Ganigumo

I bet the keyword is just "Anti", so it can be "Anti-<keyword>". Like Kragnos might get Anti Dragon thrown in or whatever. There's only 7 weapon USRs, but making those USRs modular feels like stretching that fact a bit. We probably have a USR for critical wound as well.

Someone else pointed out the speed issue, which is a problem for some armies, but this also lets you shoot at things that aren't charging (like throwaway objective capturing units), and the range change makes it way easier to use this while safely behind a screen. You can be out of charge range and still get blasted now, plus stuff like impact hits can't lessen the effectiveness of the shooting. If you design the game so games are close (only a few VPs off in AoS case) you need to be really careful about catchup mechanics so they don't become the optimal strategy. Losing so you can win is a wierd incentive. In games with more decisive wins you can be way more lenient with catchup mechanics, since generally the safer option will always be to stay in the lead. God I hope so. Maybe they can get an actual allegiance ability.

Its better than current Rally yes, but I wouldn't miss rally if it was gone entirely.

Opinions! "These(CP) are a crucial resource in the new edition, and scarcer than before.* AKA unless you're OBR or KO you're now getting more than you used to ??? Bonus CP to player with less VP seems like its better than the player going second, but it creates an incentive to sandbag the VP line to get those CP. This is already a problem in that one Battleplan where the losing player removes objectives. (edit) Everybody can issue commands, no more elite stuff, thank you. I never got why stuff like maw grunta gougers and troggs cant, but literal mindless undead like zombies can. (I know troggs are dumb as bricks but still) Covering Fire is WAY stronger than unleash hell, even unleash hell had to be nerfed from 9" to 6". This is probably going to be a problem. Somehow this makes kruleboyz worse since you can't hasty shot UH now though (pending warscroll rewrite). Rally - Just remove it, this is pretty complex, but it needs to be so it isn't broken I guess. Counter Charge: I like this. I hate that we have commands that cost different amounts of CP, Its not a lever they should play with IMO. The value of this is just as dependent on the quality of the unit using it as Covering Fire, so why is this 2CP and that 1CP. Just make them all 1CP and be done with it. Redeploy: Buffed, no nearby unit restriction, and less interruption after moving every unit. You just do it at the end of the phase. Good change to make it simpler, but now there's not really any counterplay to it. Magical Intervention: Seems fun, But I'm not looking forward to the 1 drop lumineth teclis castle giving away the first turn and still having shields up. Power Through: another ogor rule everybody gets "Can't have 💩in Ogor Mawtribes"

green save good. red save (5+) bad.

The only change here is the terminology. The game has always worked this way. Damage points = Wounds allocated Health = Wounds characteristic models die when wounds Suffered are higher or equal to wounds characteristic. Its why behemoth tables care about "wounds suffered" and not "wounds remaining"

Its an attempt to linguistically differentiate between wounds characteristic(health), wound rolls, and allocated wounds (damage points). It works the same as it does now. You take damage, and it accrues (you count it up) and the unit is slain when its damage points (wounds taken) match or exceed its health (wounds characteristic). You don't actually count down wounds RAW, which is why behemoth damage tables always cared about wounds taken, not remaining wounds.

mortals on 6s to hit. 'x' Mortals in addition on 6s to hit Mortals on 6s to wound 'x' Mortals in addition on 6s to wound hit roll of 6 is 'x' hits critical hits on (x) (i.e 5+) critical wounds on (x)

pretty much the only armies that have a good distinction are kruleboyz and spiderfang. those units do nothing against high wound units, but shred elite high save stuff. should be more of that in the game, and less "good unit gets bonus mortals"

Devastating wounds is a weapon ability that did mortal wounds at the start of the edition. I think The reason there is confusion is because of the errata. (I'm aware devastating wounds is wound rolls of 6). I'd put my money on mortal wounds being exactly the same. I don't think they'll add damage spillover which is why 40k needs the extra complexity around that stuff. Mortal wounds are a necessary part of the game. Unkillable units are bad for the game, and make it drag to a standstill. They have a natural counter in high wound, low save units, but the problem is that raw wounds tended to be overcosted in aos3, and most units that have mortal output also have good non-mortal damage output. Like yeah mortals suck if your army is about save stacking, but have you ever played something like ironjawz or big waaagh! into that stuff? Your stuff bounces off. Just the other day I had a maw krusha do 0 damage, and multiple times at I've had pigs completely bounce off stuff like fulminators, stormdrakes, and immortis. There's a level of rock-paper-scissors to stuff, and unfortunately some armies are just rock or paper.

The reason 40k changed their devastating wounds ability into autowounds is because mortals ignored the regular damage spill rules. It was changed to autowounds with no saves allowed. It was mostly a problem on eldar since they had fate dice to cheat, but as an example, if you fire your damage 10 anti-tank gun at a unit of infantry with 1 wound each you can normally only kill a single model (no damage spillover). But if that same attack procced mortal wounds you would get the full damage spillover and kill 10 models.

Things I like: Color coding & icons for phases and meanings (even if I'll never remember it) putting when the ability works before the name/narrative Things I'm neutral on: renaming wounds to health. Its nothing just an odd thing to change after so many years Control Stat, I don't think we needed this, the old system was good enough, but also I don't think it hurts anything. With objectives being so small in the new edition you'll be able to just cover the entire space with 20 grots or whatever anyway pending a consolidation move (we don't need a second pile-in) Removal of bravery, bravery sucked and it not mattering was a good thing because if it did we'd hate it, and if they removed it they'd try to put something else we'd hate in its place - (summary of heywoah opinion I agree with) Things I don't like: USRs I really want to talk about this part though, because I already see the game, and I hate it. So this is clearly a design constraint they've set for themselves right? This isn't a bad one either, it encourages them to try to limit complexity, and cut back on abilities that don't matter. I remember a similar design constraint for AoS 3, where they wanted to reduce the number of abilities on scrolls, particularly for battleline units who would have 1. My issue with the new design constraint is USRs. They set a design constraint to limit complexity, and then at the same time added USRs so they could effectively cheat their own design constraint by referring to rules written elsewhere. This isn't a new behavior for them either, the aformentioned AoS 3 design constraint somewhat ruined kruleboyz in my opinion. Venom Encrusted Weapons should've been a warscroll ability, but they moved it into the allegiance abilities to get more room on the warscrolls and there also seemed to be a limit on the number of battle traits armies got early on. The result was KB were "robbed" of an allegiance ability, sucked as allies, sucked in BW, and had one of the most boring allegiance abilities of all time that basically read "Your units are now allowed to deal damage"

If I understand correctly its not about the money exactly, but about tracking the metrics properly. Don't want to overinvest in old world based on AoS sales or vice versa. Splitting up the ownership of the range between the teams is another factor. They would probably actually make more money if they didn't split up the range, but this also forces players who play both systems to own 2 armies I guess. For all this doom and gloom stuff over investors and profits I don't actually believe it. I think its just poor planning. Well run companies understand keeping customers happy is important over the long term. I can't remember the name, but there is a type of investor that will go hard into a company, push them to effectively burn through all their customer goodwill for short term profits, then bail before things blow up. I don't think GW is in that situation though, just mismanagement and planning issues. A huge amount of their schedule is built around these new edition starter boxes, but I'm not sure they even really need to change much of the rules to make these things successful. Its a box, featuring completely new models for two armies, at a steep discount relative to the rest of their products, but they're unwilling to gamble on something this lucrative.

There's narrative overlap, but its not exactly the same. Destruction is a wild force of nature, often described like a natural disaster. Sylvaneth is ordered nature, they live with and control it. In a way you could view allarielle and the sylvaneth's influence on nature as foreign.

To be honest I think they had the best narrative of any of the warclans. A tribe of orruks who are permanently stuck in the state of high orruks only get during the thrill of battle, who are led by prophets instead of warlords, and believe the power of their god is trapped in the bones of the mighty beasts of the realms. They're a really good take on what religious orruks would be like. I know people might look at them as a stereotype or whatever, but its a pretty disingenuous take. The stone age wasn't exclusive to any culture. A potential revamp would've definitely doubled down on bone weaponry though, since it fits the newer narrative way better.

Ogors, and dark elves, are safe because they're not receiving old world support in terms of rules. The ogor rules are the equivalent of legends rules there. Dark elves might get squatted with malerion releasing replacements though.

I'm going to start by saying we're 9 years into this game. Its too late to be removing entire army ranges like this, and its a sign of bad planning. I know old world and AoS were splitting things up but still, not acceptable. You should've cut them 3 years ago with the rest of the AoS 2 stuff, or not given them an AoS 1 book at all. I was actually talking to my brother on saturday about potential squatting, and I put the list like "Bonesplitterz, dispossessed, Spiderfang, Dark Elves, Beasts" (in that order). And I mentioned how I noticed beasts things were all being taken by StD lately, weird monsters from the warcry stuff like raptoryxs, and sphiranx, and the new darkoath thing, minotaur in ogroids, etc. The only thing BoC really still had was the brayherd and thunderscorn stuff. I'm a incredibly shocked dispossessed didn't make it to the list but BoC did. This is two painted armies I own getting binned, and in my opinion, beasts of chaos was easily the most interesting battletome of 3rd edition. I think this confirms a spiderfang update. Otherwise spider riders and the arachnarok would've been on the list. Also not to get too into the weeds, but I disagree that spiderfang are a bad racial stereotype. Pretty much the only thing on the models you could point to as evidence is the feathers. Literally everything else is pretty in line for any paleolithic society.

We're probably getting a gitz update. They need to update the grots and the spiderfang stuff. Technically they're selling the older gargants for old world right? I think the removal of the scuttleboss and nothing else from spiderfang is a bit telling.

IIRC they said armies were shrinking. Again. Its as good a time as any to reset points creep I guess. I just hope they don't overtax raw wounds like they did in 3e. You had garbage with lots of wounds and pants saves running around nearly as expensive as stuff on 3+ saves.

Most armies being at the same number of drops defeats the entire purpose of the system. Its to give players a way to control priority that isn't just a dice roll. By making most armies fit into the same number of drops easily and not providing any incentive to not be low drop why even bother with the system in the first place? It just sorts armies into high and low drop based on how reliant they are on heroes, and how flexible their unit options in those regiments are. I guarantee they didn't balance the game around 'x' army controlling priority since its a 2 drop army, or 'y' army not controlling it since they're a 4 drop army. They wouldn't have had the time. I'm kind of expecting exactly this to happen with at least stormcast. the range is too hero heavy.

possibly, but I don't imagine they've spent any longer than a week designing any given army purely due to time constraints. I wouldn't expect stuff like that unless its a necessity or there's a strong lore reason i.e Gorechosen, Vyrkos (cursed city).

They'll be in the bin again. Kruleboyz are notoriously hero heavy. even 3 drop might be a stretch. Ironjawz will be in a similar spot unless they're less reliant on warchanters. I bet the good armies next edition will be ones that can get by on like 2 heroes. Its legitimately gonna suck when 60% of the meta at any event is 3 drops by necessity and most of your t1 priority is decided by dice roll.

I think my ideal battalion system would be like the reverse of this. Everything not in battalions are a single drop. Each battalion is 1 drop and gives you a fun/powerful benefit. Every army gets access to 1 drops, and the system tries to pull you away from it to get benefits.

My initial read is that this is a worse system than what we currently have. Currently you build your list, take whatever you want then organize it into battalions. (Battalion balance is a problem) So their solution is to just make every battalion battle regiment, but have specific unit requirements. Sure they've gotten rid of roles like behemoths and battleline, but this is actually way more restrictive. Want to run 'ardboyz? better take the ardboy boss with the terrible overcosted warscroll (theoretically). Want to run a fungoid cave shaman in your troll list? They can only be taken with grots so enjoy your free extra drop. This system also punishes hero heavy armies super badly for no reason. Also why on earth are they rewarding the person who has less drops with free command points? You already get control of priority that way, why do they get extra benefits? The only problem this solves with the current system is battle regiment being too good, but it does it by just deleting every other battalion and adding a bunch of extra bloat. This reminds me a lot of 40k design in a bad way honestly. Where they double punish unoptimized decisions. "playing a weird list? Enjoy losing priority and bleeding command points" Also the scarce command point thing isn't fun, from my experience with 40k. Sure the strategems were too powerful, and pregame ones caused problems, But CP are the way you add reactivity to the game, so bottlenecking them makes the game less interactive.

Game design is separate from narrative yes. They're different fields. Call of Duty and Doom are both shooters but their narratives are very different. I'm not saying verisimilitude isn't important, but we (and designers) should be very careful about letting narrative make the game worse, or stop us from making it better. Its very much a case by case basis too, and representation of narrative can come in many forms. Like narratively sometimes a single space marine can kill hundreds if not thousands of something like orks or tyranids. But in gameplay a single grot with a rusty pipe could get lucky in a 1v1. In the example giving plasma more AP and a bolt more shots represents that plasma is more powerful well enough, it just means that it isn't strictly better than the bolt option. Maybe people will make dumb jokes and complain about it, but nobody is going to stop playing because of that. They will stop playing because of bad design. Since they're rewriting everything I would be very happy if they just rolled all the profiles into various "assortments of weapons". I guess when you have a shield option they should probably relent a little. Blood knights did it too. Everything going to 3" range makes most spears obsolete so its a good time to do it. I addressed verisimilitude a bit above, but tl;dr we make sacrifices to it because the game needs to be an abstraction of narrative that functions as a game. The points complexity is a pain point, you need to respect your players time, and there isn't a great way to lay it out in a rule book without making the points section intimidating and complex. I know it appeals to people, but I feel like its better suited for narrative or smaller scale games where the options can matter more. I think necromunda goes pretty deep into that stuff. With respect to customization I'm not against it, but the decisions you ask your players to make should actually be impactful. I would actually trade every warscroll option in the game, as well as most enhancements, to get a cleaned up version of anvil of apotheosis put into the core matched play rules.