Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules

[Ferban]

New article up today.  Modular rules.  Basically the core rules cover the basics - moving, combat, objectives, etc.  Then there are add-ons that you can use including: commands, terrain, magic, army composition, command models, and battle tactics.  

It's interesting that "battle tactics" are back.  I hope they are implemented differently than the current system.  I like the idea (in principle, at least) of a secondary scoring system.  So I'll reserve judgment until we learn more about them. 

But what I thought was most interesting is that there will be a "Terrain" system.  AoS has long lacked a solid terrain rule system.  And, at least as written, models could be all over the place and end turns half way up a sheer wall.  Silly.  Hopefully the terrain module will bring us a cohesive set of rules that can be used to enhance the game.  

[The Lost Sigmarite]

New article made me realise, the studio built the rules of AoS4 the same manner I build my notes/revision sheets for exam time (#studentlife). 

Dividing the whole rule corpus into different "modules", going from the most basic to the most complex and advanced, just like a subject is divided into chapters and lessons of graduating difficulty. Using colour cosing for different things : this is something I personally use a lot to navigate my notes to know at a glance what is what. Same for symbols. 

Whoever designed to new edition knows what pedagogy is, because I think that shows. I find already more organised than the cluster#@€! that are the 10th edition rule set, that I personally didn't like because it didn't feel very organised (USRs in the middle, etc). 

 

[brocktoon]

One way I can envision it going, which I don't like, is that I'm forced to look at updated/replacement rules hunting for minute changes. Picture

• New command point rules are released in the GHB. There are four lines of changes.
• I read and the changes are subtle.
• It's taking me more work to find and remember the changes than I like.
• I get annoyed and play something else.

It all depends on how they set it up but I hope they're careful here. Already we're talking buying the GHB every year as a near requirement.

[Ferban]

I think that's a legit concern.  And probably at its worst when you're layering on whatever GHB changes there are.  But I think PtG games and even standard Matched Play games are probably going to greatly benefit from the modular system.  Time will tell. 

[Ferban]

Today's article didn't provide much new info.  The double turn is staying (which I'm in favor of).  They do say that if you take the double, you can't score a battle tactic.  That seems pretty punishing under the current system, but I think we'll need to learn more about battle tactics before we can evaluate how much of a disincentive that is in 4.0.

[Greyshadow]

I am quite relieved that priority is staying as I’ve always found it super fun. I know there are others who feel otherwise and I am respectful of that. Yes, they could have taken another direction and still have a fun game. For me personally, I am delighted that it is staying.

[Sception]

Hrm.  See, to me the biggest complaints about the double turn come from new players and people who mainly play small games.  Because less experienced players don't know how to play around it, and because at smaller points values it's less possible (you can't fight back after losing your front line to an unlucky double turn if your front line was your whole army).  Experienced competitive players, those who play a lot of 2,000 point matched play games, mostly seem to like the double turn, because it keeps games from becoming predictable past the first couple turns.  AoS has become rather responsive to feedback and data, but most of that feedback is coming from events, from tournaments, from experienced competitive players.  That fits with the article stating that the devs polled players and got back overwhelming support for the double turn even though the double turn is kind of infamously the thing that casual and non players refer to as reasons why they don't like & don't play AoS.

While I'm not super upset they're keeping the double turn, I do worry that they're addressing it in exactly the wrong way by tying it to Battle Tactics.  On one level Battle Tactics have become the dev teams most effective go-to tool for balancing the game.  adjusting faction battle tactics has been an easier, quicker, and more immediately successful way to tweak tournament win rate outcomes than points or even warscroll adjustments, so of course they reach to Battle Tactics to try to tone down the double turn.  Except that Battle Tactics are, at least ime, mostly a tournament thing.  In casual games?  Small point games?  Games with new players getting their first exposure to AoS?  Slow grow campaign games played by people building up their first armies?  Those games tend to skip Battle Tactics - and why not, they're an extra layer of complication, easy to forget, and not particularly fun or engaging if you do opt and remember to play with them.  And the devs recognize this at least in so far as we already know that both spearhead and path to glory won't use battle tactics.

Meanwhile tournaments don't just use battle tactics to decide individual games, they're also used as a tie-breaker to decide relative placement between players with the same number of wins.  If opting to take a double turn costs you a battle tactic, then tournament players may be especially disincentivized to go for it.  Sure it might guarantee a win in this game, but you ~might~ pull off a win anyway, and giving up on a battle tactic will take you out of contention for top spot.

So by tying the penalty 'balancing out' the double turn to battle tactics, 4e is potentially heavily punishing it in exactly the full size competitive games between experienced players where the double turn not only isn't a problem but is actually a good thing that those players actually like in the game, while doing nothing to address the smaller, more casual games between less experienced players where the double turn is actually problematic and actively turns potential new players away.  Costing a battle tactic doesn't fix the double turn in those games because those games aren't using battle tactics to begin with.

[Sarouan]

19 minutes ago, Sception said:

 Costing a battle tactic doesn't fix the double turn in those games because those games aren't using battle tactics to begin with.

Good thing there aren't just Battle Tactics in the 4th edition, then.
 

Quote

Initially, the double turn might seem like an obvious advantage – but it’s important to consider that many defensive abilities last until your next turn. This means the player who goes second will often still have their buffs and defensive spells up and running.

We don't know what is the power of these defensive abilities. Furthermore, they already said command points will allow to do more things during the opponent's turn, and they mentionned charging. And finally...we know both players will be able to cast spell in every player turn, so we'll definitely do more things during the opponent's turn that may lead to a less important double turn than in 3rd.

Let's see for more details on the rest. Battle Tactics isn't the only thing concerned in the rules' double turn mechanism, it's pretty clear already.

[Sception]

9 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Let's see for more details on the rest. Battle Tactics isn't the only thing concerned in the rules' double turn mechanism, it's pretty clear already.

No, but it is the major detail played up in the article.  I'm not casting judgment, that obviously needs to wait for the entire ruleset, I'm just commenting on the bits they're showing us as they show it to us.  And in this bit the thing they seem most excited to show us is a 'fix' to the 'problem' of the double turn seemingly precision targeted to hit exactly those games where in the double turn isn't currently a problem while missing those where it is. 

Admittedly though, that's a sentiment that didn't need nearly as many words to express as I used in the previous post.

[Sarouan]

4 minutes ago, Sception said:

 And in this bit the thing they seem most excited to show us is a 'fix' to the 'problem' of the double turn seemingly precision targeted to hit exactly those games where in the double turn isn't currently a problem while missing those where it is. 

TBH, it has less to do with what they're excited to show in an article and more with deliberately giving small hints gradually because we're still a long time away from the release date and they need to pace the "info articles" to have enough content on the road to said date.

I wouldn't give too much credit on these sentences taken separately. It's not giving the whole picture on purpose. Talking about Battle Tactics is also meant so that we're excited for the future article on...Battle Tactics (to know how they play and how "they are so interesting so that you may decline to have a Double Turn").

Edited March 29 by Sarouan

[Fellman]

Do you lose the option for battle tactics when you choose to double turn or all double turns?
So when you force your opponent to take a disadvantage dubbel turn he/she will lose out on the option for battle tactics to

[Greyshadow]

10 hours ago, Sception said:

So by tying the penalty 'balancing out' the double turn to battle tactics, 4e is potentially heavily punishing it in exactly the full size competitive games between experienced players where the double turn not only isn't a problem but is actually a good thing that those players actually like in the game, while doing nothing to address the smaller, more casual games…

A very astute observation. I’m a casual player who plays small games and I have still found priority to be fun. Perhaps if I played more regularly I’d tire of it? Chance means every now and again the priority roll will seem to go really for you or against you and you will get a not so good game. To be fair though, back in the days of 8th Ed fantasy you could get games that were a foregone conclusion before a dice was rolled. It might not be perfect but perhaps it is better in than out.

[Sception]

7 hours ago, Greyshadow said:

A very astute observation. I’m a casual player who plays small games and I have still found priority to be fun. Perhaps if I played more regularly I’d tire of it?

I mean, no demographic is a monolith.  There are tournament type players who don't like the double, and smaller game or more casual players who do like it.  As a broader trend though the double turn seems to get more complaints from new players and from players of smaller game sizes and less from people who regularly play 2k point matched play, which seems to come down to there being more options to play around it at larger game sizes, and players being more aware of and practiced in doing so as they get more experienced.  The tournament type players (broadly, there are always individual exceptions) seem to complain more about other stuff (blizzard, battle tactics in general being kind of unfun and non-interactive, etc).  Shooting is similar, a lot of friction for newer and smaller points players, but generally less contentious in tournament type games - though again there are players who are exceptions on both ends...

... and all that's only if my impression of the general opinion trends are accurate to begin with.  It does fit with the double being a major complaint in my local scene of mostly small point players, as well as it being a common complaint frequently cited by online figures who are somewhat new and mostly play at smaller points (by which I mean anything under 2k).  A good example is this video by Miniac which lists the double as their biggest complaint:

Miniac plays a lot of different minis games, which on some levels broadens his perspective, but it also means he hasn't really dived as deeply as maybe he thinks he has into the particulars of AoS, not playing all that often and most of his experience being in smaller games, where, like many new players, if he goes first in a battle round he has a tendency to just shove his guys forward, which basically sets himself up to get devastated by a double turn.  That's not a major criticism, a lot of people play that way for a long time, and in smaller point games there's not a lot else you can do, you just don't have the points left over for extra chaff & screens or second wave hammer units or expendible units to run up and claim objectives that you don't mind dying while your real hammers take a more cautious approach or whatnot.

If the double turn is such a common complaint, though, are the devs just lying in the priority article when they say they asked a bunch of players what should stay in the game, and they overwhelmingly said to keep the double?  I don't think they are, but I do think the responses they got were skewed by the people they asked, because the most obvious place to ask questions like that is at tournament events, where they have a bunch of people in the same place to talk to and those people are presumably the ones who play AoS the most and who thus have the most informed and nuanced opinions on it.

If that's what happened than I expect they heard from very few players like Miniac, and instead heard from a bunch of players like Heywoah, who made this video in part responding to Miniac.  Well, first he made a direct response video that was a bit more snarky, but acknowledged that wasn't helpful, so he made this video trying to help people learn how to play around the double.

Heywoah's not a top tournament player, but he does attend events, and he regularly streams TTS games on twitch, and the difference in perspective between somebody who plays a few mostly under-pointed games a month and someone who plays multiple full sized games every week is pretty stark.  This is a guy who knows how to play around the double, and who enjoys doing so.  If that wasn't possible he'd have burnt out on and abandoned the game before even getting into it.  Heywoah cut his teeth on TTS - he was playing 2k games before he had the sunk cost of a painted army locking him in.  That also means he skipped right over the small point games that most players are stuck learning the game on while they slowly build up their physical armies and struggle to arrange physical games at local stores against in person opponents.

Heywoah's done a lot to win me over on the idea of the double, at least in full sized matched play games.  But... most of his advice on how to play around it just doesn't work in smaller games - hence why the last serious bit of advice in the video is 'just don't play smaller games'.  But I don't play on TTS, for me the real joy of minis games is meeting up with people in person to show off the cool models I painted.  Full sized games are hard to arrange and fit into a schedule if you're playing real physical models at a real physical game store that you and your opponent both have to drive to and hope the table's open and finish your game in time to clean up before the store closes.

Recognizing this, that AoS just isn't designed for the sorts of games I have time to play, has led me to start picking up Warcry this year (and warcry is pretty great, def worth trying out if you love the models and setting of AoS but don't have time to paint whole armies or play full size games).  Hopefully 4e fixes the small game experience with Spearhead, and the like.  My fingers are firmly crossed.  But wile I may think Heywoah's opinion of the game is more 'correct' or 'informed' or whatever than Miniac's, if the devs have designed 4e based primarily on the feedback of players like Heywoah and not so much on that of players like Miniac, then the small game experience for new players on-boarding and old players who just don't have the time for full 2k point games is likely to remain kinda bad.  In the end, GW is a minis company.  If they make a game that's fantastic for people who stream TTS on twitch but kind of a pain for people buying physical models to play on a real world table, that's probably not what they were aiming for.

 

Edited March 30 by Sception

[Sarouan]

Interesting point. Which leads me to wonder if Spearhead mode for 4th will have a different handling of Double Turn or not, since it will definitely in the "smaller game" category.

[Bosskelot]

3 hours ago, Sception said:

stuff

 

It's definitely an interesting conundrum any game faces because yeah I agree with you on the priority roll feedback they got at events being true, but of course people who are going to a 2-day AOS event are already the ones super hyper invested in it*, so the real question is how many people is the double turn alienating from getting deeper into the game or entering at all.

But that's always the difficulty with this type of thing; do you just keep appealing to the same core audience, or do you try and make big changes to grow the audience? But by taking that risk, you might alienate the dedicated core audience and also not really do a good enough job of capturing new people either.

I can tell you for a fact that everytime I ask people why they haven't gotten into AOS despite showing interest, or they tried it initially and stopped, it is always ALWAYS the double turn.

At the end of the day it sort of depends what is the overall feedback they get about AOS and what their goals are for 4th. 40k had a player survey done on it halfway through the ed, but 3rd never got that, so all the designers ever speak to it seems are hardcore event players and seemingly have little to no feedback from the wider playerbase. They definitely pulled out a little bit of that "simplified not simple" phrasing for the announcement so there is at least a concern of new player attraction and retention

_{*AOS is a very weird community too in that it's hyper-defensive about any criticism of the game. A lot of this is obviously an ingrained reaction to old fantasy players, or total war fans, trashing on the game for years, but it is what it is. TGA is actually pretty unique in it's one of the few AOS communities online where you can actually criticise the game and not be personally attacked over it or have any aggression thrown your way. If people disagree, they actually do it politely and try and have a discussion about it.} 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

55 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:

I can tell you for a fact that everytime I ask people why they haven't gotten into AOS despite showing interest, or they tried it initially and stopped, it is always ALWAYS the double turn.

It's a difficult situation, because on the one hand, I want AoS to be a game with a low barrier to entry, but I also think the priority system of AoS has a lot of good effects, adresses problems that are turn based games traditionally have and leads to interesting decisions in game. I think a lot (not all) new players could learn to like it if they gave it a real chance.

There are so many "I go, you go" games out there. Can't there be room for one game with a double turn mechanic?

1 hour ago, Bosskelot said:

At the end of the day it sort of depends what is the overall feedback they get about AOS and what their goals are for 4th. 40k had a player survey done on it halfway through the ed, but 3rd never got that, so all the designers ever speak to it seems are hardcore event players and seemingly have little to no feedback from the wider playerbase. They definitely pulled out a little bit of that "simplified not simple" phrasing for the announcement so there is at least a concern of new player attraction and retention

Wasn't "simplified, not simple" a phrase they used in the lead up to 3rd already? Regardless, I feel it's a phrase that mostly appeals to what players think they want, rather than what they actually want. I seriously think people generally overestimate the level of cognitive load and rules conplexity they can handle at the table. Or even, the level that is actually fun. Especially in Warhammer games, where you can take months just thinking about your army before actually playing.

[RyantheFett]

What I find interesting with the double turn is how GW keeps on trying to fix it lol. The last handbook gave a lot of bonuses to try and get people to not take the back to back turns. Now 4.0 just straight up says you can't score (how much this will hurt players we will have to see).

My friend and I were talking about what were the odds that GW was done trying to balance double turns and they instead made the penalties so brutal this time to make sure nobody would ever use it again lol!

[Greyshadow]

3 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

_{*AOS is a very weird community too in that it's hyper-defensive about any criticism of the game. A lot of this is obviously an ingrained reaction to old fantasy players, or total war fans, trashing on the game for years, but it is what it is. TGA is actually pretty unique in it's one of the few AOS communities online where you can actually criticise the game and not be personally attacked over it or have any aggression thrown your way. If people disagree, they actually do it politely and try and have a discussion about it.} 

Isn’t that great! Almost all my online experience with interacting with the community has been through TGA. I have a very favourable view of the community as a result.

Edited March 30 by Greyshadow

[Tonhel]

8 hours ago, Sception said:

Big post

 

Great post!

It seems to me that somewhere during AoS the development team set their focus on tournament games / players. It's a big shift imo, as it was never the case during Warhammer that they were so tournament focussed.

I never attended a tournament and I never will. It's not something I think I will enjoy. I just want a more or less balanced game, with immersive rules that work and give both players a great game. TOW excels in this, but as I am also invested in AoS, I do hope they manage it with 4th. For now I am only certain that the mini's will be fantastic. For the rules.. I don't know.

With all this talk about double turns, which to me is just an unfair addition that is imo added to keep the game unpredictable. Together with the misuse of battle tactics to balance weaker and stronger armies.

I really hope that they found a way to make foot hero's playable and give Chaos lords some good rules, so my foot Chaos lord doesn't has to hide anymore.

[Greyshadow]

The general thought around here seems to have greatest concern about the double turn’s impact is on small point games. I am not so sure about the impact on new players. Small point games were always problematic with fairness in old hammer. What tended to happen was one army would always dominate and the games were always very predictable. Perhaps the increased randomness at small points is a better state of affairs? A players first small collection vs their only opponents small collection is more likely to play differently every time. This may be a moot point. Spearhead might address our concerns.

Edited April 1 by Greyshadow

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

6 hours ago, Tonhel said:

 

I really hope that they found a way to make foot hero's playable and give Chaos lords some good rules, so my foot Chaos lord doesn't has to hide anymore.

That'd be nice. I feel like at the moment you either have to roll out dirty great big heroes, or not bother at all. Go big or go home. 

[Sarouan]

Well the point with smaller games is that they take less time. There is also the player mindset that is important.

Allow me to give you a comparison with another situation from another game : Warmachine. It had a special mechanism where when you kill the warcaster (basically a heroo-like character that is the center of your army, let's say it's your warlord), you instantly win the game. Even if there are plenty of other units on the table, no matter the scenario. And it had a very sweet new player entry with their starter boxes, which are basically one warcaster and a couple of warjacks (2 to 4, depending on their sizes - they are basically big robots), that you could immediately play out of the box like this against the same content from your opponent. Of course, these games were very quick in the case you managed to take the opponent warcaster out of battle.

The point of Warmachine with these rules was that "dont get stuck on your loss, roll with it and play another game immediately after, because it's quick !". Yes it had a "git good" mentality that was plainly written in their core rule book (the infamous page 5).

But the think is could be similar with Spearhead : the game ended fast because your army got wiped out, double turn or not ? Play another and get your revenge ! If the time needed to play is lower than a "normal game", then you can more easily feel less like you "lost time playing a "bad" game". Player mindset is key on that matter, and it also has to be trained just like your "skills" with the game.

[Tonhel]

There a tons of great games outside of the GW bubble. If you have to train "the player mindset", it's just easier to seek another game you like. Imo.

[Sarouan]

1 hour ago, Tonhel said:

There a tons of great games outside of the GW bubble. If you have to train "the player mindset", it's just easier to seek another game you like. Imo.

Not really, because there's no point in playing a game if you have no one to play it with you - it's an investment in money and time, no matter what it is or the price it asks. Like it or not, GW games are the easiest to find people for that. In my area, Warmachine died : there's litterally no one around who wants to play anymore. And it's not a question of trying to attract new blood in it.

[Tonhel]

32 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Not really, because there's no point in playing a game if you have no one to play it with you - it's an investment in money and time, no matter what it is or the price it asks. Like it or not, GW games are the easiest to find people for that. In my area, Warmachine died : there's litterally no one around who wants to play anymore. And it's not a question of trying to attract new blood in it

I assume that a big part of GW customers spend way more time collecting / painting Gw miniatures/ immersing in the lore than actual playing the game. Easy said ofcourse as I only play miniature games with long time friends and we are quite open in trying other games.

I like cool miniatures and painting them. Gaming is an occasional bonus. 

I certainly have no interest in training myself in the correct player mindset. Because a company designed a flawed game 😉

Edited March 31 by Tonhel