Flippy

It seems that there is some misunderstanding here regarding this modular build. From what GW says, you may theoretically plug out one "module" (e.g. magic or terrain) but the game is not meant to be played like this. This is how the game should be played and what they design the rules for: The real idea here is that you can plug out the "magic" module and plug in the "seasonal magic" module instead - and same goes for any other module. Any discussion on how the game will function without "commands" or "command models" is probably irrelevant - the game will simply not function as intended without them, unless you use the proper "replacement module". The "battle tactics" are the only truly optional module.

Additional "resource pool" with new rules attached which can also affect other elements of the game (Command Points) and interact with terrain? Interesting. 100% will not happen.

It's still the best way to somewhat balance the Spearhead without adjusting the core rules or affecting the normal mode of the game. Moreover, it should be enough if GW simply alters some abilities, not the stats themselves. This is the 40k approach from what I see. You simply choose between regular index / codex rules and Combat Patrol rules in the app and use the appropriate datasheets.

You can just create a different Soulreaper warscroll for the Spearhead mode - and add some ability instead of magic. The easy solution is the most likely one.

Of course they will. People are overanalysing the wording of this article way too much.

I'm also in favour of this modular approach, but not how they advertise. From the pictures, you can choose between: - very basic mode (Spearhead); - full rules without BTs (PtG); - full rules with BTs (Matched); - full rules with BTs and whatever the most recent craze is. It does seem rather obvious to me that common approach will be from Spearhad straight to Matched. I am also very interested in how (or if) they will support and balance smaller games (750, 1000, 1500).

Some good points here. The problem (at least for the majority of gamers) is that this mould-driven business logic is not communicated to the audience and this will not change. They keep some factions and sub-factions in the game because the moulds are still good and the models are selling. The moment you inform your customers on your plans (once the moulds are spent we drop the faction) the sales plummets, so you can as well squat the line immediately.

Thanks. Doesn't look that bad to me.

What does this mean? Like, seriously, balance? Flavour? Gameplay? I've very recently checked 40k rules (I haven't played this before) and everything looks rather elegant. Where's the mess?

Is it? I’ve recently checked the Combat Patrol mode and it looks really good. Maybe I will try 40k for the first time.

You missed two aspects. One is that verisimilitude matters a lot - even more, perhaps, than balance or overall game result. So does customisation, even if it does not affect the overall game result in any significant way. The reason is obvious; we put the models on the table for the game, but also for the theatre of imagination. The second aspect is that the points complexity does not affect the gameplay at all. This "quartermaster simulator" is a solitaire you can play in-between actual games - you usually have ample time to figure it out.

If he's free.

Very good points. Regarding indexes (indices?) - we will see about the quality, but the idea itself is good. Shorter games: this is directly tied to another important change that they hopefully introduce - different game modes with actual support from GW. They have already made a first step with the battlepacks approach and it's time to really commit this time - AoS does not have to be 2000 points GHB game by default. Encourage smaller games with official materials and tournaments. Weapon ranges: good change; pre-combat and combat already has a lot of model-by-model measuring. This change may also discourage or kill some "tactical" elements that make me die a little inside every time I see them (e.g. with clever positioning, you can have your big dude swinging over the heads of friendly unit and no one can strike back). Army building: With the whole idea of simplification I don't think GW has the intention to introduce some elaborate composition rules or introduce caps for specific units - but maybe they will settle for something like the rule of 3 to kill the spam lists. It's not perfect, but man can hope.

Reveal stream, 15:22 ...really trying to focus in on the most impactful rules, the most characterful rules, but removing a lot of the other detail you maybe had to manage before. So, a really good example is the reintroduction of a limited set of a universal special rules. So things like champions, standard bearers, musicians, you know - some weapon abilities.

But is there any, in this particular case? You "lose" the rules - but you've never even played with them anyway.

OK, that was nice. AoS 4th edition: the trailer is very good; the lack of minis does not bother me - we will see them soon enough. I really love the rules snippets! Indexes are fun and playing with an outdated and patched armybook is not. Unified melee range is good. USR are good, very good - if used wisely. It's not about the space on the warscroll - it's about enforcing a modicum of discipline on the designers; if you want a unit to inflict impact hits, just use the "impact hits" rule instead of reinventing the wheel. A bit disappointed that battle tactics were not scorched to the ground... Overall I'm positive, 8/10. Dawnbringers: Abraxia is the best model revealed. Very impressive - and I was never into StD aesthetic. 9/10. Warcry: I will buy the box for the OBR (Sylavanteh are meh). Not what I expected, but I really like the prowlers and harpies. My main concern is how these models will be incorporated into AoS. All in all 7/10. Underworlds: FEC 7/10, Zealots... it's a matter of personal taste, but I would not take them even for free.

Well, I don’t really care about SCE or Skaven, so it’s mild curiosity here. Skaven players have served their time though and the visible excitement (dong?) is understandable. But there is still Warcry and, most importantly, a chance to hear something about the new rules. This USR and „no melee range” rumour made me more excited than any blurry model image ever could.

Man, that would be awesome.

Would be cool, but the most recent warband we got are the Lumineth Wardancers, so I don't have much faith in the Kurnothi variant.

Two more sea elves done! The Tidecaster and the Ishlaen Guard. One model left.

You really think that a Lumineth warband somehow affects the chance for Idoneth appearance?

An answer to the BoC riddle? 🤔

It's definitely a better idea than other I've seen here from time to time (crabs... 🙄). Idoneth are the ultimate strike and fade force and I really hope that the inevitable second wave focuses on this aspect of the faction - weird, swift predatory creatures from the deep layers of the sea & grim elves specialized in ambush and dealing quick death.

Amazing models. I was never into Chaos factions, but credit where credit is due - out of marauders, GW created a full mini Chaos faction with very distinct aesthetic. This is the first mortal range that can match HoS.

Seems to me that GW has found a perfect partnership when it comes to pricing policy. In a way, this makes sense - you will only pay that much for a plexi box if the intended content is also overpriced.