Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules

[Lord Krungharr]

Is the Spearhead group of armies going to be fixed to certain units only contained in the boxes called Spearheads?  And are the Vanguard boxes equivalent to Spearhead boxes?  

[Greyshadow]

Yes to the first question. The Spearhead box is fielded as it appears on the cover of the box. I don't think we can count on the current Vanguard boxes being Spearhead forces. The wording used in one of the promotional videos on the Warhammer Community site seems to suggest these boxes will be replaced. 

[Skreech Verminking]

My thoughts on the currently known 4.0 edition rules.

personally I can’t say much it definitely has a few interesting buts that have been mentione like weapon range, battleshock etc. being removed, the double turn getting a new twist of not allowing a player to earn battle tactics, all sounds very interesting, but without any rules in my hands it pretty much stays that.

interesting.

certainly that doesn’t mean I’m not concerned of these new additions changing the game in total.

All models being able to fight within 3 inches would mean the game could become a lot more deadlier, which in my oppinion isn’t really what I want, then again that’s coming from me not knowing what the warscrolls will look like.

maybe we’ll ne seeing a return of the dreaded 4+ to hit stat for a lot of the warscrolls that lost it during the 3rd edition period.

maybe will see a reduction of attacks or an increase on all safe characteristics.

personally this is still more a mystery to me then I can state much more then that.

as for the removal of the battleshock.

I don’t really mind yet I do wonder if it may come back as some sort of a test to see if the unit can’t hold objectives. Which would make it a bit interesting.

As for the double turn well I’m keen in seeing if the interest of not taking a double turn will decrease with the idea of loosing 2 or more potential victory points.

 

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

My assumption was that something will replace the current Battleshock system. Surely there's gotta be something that reflects the psychological side of losing a fight. No? Maybe I'm too set in my ways. 

[Greyshadow]

I love flee mechanics. Makes the game more decisive and watching your troops flee from battle is just narratively exciting. Will be interested to see how this is handled in the new rules.  

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

20 hours ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

My assumption was that something will replace the current Battleshock system. Surely there's gotta be something that reflects the psychological side of losing a fight. No? Maybe I'm too set in my ways. 

Including morale in the game as definitely one of the big innovations of WHFB. I think for AoS, though, it's less of an obviously good match in terms of what the game is trying to be. I don' think AoS needs battleshock (because it has historically been pretty irrelevant), and I think we are getting an objective control stat instead of bravery this time around, so maybe they have just decided that the juice was not worth the squeeze with psychology.

Edited April 2 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Sarouan]

Morale in WHFB isn't simple at all, in reality. It creates a lot of headache inducing situations in game and adds a lot of interactions with other existing rules. There's also the question of fun of having your entire army running away because of one poor unit failing a morale test and causing panic amongst the entire line. Basically, when a unit is running away, you don't have any control on it.

Getting rid of it is a question of game simplification and enjoying playing your units the most when they're on the table.

[Tonhel]

3 hours ago, Sarouan said:

Morale in WHFB isn't simple at all, in reality. It creates a lot of headache inducing situations in game and adds a lot of interactions with other existing rules. There's also the question of fun of having your entire army running away because of one poor unit failing a morale test and causing panic amongst the entire line. Basically, when a unit is running away, you don't have any control on it.

Getting rid of it is a question of game simplification and enjoying playing your units the most when they're on the table.

No, not correct.

With TOW it's way more balanced thanks to give ground/fall back in good order and flee.

The example you give is almost impossible to happen. The flee reaction is only if you have 50% of the unit left. Otherwise it's Fall back in good order. Which is an automatic rally at the end of its flee move.

It's crucial to arrange your battleline so you can hold the line. Which is ofcourse is very important in a mass ranked battlegame.

Anyway what you posted is incorrect.

 

Edited April 2 by Tonhel

[Beliman]

I don't care about Battleshock, Morale or whatever any phase is called. All phases need accomplish soemthing for the game. I'm not talking about the "simulation" behind it, but why it needs to be in the game  and how it improves it.

A characteristic that points out which units are Elite and which units are Horde is ok... I suppose, unless the phase that this characteristic becomes relevant turns to be a win-more/ignore phase. This doesn't accomplish anything. If the morale/bravery was some type of stat/phase that gaves the opportunity to win fights as an alternative route of doing wounds (aka, fighting/shooting phase), that would be a diferent story. Sadly, it's not the case.

Let's see what happens with 4oS, I hope they do a good job. 

(Btw, I play Night Lords and Emperor's Children, that should explain my preferances).

[Sarouan]

4 hours ago, Tonhel said:

No, not correct.

With TOW it's way more balanced thanks to give ground/fall back in good order and flee.

The example you give is almost impossible to happen. The flee reaction is only if you have 50% of the unit left. Otherwise it's Fall back in good order. Which is an automatic rally at the end of its flee move.

It's crucial to arrange your battleline so you can hold the line. Which is ofcourse is very important in a mass ranked battlegame.

Anyway what you posted is incorrect.

 

Please note that I mentionned WHFB, not TOW. I know Morale works differently TOW, what I wrote was true (and happened) for WHFB.

Still, units running away in TOW still have a lot of headache inducing situations with a lot of interactions from other rules. It's still far from simple, quite the opposite : it's like they were saying to themselves : "You know what was lacking in WHFB ? More special rules !"

[Tonhel]

5 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Please note that I mentionned WHFB, not TOW. I know Morale works differently TOW, what I wrote was true (and happened) for WHFB.

Still, units running away in TOW still have a lot of headache inducing situations with a lot of interactions from other rules. It's still far from simple, quite the opposite : it's like they were saying to themselves : "You know what was lacking in WHFB ? More special rules !"

I can't say agree at all. Ofcourse TOW is not a simple game, but the same can be said about AoS 3.

Lol, atleast the special rules in TOW make sense. In AoS, i.e every shield has its own special rule. Anyway, what you claimed is incorrect. I suggest you read atleast the TOW rules before making such claims.

[Greyshadow]

Given we have a Skaven lord who flees in the new edition trailer, I think it is quite likely that there will be something that replaces battle shock. We’ll have to wait and see.

[Cambyses]

Maybe I'm just a boomer gamer, but I find that in any wargame, a morale system is a must, even one as simplified & abstract as the one in AoS. Morale was one of the most important factors in most historical battles, up to and including modern times, and IMO to do away with morale entirely would be to lose something fundamental in the wargaming experience.

 

You could argue against it on a gameplay grounds, but I've played other games that get too lost in the sauce trying to optimize the game at a purely mechanical level, and in the process shed all flavor - at that point you might as well be playing a board game, and do away with the thin veneer of flavor text disguising the probabilistic engines in the underlying system, and I'd hate to see AoS go down that route.

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

5 hours ago, Cambyses said:

Maybe I'm just a boomer gamer, but I find that in any wargame, a morale system is a must, even one as simplified & abstract as the one in AoS. Morale was one of the most important factors in most historical battles, up to and including modern times, and IMO to do away with morale entirely would be to lose something fundamental in the wargaming experience.

I kind of agree. It'd be nice to have an individual warrior's courage represented in some way. 

... but it certainly ain't a hill I'm willing to die on. I'd sacrifice it for a clean, quick, easy-to-learn set of rules. 

[Sarouan]

13 hours ago, Tonhel said:

I can't say agree at all. Ofcourse TOW is not a simple game, but the same can be said about AoS 3.

Lol, atleast the special rules in TOW make sense. In AoS, i.e every shield has its own special rule. Anyway, what you claimed is incorrect. I suggest you read atleast the TOW rules before making such claims.

I play TOW, so yes I read the rules. And they are full of things that aren't clear at all. Just like WHFB (that I played too for decades) in its time, we'll need to wait for the FAQ.

If you don't like what I wrote, it's fine. Fine if you disagree as well. But what I wrote is not incorrect. It's a fact TOW has more special rules than its predecessor about how Morale works and what "degree of running away" your unit may be in.

And it's not a bad thing in it. It just doesn't make the game simple to play nor to learn.

That's the difference with AoS, whose core mechanism is actually simple. Indeed, they added too many special rules changing the core over the years with their damn season books. But even so, I'm sorry to say that between starting AoS v3 or TOW right now...you'll still have less difficulties with AoS for the core mechanisms. Because TOW is way more complex in them.

Edited April 3 by Sarouan
correction of typo

[Ferban]

New update on Army Composition today. 

It certainly seems like a good idea and addresses one major problem.  Battle Regiment.  It was so much more powerful than most of the other battalions that it was far and away the one to take.  You'd sometimes see a sporadic Warlord or one of the GHBs.  But it was like 90% Battle Reg.  Glad that this system is doing drops by regiments (effectively one drop per hero) which should allow for a more interesting decision. 

Units being tied to leaders is ... fine.  I don't like or dislike it.  I'll be interested to see whether there are further restrictions.  Like a hero can only issue commands to their regiment.  That might not be as good.  I do like the elimination of reinforcement points.  I didn't run up against that limit very often, but it was annoying when I did.  

One possible area of concern, though, is the loss of a "battleline" tax.  For experienced players, I don't think it'll be any issue.  But with new players, they might gravitate toward monsters or heavy hitters.  Those can be great, but you generally need something to just stand on an objective or screen out a potential deepstrike.  The removal of the battleline requirement could be detrimental to those learning the game.  But maybe there will be some heavy suggestions for new players in the core book.  

Overall, this seems like it will be both freeing (you don't have to worry about Behemoth limits or battleline requirements) but also potentially constricting (if heroes only buff their own regiments).  So we may have something here that is easy to learn but can provide a lot of nuance and strategy in the list-building phase.  

Still need to know more about it, but I'm liking this change so far. 

[Bosskelot]

17 hours ago, Cambyses said:

Maybe I'm just a boomer gamer, but I find that in any wargame, a morale system is a must, even one as simplified & abstract as the one in AoS. Morale was one of the most important factors in most historical battles, up to and including modern times, and IMO to do away with morale entirely would be to lose something fundamental in the wargaming experience.

 

You could argue against it on a gameplay grounds, but I've played other games that get too lost in the sauce trying to optimize the game at a purely mechanical level, and in the process shed all flavor - at that point you might as well be playing a board game, and do away with the thin veneer of flavor text disguising the probabilistic engines in the underlying system, and I'd hate to see AoS go down that route.

Removing any sort of morale system also runs the risk of the game either becoming far too grindy and lacking in dynamism if lethality is too low, or the game becoming too lethal so entire units get wiped out in single activations because that's the only way to avoid the eternal grind.

The Necron mirror match in current 40k has this problem, where the army isn't lethal enough to overcome its own tankiness, and battleshock is a worthless mechanic so by turn 5 very little has actually died and it's difficult to really feel as if anything of consequence has happened.

[Sarouan]

2 hours ago, Ferban said:

One possible area of concern, though, is the loss of a "battleline" tax. 

The article talks about a limitation of the units you can take in regiments depending from the hero you choose as its leader : it will be listed on their battle profile. Some heroes will allow to take anything, but since they took Teclis as example, we can assume it will be expensive and limited by itself (like big named characters, Ushoran, Nagash, Alarielle...).

I suspect the "battleline tax" will be moved to what heroes actually allow to take in their regiment, and that we will be "forced" to take auxiliary units to really get wild / spamming powerful units.

Now, the question is if the "loss" of one command point is worth it or not.

[Ferban]

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

Now, the question is if the "loss" of one command point is worth it or not.

I think the article said it was one "per round."  So that could be a pretty major incentive.  Especially if command points are rarer than in the current system.  That said, we don't yet know the value of a command point in the new system, so we'll have to wait and see before we can evaluate that. 

[Lord Krungharr]

I'm totally down with the new no-battefield roles other than heroes.  How many different types of Doomwheel kitbashings can I come up with?  WE SHALL SEE

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

16 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

Removing any sort of morale system also runs the risk of the game either becoming far too grindy and lacking in dynamism if lethality is too low, or the game becoming too lethal so entire units get wiped out in single activations because that's the only way to avoid the eternal grind.

It seems to me that there are a million ways to solve that problem that are not morale/battleshock. Besides, is that not what we should expect in a match of between two lists that both focus on defense? The typical "this list/deck/team/character is not built to win, it's built to not lose" mirror match?

 

12 hours ago, Ferban said:

I think the article said it was one "per round."  So that could be a pretty major incentive.  Especially if command points are rarer than in the current system.  That said, we don't yet know the value of a command point in the new system, so we'll have to wait and see before we can evaluate that. 

With the current system, we you typically have 2 CP,  +1 from going second, +1 from heroic actions potentially. If that stays true, I am not that fussed about another +1 CP per round, depending on my list. The benefit of the flexibility of a lot of auxiliaries might well outweigh it. High drops still gives deployment advantage, after all.

They explicitly said warscrolls will no longer give extra CP. I would assume that also means they have at least toned down warscroll abilities giving free use of command abilities. But it's really up in the air how common free CP from command traits, artefacts, battle formations, allegicance abilities, heroic actions etc. turn out to be.

If we take them at their word, though, and CP are actually scarce, it could be pretty significant. Like maybe you just get 2 CP per turn, nothing more. We have also had a leak claim that there is a new counter-charge command ability. If we really get a lot fewer CP, but they allow us to use commands at the power level of redeploy, unleash hell, counter charge and all-out defense, then I think the advantage of an extra CP is substantial.

[Beliman]

I hope that the CP mechanic is like a pseudo-reaction system to diminsh the double turn waiting-time, but without breaking the flow of the game because both players already know when the reacting-time can happen.

[Ferban]

Today's article was light on rules but did show off the new warscrolls.  While I like the updated formatting, there isn't a lot of change here.  To hit, to wound, and rend are all present.  As is save.  

The only major difference is "Bravery" has been replaced by "Control."  And "control" is how many points they count as when contesting objectives.  It'll be interesting to see how (or if?) they include Morale in the game.  Maybe you'll need to make tests once half your unit is killed or half your army (as in MESBG).  

[Vasshpit]

Looks like having a shield and weapon or two weapons is irrelevant unless I missed something. If so I'm not the biggest fan of this and just seems overly watered down. 

Is what it is....

Will definitely have to feel out how things go. 

Edited April 5 by Vasshpit

[Sception]

2 hours ago, Vasshpit said:

Looks like having a shield and weapon or two weapons is irrelevant unless I missed something. If so I'm not the biggest fan of this and just seems overly watered down. 

Is what it is....

Will definitely have to feel out how things go. 

there has been a trend recently of eliminating full unit-wide weapon options.  Like, they're still there on the sprues, but don't do anything in game.  Eg: spears vs. swords for skeleton warriors, lances vs. hand weapons for blood knights, hand weapons vs. halberds for crypt guard, etc.

Shield vs. no shield on liberators does feel a little extreme, but still.

As long as the options stay on the models devs might change direction in the future.  In the meanwhile I don't mind being able to pick these options based on aesthetic preference without feeling like I was nerfing my unit for no reason (eg with spears on kavalos deathriders or mortek guard).