every 3 months, or super new players. That's what the system is built around.

That would be perfect for me.

But sadly, 1 game every 3 months means a lot to me and the lack of flavour kills my whole excitement.

[Gaz Taylor]

On 3/23/2024 at 11:45 AM, pnkdth said:

However, the deal breaker for me is how wounds (or appropriate toughness) and points cost reflect the actual units themselves. Because if they point armies to the, well, point where it becomes even more expensive to enter the hobby I'm out.

I think they mentioned in the video that they are staying roughly the same as what is in 3rd now. I may have misremembered that though or thinking about a rumour, but I don't think points will change too much.

On 3/23/2024 at 11:45 AM, pnkdth said:

Love the settings GW have created and I know that every designer are really passionate about what they do but recent times the business side of GW have really put a dampener on my excitement, e.g. I am very glad I didn't jump on the FEC bandwagon just yet because they will got WE:ed.

GW have done this for about 30 years and it's not going to change. It's annoying with FEC how close the book appeared to the new edition but it's the nature of the beast. I'd love GW to move away from armybooks and just have source books with art and background and keep gaming stuff online there's probably just as many people out there who like having a book. 

[Flippy]

14 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

40k 10th isn't really built for comp players.

 

It's very much meant to appeal to ultra-casual garagelords who play 1 game every 3 months, or super new players. That's what the system is built around.

Is it? I’ve recently checked the Combat Patrol mode and it looks really good. Maybe I will try 40k for the first time.

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

1 hour ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I'd love GW to move away from armybooks and just have source books with art and background and keep gaming stuff online there's probably just as many people out there who like having a book. 

This would be ideal. It's such a pity that GW has absolutely no grasp of moving-with-the-times, and will probably be still doing the same old thing when we're all tucked up in our graves. 

Edited March 25 by Big Kim Woof-Woof

[Gaz Taylor]

52 minutes ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

This would be ideal. It's such a pity that GW has absolutely no grasp of moving-with-the-times, and will probably be still doing the same old thing when we're all tucked up in our graves. 

I don't think it's GW. I think if you did a survey about books, you would find that may people probably still want them. 

[Koala]

Well, i would say its everyone (at least a little bit).

Most "oldtimers" both complain about "new" codexes/battletomes not having enough "new" stuff in them... AND buy them on principle - cause its my faction and i gotta own all of it.

For new players they provide a full entry into the faction. Cool artwork, descriptions, rules.

And GW has a well established way of monetizing the rules AND artworks team. (Sure, we might argue that rules and cool art sells models. But that is indirect and therefore harder to justify)

 

Would digital rules (monthly payments) give both GW and the players a more direct and useful interaction? (What do people actually want? Lets lowkey try something and revert if people dislike it...)

The option to actually change problematic (or just unfun) rules instead of the bandaid approach we currently see? 

Allow the arts team to be more creative like BL/SG ? 

Absolutely! 

Still not going to happen because everyone will fear loosing something while being unsure about the advantages.

 

[01rtb01]

18 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

40k 10th isn't really built for comp players.

 

It's very much meant to appeal to ultra-casual garagelords who play 1 game every 3 months, or super new players. That's what the system is built around.

I strongly disagree with this based on the volume of content that gets released and stuff that gets amended.

 

I'd play 2nd,.4th or 6th Ed any day over 10th. It's more bland that a Ramsey's kitchen nightmare dinner yet rules lawyer level of wordiness. 

 

Combat patrol works but the main game I'm done with. If AoS goes the same way as 10th I'll stick with 3.0.

[Lord Krungharr]

I am one who much prefers a physical book to having to bring a tablet (which I don't even own), or having to look things up on my phone which I have to unlock every time because I don't trust the world to keep it unlocked.  That said, I guess I could just print stuff out but the warscrolls in the app are definitely NOT formed with printing on a normal sheet of paper in mind.  

[Lord Krungharr]

On 3/23/2024 at 8:00 AM, The_Tallest_Ork said:

My biggest concern is whatever this card system they've mentioned winds up being. 40k's secondary objectives are probably the clunkiest and least fun element of 10th edition, and it would be a major turn off to have to deal with that in both systems. 

Everything else I can be cautiously optimistic on, but the fewer notes this game takes from competitive 40k the better.

Hmm, hadn't heard about this card system.  I wouldn't like that either, just one more bunch of thingies I have to carry around.  

Wondering what 'costs' there will be for taking a 2nd turn.  Casting spells in the opponents' phase suggest they might categorize spells, like defensive, so a spell that grants a ward save or better armor might be like that?

[pnkdth]

2 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:

Hmm, hadn't heard about this card system.  I wouldn't like that either, just one more bunch of thingies I have to carry around. 

To me it is the 'uncertainty' element of 40k. AoS have priority rolls and secondary cards in 40k means you can't auto-pilot your way through a game, i.e. castling up and creating a death ball isn't viable because you can't score if you bunch up too much. Without I think it would be too easy to 'solve' 40k by simply fielding the most effective units at killing/tanking. Instead we see lists making use of units which are focused on objectives (or 'schemers' as they're know as in Malifaux). Their role isn't about producing the most dakka but rather protecting the back line, securing objectives, and so on.

In this regard, I enjoy 10th and the list feels more dynamic and lot less mathhammery than before. Once I got used to the new systems/rules games do run a lot smoother than 9th too. Really hope USRs and consolidated rules work out similarly in AoS 4th (while remaining distinct enough not to become Fantasy 40k).

 

[pnkdth]

9 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I think they mentioned in the video that they are staying roughly the same as what is in 3rd now. I may have misremembered that though or thinking about a rumour, but I don't think points will change too much.

GW have done this for about 30 years and it's not going to change. It's annoying with FEC how close the book appeared to the new edition but it's the nature of the beast. I'd love GW to move away from armybooks and just have source books with art and background and keep gaming stuff online there's probably just as many people out there who like having a book. 

That's good to hear.

Yeah, I do not expect it to change any time soon, if ever. I do appreciate the feeling of a book myself and complete revamps won't happen every edition. 

[The_Tallest_Ork]

8 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I don't think it's GW. I think if you did a survey about books, you would find that may people probably still want them. 

This is the case in traditional publishing - ebook sales as a percentage of overall book sales plateaued about a decade ago and show no sign of overtaking physical books as a revenue stream for the Big Four. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a similar situation with game and TTRPG books.

Even disregarding arguments about the advantages of physical or digital rulebooks, GW would not be producing them if they were not profitable.

[Bosskelot]

3 hours ago, pnkdth said:

To me it is the 'uncertainty' element of 40k. AoS have priority rolls and secondary cards in 40k means you can't auto-pilot your way through a game, i.e. castling up and creating a death ball isn't viable because you can't score if you bunch up too much. Without I think it would be too easy to 'solve' 40k by simply fielding the most effective units at killing/tanking. Instead we see lists making use of units which are focused on objectives (or 'schemers' as they're know as in Malifaux). Their role isn't about producing the most dakka but rather protecting the back line, securing objectives, and so on.

In this regard, I enjoy 10th and the list feels more dynamic and lot less mathhammery than before. Once I got used to the new systems/rules games do run a lot smoother than 9th too. Really hope USRs and consolidated rules work out similarly in AoS 4th (while remaining distinct enough not to become Fantasy 40k).

 

The cards allow people to have a casual game and assign their wins or losses to bad draws, but the game is just as easily solvable as before. It's why you consistently see the same people winning events and its why I can basically score 37-40 secondary points in every single game, guaranteed, even when going tactical. And that's assuming you don't just go fixed where the game becomes easier to "solve" than before because now you're only having to worry about 2 easily scored secondaries rather than 3.

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

If I ruled the world... 

I'd have all the rules-based content as digital things. If money-making is required, charge a monthly subscription fee or something. All rules accessible via an app, but also available as printable files for those who like it like that. Hell, if there's still demand for rules in old-fashioned book format, publish simple, short pamphlet-style books that contain the rules and nothing else. All this gets updated regularly, as rules changes are required. 

Then there's the lore. I'd have beautiful, big coffee-table-style books for each faction. No rules. Just in-universe stuff, and lots of art. Galleries of miniatures too, if you like. Charge a fortune for these, but they're worth it. 

Surely that keeps everyone happy, doesn't it? If it doesn't... tough, cos I'm ruling the world.

Edited March 26 by Big Kim Woof-Woof

[pnkdth]

21 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

The cards allow people to have a casual game and assign their wins or losses to bad draws, but the game is just as easily solvable as before. It's why you consistently see the same people winning events and its why I can basically score 37-40 secondary points in every single game, guaranteed, even when going tactical. And that's assuming you don't just go fixed where the game becomes easier to "solve" than before because now you're only having to worry about 2 easily scored secondaries rather than 3.

People will find excuses no matter what. Good players should be getting consistent results because 'uncertainty', in my book, does not mean it has to be sheer randomness. I find it more engaging to have to have to make tactical decisions and games which involve more phases and straight up meat grinders. It is by no means perfect but it creates satisfying games.

[Lord Krungharr]

The skill of our precious tabletop games is the way we can skew our uncertainties to our favor with choices of units, gear/upgrades, subfactions, movement and target priority.  And the fun is when the matchup and/or mission throws all that out with the bathwater and must adapt to new permutations in the enemy forces!

[Gitzdee]

On 3/25/2024 at 10:39 PM, The_Tallest_Ork said:

This is the case in traditional publishing - ebook sales as a percentage of overall book sales plateaued about a decade ago and show no sign of overtaking physical books as a revenue stream for the Big Four. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a similar situation with game and TTRPG books.

Even disregarding arguments about the advantages of physical or digital rulebooks, GW would not be producing them if they were not profitable.

Dont remember where i seen this but i remember that GW business model is designed to sell products to little timmys mother who walks into a store and doesnt know what to buy. Books, dice, spearhead/vanguard boxes are all designed around this. GW doesnt care about us people who own over a hundred models already, they already got our money. New players have always been the focus. Dont know if digital products are worth it at the moment. That said, we did get a new webstore and i do expect a new app for 4th edition, who knows, they might surprise us XD.

[Sarouan]

7 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

Dont remember where i seen this but i remember that GW business model is designed to sell products to little timmys mother who walks into a store and doesnt know what to buy. Books, dice, spearhead/vanguard boxes are all designed around this. GW doesnt care about us people who own over a hundred models already, they already got our money. New players have always been the focus.

They do focus on bringing constant new blood to their games - and that's why they keep being the top one with their dedicated stores and why smaller companies will never be able to compete with GW as long as they don't do the same investment in their own dedicated stores to the same scale. But their business model isn't designed to "sell products to little timmys mother" : it's about selling products to "people with the Hobby gene", meaning people who are attracted naturally to miniatures and modelism. And the best way to find them is to be as broad as possible and touch as many people as possible. It's about finding these people who will become true customers, not about selling to lil children.

Otherwise, projects like The Old World would never exist. This is a game that's definitely not aimed to "little timmys", but totally at veterans of old Warhammer Battle. And I'm not really sure it's aimed at bringing new players that much either...I mean, they're bringing the old miniatures, that's not appealing to the new generation...that's totally aimed at nostalgic players who knew that time before.

As for 4th, Spearhead is completely meant for new players but also people who don't have much time on their own. But they do also care for veteran players with other modes and products. Adding new units is clearly not meant for new players, but previous ones : that's how they keep selling to veterans, adding miniatures that didn't exist previously so that they can add it to their collection.

Edited March 27 by Sarouan

[Ferban]

So in today's article, WarCom mentions that objectives are now going to be 40mm markers and you count as contesting if you are within 3" of it.  So more like 40k objectives than the current system. 

I'm on board.  I think a smaller capture area is probably a good thing.  But more importantly, I love that in 40k, you have something (on a 40mm base) to represent the actual thing we're all fighting over.  In current AoS, it's just a point on the ground.  The 40k way is much more flavorful.  So I'm calling that as a win for the new edition. 

The do talk about changing everything (including spells) to an ability.  I'm not sure I like the sound of that quite as much, but I'm reserving judgment until we know more. 

[PraetorDragoon]

The main interesting thing will be if the objectives will act like impassible terrain or not. Making some physical objects for objectives was fun in other games. 

[Greyshadow]

Wounds is now going to be called 'health'! My first reaction was shock but the more I think about it the more I think this is smart. There has been confusion whether a rule refers to the number of wounds remaining or the wound characteristic. I think this has the potential to make things clearer.

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

8 minutes ago, Greyshadow said:

Wounds is now going to be called 'health'! My first reaction was shock but the more I think about it the more I think this is smart. There has been confusion whether a rule refers to the number of wounds remaining or the wound characteristic. I think this has the potential to make things clearer.

That one shocked me too... it's been 'wounds' since time immemorial! But I get it, it's a sensible move. Its also an encouraging sign that they're not going to be afraid of changing long-standing things if it means a cleaner game.