Ferban

This is so true. I felt like Bravery was typically quite low on the units that were already taking more losses. Grots, rats, etc. Zombies or skeletons might die a lot, but with a 10 bravery, they didn't lose as much to battleshock. But a squig hopper has a bravery of 4. So when even one died, you were fairly likely to lose more wounds to battleshock. Which makes those units really underpowered. You are paying points for 20 wounds in a 10-man unit. But in reality, you're only absorbing about half that (or less) as many of your wounds run away without taking any damage. I think nearly any change here would be positive.

So in today's article, WarCom mentions that objectives are now going to be 40mm markers and you count as contesting if you are within 3" of it. So more like 40k objectives than the current system. I'm on board. I think a smaller capture area is probably a good thing. But more importantly, I love that in 40k, you have something (on a 40mm base) to represent the actual thing we're all fighting over. In current AoS, it's just a point on the ground. The 40k way is much more flavorful. So I'm calling that as a win for the new edition. The do talk about changing everything (including spells) to an ability. I'm not sure I like the sound of that quite as much, but I'm reserving judgment until we know more.

At Adepticon, we got some high level insight into some of the new rules changes. Of course, we got little snippets in a vacuum. So, without more context it's hard to definitively say whether the changes are good or bad. But that doesn't stop us from having initial impressions and speculating! My thought is that basically everything that got revealed has an 80% chance to be a massive improvement for the game, and a 20% chance to be a disaster. Overhaul and Indices: On paper, I think this is a great idea. 3.0 - which I absolutely love - is a little bloated. There are a lot of systems, some of which are very similar but have slightly different rules on various units (like bodyguards). And, as it has built on prior editions, there's been an arms race with save, rend, mortals, and wards. It has gotten a little out of hand with the number of wards out there. A fresh start using what has been learned over the past 9 years could result in something amazing. And indices mean that every faction starts on an even playing field so you don't have to wait a year and a half using old rules before your battletome shows up. Of course, there's the risk that the factions could be terribly imbalanced or that new rules create a poor experience. USRs: I love the idea of limited USRs. We already have "Fly." Adding "Champion", "Standard bearer", and a few others isn't a dealbreaker. As anyone who plays M:tG knows, USRs are ubiquitous and fairly easy to learn. But I think the key is to keep them limited. No more than about a dozen for the most common abilities and it'll be a net improvement. But have far more, scattered throughout the core rules, with a dozen on individual warscrolls and you have a problem. Shorter Games without Loss in Tactics: If true, this is the best of both worlds. I'd love to see AoS cut down by about a third. But only if there isn't significant strategic or tactical loss. The marketing on this one sounds good. We'll see if they deliver. No Melee Weapon Ranges: While I'm in favor of removing weapon ranges, I think this may not have been the best way to go about it. I really like 40k's system of either be in base-to-base or be in -base-to-base with something that is in base-to-base. That feels a little more constrained and is still easy to check. Still, measuring melee distances is one of the more cumbersome and boring aspects of the game and I think removing it is probably a net positive. Priority Roll: I know this one is divisive, but I think the Priority Roll is good for the game. It adds some drama every round and makes for really memorable experiences. One of Combat Patrol's failings, I think, is that turn order never changes. So you always know the opponent will go before you. Bland. And I think they've done a better job with the recent general's handbooks of giving a bonus to the player going second in a Battle Round. I'm glad its staying, and also glad they are recognizing it has to be balanced. Other: They mentioned a few other things here and there without enough detail to really evaluate. They mentioned card mechanics in relation to objectives. I hope they don't have a similar card draw as OPR's Age of Fantasy. In that game, you set up your army and then draw a card. If you have to contest the objective next to you, you win! If you have to contest the objective farthest from you, you lose! It really removes a lot of strategy. But if the cards were less controlling or changed rules (similar to Warcry's "Twists"), I could see this as a major benefit. They also mentioned the Spearhead play system, which is basically AoS's Combat Patrol. If that helps players jump in and get started, then I'm all for it. More to come, I'm sure!

I really love the red borders and branding of 3rd edition. I'm happy to see it stay.

I could see the FOMO launch box for 5th being Slaanesh vs. Elves (Malerion, LRL, whatever). And then the starter sets swapping out the elves for Stormcast. That would be a lot of extra new models for the start of an edition, but I don't think its out of the realm of possibilities.

I love rumors. Love them. Even when they turn out to be false. It's fun to discuss the what ifs. It's basically a springboard for head cannon or fanfic. But the 4chan rumor feels pretty much like a roundup of some of the more common speculation from this site. None of it seems new - with the exception of the male hero being released for DoK. I think that is unanticipated, and would be interesting to see (if only from a lore perspective). But the rest of it leaves not much to discuss because those ideas have been bouncing around here for quite some time.

In the video, they said that they wanted the battlescroll to "align with some upcoming releases." I wonder if it tweaks units in DB4 and, for that reason, won't come out until DB4 is released.

This would be a really cool way to visually distinguish the Morath DoK from the rebel DoK. Morathi side could be snakes, bat wings, and monstrous stuff. The rebel DoK could be feathered wings and have a separate aesthetic. I like the idea of pro-Morathi and anti-Morathi factions having their own distinct look.

So this is just me wishcasting, but I'd love a "launch box" separate from a "starter box." In the past, they've done a launch box with a ton of minis, and then smaller starting sets that include various numbers of models. I would love to see the launch box as something more geared to existing players (and, hence, maybe SCE are not included), but then the starter boxes would feature SCE and whatever the new or updated faction for the release is. Maybe SCE and Skaven for the starter box, but the "launch" box features Skaven and 2nd Idoneth Wave. Or reimagined beastmen. Or whatever. The launch box is a limited item only, so it makes sense that it would be more marketed to existing players than the "starter" sets would be. But, that isn't how they did it in 40k 10th and I have no reason to believe that's how AoS 4 will go.

Other than my Tzeentch list (which gets and makes great use of an Umbral Spell Portal), I totally agree. My hope is that endless spells get their points lowered dramatically. They should be used just to get a few more points into a list that otherwise tops out at 1950 or 1960. I would also, on average, power them up slightly. At least some of them. You can get a regular spell (or any other enhancement) for free. So since these cost points, they should be a little better. Some probably need the opposite treatment, though. Especially if points are reduced as I hope. But, also, if they are removed entirely, I won't be too upset. Other than Tzeentch, they don't make it into many of my lists. And even when they do, I often forget to cast them.

I mostly love the new vamp model. Love the snake. Love the hat. But I hate the placement of its right leg. I think it makes the model look pigeon-toed. Maybe it's just the angle of the photo. But that one element kills the whole thing for me.

With regard to AoS vs Old World for TV, I think AoS being less developed actually makes it easier for writers to insert their stories into it. Less lore or 'history' to get right. That said, of course they'd go with Old World over AoS. The Total War series is very popular and so a lot of TW players who hear about a show set in the Total War setting will be interested. Whereas they may not be as interested in a successor setting they know little about.

I couldn't agree more. Either in the GHB or separate (make it a Chronicler's Tome) would be fantastic. I think a lot of the time, "Narrative Play" just means warhammer with bookkeeping afterward. But I'd love to see a whole series of battleplans like the six in the Narrative section of the Core Rulebook. One plan had you trying to thwart (or complete) a ritual. One tried to get one army to run off the board before the other killed it. There were a few about defending or assaulting a strongpoint. Some battleplans that are more than just standing on evenly spaced objectives would be very welcome.

I thought the shields were supposed to reflect the owner. One shield has an eyepatch and so does the owner.

As someone (relatively) new to the hobby, I think the idea of pre-painted miniatures would be a net negative. I think it would help sell some starter sets. For sure. But then I think it would be a barrier to the next step. Novice painters aren't going to want to try their hand at painting minis if they are going to look like junk next to the pre-painted stuff they've already bought. And most new painters are going to produce a few ugly minis (I know I did!). And I think a lot of people are scared to put paint on their minis at all at first. And having a standard to compare it to would probably be daunting. Maybe if the prepainted stuff was relatively low quality (a few basecoats), then people could achieve that level easily and expand with washes, drybrushes, and other beginner friendly techniques. But I think GW would get a lot of criticism for selling what might be considered low quality paint jobs. I say they keep it gray (or colored plastic maybe?) and leave the painting to the players.

The warscroll says, "If your army has an Order general but is not a Stormcast Eternals army, you can include these warscrolls in your army as a special type of ally called The Blacktalons regiment of renown." I think it's unlikely they are counting it that way. But technically, that makes this group of models for every Order faction.

Well, isn't it a regiment of renown? Doesn't that mean it's something for every Order faction? Boom! Just like that we're already at 12+

I'm in the U.S. and have been somewhat interested in Stormbringer. I like most of the minis, but I gotta say, it's disappointing to start with the dominion box. I already have it. And while I would like more Gutrippas or Boltboyz, the Dominion ones come without banners and musicians, if I recall correctly. For those that have already subscribed, have you found it to be worth it?

Oh man. If I hadn't bought the Army box for Seraphon I would be super tempted by this battleforce. But I'm not really in need of another Slann and I already have the Hunters of Huanchi. Same is sorta true for SBG. Some really cool stuff in there, but a few too many duplicates to make it worth my while. Oh well. I'm sure these will be great for some players. I'll continue to get my models the old fashioned way.

I'd love a Seraphon box, especially if it has a lot of the new units in it. But I don't need another Kroak. If they include him, it'll probably be a pass for me.

I also pay annually, but I'm sad to hear about this price increase. For the past two years, I've felt that the price is on the line between being "worth it" or not. If it was a little cheaper, or if there was more content, I'd be much more satisfied. But as it is, I think it (barely) provides enough to make it worth the cost. But if the price increases, I'm not sure that's the case anymore. What I'd really like to see is W+ give you access to all rules (battle traits, artefacts, etc.) in the app. And then have battle tomes be more focused on lore, art, and advancing the narrative. I feel like that would make W+ worth the cost and I know I'd still buy tomes (at least for the armies I liked).

I think this was a common sentiment. Even though the game was fairly well received and had a relatively strong player base, the fact that nearly every warband was for Chaos was generally considered a negative. I remember when rumors first started swirling of non-chaos warbands that might be coming in the Gnarlwood season. That was really well received. And recently when they announced that most of the upcoming releases would be Destruction/Order/Death based, there was a lot of cheering. I think it's fair to say that having only chaos representation (and slaves to darkness only rather than the four chaos gods) was a frequent detraction. To say that it was never considered a negative is, I think, a bit revisionist.

Got it. Thanks so much!

Thanks so much for replying! But on the Battlescroll, the only errata I see is for 1.3.3 (Unit Coherency), 7.2 (Rally), 10.1.2 (Look Out Sir!), and 27.5.2 (Arcane Tome). After that, it goes into the Grand Alliance Updates and then the points. I feel like an idiot that I'm not getting it. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?

I watched the MetaWatch video and they talk about Fight on Death changes. But I'm not seeing it in the Battlescroll that I downloaded from Warhammer Community. Am I missing it?