Tonhel Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ferban said: More Spearhead today. Now we get a look at the cards. Love. Love this. So much. I really like splitting the choice between commands and tactics. For a short game, that will likely provide a real choice in how you play. Also, love the twists. Twists work great in Warcry and I see Spearhead as filling a different, but similar space. I'm not sure I'd love a changing twist based on luck of the draw in a full 2k point game. But for a Spearhead? Seems really fun. I'm sure this system will work better in the smaller format, but it's a bit of a bummer that battle tactics (the only real miss of 4th edition so far) were improved - or at least changed - only for Spearhead. I really like how they did BTs with Spearhead. It's something really new and makes the game more interesting. I wonder why they didn't do this for AoS main. Probably because drawing cards for BT/commands is to random for tournament play? Edited May 2 by Tonhel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Arthur Hotep Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, Tonhel said: I really like how they did BTs with Spearhead. It's something really new and makes the game more interesting. I wonder why they didn't do this for AoS main. Probably because drawing cards for BT/commands is to random for tournament play? I think they want matched to be for "serious" play. Not necessarily tournament or competitive, but with high skill expression and little "wacky" stuff, if that makes sense. High consistency and predictability (as much as a game with random turn order can have). Which, if they actually pull off Spearhead and Path to Glory as fun alternative modes, I think might not be a bad idea. It would be nice to have different game modes that appeal to different player types, instead of everyone playing Matched and Narrative/Open existing in name only. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferban Posted May 2 Author Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said: It would be nice to have different game modes that appeal to different player types, instead of everyone playing Matched and Narrative/Open existing in name only. Completely agree. I think some players are going to gravitate more toward Matched Play, or Spearhead, or PtG. Why not make all three really solid so that everyone can enjoy the game (and buy your models)? I feel like in third edition, most of the focus was on Matched Play. PtG got minimal support. And Open Play was almost an afterthought. Which is a shame. Because Open Play could have been attractive with a little help. And PtG needed a little something (maybe even just a set of new battleplans each year) to really make it enjoyable. Hopefully we'll see more focus on these new modes of play so everyone can get what they want from AoS. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyshadow Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 7 hours ago, Ferban said: I'm sure this system will work better in the smaller format, but it's a bit of a bummer that battle tactics (the only real miss of 4th edition so far) were improved - or at least changed - only for Spearhead. I'm a real laggard when it comes to battle tactics. Maybe Spearhead will do me good and force me to give them a try! 😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyshadow Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Path to Glory was my favourite game mode in 3rd Edition but it's in need of a big clean up. The presentation was clunky and the expansion content was undisciplined. Still, I LOVED founding my own city, securing trade routes, constructing barracks and receiving additional units. I Hope the exploration and base building aspects of it is retained in some way, that was my favourite part. Looking forward to the reveals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Kim Woof-Woof Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Urgh... cards. I don't like cards. I always lose the damn things. I'm allergic to Magic the Gathering. Nevertheless... I do like most of what I'm hearing about Spearhead thus far. Out of interest, how do they usually make cards like these available? Do you need to buy a big box to get them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyshadow Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) Okay, who's ready for some Spearhead! (Finished this this morning! 😃) Edited May 3 by Greyshadow 7 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skreech Verminking Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 4 hours ago, Greyshadow said: Okay, who's ready for some Spearhead! (Finished this this morning! 😃) As soon as those models come back I’ll be joining you😋 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Kim Woof-Woof Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 5 hours ago, Greyshadow said: Okay, who's ready for some Spearhead! (Finished this this morning! 😃) Smashing! They look the business. I've just got two Slaangor Fiendbloods to paint up before I'm Spearhead-ready. I think I can achieve that before the game lands! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painbringer Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) I am also preparing for some Spearhead games! These are some of the first Sylvaneth models I've painted about 7 years ago, so I plan on giving them a small refresh and adding a bit more details to the bases. Edited May 3 by Painbringer 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferban Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 This week its all about Path to Glory. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that changed from the current system. For me, it feels like Warhammer but also homework afterward. That's just not what I'm interested in. I know some people love the leveling up aspect and I'm happy its staying for you, but it's not my thing. They say the Core book will have 6 battle plans - same as third edition. What I was really hoping for was an announcement of ongoing support. New narrative campaigns, new narrative battleplans as the edition continued. But no such luck. Maybe that will still happen, but for now there are no commitment. I did like that each tome is getting an Anvil of Apotheosis. Again, not really my thing but I know several players who really missed that in Third Edition. So I'm happy for them that it will be back. On the whole, PtG seems a little disappointing. But maybe that's on me. I was hoping for something better and its really kind of the same as last edition. At least the preview makes it seem that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechnoVampire Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Did I read the latest article correctly, that the full reveal is on the 17’th of May? That’s much sooner than I imagined. I thought they’d do all the faction focus’s first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MitGas Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Being able to create our own heroes with fitting rules for each army? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OkayestDM Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 The inclusion of Anvil of Apotheosis in each Battle Tome is exactly what I was hoping for. They didn't specify, but I'm also hoping that each one is tailored to that faction, providing unique and thematic rules and options. I like the sound of the new PtG direction. Getting to "level up" each unit is exactly what I was hoping for, and they system they chose is simple, straightforward, and similar to something I had been dabbling with on my own time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 hours ago, Ferban said: This week its all about Path to Glory. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that changed from the current system. For me, it feels like Warhammer but also homework afterward. That's just not what I'm interested in. I know some people love the leveling up aspect and I'm happy its staying for you, but it's not my thing. It's completely changed from the current system - in ways I hate. No more territories, no more quests. Instead they're going back to something more like the 1e/2e PtG system, which was just completely different. You get your 1 (one) hero, and whatever their personal retinue is. No word on how you build that retinue - in 1e/2e it was random, which, yes, was terrible. I'm sorely disappointed because I loved all that 'homework' stuff. It was like a little bite of the 'campaign management' half of total war: warhammer, a way you could engage with your army outside of the couple days a month when you can manage to get an actual game in at the store, and it provided a functional scaffolding to build an in universe narrative around the process of building your army up, which would have effectively covered the gap between spearhead and full size matched play games of AoS. And the quest system gave you gameplay objectives apart from whatever's baked into the actual missions your playing, even when playing your army in regular matched play games, which was cool and conveyed the 'general's personal goals and ambitions beyond merely winning this battle' concept infinitely better than any version of battle tactics or other secondary objective systems had. 'Primary objectives determine whether you win this battle, secondary objectives determine how your faction develops inbetween games' was great. Anyway, yeah. Bug thumbs down for this preview. Even on its own merits, as a leveling up system for an old 1e/2e style PtG these veteran abilities look flavorless and overpowered, the worst combination possible. Was it not play tested? Are we continuing the well established GW tradition of 'narrative rules don't need to be balanced, so we don't need to play test it at all'? If so, then I don't hold out much hope for the anvil of apotheosis rules either, as previous versions of those rules have been unbalanced to the point of being unplayable. I remember in particular the soulblight anvil from white dwarf that gave your custom hero the ability to have an entire unit of grave guard effectively charge directly into combat from off the table, when that unit was a glass cannon balanced only by the difficulty delivering them. Absolute mess stuff. I'm not saying Anvil ~will~ be bad, just that I won't believe it'll be good until I see it. Big thumbs down from me anyway. Sour note to end the week on after being so hype on the spearhead stuff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) The more you try to balance narrative stuff, the more limitations you put to it. That's why "balance" and "narrative" don't mix well : because it's in the "unbalanced results" that legends are born. If everything is fair and symetrical, and no matter what you obtain you have to be "balanced" to your opponent's own army, thus limiting your own gains / losses ...what's the point in telling your own story if it doesn't match what happened in your games ? The truth is : if you want to introduce balance in a game where your army evolve with the games played (meaning victories and losses actually matter in their own capacities), then you will unavoidably have to tone it down for the sake of it - thus making everything insipid and meaningless. That's why people still play Mordheim and Blood Bowl even though they're unbalanced as hell : because they do tell a story, in glory or in infamy - and sometimes in legend, when you win against all odds. Anvil of Apotheosis in each battletome is the real novelty of 4th for Path to Glory. Of course, that means the rules won't be in the universal rulebook...but Path to Glory was always meant to be personalized for each faction, anyway, and the best source for that is obviously the battletomes. Even rules for 3rd were blank at best in the core book. Edited May 3 by Sarouan 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferban Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 18 minutes ago, Sarouan said: If everything is fair and symetrical, and no matter what you obtain you have to be "balanced" to your opponent's own army, thus limiting your own gains / losses ...what's the point in telling your own story if it doesn't match what happened in your games ? I generally agree. While I'd like the games to at least approach an equal likelihood of victory, I think narrative games should ditch symmetry altogether. Maps where we are all equidistant from the objectives and have a similar starting territory and interact with the objectives and rules the same are great for Matched Play. When you want as level a playing field as possible. But for narrative play, I'd much prefer asymmetrical battleplans, Ones where my goal is distinctly different from yours. The leveling up of heroes and units is fine, I guess. That's not what really inspires me. Instead, I want to see epic moments on the tabletop. I love the games where I'm able to say, "On the last battle round, my army dealt the final blow to the cauldron of Varanite and Archaeon's army lost that vital resource!" Rather than, "And then I totally stood in a circle more than the other guy did!" For me, Narrative Play is going to rise and fall on how well supported it is in terms of battle plans. If we see narrative supplements, I'll be there all day. If we get six plans in the Core book and one (maybe two) in your battle tome? That's just not enough over the course of a whole edition. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 That's why I'm happy battle tactics are out of Path to Glory : it makes the battleplans more unique and put the real focus on their specific victory conditions, rather than uninteresting universal ones. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyshadow Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) Changes to Path to Glory are disappointing for me but not unexpected. Quests, territories and base building with little impact on the rules when playing is what I love about the 3rd edition system. More developed unit progression was what the community was asking for though so I guess you can’t blame Games Workshop for going down this route. I think I’ll just keep using the rules from 3rd edition. Anyone else find this curious? ‘…Path to Glory is returning to its roots in the Core Book with Path to Glory: Ascension Why did they use the words ‘in the Core Book’? Why isn’t it just called ‘Path to Glory?’ Is that a hint of a full Path to Glory expansion book coming later? Edited May 3 by Greyshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 It's just the name of the battlepack in the core rules. Otherwise, I guess they can sell an expansion book later for PtG (like adding new "generic" paths and battleplans). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Kim Woof-Woof Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 To be honest, I'm just happy that Path to Glory is being kept! I had a vague feeling that it was going to bite the dust. Personally, I've had little success in trying to get my fellow players interested in it, and (prior to this preview) I've not seen a heap of chat about it online. I'm most excited about the faction-specific Anvil of Apotheosis. I've got so many Slaanesh hero models, with all manner of esoteric weapons, mutations and steeds. It'd be wonderful to get them some representation on the battlefield. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyshadow Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 I loved that you could play any game in 3rd edition and still progress your Path to Glory. Had a a lot of fun tying my ordinary games together narratively. Was great fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) On 5/4/2024 at 12:45 AM, Big Kim Woof-Woof said: To be honest, I'm just happy that Path to Glory is being kept! I had a vague feeling that it was going to bite the dust. I mean, it effectively has. From the preview, this is as different from 3e PtG as 3e PtG was from the 1e/2e version. A totally different thing, just with the same name. Edited May 6 by Sception Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferban Posted May 9 Author Share Posted May 9 It's been a while since we had news, but today is all about terrain. Overall, I'm really positive on the terrain. AoS has always lacked a solid system of terrain rules. This fixes that, but also keeps things relatively simple. Just a few major keywords and simple abilities. No worries about "difficult" terrain halving movement or some kind of "anti-charge" terrain. Just a cohesive system that should still be relatively effective. One thing I really like is that units benefit from cover if they are behind the terrain at any distance. No more needing to be within 1" of the thing to get the benefit. Of course, they didn't discuss what "behind" means, so that remains to be seen. But overall, I think this is a hugely positive change for AoS. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painbringer Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 I love the new terrain rules! I've always thought that AoS suffered greatly because of the terrain and LOS rules. I think what we'll have in 4th edition is great: the rules are not complex but they bring additional layer of tactical depth. Really looking forward to playing my first game of the new edition! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.