Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules

[Beliman]

It would be fun to see Gundstock Thunderers....

So, some random thoughts:

• If everything is an ability (passive and active), it feels like we are going to see some some "activation wars" in more than just the Fighting Phase. That diminishes the impact of a double-turn (good).
• Nagash only having a bonus to cast in the Hero Phase. Does this means that spells are going to be tied in to the Hero Phase?
• The skull ability (passive) from Nagash makes me think that it triggers in the Start of the Turn. If that's the case for all other monsters with the same degrading ability, they are not going to take the effect until the start of the next turn.
• That's funy: "while Ossiarch Bonereapers is a keyword here, Nagash has a separate Warscroll in each of the Faction Packs from Grand Alliance: Death". Btw, I'm completely fine with that, some units having a diferent warscroll depending on the army they join opens a lot of possibilities.
• 6 special USR for weapons? Seems an small number, but I'm ok with that. The main problem with AoS weapon profiles is that you always look at the Damage Output and the save of the enemy. If the Edition has buffs or whatever that allows most of the models to have a save between 2+ and +3, it's as simple as focus on the damage row with that save. Not a fan of this, but it is what it is.
• Keywords for Abilities seems good. It's easy to target or understand what's happening just by looking at the warscroll. Not sure about the little simbols for each ability... I just hope that most keywrods use the same timing (all rampage triggers at the End of Any Turn, etc...), it will be easier to understand that way.
• Not sure about the keywords that are linked to a stat being in the other side of the warscroll. Fly and Ward feels alot better if they are near the Move and Save characteristic. I will wait because I think that there are going to be a lot of interactions with this keywords and maybe that's why they are in a diferent place.
• So, Control Score and Control is diferent. Liberators are going to have a Control of 1, and a unit of 10 are going to have a Control Score of 10. if they are on an objective in their territory, they are going to have 13 Control Score in total. Am I right?
• I'm really curious about the Shooting Phase. Range going down seems awesome, but I still want to know the basic system (LOS, who can shoot, terrain abilities...). 
• What about the Charge Phase? Imho, a generic bonus is needed because if you already had one unit in a combat, it feel weird to throw another one in to the fray that would not have any bonus and probably will be hit before they attack.

Let's wait and see. It looks interesting and refreshing at least.

Edited April 6 by Beliman

[Vasshpit]

Stats across a units weapon profile can stay the same for ease of play and without a clear better or worse option but it's more a utility aspect I was hoping for. 

Spears get +1 rend If unit is charged.

Hand weapons get +1 attack if unit charges.

Shields give 6+ ward.

Etc, as just examples. 

 

Simple hammer it is I guess. Still excited. 

[Sception]

Quote

Nagash only having a bonus to cast in the Hero Phase. Does this means that spells are going to be tied in to the Hero Phase?

Seems like yeah, I think we're going to see spells as a hero phase thing as current and not getting spread through the turn like old world.  Thankfully, imo.  I like old world, but I think it would have been better served with a magic system much closer to that in AoS - magic distributed across the turn is a mistake imo.  It makes it difficult to track how many spells a wizard has attempted to cast or dispel, which in turn is why tOW currently lets wizards attempt to cast all their spells, and unbind any spell cast in their range.  Which in turn makes adding wizard level to casting & dispelling rolls, in itself another mistake imo, far more painful, leading to the 'take a level 4 or lose' pattern that's starting to develop in the early meta.  Maybe it'll work itself out and prove not to be a problem in the long run, but for the moment AoS's limits on total casting and much more limited availability of casting & unbinding bonuses seems like a better call.  Even nagash only gets +2 to cast in 4e, and no bonus at all to unbinding rolls.

Quote

The skull ability (passive) from Nagash makes me think that it triggers in the Start of the Turn. If that's the case for all other mosnters with the same degrading ability, they are not going to take the effect until the start of the next turn.

The color implies a start of turn effect, but the text implies a more continuous effect.  That it's just always the case whenever the condition applies.

Quote

That's funy: "while Ossiarch Bonereapers is a keyword here, Nagash has a separate Warscroll in each of the Faction Packs from Grand Alliance: Death". Btw, I'm completely fine with that, some units having a diferent warscroll depending on the army they join can open a lot of possibilies.

It gets confusing if those factions can be mixed via allies or regiments of renown - the latter at least we know are staying around in some form.  The devs need to take care that the same unit can't appear in the same army with two different warscrolls.

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

Liking the new Warscroll format. Nagash's is a huge improvement on the huge blob of text as it currently stands. 

[Marcvs]

It seems that liberators have the same weapon profile with two hammers or hammer and shield. Great for modelling and rule of cool, but it feels a bit extreme in terms of simplification

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

33 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

It seems that liberators have the same weapon profile with two hammers or hammer and shield. Great for modelling and rule of cool, but it feels a bit extreme in terms of simplification

Certainly a big change.

Looking at the Tomb Guard with shields that I have been proxying as Grave Guard with great wrapons for the past edition, though, I know it's not as big a deal as it feels at first.

[Beliman]

6 hours ago, Marcvs said:

It seems that liberators have the same weapon profile with two hammers or hammer and shield. Great for modelling and rule of cool, but it feels a bit extreme in terms of simplification

I'm not a big fan of that. I had a bit of hope that rules would be closer to the models they represent (and I'm not talking about lore, more about the physical models).

Edited April 6 by Beliman

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

6 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I'm nit a big fan of that. I had a bit of hope that rules would be closer to the models they represent (and I'm not talking about lore, more about the physical models).

I agree with you and everyone else who likes the idea of having different weapons and loadouts in the rules also reflected on the models. It is cool, in theory.

In my experience, it almost always runs up against different barriers in reality, though. People build and paint models one way and then just tell you "these guys have swords but I'm using the spears warscroll, actually". Maybe it's because of a rules change, maybe it's because they built 2 min size squads but now want to try running reinforced, maybe swords just look cooler. And I think everyone agrees that it's unreasonable to expect people to buy, build and paint another unit just for a +1 to hit.

Personally, I am more glad that I will get the skip the 15 minute "loadout talk" in future games than I am sad about the loss of fidelity. 

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

I assembled all of my Chaos Warriors with paired hand weapons, and all of my Chaos Knights with Ensorcelled Weapons. Strictly speaking, they got invalidated by the most recent Tome. Of course, I've been still using them... resorting to the 'counts as'. It's pleasing to think, though, that under the new edition they'll be 'valid' again. Hopefully.

[Marcvs]

25 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I agree with you and everyone else who likes the idea of having different weapons and loadouts in the rules also reflected on the models. It is cool, in theory.

In my experience, it almost always runs up against different barriers in reality, though. People build and paint models one way and then just tell you "these guys have swords but I'm using the spears warscroll, actually". Maybe it's because of a rules change, maybe it's because they built 2 min size squads but now want to try running reinforced, maybe swords just look cooler. And I think everyone agrees that it's unreasonable to expect people to buy, build and paint another unit just for a +1 to hit.

Personally, I am more glad that I will get the skip the 15 minute "loadout talk" in future games than I am sad about the loss of fidelity. 

My problem is less with WYSIWYG (never cared about it, just tell me what they do) but more with the loss of meaningful choices in list building. I am all for streamlining the playing experience, but I believe there's not much need for it in the "pre game part" (i.e. list building)

[Flippy]

6 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

My problem is less with WYSIWYG (never cared about it, just tell me what they do) but more with the loss of meaningful choices in list building. I am all for streamlining the playing experience, but I believe there's not much need for it in the "pre game part" (i.e. list building)

Agreed. But it is already an established fact that @Neil Arthur Hotep is not a fan of „quartermaster simulators” 😄

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

5 minutes ago, Flippy said:

Agreed. But it is already an established fact that @Neil Arthur Hotep is not a fan of „quartermaster simulators” 😄

 

I think I'm just kind of burnt out on micro-optimizations. I used to spend ages building characters in RPGs, carefully thinking about every small decision. Before I actually started actively playing, that is. It made me realize that none of those decisions mattered very much except broad strokes once the dice hit the table.

The truth is, I don't feel super strongly about this choice, though. I just want either a real choice or no choice. If they had kept separate warscrolls for double hammers and hammer and shield, that would have been impactful enough to justify it for me. It does run up against the realities of painting and modeling units, as I described above, but it's fun. Not the old "swords are 3+/4+, hammers are 4+/3+" design though.

Edited April 6 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Flippy]

2 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

The truth is, I don't feel super strongly about this choice, though. I just want either a real choice or no choice. If they had kept separate warscrolls for double hammers and hammer and shield, that would have been impactful enough to justify it for me. It does run up against the realities of painting and modeling units, as I described above, but it's fun. Not the old "swords are 3+/4+, hammers are 4+/3+" design though.

Yeah, and even the “real” choice can be tedious at times. I’m just building Eldar Combat Patrol and there is a very real risk I may run out of magnets… All the scatter lasers, brightlances, shuriken cannons, starcannons. I fell like I’m about to paint a weapon depot. Not much fun.

[Vasshpit]

9 minutes ago, Flippy said:

I fell like I’m about to paint a weapon depot. Not much fun.

Opposite here. Sounds like a blast

[JackStreicher]

5 hours ago, Marcvs said:

but it feels a bit extreme in terms of simplification

Simplification of general game rules is fine. This isn’t a simplification but a removal of choice. Once units have no choices left they become boring since they can’t diverge from the behavioral pattern that’s been set for them.

This is a case of a unit becoming boring (and once again more a token than a gaming piece). 
 

The removal of optional choice is seldom a good thing.

Edited April 6 by JackStreicher

[Beliman]

58 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Simplification of general game rules is fine. This isn’t a simplification but a removal of choice. Once units have no choices left they become boring since they can’t diverge from the behavioral pattern that’s been set for them.

That will be a problem for some factions that only have 1 or 2 troops that can be equiped with diferent loadouts. Guttrippaz, Vulkites, Ogres, Arsboyz, etc, are going to lose some gameplay.

[Flippy]

1 hour ago, Vasshpit said:

Opposite here. Sounds like a blast

You sure?

[Vasshpit]

@Flippy Yep!! I know that's a BUNCH of extra work but at the end it will be sooo cool to have that setup. 

Just my opinion. 

Many moons ago I magnetized a bunch of 40k ork boys and I also did the same with first gen liberator kit. 

The end result was so much fun! Never got tired of hearing the little click whence adding an option. 🤘😄

Hang in there. ✊️ It will be worth it. 

[Skreech Verminking]

5 hours ago, Beliman said:

I'm not a big fan of that. I had a bit of hope that rules would be closer to the models they represent (and I'm not talking about lore, more about the physical models).

Back to the old world I go I guess👐🏻,

jokes aside, I’m keen in seeing where this is going, considering how battle shock is entirely removed and they don’t seem to have gotten something similar to what 40k has as their bravery test.

which in a way makes me sad and interested at the same time.

(also I’n already playing tow, so returning might be a bit over exaggerated😂)

[Satyrical Sophist]

3 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Back to the old world I go I guess👐🏻,

jokes aside, I’m keen in seeing where this is going, considering how battle shock is entirely removed and they don’t seem to have gotten something similar to what 40k has as their bravery test.

which in a way makes me sad and interested at the same time.

(also I’n already playing tow, so returning might be a bit over exaggerated😂)

I’m kind of assuming that horde and non elite options are going to have a degrade option like Nagash losing power when he has taken a certain number of wounds. Something like “this unit has 0 control when below half strength” achieves quite a bit.

[Tonhel]

8 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Simplification of general game rules is fine. This isn’t a simplification but a removal of choice. Once units have no choices left they become boring since they can’t diverge from the behavioral pattern that’s been set for them.

This is a case of a unit becoming boring (and once again more a token than a gaming piece). 
 

The removal of optional choice is seldom a good thing.

Lol, this is brilliantly explained. Something I tried to explain in the rumour topic. But failed. 100% true!!!

 

[Greyshadow]

I’m fine with this. I’ve been reading the tactical problems in White Dwarf. The solutions are just ingenious to me. Makes me realise how deep the game is. I don’t think we need that complexity. It takes me around three months to paint a unit. I don’t want to tear up my hard work to chase the flavour of the month.

Moreover, I’ve been counting my greatswords, halberdiers and sword and shield models as Steelhelms and I didn’t even think maybe I’d lost something.

Edited April 7 by Greyshadow

[Tonhel]

It does take away options or atleast the feeling of having a choice (although for AoS, I can live with removing of weapons), but removing the shield also. Is imo a step to far.

Currently the hype for me for AoS is one with ups and downs.

I fear that the AoS design team is way to focussed on tournament play and getting the perfect balance.

They tried to influence/balance the game through AoS 3rd with battle tactics. Now it seems they are going to give each unit a very distinctive role. I.e a StD Chaos Warrior scroll could look exactly the same as the liberator one, with the only difference that they get a +3 to their control stat when contesting an objective in enemy territory.

When GW blew up Warhammer, I also flocked as lots of players to 9th Age, in the beginning it was looking very good,  but than they came more and more obsessed with balance, it sucked out all the flavour out of the game.

The way the liberator warscroll looks is purely done because they think they can balance the game better that way, give each unit a very narrowed/defined purpose, without any player influence of choice. It's maybe perfect for a tournament environment, but I think GW is cleary mistaken when they think that that is their main customer base.

 

 

 

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Tonhel said:

I fear that the AoS design team is way to focussed on tournament play and getting the perfect balance.

Sadly yes. Though the player base increased by 70% (according to Honest Wargamer) it pretty mich died around here (South German Capital).

And having had an AoS game last friday (the first since a long time) I am happy for the new edition since it’s less gun to me than TOW atm.

[brocktoon]

I wanted to revisit a particular sticking point on the rules starting with 3e and seemingly compounded in what we're seeing from 4e so far. I hate appeals to authority, but 3 of the 4 of us are moderately successful analog game designers, so we talk about rules quite a bit, we tweak and houserule, and we're all narrative, once a month marathon wargamers, for a little context. This past weekend was our monthly marathon, so we did quite a lot of talking about new AoS and GW rules design philosophy in general.

I'm very neutral on the move away from comparing numbers to determine to hit and to wound. Completely agnostic. But I think a lot of issues stem from the cascading effect from GW moving away from comparison of stats for those things and toward a set number plus abilities on the card system in AoS and 40k.

Old system, I'm a Cool Warrior with WS 6. You are a Normal Human with WS 3. We compare and it's harder for you to hit me and me to hit you because all of that fiction is contained in that simple comparison.

New System, I'm a Cool Warrior and I hit on 3+. You are a Normal Human and you hit on a 4+. This is fine as it goes. But if we have two Cool Warriors, we both hit on 3+. How do we differentiate ourselves from one another without the granularity that comes from Cool Warrior with WS 6 and Cool Warrior with WS 5? Well, we add some special rules. My hits explode on 6s and maybe you do MWs on a 6. But then other people need that rule, so we need to differentiate more. So we add auras. But then the auras are stacking, so we need to track which auras overlap and we need to limit them to -/+1 after adding and subtracting our competing auras.

On and on it goes. So when the word is that "everything is an ability" I don't hear "simplicity". I hear "the mental load and staring at reminders on your phone instead of talking to your opponent in this ostensibly social activity is going to increase". I'd like to be wrong but the every weapon loadout is the same stuff with SCE is not giving me good signals. Not because it's a problem on its own, but it's one fewer means of differentiation which will have to be pushed away to simple decisions or comparisons and onto a bespoke special rule.