All Activity

Yeah. We are creating all the drama and nowadays via programming you can make anything. It is pretty easy to track interaction. Splitting a product purely because of the sales tracking is just dumb.

i am very much hoping GW sticks to Alliance or Universal battle tactics. it just seems way too unwieldy to do specific faction ones if people dislike the implementation of BT to begin with

were there also Cities-on-Worms? because she fights alongside worm-people who live in cities (which I really would love to see), but I'm about 1/3rd done the book. the few times I've gotten Warhammer gifts, the person bought from the webstore. which makes a lot of sense!

So unfortunately its basically the same system. I'm shocked BTs are still in the "first blood" battleplan, its an easy thing to leave out for starter games. The core book tactics are legal in the GHB, interesting. if its not just for the first season they're going to get very old. GA tactics are the same thing as faction ones, with a bigger risk of some armies not being able to do them well. Its not lost on me that the destruction one previewed is the hardest out of the 4. Like its actually incredibly tough unless you're playing ironjawz. you can triple charge a single unit, destroy it, and still fight but still.

Box them differently, to either come with square bases or with rounds?

Each GA gets two Battle tactics, so it depends if both cover enough ground for each of their army.

Well I like the idea that faction tactics are gone - they were quite imbalanced compared to each other and sometimes too stupid like when SCE had tactic which could only be achieved by CoS unit lmao. Instead, all the alliance tactics are now both balanced and hard. You know, throw 10 units to score all objectives, kill all enemies and be in each quarter. Hope they will be replaced in a manner of time. Universal tactics are still good though. Think this is where GW creativity to create something simple ends.

Cautiously optimistic about these battle tactic changes. Having a very limited number of 'extra' tactics associated with Grand Alliance, rather than faction, seems a good approach.

Pretty nice! I think this new approach to battle tactics addresses a few of the weaknesses brought up in this thread. If the new system is a base of 6 generic battle tactics and 2 Grand Alliance specific seasonal ones, that seems much easier to handle. Both in terms of mental load and balancing. If they stick with this system and don't add battle tactics back into Battletomes, I think that's an improvement. The generic tactics seem to focus on movement and fighting (so far), which is good because it makes the game more dynamic. They are tactics you can realistically consider during list building, both for your list and in terms of counter play. They also seem neither completely free nor impossible. I also like how the GA specific tactics allow the writers to express the flavour of the different alliances. It's cool that belonging to a GA will have an effect on how an army can win games.

I really do feel like these new universal/Grand Alliance battle tactics were made as a response to how impactful faction specific battle tactics are in this edition - some factions lived or died by their battle tactics and how easy/difficult they were to score. At least now, you won't see degenerate SBGL players clogging the board with zombies to get easy battle tactics scoring (same goes for you Tzeentch). I wonder however how certain factions that don't fit the "standard" mold of their GA will use their battle tactics. For example, the Order tactic they showed requires map control, something let's say SCE might do with teleporting or IDK with their fast units, but a more "castle" army like CoS might not score it. As for me, these battle tactics are simple and straightforward, I'll have little problem remembering them by heart, which is great. Because this edition I had to constantly shuffle between documents to keep track of battle tactics.

I feel like that's a pretty graceful solution if the issue is truly "we simply want to track how good the games are selling!" If I navigate to "squig riders" via the TOW part of the site, there is no reason that the kit couldn't look identical to me but have a different SKU on their end! I'm with you on Malerion and Chorfs!! GW makes such great models these days that I think the decades-long wait for Chorfs might pan out into something cool! Also everything hinted about Malerion is sick; demon moons, crazy calvary guys in the art, lots to love and run with there! I'm hoping the wait for Malerion is bc they're cooking something pretty insane! If they printed two barcodes on the back of each box and begged people to scan the relevant one, it could work; tracking that sort of sale from a third party seller could be challenging, but also right now an extremely decent chunk of TOW stuff is GW-site exclusive, so they do still have some time if that was something they were interested in.

Okay, interesting. I think I see where they want to go with this. They probably looked at all of 3rd editions battle tactics and tried to find a balance in difficulty and complexity for the Universal Tactics. In addition, they're probaly trying to combat the disbalance in seasonal battle tactic feasability per faction by giving out Grand Alliance-specific tactics. I could see that working since the grand alliances do often have a playstyle overlap. It would also be a return to grand alliances mattering in a meaningful way. This could be interesting. Let's see how it works out.

I was really hoping for a ground up rework of the BT system, so it's a little disappointing to see it's still fundamentally the same thing: memorise the list of tactics and plan accordingly. But removing faction tactics is a good move, if nothing else.

Somewhat positive about the battle tactics, they don't seem to be to easy to do, and can be planned on how to do or counterplay. Still need to see them all before final judgement.

This actually looks pretty good. I like the idea of Grand Alliance battle tactics. I think they are a good compromise between army-specific and generic tactics.. They allow the rules writers to emphasize what the alliances are all about, but are easier to balance because there are a lot fewer of them.

From the article today: Battle Tactics Are the Key to Winning in Warhammer Age of Sigmar – Here’s How They Work in #NewAoS - Warhammer Community (warhammer-community.com)

👍

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/04/26/battle-tactics-are-the-key-to-winning-in-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-heres-how-they-work-in-newaos/

They have different UPCs/SKUs for the different boxes and can (do) track this sales data at their POS and web as well as retailer stock orders.

They have multiple sales channels. And nobody I know buys directly from GW webstore.

I don't really know how to fix this, but I feel like I have a solution that other people might be able to tell me is stupid or isn't. When I ran a pet supply store we would sell the same product under two different UPCS to track a certain type of packaging, to see if the packaging would make it sell better. Couldn't they do the same thing for these? Have the webstore track if someone adds it to their cart from Warcry tab or the Age of Sigmar tab? Have different UPCs, one on a warcry box and one on a age of sigmar box? Then it would divide sales to calculate better? On rumors, I might have to wait it seems like Malerion and Chorfs seem to be hinted at coming, which are two factions I am most interested in. I might start Kruleboyz since they are cheap to be able to play the game until then lol

Oh, I gave up trying to remember even a fraction of all the Battle Tactics a long time ago! Just remembering the ones available to me is challenging enough to my poor memory.

Another downside of faction specific BT:s that I have realised is that as an opponent it's impossible to memorize all factions different BT:s meaning I can't plan ahead to stop my opponents BT:s (if it's even possible), compared to the eight or so standard BT:s that everyone use. So for me I would like perhaps 10 BT:s that you can counter play and maybe at most onebor two faction specific that I can keep in my memory that my opponent can do in the game.

I can't imagine the hobby anymore without 3D printing. I am having a lot of fun with the Avatar of War Orcs & Goblin mini's. The trolls are amazing! Even with AoS, my CoS army (before the new book) a lot of the mini's I used were from Highland miniatures. 3D printing is my number one resource for historical and fantasy miniatures. For TOW I only buy the books (all of them) and the truly new stuff. Could this result in a failure of TOW. Yes. While I love TOW, I have zero interest in buying 20 year old mini's. Lol, For Bretonnia I still haven't been able to buy a single new resin miniature. For O&G I atleast managed to get the resin Black Orc Warboss. So GW is it also making very hard to get the new mini's and even books. Same is true for AoS, I am subscribed to a dozen patreons/tribes. If I find good looking STL's I will use those instead of buying GW mini's, which are to expensive for what they are. For AoS vs TOW, I could imagine a big plastic release of Cathay / Kislev to match any AoS army release in the same year. Certainly Cathay.

This is kind of misinterpreting the issue. Cross-usability between AoS/40k and those skirmish games isn’t an issue because they’re all made by the main GW design studio. It’s cross usability (and sales which can’t be cleanly split out) between games by the main design studio and the specialist games studio which is the ‘problem’. So ToW, 30k, Necromunda, etc.