Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

On 4/13/2024 at 12:59 AM, TechnoVampire said:

I had the same reaction. It felt like a rebranding of the current system, minus the narrative intrigue. The new subfactions (“battle formations”) appear to have all the same kind of restrictions as before (relating only to specific unit types), however now there’s is no lore… which apparently allows us to paint them however we like for the first time.

I’m also concerned that there might only be a single trait for each battle formation, which to me would feel like dumbing down faction rules, while keeping numerous core rules I’d happily have seen stripped away. That’s the oposite of the kind of “streamlining” I’d like to see, but hopefully it’s not the case 🤞

I have been thinking about this whole "battle formations" thing, too. Like others, I don't really see it as a super big improvement. Even though you were never required to paint your models a certain way to get access to subfaction rules, I suppose it is somewhat nice for people who do feel a strong compulsion to do this kind of thing, but would like to paint their guys differently/use a different subfaction's fluff.

I was recently thinking about how I never used Living City even though I think ambushing is pretty fun. Mostly it was because I have a tech-heavy cities army, so I think I kind of just mentally skipped over the nature subfaction. I might have considered them more seriously without the fluff mismatch. But I am not really convinced this kind of benefit necessitates a restructuring of the whole subfaction system.

[OkayestDM]

I suppose it's more of a lateral move than anything else. For my part, I'm happy about it. People either felt like they were flying in the face of the lore if they used the "wrong" subfactions, felt like they were pigeonholed into a subfactions they didn't like, or else just ignored the fluff entirely and did what they wanted. There were obviously also folks for whom the subfactions and rules lined up perfectly, and any disappointment on their part over the changes is valid. 

Ultimately, it seems like a more permissive structure, which matches the direction they seem to be going this edition with regards to list building. 

I'm interested to see whether or not they expand the battle formations in the actual battle tomes, both in rules content and number of formations, and how those might inform list building.

 

[Ferban]

New article up today on the combat phase.  For the most part, it seems pretty similar to what we're used to.  But a few call outs. 

Charge seems to roll the 2D6 as part of the "declare" so you'll roll first and then decide if you want to Forward to Victory.  Good.  That'll be far more useful.  

No more abilities are "start of combat" or "end of combat" phase.  Instead, they are sort of all "start of combat" with the active player using all theirs first and then the opponent using theirs.  On balance, I think this is positive.  I cannot count the number of times I go to activate a unit and have forgotten some "start of phase" ability they were supposed to use.  Now, you sort of get all that done first and then go to fighting.  So less likely to be forgotten. 

Damage is allocated to the unit instead of to the model.  Then when it gets high enough, you kill a model.  It's a small change that I think will have very little impact on the game.  But the small impact is positive.  You won't have to worry about piling in and putting the guy with damage in the middle and risking a coherency break.  Now, when they take damage, you can just kill a guy on the end.  No coherency issue.  

Speaking of which, coherency is now half an inch.  I think this is positive.  It'll remove even more shenanigans and also prevent small bases from lining up next to each other.  So everything over 6 models is going to have to fight in ranks.  Really like this one. 

Retreating out of combat now requires you to take D3 mortals.  Also good.  Retreating should be a valid tactic.  But it should also come with a cost.  This is a game about fighting and killing.  So a free retreat always felt a little gamey.  

Pile ins.  This is a major change.  Now when you pile in, you pick one enemy unit and that's the unit you need to get closer to (or, technically, no farther from).  That's huge!  No longer can you charge with two units and pin the enemy models.  Now they can simply select one of your two units and easily pile away from the other without restriction.  I'm not sure I like this one.  I like the simplicity.  But I think it comes at the cost of tactical decision-making.  I thought everything in today's article was positive except for this one.  I don't like that models can simply walk away during a pile-in.  Especially when retreat causes damage.  Piling away should too (or come with a similar drawback).  

But, as always, we don't have the full story just yet.  So final judgment is reserved, but I think these changes are overall very positive but will still be familiar and easy to grasp for current players.  And should be at the same level or even easier to teach new players. 

[Tonhel]

7 minutes ago, Ferban said:

Speaking of which, coherency is now half an inch.  I think this is positive.  It'll remove even more shenanigans and also prevent small bases from lining up next to each other.  So everything over 6 models is going to have to fight in ranks.  Really like this one. 

 

This sounds great on paper, but will be a nightmare to get good on the table. There are lots units that aren't designed to be placed so close together. If they want to softly force the player in smaller units there are easier ways than just forcing them to be more close together.

Lol, imo they try to force the game in small units on small movement trays. A bit like R&F game, but without the tactical bonus to attacks in the flank or rear.

[Satyrical Sophist]

22 minutes ago, Ferban said:

 

Pile ins.  This is a major change.  Now when you pile in, you pick one enemy unit and that's the unit you need to get closer to (or, technically, no farther from).  That's huge!  No longer can you charge with two units and pin the enemy models.  Now they can simply select one of your two units and easily pile away from the other without restriction.  I'm not sure I like this one.  I like the simplicity.  But I think it comes at the cost of tactical decision-making.  I thought everything in today's article was positive except for this one.  I don't like that models can simply walk away during a pile-in.  Especially when retreat causes damage.  Piling away should too (or come with a similar drawback).  

But, as always, we don't have the full story just yet.  So final judgment is reserved, but I think these changes are overall very positive but will still be familiar and easy to grasp for current players.  And should be at the same level or even easier to teach new players. 

You can’t leave combat by piling in towards another unit. It says you need to remain within combat range of any units you are already in combat range of, so you could pull away and make it harder for the enemy to get in range with the full unit, but you can’t escape combat.

[Marcvs]

9 minutes ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

You can’t leave combat by piling in towards another unit. It says you need to remain within combat range of any units you are already in combat range of, so you could pull away and make it harder for the enemy to get in range with the full unit, but you can’t escape combat.

and considering that the enemy is going to pile in 3" with a further 3" of attack range, even the possibility to reduce the number of enemy models in range will be quite limited

Edited April 17 by Marcvs

[Ferban]

3 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

You can’t leave combat by piling in towards another unit. It says you need to remain within combat range of any units you are already in combat range of, so you could pull away and make it harder for the enemy to get in range with the full unit, but you can’t escape combat.

Yeah, I don't think it spares the "pinned" unit from receiving any attacks.  They are going to get hit with basically everything.  Same as before.  I think the change is that the "pinned" unit can focus all its attacks on one enemy unit.  

Previously, you attack from two sides.  And the "pinned" unit has to split attacks between the two adversaries because it can't pile. Splitting attacks that way generally makes the unit less effective.  Now, the "pinned" unit can simply pile towards one side and get all (or nearly all) of its attacks in.  So "pinning" a unit is far, far less effective.  Maybe it'll be positive on balance, but it does seem to remove some significant tactical play.  

[Tonhel]

1 hour ago, Ferban said:

Yeah, I don't think it spares the "pinned" unit from receiving any attacks.  They are going to get hit with basically everything.  Same as before.  I think the change is that the "pinned" unit can focus all its attacks on one enemy unit.  

Previously, you attack from two sides.  And the "pinned" unit has to split attacks between the two adversaries because it can't pile. Splitting attacks that way generally makes the unit less effective.  Now, the "pinned" unit can simply pile towards one side and get all (or nearly all) of its attacks in.  So "pinning" a unit is far, far less effective.  Maybe it'll be positive on balance, but it does seem to remove some significant tactical play.  

Yeah, this means that you will be even more careful in charging in combat with a character. As it is now. With AoS3, you minimize attacks back when you have pinned a enemy unit in combat. Now it becomes useless as your opponent can just decide to use all it attacks on your character, while before you could with a well placed charge minimize the attacks back. Forcing your opponent to divide their attack over two or more units. That tactical element is gone. 

[Satyrical Sophist]

4 hours ago, Ferban said:

Yeah, I don't think it spares the "pinned" unit from receiving any attacks.  They are going to get hit with basically everything.  Same as before.  I think the change is that the "pinned" unit can focus all its attacks on one enemy unit.  

Previously, you attack from two sides.  And the "pinned" unit has to split attacks between the two adversaries because it can't pile. Splitting attacks that way generally makes the unit less effective.  Now, the "pinned" unit can simply pile towards one side and get all (or nearly all) of its attacks in.  So "pinning" a unit is far, far less effective.  Maybe it'll be positive on balance, but it does seem to remove some significant tactical play.  

I wonder if that’s why they tightened up coherency. I think it might be just about possible, if tricker to pin units in position. Remember the holding unit can pull causalities from close to the enemy unit, as long as they keep within 3. 

I can see how it would speed up pile ins considerably though. You just need to make sure one model is within 3, and move all the others. Rather than the super awkward checking each model and piling in appropriately.

Who knows how to will play out. It feels like it’s easier to explain at least.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

I don't know about you guys, but I am super excited to play 4th edition. Can't wait to see the warscrolls for my factions. What they have been doing for Stormcast is so good!

[PraetorDragoon]

10 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I don't know about you guys, but I am super excited to play 4th edition. Can't wait to see the warscrolls for my factions. What they have been doing for Stormcast is so good!

To be honest, my enthusiasm and interest is getting sapped with each reveal. I see the wall of coloured blocks and my brain just... shuts down. Its a style of information presentation that doesn't work for me.

[Baron Klatz]

Edit:replying to Hotep.

Same! Very stoked from what we’ve seen it being a lot of fine-tunings from AoS3 to be ways more straight-forward(general consensus seems to be “well that’s how we were playing it anyway to save time but now it’s official”)

Looking forward to spells and especially Manifestation Lore.

Also bets on the next 2 SCE battleforces are:

Vanguard keyword focused that’s either a free redeploy(as their scout military branch) or a buff vs high health targets(for monster hunting).

And Ruination is just covered in tanky Death vibes so maybe they cause enemies to take a straight 3 mortal wounds when they retreat instead of D3 to play on the fear they can cause and make opponents more wary of fighting them as elites?

I think those would be flavorful and line up well with the various Stormhosts in a number of ways.

Edited April 18 by Baron Klatz

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

To be honest, my enthusiasm and interest is getting sapped with each reveal. I see the wall of coloured blocks and my brain just... shuts down. Its a style of information presentation that doesn't work for me.

Interesting. It seems so much more approachable to me than the huge blocks of text we had before. No more digging through the rules text for activation timing, casting values, your phase vs. any phase etc.

But what I am really excited about is the Anti-KEYWORD stuff. I'm super excited to see what new roles all those redundant units from past editions get.

 

4 minutes ago, Baron Klatz said:

And Ruination is just covered in tanky Death vibes so maybe they cause enemies to take a straight 3 mortal wounds when they retreat instead of D3 to play on the fear they can cause and make opponents more wary of fighting them as elites?

Really exited about Ruination, too. I am already finding myself planning out colour schemes.

[Baron Klatz]

14 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Really exited about Ruination, too. I am already finding myself planning out colour schemes.

They’re too perfect for Anvils of Heldenhammer for me so I guess I’ll have them as an allied mixed Stormhost into my Cleansing Rain Heralds.

Ghyran’s life giving rainstorms mixed with the stalwart wardens of death to complete the cycle.

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

10 minutes ago, Baron Klatz said:

They’re too perfect for Anvils of Heldenhammer for me so I guess I’ll have them as an allied mixed Stormhost into my Cleansing Rain Heralds.

Ghyran’s life giving rainstorms mixed with the stalwart wardens of death to complete the cycle.

I am thinking of a bronze colour scheme for those ancient civilization vibes, with Ruination units getting that extra verdigris to show their age.

[Baron Klatz]

9 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I am thinking of a bronze colour scheme for those ancient civilization vibes, with Ruination units getting that extra verdigris to show their age.

Ohh, this guy did an amazing ancient bronze job for his Stormcast Eternals.

“Baselayer green then drybrush a slightly brown gold. Doing something similar myself at the moment it’s deceptively easy.”

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

5 minutes ago, Baron Klatz said:

Ohh, this guy did an amazing ancient bronze job for his Stormcast Eternals.

“Baselayer green then drybrush a slightly brown gold. Doing something similar myself at the moment it’s deceptively easy.”

I have already done a test paint that I am pretty happy with, which is also just a drybrush of my favourite bronze paint over dark brown. I want this Stormcast project to be low-stress.

The hard part will be the verdigris. Trying to avoid the trap of "paint this whole thing bronze, then paint the whole thing green" trap. I'll need go out and take a bunch of reference photos of old statues, to get it right, I think.

[TechnoVampire]

50 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Interesting. It seems so much more approachable to me than the huge blocks of text we had before. No more digging through the rules text for activation timing, casting values, your phase vs. any phase etc.

But what I am really excited about is the Anti-KEYWORD stuff. I'm super excited to see what new roles all those redundant units from past editions get.

 

Really exited about Ruination, too. I am already finding myself planning out colour schemes.

The last article got me excited and gave me a lot of hope. I felt a little uneasy after the subfactions preview that some aspects of the game might be getting oversimplified, but the combat phase looks to be cleaner and also more interesting than before. 
 

I’m a big fan of the weapon specific abilities and more clearly defined roles that units seem to be given, such as infantry killers, objective holders etc. For me this adds an additional layer of tactics and makes things feel more flavourful and in keeping with the actual identity of the units on the table. 
 

Like you I’m excited to see specific warscrolls and rules for my faction! (SBGL). 

[TechnoVampire]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I don't know about you guys, but I am super excited to play 4th edition. Can't wait to see the warscrolls for my factions. What they have been doing for Stormcast is so good!

I meant to reply to this message with my last 😅

Edited April 18 by TechnoVampire

[OkayestDM]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I don't know about you guys, but I am super excited to play 4th edition. Can't wait to see the warscrolls for my factions. What they have been doing for Stormcast is so good!

Same! I've got a bunch of armies, including Stormcast, and all of these rules reveals have me extremely excited! 

The weapon rules look clean and neat, the ability sequencing is straightforward and consistent, and the clearly defined unit roles are awesome! 

The changes to saves and rend will require more info before I'll commit to being excited about them, but I'm leaning towards optimistic.

The fact that we'll be getting the indexes before the proper battle tomes is a plus in my book, meaning we'll get a good sense of what our units and armies will be doing, and can get a solid feel for any other factions that we might be interested in picking up or expanding.

[Chikout]

I'm not sure what all the kerfuffle about coherency is. I had a look through the AoS minis and there's only a small selection of units that might really struggle with half inch coherency. Harridans and Bladegheists from Nighthaunt, squig hoppers and fanatics from Gloomspite and maybe thralls from idk. Anything old world that could rank up before will be fine with the extra half inch of space. 

GW have already said that some units will have different coherence ranges written on their warscrolls. Do that with the warscrolls listed above and there's no problem. 

Why make the change? I think there are two reasons. Aesthetics and board space. The more important aspect is the fact that tighter grouped units will make more space on the board and make movement more important. Combined with the lack of double reinforcing, this will make a huge difference. Before with a unit of 60 zombies you could make a line about 60 inches across. Now the maximum you will be able to do is 30 inches. Swamping the board is going to be much harder than before. 

 

Why not just switch to squares? I really don't want to go back to wheeling around bushes. I like to feel like I have 50 game pieces instead of 5 or 6. 

The suggested options in the other thread are all more complicated especially as AoS unit sizes are so variable. 

What about piling in? With the 3 inch combat range and the reduction of pinning possibilities, I think there's going to be a lot less piling in than before. 

Obviously the litmus test is actually playing the game, but I've experimented with my own armies and I don't have to much trouble getting them in coherency. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

7 minutes ago, Chikout said:

I'm not sure what all the kerfuffle about coherency is. I had a look through the AoS minis and there's only a small selection of units that might really struggle with half inch coherency. Harridans and Bladegheists from Nighthaunt, squig hoppers and fanatics from Gloomspite and maybe thralls from idk. Anything old world that could rank up before will be fine with the extra half inch of space. 

GW have already said that some units will have different coherence ranges written on their warscrolls. Do that with the warscrolls listed above and there's no problem. 

Why make the change? I think there are two reasons. Aesthetics and board space. The more important aspect is the fact that tighter grouped units will make more space on the board and make movement more important. Combined with the lack of double reinforcing, this will make a huge difference. Before with a unit of 60 zombies you could make a line about 60 inches across. Now the maximum you will be able to do is 30 inches. Swamping the board is going to be much harder than before. 

 

Why not just switch to squares? I really don't want to go back to wheeling around bushes. I like to feel like I have 50 game pieces instead of 5 or 6. 

The suggested options in the other thread are all more complicated especially as AoS unit sizes are so variable. 

What about piling in? With the 3 inch combat range and the reduction of pinning possibilities, I think there's going to be a lot less piling in than before. 

Obviously the litmus test is actually playing the game, but I've experimented with my own armies and I don't have to much trouble getting them in coherency. 

I think they just want units to be in base-to-base contact, honestly. Which is fine with me. I don't dislike that at all. With 3" combat range, that sounds super managable.

[TechnoVampire]

I find I end up mostly playing in base contact to make sure I’m getting the maximum into range for combat. It’s really screening that’s going to be affected. I do wonder how that’s going to pan out. Personally I’d have maybe liked to see coherency be a stat that makes sense for each specific unit. Having one blanket rule just doesn’t make sense for all (IMO)... Like small skirmishing units could be used in 10’s designed specifically as a screen, while other units such as those with spears and shields are designed to be used in tightly packed in ranks. Maybe that would add to mental load/ bloat but I think there will always be winners and losers with one rule and different base and unit sizes. The standardised weapon range should help a lot with that though. 

Edited April 18 by TechnoVampire

[Tonhel]

12 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I think they just want units to be in base-to-base contact, honestly. Which is fine with me. I don't dislike that at all. With 3" combat range, that sounds super managable.

For 25mm based Infantry, you can better place your mini's in a 6x3 formation. Mostly all can fight when in contact with an enemy unit. Don't bother to pile in. Keep them on the movement tray. The fun thing is that is also not a bad formation for TOW. So you can use the same movement tray.

 

[TechnoVampire]

Additionally I do find a coherency number of 6 very strange when a lot of infantry units come in 10’s. Having to use a minimum size infantry unit on 25mm bases in 2 ranks feels particularly unintuitive and also overly harsh considering the new coherency range is 1/2”. I think they could have safely made the maximum number of models in one rank 10. 

Edited April 18 by TechnoVampire